Você está na página 1de 6

The scene was now set for the revolt's final catastrophe.

Outside Jerusalem, Roman troops prepared to besiege the city; inside the city, the Jews were engaged in a suicidal civil war. In later generations, the rabbis hyperbolically declared that the revolt's failure, and the Temple's destruction, was due not to Roman military superiority but to causeless hatred (sinat khinam) among the Jews (Yoma 9b). While the Romans would have won the war in any case, the Jewish civil war both hastened their victory and immensely increased the casualties. One horrendous example: In expectation of a Roman siege, Jerusalem's Jews had stockpiled a supply of dry food that could have fed the city for many years. But one of the warring Zealot factions burned the entire supply, apparently hoping that destroying this "security blanket" would compel everyone to participate in the revolt. The starvation resulting from this mad act caused suffering as great as any the Romans inflicted.
During the infighting inside the city walls, a stockpiled supply of dry food was intentionally burned by the Sicarii to induce the defenders to fight against the siege, instead of negotiating peace; as a result many city dwellers and soldiers died of starvation during the siege. Tacitus, a historian of the time, notes that those, who were besieged in Jerusalem amounted to no fewer than six hundred thousand, that men and women alike and every age engaged in armed resistance, everyone who could pick up a weapon did, both sexes showed equal determination, preferring death to a life that involved expulsion from their [11] country. Josephus puts the number of the besieged at near 1 million.

Firefighters still haunted by womans death after she failed to heed warnings
Published: Tuesday, August 28, 2012
FLEISCHMANNS, N.Y. Perhaps it has happened to you. At some unusual hour, say 5:30 a.m., there is a knock on your door. You open it to see two tiredlooking men, behind them some type of emergency vehicle with its lights flashing. They tell you that the rain is not letting up and it looks like your neighborhood will get flooded to the point where they might not be able to get back there and help you if you are in need, so the best thing to do is leave your home temporarily, only until the worst of it passes, then return. What do you do?

According to Fleischmanns Fire Chief Todd Wickham, most people leave, but some dont. The latter was the case last August when an 82-year-old woman drowned in Fleischmanns during the flooding from Tropical Storm Irene. Now, one year later, that horror stills haunts him and other volunteers that watched helplessly as the woman stood in the doorway of the house screaming for help. Wickham hopes that out of that tragedy a lesson will have been learned, because besides death and taxes, another certainty in the Catskills is that flooding will happen again. The latter was the case last August when an 82-year-old woman drowned in Fleischmanns during the flooding from Tropical Storm Irene. Now, one year later, that horror stills haunts him and other volunteers that watched helplessly as the woman stood in the doorway of the house screaming for help. Wickham hopes that out of that tragedy a lesson will have been learned, because besides death and taxes, another certainty in the Catskills is that flooding will happen again. Leah Stern-Gluck, who lived in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, died when Tropical Storm Irene hit Fleischmanns where she was vacationing at the Valkyrian Motel. As the currents rose that Sunday, emergency workers ordered evacuations. But evacuations are not mandatory, and when some people refused, rescuers began to go back for those who were trapped. Stern-Gluck was one of those that did not heed the evacuation warning, saying she would not leave until her husband returned. It was later learned that her husband was at a nearby synagogue praying. By the time Wickham and other firefighters returned to rescue Stern-Gluck, the water level had reached 9 feet above flood stage and it was too late for the elderly woman. By the time we got back to her unit, the water was too deep. We could not safely enter the area with vehicles, said Wickham. Continued... Then it happened. As Wickham and others were standing there trying to come up with some method of getting to the woman, two houses upstream from where she was were knocked off their foundations. Both of them, moving at about 40 mph, smashed into Stern-Glucks unit as she stood in the doorway screaming for help. The wreckage of all three structures was then swept away, and destroyed the Bridge Street Bridge just a few hundred feet further downstream. Wickham said that was the last time Stern-Gluck was seen alive.

Will the region get another flood the size of that caused by Irene anytime soon? No one is sure, said Wickham, but he is sure that flooding will occur and, just like during Irene, his men will go to danger areas and urge people to evacuate. Wickham said he knows that it is never convenient to evacuate, but he also knows that, when that knock at the door does come, people should listen. Even though Stern-Gluck was told to evacuate, the warning was ignored and the result was a tragedy that Wickham will never live down. There were 2,500 people in the village that day, and all Im remembered for is losing one, he said. Wickham said that to stay safe, always listen to the advice of the emergency services and evacuate when told to do so. Leave your home if the emergency services say so. Refusing to leave on their advice will put you, your family and those trying to help you at risk. Wickham said the next time there is need for evacuation, he and his crew will do the same as they always have. Go door-to-door and knock and urge people to leave. They may be a little pushier about it next time, too, because the memory of what happened to Stern-Gluck is hard to erase and not something Wickham wants to see ever again. Ill always remember her screaming for help, he said. Me and all those guys that were there. We have to live with that.

Many failed to heed Joplin tornado warnings, report says

The deadly May 22 tornado in Joplin, Missouri caught many residents unprepared, partly because warnings issued that day were met with complacency and confusion, a federal report said on Tuesday.
"The vast majority of Joplin residents did not immediately take protective action upon receiving a first indication of risk, regardless of the source of the warning," a 40-page study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. The EF-5 tornado, which hit shortly after 5:30 p.m. on a Sunday, killed 162 people and destroyed some 9,000 homes and other buildings as it tore through central Joplin. Joplin officials sounded a series of sirens for about 20 minutes as a severe storm system moved in from the west. Meanwhile, the National Weather Service issued tornado warnings, broadcast over the radio, television and other media. In Joplin, like some other cities, sirens are sounded when a tornado or storms with winds of 75 miles per hour are expected, the report said. They are not necessarily associated directly with a weather service warning, it said.

In interviews with nearly 100 survivors of the tornado, NOAA officials found that the perceived frequency of warning sirens that night and in previous storms caused people to become "desensitized or complacent to sirens" and to not take shelter. "Instead, the majority of Joplin residents did not take protective action until processing additional credible confirmation of the threat," the report said. For example, people would see the darkening sky or turn on a television or radio to confirm the urgency of the situation. The report recommends the weather service work with other agencies to develop a more effective warning system that coordinates sirens with other warning methods. The system should be easily understood by the public, the report recommends. For instance, a non-routine warning is recommended to prompt people to take "immediate, lifesaving action" when tornado or extremely severe weather is imminent. The report recommends that current GPS technology and NOAA Weather Alerts be better employed. "While the weather enterprise was generally successful in communicating the Joplin tornado threat in a timely manner, current communication and delivery mechanisms are not seamless and are somewhat antiquated," the report said. NOAA said it was unclear how many lives could have been saved on May 22 if more people heeded warnings and took shelter more quickly. Fortunately, the tornado moved rather slowly, which assisted people who did respond to sirens and other warnings, the report said.

Us branch giving us for natural disasters updated, dpa card updated, Hearing over and over that we are in the last days are becoming desensitized complacent because we hear about it so often letting our guard down become spiritually drowsy and less alert.

Contributory Negligence
Contributory negligence is negligent conduct by the injured party that is a contributing cause of her injuries, and that falls below the legal standard for protecting oneself from an unreasonable risk of harm. At common law, the defense of contributory negligence was an absolute defense and served as a complete bar to recovery. Most jurisdictions today have adopted the doctrine of comparative negligence, whereby the amount of the plaintiffs award is reduced by the extent to which plaintiffs conduct contributed to the harm. Contributory negligence is a bar to recovery only when it is a proximate cause of the injury. If the damage is not the necessary or ordinary or likely result of contributory negligence, but is due to some other unlikely event which could not reasonably have been anticipated or regarded as likely to occur, the plaintiffs negligence is too remote to act as a bar to recovery.

Standard of Care
The standard of care in contributory negligence is the same as in ordinary negligence; i.e., that which a reasonable person would have done under the same or similar circumstances. The act or omission of an injured party which amounts to contributory negligence must be a negligent act or omission, and it must serve as a proximate cause of the injury and not merely as a condition. An act or omission that merely

increases or adds to the extent of the loss or injury will generally not preclude recovery. It may however reduce the amount of damages. If a plaintiff voluntarily disregards warnings and assumes the risk of certain dangers, but is injured through the negligence of the defendant from an entirely different source of danger, of which she was not and could not have been aware, and of whose existence it was the duty of the defendant to warn, then the plaintiffs failure to heed the warning does not constitute contributory negligence.

Intentional Torts
The defense of contributory negligence generally is not available for intentional torts or where the defendant is found to be guilty of wanton and willful misconduct. It can also be unavailable where the defendant has violated a statute clearly designed for the protection of the plaintiff. Contributory negligence is not a defense for strict liability torts unless the plaintiff has knowingly assumed an unreasonable risk.

Rescue Doctrine
The majority rule is that if a person is injured while attempting to rescue another person or property from danger, the rescuer is not contributorily negligent unless the conduct is reckless.

Leading Cases
Alexander v. Kramer Bros. Freight Lines, Inc. Alexander sued Kramer Brothers after he suffered personal injuries in an accident with the defendants truck and Kramer Brothers asserted contributory negligence as a defense. The court held that the plaintiff has the burden of proof to show that he or she was not contributorily negligent. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Goodman Goodman was struck and killed by a train while driving over a railroad crossing. His view was obstructed and he did not get out to look for an approaching train. The court ordered a directed verdict that Goodman was contributorily negligent on the grounds that no reasonable jury could have found in favor of the plaintiff under the facts of the case. Brown v. Kendall Kendall injured Brown while trying to separate their dogs and stop them from fighting. Brown was standing behind Kendall and he was struck in the eye with a stick. The court held that the injured party cannot recover if both parties were not negligent, or if both parties were negligent, or if the injured party was negligent but the defendant was not. Butterfield v. Forrester Forrester laid a pole across a road. Butterfield was riding at high speed at twilight and did not see the pole. He hit the pole and suffered personal injuries. The court held that Butterfield was contributorily negligent because if he had been using ordinary care he would have been able to see and avoid the obstruction. Eckert v. Long Island R. R. Co. Eckert saw a boy sitting on railroad tracks. He succeeded in saving the boy but was struck and killed by the train. The court held that when a rescuer attempts to save someone in imminent peril, he may assume extraordinary risks or perform dangerous acts without being contributorily negligent. Martin v. Herzog Martin was killed in an accident while driving a buggy without lights at night. The defendant was driving on the wrong side of the road. The court held that the violation of a statutory duty of care is negligence per se and a jury may not relax that duty. In order for a party to be liable for negligent conduct, the conduct must be the cause of the injury.

Roberts v. Ring Ring was 77 years old and had impaired hearing and vision. While driving on a busy street he saw a seven year old boy run into his path but failed to stop in time to avoid hitting him. The court held that while the defendant cannot take advantage of impairments and infirmities to avoid a finding of negligence, the injured party is held to a standard that takes age and maturity into account. Smithwick v. Hall & Upson Co. Smithwick was told not to work on a platform but was not told that the wall was about to collapse. He worked on platform despite the warning because he believed the risk of falling was the only danger. The court held that the failure to heed a warning is not contributory negligence if the injury was the result of a different source of risk caused by the defendant, and the injured party was unaware of that risk. Solomon v. Shuell Plain clothes police officers were arresting robbery suspects. The decedent thought the suspects were being attacked and was shot by one of the officers when he came out of his house with a gun. The court held that under the rescue doctrine, contributory negligence is not present if the rescuer had a reasonable belief that the victim was in actual danger.