[Skip]

Originally Posted by lakershaker

There is a defense of exigent circumstances (emergency situations or conditions which the law recognizes as excusing compliance with some procedural requirement or recognition of another's property or other interests.) that could be used here. Similar to if you are rushing to a hospital with an injury, you can break the speed limit, if you truly feel you are in danger being out in the storm, I think you could disregard the no-wake zone if you could do so in a reasonably safe manner. Since the threat of danger from lighting was imminent, it sounds like that was a reasonable expectation.

Lakershaker is correct.

To be exact, RSA 627:3 pertains to the situation you describe, but be particularly mindful of section II...which doesn't appear to apply to you in this situation.


627:3 Competing Harms. –
I. Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid harm to himself or another is justifiable if the desirability and urgency of avoiding such harm outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense charged. The desirability and urgency of such conduct may not rest upon considerations pertaining to the morality and advisability of such statute, either in its general or particular application.
II. When the actor was reckless or negligent in bringing about the circumstances requiring a choice of harms or in appraising the necessity of his conduct, the justification provided in paragraph I does not apply in a prosecution for any offense for which recklessness or negligence, as the case may be, suffices to establish criminal liability.