Kirby: Why should Utahns pay for Lyman’s bad idea?

I am more than passingly familiar with the horrible feeling that things are turning out much worse than anticipated. Most people have experienced it.

You know the feeling I'm talking about, that "Oh, [crap]!" moment when it suddenly dawns on you that you should have thought harder before committing an act of dangerous idiocy.

The feeling can occur in seconds — like jumping off a tall building — or it can develop over a longer period of time, like marrying someone who turns out to be a troll.

Either way, you should have thought harder. Say you're tempted to do something. The potential fallout from the behavior is considered at length and concluded to be "A," which isn't so bad. So you go ahead and do it.

But instead of "A," the repercussion turns out to be "B" or some worse letter of the alphabet, like "K" or even "Z." Anyway, it's something that would have made the entire enterprise unattractive from the start had it been given the proper consideration.

I'm betting that's what San Juan County Commissioner Phil Lyman is feeling after being convicted in federal court on charges connected to his Recapture Canyon ATV ride.

Had Lyman accurately calculated that he was risking prison time, as well as court costs and fines in an amount capable of funding NASA's next space shot, he probably would have thought harder about defying the BLM.

Lyman: "You know, guys. Let's give another think about tear-assing up and down a federally closed canyon before we actually do it. OK?"

Supporters: "No! Let's do it anyway. What's the worst that can happen?"

Well, the worst can be pretty bad. Which is why Lyman and his supporters are now eager to have the consequences of his behavior shared by everyone, including people who weren't even there.

Last year, Lyman tried unsuccessfully to obtain the services of a court-appointed public defender, and Kanab Republican legislator Mike Noel wants the Utah Constitutional Defense Council to use up to $100,000 in state funds to help pay for Lyman's legal costs and likely appeal.

I admire someone who's willing to risk everything for a cause they believe in. That's how important stuff gets done.

I don't admire people who want to pick a fight and then weasel out of the consequences later. And even more, I don't like people who want me to pay for their consequences when I didn't agree with their behavior in the first place. I figured this out before I finished elementary school.

Suppose I wanted to risk setting fire to the toolshed by playing with matches, something for which I had repeatedly been threatened with dire consequences should it happen (again).

Suppose also that I was being cheered on to ignore these warnings. Popular opinion being that the worst outcome would be getting told again not to do it, possibly even accompanied by a semi-stern whack to the head. What's a whack to the head compared to our rights with matches?

You can then imagine the spike in my alarm when the Old Man got home from work one day and found a smoking hole in the ground where his toolshed used to be.

Here's the question: While being violently pursued up a tree, was it appropriate for me to argue that my siblings, friends, and even the dog who watched the incident, be required to share in the punishment I would receive just as soon as I ran out of tree?

Even in my frenzied state, I was able to plead that this would only come to a mere 1.7 ham-flattening blows with a two-by-four per kid.

According to the crowd of prior supporters watching, the answer was — "Ha, ha, ha! It wasn't us who lit the match and added the gasoline!" and "Watch out! You're almost to the top of the tree!"

I took that as a "no" and accepted my punishment. It hurt, but it was a valuable lesson for the rest of my life.

Robert Kirby can be reached at rkirby@sltrib.com or facebook.com/stillnotpatbagley. Find his past columns at http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/kirby.