I'm fine with that, but I think the public needs to assume the risk that a rock is going to be tipped over once in a while. Without the video there would be no case. Even with the video, it would be hard to quantify just how unreasonable it was for that rock to be dislodged.
If the government can argue, "This man is obviously not disabled, look at how easily he dislodged this rock", then the man can argue, "Look how dangerous this rock was. It was easily dislodged by a disabled man".
I was pretty astounded at the danger people put themselves into at the Grand Canyon. They were off the trails and taking pictures while standing on rocks the stability of which was as questionable as the rock in this story.
I would have no sympathy for anyone falling to their death due to a dislodged rock off the trail at the Grand Canyon and I would never dream of holding them accountable for the movement of the rock.
I don’t agree. Just because you assume the risk doesn’t give you the right to vandalize. I just don’t see how they are comparable. Just because I go sailing and assume the risks doesn’t mean I have the right to dump sewage overboard as I please. the guy is a vandal, pure and simple; the kind of jerk that litters and the older brother of the sort that ‘tag’ their grafitti all over the place.
I hope is is made an example of that would shock all of Singapore ( a place that knows how to deal with vandals)
“”Look how dangerous this rock was. It was easily dislodged by a disabled man”. “
that would be like saying “look how dangerous a gun is - the trigger can be pulled by even a two year old. If nature boy wasn’t where he had no business being he couldn’t have toppled the rock. Now if he had been able to topple it from the trail, without being where he didn’t belong, you’d have a point. Hell, I could wander around on a sub or a machine shop and break all sorts of stuff with one finger, and it would be because I was somewhere doing something I shouldn’t, not because the situation was dangerous.