1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  

Prosecute those who ignore a mandatory evacuation and need to be rescued?

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by mike_v_s, Sep 15, 2008.


  1. This came on the radio earlier today. Should people who remain in spite of a mandatory evacuation and then need to be rescued from the disaster be charged with reckless endangerment?

    The premise was that the first responders were unnecessarily putting themselves in harm's way immediately following a storm to rescue people who had ample time and resources to evacuate, but ignored the order. Further, the radio personality was in favor of charging those who sheltered in place with kids with child endangerment. I'd be interested in people's thoughts.

    Mike
     
  2. L-A

    L-A

    Jul 17, 2008
    Eh?
    That's what I tought. If someone won't assume his duties as a citizen, I would be tempted not to give him his rights back.
     
  3. mwm70

    mwm70

    Oct 27, 2004
    Baltimore

    Absolutely.
     
  4. threshar

    threshar

    Jul 30, 2002
    They should at a bare minimum have to pay for their rescue.

    [bad word]ing idiots..
     
  5. jomahu

    jomahu

    Dec 15, 2004
    Bos, MA
    depends. were they able to leave?
     
  6. And a discussion of this type will accomplish......what?
     
  7. Well, I tried my best to qualify that with "ample time and resources", but I think there's a HUGE grey area with what I stated. I sort of expected that to become a side discussion because I'm sure everyone's definitions would vary.

    Mike
     
  8. Vince S.

    Vince S. Resident Former Bassist

    Jan 24, 2003
    Agree and disagree, depending on the circumstances. For those who have the means and resources to leave but choose to stay, then yes. As an emergency responder (EMT), it really boggles me when people do things that put themselves and others at risk despite plentiful warnings--for instance, in my hometown, there is a section of road that lies in a low area near a river bank. Every spring when it rains and the river floods and submerges the road in three plus feet of water, the town puts out signs and barricades blocking the road with warnings of the flood condition. And every year, a few people decide to move the barricades and try to drive through, only to have their car stall, sink, and end up getting rescued by the fire department. What really boggles me is when some of these individuals try to sue the town for "not properly warning them" (uh, those big wooden barricades and giant 'DANGER' signs are not warning enough?).

    But I digress; back to the original topic, those who have the means to get out and don't should be prosecuted. However, there are also the impoverished, the disabled, etc., who may not have the financial/physical/logistical resources to leave. The government does what it can, but a lot of times the poor end up getting passed over on the radar.
     
  9. mrokern

    mrokern TB's resident Rush freak

    Jul 20, 2007
    Minneapolis, MN
    It's a valid point. All the federal dollars given to those areas supporting rescue operations come from somewhere.

    When the authorities are bussing folks to shelters in other areas, why someone would stay :rollno: ...I own NOTHING that is worth my life, much less my family's lives. I've been through floods and tornadoes here in the midwest, and when those warnings or evac notices come through, all you're gonna see is my butt as it heads for safety with family in tow. Screw my possessions.

    -Mark
     
  10. Not sure. What is your comment supposed to accomplish? I didn't really have a goal when I posted it. I thought the discussion was very interesting and figured I'd share it with the site. Both sides were well-represented this morning. I expected the same here, hopefully without the bickering, but that might be asking too much.

    Mike
     
  11. welcome to the talkbass off-topic forum--where things get accomplished.


    anyways, I don't know about prosecution, but I like the idea of them paying for their rescue--if they had ample warning to get out of there and it's not like the area is new to this kind of threat. The child endangerment part i agree with though because an 8 year old can't really evacuate by himself/herself
     
  12. deggial

    deggial

    May 27, 2008
    Athens, Greece
    I do not consider prosecution as the right way to act on such matters, but I do think it would be fair that any persons ignoring an evacuation order should at least be requested to provide compensation for the resources spent in their rescue, as they caused an otherwise unnecessary and avoidable expense.
     
  13. Hoover

    Hoover Banned

    Nov 2, 2007
    New York City
    Don't make "Failure To Evacuate" a prosecutable offense, just make paying for their own rescue mandatory...and not just some arbitrary fine, but literally paying for the actual cost of the rescue: rescue workers' salaries, fuel & maintence on the 'copters, etc. Plus an arbitrary fine, what the hell...

    And then make forfeiting on that payment a prosecutable offense.
     
  14. Of course. You stay: you pay.
     
  15. SteveC

    SteveC Moderator Staff Member

    Nov 12, 2004
    North Dakota
    They should pay for their rescue, or if they choose to stay, they can deal with it. You make your bed, you lay in it.

    I went through a major flood 10 years ago, and when I was told to leave, I did.
     
  16. jomahu

    jomahu

    Dec 15, 2004
    Bos, MA
    if they had the resources to evacuate.
    asking poor people to pay for something they couldn't do in the first place and then prosecuting them when they can't pay (because they're POOR) is kinda an exercise in futility.
     
  17. BartmanPDX

    BartmanPDX Supporting Member

    If they had the means to evacuate and didn't, they should pay somehow.

    If they had a child with them, they should be prosecuted. It's one thing for a grown person to be an idiot and "roll the dice," and quite another for them to gamble with the lives of their children. The biggest part of being a parent or guardian is responsibility. Willfully ignoring dire warnings to evacuate in the face of a deadly situation is pretty much the definition of irresponsibility where children are concerned.
     
  18. sevenorchids

    sevenorchids Supporting Member

    I guess that they should pay. But, how do they compensate the family of the rescuer that dies trying to rescue them? That's the bigger issue.

    If people are given enough time to evacuate, and are provided the means by which to comply (buses, etc.), then not evacuating is exercising personal responsibility and comes with risk, up to and including death if you aren't lucky. They shouldn't EXPECT someone to rescue them, if they chose to stay there. They should understand that there is a real possibility that they will die (which is what the Weather Service was EXPLICITLY STATING in the warnings that surrounded Ike) and they are taking the responsibility for that choice.

    I do like the idea of the child endangerment charge. Children cannot evacuate themselves and PERSONAL responsibility does not include your children.
     
  19. +1

    We were talking about this at work this morning. It is absurd that if you are told to leave, and if you have ample time/ability to do so, but you decided you know better and then you need rescued you should pay. Why have others who are trying to rescue you have their lives in danger because you know better? :rollno:
     
  20. deggial

    deggial

    May 27, 2008
    Athens, Greece
    This is a valid point, but in that respect the real issue is in providing the means for evacuation, such as assigning public transporation vehicles to assist anyone without their own means of transportation.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.