Ellicott City Flash Flood 7/30/2016

[fast]

When one uses the term, as you did, "putting people at risk", the obvious level of risk is that to their safety... not, say, to the neatness of their hairdo in the even of a blustery wind.

you are backpedaling...

I can appreciate that sentiment (that the obvious level of risk is to their safety), and it's not lost on me. I still say that it's okay to put people at risk, but for clarity, I will extend that claim to show that I am not excluding (what you appear to think I am) by saying: it's okay to jeopardize the safety of others. Of course, by the same logic as previously given, it's not always okay to do so.

Clearly, you think (as do I) it's okay to put people at risk when such risk is trivial and unrelated to safety, but I did not back pedal, as I never fine tuned by statement to exclude circumstances to the extent you have suggested.

Do think it's always ridiculous to risk the safety of others? I think maybe your issue is with how it sounds. To the ear, it might sound outlandish, but there must be numerous real life examples where it can be generally argued that circumstances present themselves that support the notion that putting the safety of others at risk is acceptable, especially when such risk has attempted to been minimized in the time available.

I'm not saying it's okay to needlessly jeopardize life and limb with no care or concern for others, but the general notion that putting others in danger can never be acceptable seems to be a notion that fails to consider the sensible option that can reflect an otherwise truth coming out of a reasoned and thoughtful cost benefit analysis.

I actually have a problem with high speed chases as I think the danger imposed exceeds the best possible outcome. Exceptions, sure.

But, if breaking a window might cause rushing water and debri to cause harm to others, then ya know what, so be it if a) the potentially harmed can be quickly warned to move their ass and 2) others are in immenant and grave danger and can be helped by doing so.

The point I'm making is in principle. All this never, never, never crap in regards to safety when the safety issue is at most hazardous is a bunch of ideological crackery and that there are reasonable exceptions in extraordinary circumstances.

 

[another1]

When I was a children, I was faced with things like seeing people throw cats out second story windows and stuff. For fun they did this. Sick huh. I mean... my Grandfather said he used to drown a big bag of kittens in the river every weekend, back in the great depression... but that was different.

How people treat animals shows me who they are kinda. But what is the situation right? Grampa wasn't punting them into the river for a laugh. There was no money, and there were too many cats lurking the streets. They were breeding too fast and something had to be done. People back then were less likely to use animal cruelty for fun, so the kittens didn't have much use.

The lucky ones with pretty patterns on their fur got to live - in some cases. All those kittens. I can hear the faint peep they made when they were lowered into the river back in 1936. Sad. Today we spare the lives of the kittens and send them to euthanasia, which is probably more traumatic than drowning. We give them party date-rape drugs like Ketamine and Valium. Twisted. We stroke their paws and say sorry you don't have the right to live. Then we burn them lol.

It still appears more humane I guess. It seems that appearances are what matters until it comes down to killing, dying (or risking unnecessary harm to prevent more dying) during the inevitable moment drawing closer to us all. I say that vaguely without inferring that the sky is falling. As if we would even be aware anyway.

To me, there is a big problem with self perception out there. Perception in general actually. We can't accept simply looking in the mirror while we brush our teeth, like in more REAL times. To assure ourselves that we exist, we have to share with the world in a pageant of superficiality and overexposure. Just too much. It gets to people and they start to forget the physical reality around them. Like the men playing the app game in the video. They had no idea what the fuck what reality was, until it started throwing cars at the window. Then they knew, but they had no idea how to react.

That stuff should be obvious and it shouldn't be necessary to point it out. I think it is well known to these people, how they're living is wrong. I think they know that they're idiots, and they just don't care because they're preoccupied with devices that are just too fun to stop. Too convenient.

Eventually it will get worse, huh. Humans will be killed slowly in broad daylight, and the only civic duty will be documenting the event. Making money from the footage will provide the motivation to stop and film. Then it goes from there, and years from now we get the blame for all of it. It will probably come back on us because we weren't paying attention to things that happened overnight. That alone should concern people. If not the reality of the situation, how about how our lives will appear to the reality of the future? We're gonna look like some really vain scumbags. Total deadbeats. High in moral talk but really low when "there's people in the water", like the dumbass stoner in the video said, while finishing his cupcake.

 

[Valjean]

But why not drown all the neighborhood children in the river every weekend? They're a greater economic drain on the community than cats.

 

[Angry Floof]

But why not drown all the neighborhood children in the river every weekend? They're a greater economic drain on the community than cats.

I agree, why not? People who show callousness toward animal life are also callous toward human life. What stops an animal abuser from abusing humans is not so much having more care and concern for humans but because the consequences are so much worse.

http://psychweb.cisat.jmu.edu/graysojh/pdfs/Volume101.pdf
https://vetsocialwork.utk.edu/about-us/the-link-between-human-animal-violence/
https://blogs.commons.georgetown.edu/guwc/2014/10/16/not-all-domestic-violence-is-for-humans/

From that last link:

By taking action against violence you see towards animals you may, without knowing it, help a victim of domestic violence and vice versa. This is not to say that all domestic violence abusers abuse animals or that all animal abusers also batter those at home- but there is a strong correlation between the two.

Socially accepted disregard for animals is similar to socially accepted disregard for women and minorities. However insignificant the act of disrespect, it's the seed of abuse. You can't separate casual disrespect from outright abuse. (Listen up, Clint Eastwood.)

 

[another1]

Yeah. Don't you find it weird that hundreds of studies are done on obvious things. Everybody knows the kid teasing the cat is going to grow up to smoke meth and scream at women. A few researchers can stamp that one and be done with it. Seems like they drag things out too long. Then not as many people believe and take obvious things seriously. But yeah I read this thing about a Doc telling his child patients it was alright to stab a rat in a box. It seemed pretty obvious from what they were saying. I didn't click the link with the word psych but I did the other two thanks.

What do you think about how animals react to humans? Animals like cats are mystified by some humans. Other humans they avoid, and for no apparent reason. I've had cats adore friends who are generally bad inside. Like they don't even like cats. So I don't know about cats, but dogs have an honest sense about people from their noses alone. How animals treat humans may say just as much about humans as how humans are to as the animals human is.. You get the idea. Cats are too unusual to factor in. Something is really wrong with cats. But dogs, deer, horses and other gentle creatures like that.

 

[Malintent]

Wow, just how clueless must one be to think that there were options available during a flash flood. Water is heavy, fast flowing water will make you its bitch. You can't defy the laws of physics, even for a good cause.

Once they saw people in the water people can be heard (and briefly seen) desperately trying to open windows to allow people in to safety. It was good that they were not able to, and that no one thought to smash one any windows, as that could have risked the lives of those within the restaurant. There was absolutely nothing anyone could have done to help anyone that was outside without putting more people (including themselves) at risk. The person (presumably an employee of the restaurant) who announced to the patrons to stay put did exactly the right thing. I didn't hear anyone on the phone with emergency personnel attempting to provide guidance for rescue workers to track people in need of help that were swept up, but that doesn't mean it wasn't being done elsewhere in the establishment.

It's okay to put people at risk.

At risk, sure. To their doom, no.

Exactly! And that's exactly why I wrote what I wrote. The argument that we shouldn't act because doing so puts others at risk ... with the unspoken premise that we have no right to put others at risk (no matter how low that risk might be) is bullshit.

YOU added the "no matter how low" part. just you.

 

[fast]

Wow, just how clueless must one be to think that there were options available during a flash flood. Water is heavy, fast flowing water will make you its bitch. You can't defy the laws of physics, even for a good cause.

Once they saw people in the water people can be heard (and briefly seen) desperately trying to open windows to allow people in to safety. It was good that they were not able to, and that no one thought to smash one any windows, as that could have risked the lives of those within the restaurant. There was absolutely nothing anyone could have done to help anyone that was outside without putting more people (including themselves) at risk. The person (presumably an employee of the restaurant) who announced to the patrons to stay put did exactly the right thing. I didn't hear anyone on the phone with emergency personnel attempting to provide guidance for rescue workers to track people in need of help that were swept up, but that doesn't mean it wasn't being done elsewhere in the establishment.

It's okay to put people at risk.

At risk, sure. To their doom, no.

Exactly! And that's exactly why I wrote what I wrote. The argument that we shouldn't act because doing so puts others at risk ... with the unspoken premise that we have no right to put others at risk (no matter how low that risk might be) is bullshit.

YOU added the "no matter how low" part. just you.

There are instances where there is justification for putting the safety of others at risk. That statement is meant to oppose the often held blanket belief that putting the safety of others at risk is unjustified. Generally speaking, it's better to not put the safety of others at risk, but what drives my view that it's sometimes justified is the recognition that a cost benefit anyslysis provides exceptions.

I'm not going to jeopardize the safety of another such that my action may lead to an added possibility that she might suffer a bone fracture, but if not undertaking such an action (that merely adds the possibility of risk to her safety) substantially increases an already high probability of another's drowning, then it's still not therefore necessary that I jeopardize someone's safety, but it sure seems to me there is at least a righteous justification for doing so.

 

[another1]

I'm not going to jeopardize the safety of another such that my action may lead to an added possibility that she might suffer a bone fracture, but if not undertaking such an action (that merely adds the possibility of risk to her safety) substantially increases an already high probability of another's drowning, then it's still not therefore necessary that I jeopardize someone's safety, but it sure seems to me there is at least a righteous justification for doing so.

Such as a classroom full of tiny children held hostage below giant window panes that reach the ceiling. What if you had the choice to shoot through the glass and rain fragments all over the kids - or allow a psycho who wandered in off the street to continue holding the kids hostage? Through your scope you see him pacing with a fork, teaching the horrified and confused children God knows what. Smashing things and acting totally crazy.

You're just a concerned citizen who happens to have a rifle on you. Maybe you just got it out of the pawn shop. Cops haven't arrived yet, and the psycho-killer is starting to throw the kids around and scream about demons. You know what you need to do. Take the shot and shower the kids in a million glass shards - or allow the psycho to potentially kill the entire classroom.

You'd probably be a hero for shooting into the classroom and mutilating children with falling glass. An American hero. I doubt anyone would think twice about clapping when you got your medal, or whatever they award people with in those situations. The NRA would give you free stuff for the rest of your life. Kids with eye patches and butterfly stitches would hug you on Jimmy Fallon. Songs would be written about you.

 

[fast]

I'm not going to jeopardize the safety of another such that my action may lead to an added possibility that she might suffer a bone fracture, but if not undertaking such an action (that merely adds the possibility of risk to her safety) substantially increases an already high probability of another's drowning, then it's still not therefore necessary that I jeopardize someone's safety, but it sure seems to me there is at least a righteous justification for doing so.

Such as a classroom full of tiny children held hostage below giant window panes that reach the ceiling. What if you had the choice to shoot through the glass and rain fragments all over the kids - or allow a psycho who wandered in off the street to continue holding the kids hostage? Through your scope you see him pacing with a fork, teaching the horrified and confused children God knows what. Smashing things and acting totally crazy.

You're just a concerned citizen who happens to have a rifle on you. Maybe you just got it out of the pawn shop. Cops haven't arrived yet, and the psycho-killer is starting to throw the kids around and scream about demons. You know what you need to do. Take the shot and shower the kids in a million glass shards - or allow the psycho to potentially kill the entire classroom.

You'd probably be a hero for shooting into the classroom and mutilating children with falling glass. An American hero. I doubt anyone would think twice about clapping when you got your medal, or whatever they award people with in those situations. The NRA would give you free stuff for the rest of your life. Kids with eye patches and butterfly stitches would hug you on Jimmy Fallon. Songs would be written about you.

I'm not sure what to make of that. An example with less glass would have been nice.

 

[Deepak]

I'm not going to jeopardize the safety of another such that my action may lead to an added possibility that she might suffer a bone fracture, but if not undertaking such an action (that merely adds the possibility of risk to her safety) substantially increases an already high probability of another's drowning, then it's still not therefore necessary that I jeopardize someone's safety, but it sure seems to me there is at least a righteous justification for doing so.

Such as a classroom full of tiny children held hostage below giant window panes that reach the ceiling. What if you had the choice to shoot through the glass and rain fragments all over the kids - or allow a psycho who wandered in off the street to continue holding the kids hostage? Through your scope you see him pacing with a fork, teaching the horrified and confused children God knows what. Smashing things and acting totally crazy.

You're just a concerned citizen who happens to have a rifle on you. Maybe you just got it out of the pawn shop. Cops haven't arrived yet, and the psycho-killer is starting to throw the kids around and scream about demons. You know what you need to do. Take the shot and shower the kids in a million glass shards - or allow the psycho to potentially kill the entire classroom.

You'd probably be a hero for shooting into the classroom and mutilating children with falling glass. An American hero. I doubt anyone would think twice about clapping when you got your medal, or whatever they award people with in those situations. The NRA would give you free stuff for the rest of your life. Kids with eye patches and butterfly stitches would hug you on Jimmy Fallon. Songs would be written about you.

The problem here is that the bullet could deflect when you hit the glass, causing you to miss your shot. Better to lob a couple of pineapple grenades in there so you're sure you get the guy.

 

[scombrid]

Shame because it looks like a cute town. The town Huntington WV looks similar. They had a 19 foot flash flood in 1932. Yes 19 feet.

Stories I've heard of it are heroic. People were just better back then. Since 1932 they built a huge wall to protect the rich half of town in case it ever happens again. Ellicott doesn't look like a poor place. They may want to save some money for a floodwall.

I have real pictures from 1932. If you want to see a real flood I can scan them sometime. A bunch of all-Americans standing in canoes with ropes and smiles. Saving cats and whatnot. Pretty neat photographs taken by a relative.

A flood of a low gradient large river and a flash flood in a high gradient steep canyon are not directly comparable. The rate of rise of the water and the flow velocities are completely different.

 

[Malintent]

Shame because it looks like a cute town. The town Huntington WV looks similar. They had a 19 foot flash flood in 1932. Yes 19 feet.

Stories I've heard of it are heroic. People were just better back then. Since 1932 they built a huge wall to protect the rich half of town in case it ever happens again. Ellicott doesn't look like a poor place. They may want to save some money for a floodwall.

I have real pictures from 1932. If you want to see a real flood I can scan them sometime. A bunch of all-Americans standing in canoes with ropes and smiles. Saving cats and whatnot. Pretty neat photographs taken by a relative.

A flood of a low gradient large river and a flash flood in a high gradient steep canyon are not directly comparable. The rate of rise of the water and the flow velocities are completely different.

Exactly. The risk to an untrained first responder (who would not have entered the water without specialized equipment to ensure their safety) is extremely high in this particular incident. the chances of someone actually being physically able to help someone in this exact situation is close to zero, and the chance of them themselves simply adding to the number of people in need of rescue (or a funeral) is extremely high.

It's a no-brainer. Standing around, filming, and saying "oh my god" was about the extent to which anyone in that video could possibly been able to help. At least the footage might be able to help identify victims and aid trained rescue workers that have the proper training and equipment to keep the risk profile at acceptable levels.

 

[another1]

A flood of a low gradient large river and a flash flood in a high gradient steep canyon are not directly comparable. The rate of rise of the water and the flow velocities are completely different.

The physics of water don't overshadow the patheticness of people. I see floods all the time. I'm in a triangle of three rivers. Mud, Guyandotte and Ohio. The flash flood in that video was extreme only because of bad bulding plans. The bad floods I see usually come from downhill. Starts like a distance crackle sound, and with in minutes, mobile homes plow through trees with ridiculous force. So whatever is whatever on the physical issue of floods. The Ellicott video is shady to me because of unpreparedness and bad attitudes. I've sever seen a more pathetic reaction to an emergency. Nobody even had a pocket knife.

It's a no-brainer. Standing around, filming, and saying "oh my god" was about the extent to which anyone in that video could possibly been able to help.

How ready would they have been if the water came above the windows? Do you think they would have been prepared? They were doing nothing. Just waiting to die, and watching others float by while the got take home boxes. Being able to help involves preparing, and not just assuming that it will all be over in an hour.

Watch some grainy third world flood videos, where poor people carry babies in their shirts with their teeth, while wading to the dirt mound in 5th degree rapids - saving farm animals along the way. They come together and defeat the weather. Americans playing Pokemon hide inside and wait to be defeated.

At least the footage might be able to help identify victims and aid trained rescue workers that have the proper training and equipment to keep the risk profile at acceptable levels.

The footage doesn't serve as anything but entertainment for us, and a deep source of shame in the filmer's future. The lack of testosterone in the establishment was devestating to the moaning women, who DID manage to save a woman across the street, by making a phone call. The men were busy fumbling with a window screw at the time. They quickly abandoned the project and continued to stare in awe, as if it the event were already uploaded and streaming before their eyes - as it happened. Was it actually happening in their sick little minds? I don't know. didn't seem like it.

 

[Valjean]

How ready would they have been if the water came above the windows? Do you think they would have been prepared? They were doing nothing. Just waiting to die, and watching others float by while the got take home boxes. Being able to help involves preparing, and not just assuming that it will all be over in an hour.

If the water rose they could hae gone upstairs. These are two and three story buildings.

Watch some grainy third world flood videos, where poor people carry babies in their shirts with their teeth, while wading to the dirt mound in 5th degree rapids - saving farm animals along the way. They come together and defeat the weather. Americans playing Pokemon hide inside and wait to be defeated.

Nobody's going to be doing any wading in class 5 rapids.

 

[another1]

If the water rose they could hae gone upstairs. These are two and three story buildings

How many oh my Gods does it take a flood to get to a building's foundation and destroy it? The world may never know. Doesn't matter how many stories the building is, in that case. They were clueless. The situation did have them helpless, yes. I can't argue the properties of water in a flood. I'm just pointing out that people do no behave properly during disasters. In the way they speak and treat each other - they are wrong. There are reasons for that, and they go way beyond how the actual water flows.

Nobody's going to be doing any wading in class 5 rapids

I was flipping canoes and wading without a helmet on the worst part of the James River - at 12 years old. I had to wear a Scouts uniform but the helmet was optional. You can bet I had my knife though! That is part of the problem I'm seeing. Too much Pokémon and not enough Boy Scouting, to put it simply.

 

[Malintent]

How many oh my Gods does it take a flood to get to a building's foundation and destroy it? The world may never know. Doesn't matter how many stories the building is, in that case. They were clueless. The situation did have them helpless, yes. I can't argue the properties of water in a flood. I'm just pointing out that people do no behave properly during disasters. In the way they speak and treat each other - they are wrong. There are reasons for that, and they go way beyond how the actual water flows.

Nobody's going to be doing any wading in class 5 rapids

I was flipping canoes and wading without a helmet on the worst part of the James River - at 12 years old. I had to wear a Scouts uniform but the helmet was optional. You can bet I had my knife though! That is part of the problem I'm seeing. Too much Pokémon and not enough Boy Scouting, to put it simply.

1) you had a life jacket on (notably omitted in your comment)
2) you were not dodging SUVs floating down the river with you
3) you didn't have fire hydrants or electrical wires to avoid

.. but by all means, feel free to commit suicide whenever someone looks like they may be having a bad day somewhere in your vicinity, because you floated down a river once.

 

[another1]

On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my Country to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at ALL TIMES; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

Case may be that the people in this particular video were helpless, but they didn't have to act like it. Attitude means a lot, Malintent. Pokémon should give those dudes Merit Badges for hiding from danger and acting like Brownies.

 

[Malintent]

On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my Country to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at ALL TIMES; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

Case may be that the people in this particular video were helpless, but they didn't have to act like it. Attitude means a lot, Malintent. Pokémon should give those dudes Merit Badges for hiding from danger and acting like Brownies.

good thing you weren't there. your misguided application of the boy scout prayer would have gotten you and possibly others killed. HOW is it helping people by joining them in death? oh wait, I get it now.

Afraid I don't get the pokemon references (I am aware of what it is, just not 'into' it to know the characters). So that is lost on me.
Attitude means at least a little, sure. Slightly more than than 'so the fuck what', and a little less than, 'meh'.

 

[another1]

The BSA and Pokemon. I was contrasting the times. Today's kids get rewarded with immaterial things for going where machines tell them to go. Back when life was still real, kids got rewarded with badges for learning new knots and whatnot.

I'm not a Pokémon either. The cartoon was an annoyance when I was a kid. Now that it is a threat to my reality I tend to blab the word too much maybe. I'll just say Pokemon are evil little things that I don't understand. Never going to catch them all. No use trying.

On a positive note, the Pokemon app will eventually morph into very illegal things. Not necessarily Pokémon hunting, but you know how those things go. Eventually we won't have to use the deep web to buy drugs anonymously through gps. Sex will become much easier to pay for, once the apps to come are in place. Prostitutes will have it a lot easier and so will the men who love them. Drugs will be cheaper. So easy to obtain, that illegality will be pointless. Eventually people will figure out the right way to use that tech and we'll all be set.

 

[bilby]

The BSA and Pokemon. I was contrasting the times. Today's kids get rewarded with immaterial things for going where machines tell them to go. Back when life was still real, kids got rewarded with badges for learning new knots and whatnot.

I'm not a Pokémon either. The cartoon was an annoyance when I was a kid. Now that it is a threat to my reality I tend to blab the word too much maybe. I'll just say Pokemon are evil little things that I don't understand. Never going to catch them all. No use trying.

On a positive note, the Pokemon app will eventually morph into very illegal things. Not necessarily Pokémon hunting, but you know how those things go. Eventually we won't have to use the deep web to buy drugs anonymously through gps. Sex will become much easier to pay for, once the apps to come are in place. Prostitutes will have it a lot easier and so will the men who love them. Drugs will be cheaper. So easy to obtain, that illegality will be pointless. Eventually people will figure out the right way to use that tech and we'll all be set.

Drugs have ALWAYS been so easy to obtain that illegality is pointless. And sex has never been difficult to pay for - at least, not since the invention of money. Bartering a chicken for a blowjob was probably rather less convenient, but prostitutes and their clients haven't needed to worry about that for thousands of years.