Reply #77: It's so much easier to bash me when you ignore what I actually wrote.

[Jim Lane]

To all those who pointed out how terrible a position these people were in, and how they therefore couldn't be expected to sit down and carefully consider all the pros and cons, permit me to repeat my closing paragraph:

Perhaps some did consider it but, faced with the advancing fire, simply could not bear to remain. If so, it was a failing on their part, although certainly an understandable one under the circumstances.

So, yes, I certainly understand that these innocent victims were under great stress. By analogy, in New York law concerning motor vehicle accidents, there's the "emergency doctrine" -- a driver who faces a sudden emergency not of his or her own making is held to a lesser standard of care, and thus can be held not liable for a mistake even if someone else is injured as a result. So, yeah, I understand the point.

I tried to make clear that I wasn't blaming these people for making what I consider the wrong choice. That doesn't negate the argument that it was the wrong choice.

I'm replying to jberryhill's post only because it's the most recent and so the best place to hang my reply. My umbrage doesn't apply to him; his argument about assuming that precautions were being taken is actually about the only response that advances the discussion. The weakness in that argument, though, is that it's not realistic to assume that protective sheds or scaffolding have been put up on such short notice. People who stop to think about it should realize that jumping is creating a hazard to others. And I take this opportunity to reiterate my recognition that many people under such incredible stress would not be able to stop to think about it, or would not be able to act on their conclusion if they did.