Dagobahn Eagle Posted October 6, 2002 Share Posted October 6, 2002 Scenario: You're out hiking in the mountains with a group of friends when you come across the body of a teenage girl. Checking her id, you find that she is the same girl who disappeared a month ago when she got separated from the school class she was travelling with. You get her to a nearby cabin, and the guy who lives there lets you in, following the old unwritten rules of wilderness and sanctuary. This cabin is half an hour away from civilization, but he has a car parked on a road about a quarter of a mile/kilometer away, so he can take the body wherever. This guy also turns out to have a cell phone, so that he can call.... who would you get him to call, assuming the man had a phone directory so that you could call whoever you wanted to? After some people answer I will tell you why I started this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eets Posted October 6, 2002 Share Posted October 6, 2002 In the first place, I wouldn't bring her to the cabin. She's been dead for 2 years, so she's obviously VERY smelly and decayed. But, if I had brought her to the cabin, I'd probably call the police or if it's in some sort of park, I'd call the park rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted October 6, 2002 Author Share Posted October 6, 2002 (edit) Well, let's say the subarctic elements have kept her body intact, and that by some poor judgement you end up carrying her to the cabin, which is closer than the road in question. Also, let's say this guy can drive her to a Red Cross mountain hospital, which is 1 mile away by car, which makes calling the police obselete. Anyone specific you would call other than the medics? Your first choice only. Just pretend you're in that situation, you've heard a lot about the girl, and you know her full name. PS: If you have an answer you think might be regarded as "wrong" by the majority, just register with a new name and nobody will know it's you when you reply. That way, no one's gonna flame you if you go 'against the current'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted October 6, 2002 Share Posted October 6, 2002 ditto, eets. Who else would you possibly call? Of course, that last comment of yours, eagle, makes me think this really happened and someone made some really weird/stupid call. Maybe not.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Rhett Posted October 6, 2002 Share Posted October 6, 2002 Eh, the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Homer Posted October 6, 2002 Share Posted October 6, 2002 why would you take a dead body to the hospital in the first place? I say call the police, but be careful of the guy, bc that girls been near his cabin for so long that he should have found her already.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherack Nhar Posted October 6, 2002 Share Posted October 6, 2002 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle PS: If you have an answer you think might be regarded as "wrong" by the majority, just register with a new name and nobody will know it's you when you reply. That way, no one's gonna flame you if you go 'against the current'. That's against forum rules. This thread mystifies me. It sounds serious, yet I fail to see the point. Why don't you enlighten us, Eagle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jatt13 Posted October 6, 2002 Share Posted October 6, 2002 i'd have to agree w/ everyone else who said the police. who else would you call? she's already dead, so you don't need any medical assistance, so the hospital's out, and this is obviously something the police would need to investigate. so that's the logical choice. i guess you could call the morgue or something, or if you knew her parents # then call them. i also agree w/ sher. what's the point of this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted October 7, 2002 Author Share Posted October 7, 2002 why would you take a dead body to the hospital in the first place? Well, let's say the proper place to take her, then (picky.. hmmph).... I say call the police, but be careful of the guy, bc that girls been near his cabin for so long that he should have found her already.... Enough, already, smartasses (sarcasm, no offense intended). Okay, I'll enlighten you. What we had two years ago (in this scenario, I mean), is a girl who gets lost up in the mountains while hiking. Obviously, her parents are worried, the media makes a big fuzz about it, and everyone are out searching and worrying. By saying you could take the body to the proper authorities/cemetry/cannibal tribe I meant to eliminate the police option, giving you alternatives like calling her parents, etc. I wanted to see how many of you would... alert the media (which would be my idea of a 'wrong answer'). I'm not sure if this was an accurate survey, maybe part because I didn't give a detailed enough description of the event, part because maybe you were too afraid of being flamed. The reason I posted this is that I had this discussion with a gang of friends about the press recently and we turned out talking about this horrible accident up in a Scandinavian mountain where a bus full of children was driving down this really steep hill ...and suddenly its brakes failed. Sounds terrible, but it's true. The worst part, though, is that when the Medi-choppers arrived, they had no place to land because all level ground was occupied by media helicopters, which caused the paramedics to lose about 45 minutes. People think the reason why the press got there first is that the moron with the cell phone called the media (which, in many countries, has this tip line with a cash reward for reporting events) before they called the local 911-counterpart. Just wanted to see if anyone here would do that. Seriously, I think the press worldwide has, in some places, namely the USA and UK, and are about to, in other places, get out of hand. Freedom of the press was never intended to do stuff that was listed above, or to protect people like the US and UK press from stalking people and do stuff like filming the house of the parents of an abducted child :puke:. In several countries, the press simply does not give a **** about the right of privacy (which is also a Constitutional right). The example above is just one of many worst-case scenarios where the press abuses the Constitution. Also look at cases like Princess Diana's death. The people who wrote the Constitutions and launched Democracies gave the press FULL freedom because they wanted people to express themselves fully when it came to politics, NOT -in capital letters- to enable paparatzi's like the ones who killed princess Diana, the ones who sleep in tents in peoples' frontyards so that the inhabitants of the house can't get out without having 1000 questions asked, 1000 pictures taken of him, and the whole nation getting to know who he is. "We have the right to know"? Bull. You have the right to know how, when, and where, all you NEED TO KNOW. If some girl goes missing, you have the right to know a girl is missing somewhere in this and that area and that's it. You were NEVER intended to have the 'right to know' where the parents lived, what color their house was, or what her parents FELT about it. Today, the press does not care a second about the privacy or the feelings or lives about the people they write or broadcast about, or about the relevance of what they write. They simply make the most possible out of every damn thing that happens because the more they write the more money they earn. Today's western world is all about money and greed. My two hopes are that at least a few of the countries where the press is still under control can change their constitutions before it's too late, and that countries that are not democracies limit their constitutions and right-lists a bit when they write them, to prevent paparatzis, stalking, and lawyers preventing anyone from doing a thing about it. You may call me wrong, but where I'm from, about seven years ago, when someone were arrested for something and somebody happened to get the arrest on tape, they always put that 'noise'/'blur' thing over their heads so that the public wouldn't know who they were. Nobody were angry about it, even, everyone were happy. I mean, the guilty person had been found. That's all we needed to know, right? If somebody got missing, then they told us where to search for that person, how to recognise the person, and who to alert when the person was found. That's freedom of press the way it's supposed to be. And probably, 700 years ago when our constitution was signed (about equal to the US one), the people could not even imagine paparatzis, newspeople stalking and harrasing people, and so on. Nowadays, the press 'interprets', or pretends to interpret, the constitution as something that wants it to be that way. Hey, they make more money, and who care if the people hate it as long as the people love it ? Well, I just hope someone agrees with me on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted October 7, 2002 Share Posted October 7, 2002 Your right, eagle, freedom of the press was never "intended" to be for that. But ya know, freedom of religion was "intended" to be freedom of denomination. The founding fathers (in america's case), wanted everyone to be free to practice whatever kind of christianity they wanted. And ya know, right to vote was never "intended" to be given to women, much less all adults. They wanted "all free white men over the age of 21 who owned property" to have the right to vote. See my point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted October 7, 2002 Author Share Posted October 7, 2002 I see your point, except I have this feeling your other examples are bad-to-good, while mine is good-to-bad. I perfectly respect the US Democracy, off course (we've got an almost identical Constitution ourselves, as both Norway and the US pretty much, ironically in the US's case, adopted the British one). I have this nasty feeling that what we Democrats are saying about the Constitution today is what they said about the Bible several houndred years ago. Okay, bad comparison, as the Bible was not really a book of laws (or it shouldn't have been one , but you know, people followed it slavishly -sp.?). I think most of the constitution is right, and that the USA isn't going in the ditch anytime soon. However, every medal has a back side, there can be too much of the good stuff [freedoms] , and so on. I still wonder what Franklin would have said if he had seen 2002 (objective statement).. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.