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. Don't prosecute them, but definitely require them to pay for the rescue. And if they had a child with them, then charge them with child endangerment.
     
  2. I wonder how many here have actually been through an evacuation...
    Anyway, both Bolivar Peninsula and Galveston aren't exactly the wealthiest areas, I think a lot of people just don't have the money to spend weeks, maybe a month in a motel...Then, probably a lot of people thought it's "only a category 2", we can make it through.

    So I am against the idea of making them pay, heck most of those in that area have enough damages already, which they would have had whether they left or not.
     
  3. Benjamin Strange

    Benjamin Strange Commercial User

    Dec 25, 2002
    New Orleans, LA
    Owner / Tech: Strange Guitarworks
    Come on, man. We are saving the world with every thread on TB.

    I don't think they should be prosecuted, no. But I'm not sure if they should be rescued, either. Survival of the fittest, yo.
     
  4. MonetBass

    MonetBass ♪ Just listen ♫ Supporting Member

    Sep 15, 2006
    Tulsa, OK
    +1. Prosecuting these people would be on par with kicking a guy in the nuts after he's been executed for murder (pointless, in other words). They've already been punished IMO.
     
  5. jomahu

    jomahu

    Dec 15, 2004
    Bos, MA
    and...sig'd!
     
  6. mwm70

    mwm70

    Oct 27, 2004
    Baltimore
    The problem is, a mandatory evacuation is not mandatory. If you decide to stay under a mandatory evacuation you should be COMPLETELY on your own. No rescue, no help until it is safe for rehabitation. By continuing to go back in to get those that natural selection would remove, we continue to perpetuate this problem.
     
  7. spencer

    spencer Guest

    Feb 22, 2006
    no, if you had to sit in 5 hours of traffic to go 30 miles for the storm to have had no effect on where you live, time after time.. You Woud understand why people stay.. It's like saying you should be taxed more if you live anywhere they have natural disasters to help pay for the workers expenses... The national guard is already there, and there already flying around, how much extra does it cost to pick somebody out of water? And as for endageding their life, it's part of their job, but what makes it more dangerous than any other duties they preform
     
  8. ZonGuy

    ZonGuy

    Sep 2, 2007
    OK, I am north of Houston and digging out. My thoughts:

    The folks had 3-4 days warning. The I-45 hwy north from Galveston was open and flowing. The evacuation buses were made available. Everybody that wanted to leave, got out. Those that stayed behind were stupid. Plain stupid.

    I think next time, the government ought to establish a policy well in advance that

    a) The authorities will control looting and putting out fires;

    b) The authorities will not rescue or provide emergency services including food, water and ice to those in the areas that should have been evacuated until well after the all clear has been established.
     
  9. ZonGuy

    ZonGuy

    Sep 2, 2007

    There was no traffic getting out.

    And it cost's a lot to pick a person out of the water, especially by helicopter. What the national guard should be doing is preventing looting. If they are out rescuing people, they can't stop looters. So more folks stay behind to protect their stuff.
     
  10. L-A

    L-A

    Jul 17, 2008
    Eh?
    Never mind the fact that the price you pay for the land there is lowered by the probabilities of natural disasters?
     
  11. PSPookie

    PSPookie

    Aug 13, 2006
    Lubbock, TX
    Make them pay for their own rescue and persecute them, but don't prosecute them.

    We already had to pay for their rescue, why on earth would we want to have to pay for a trial and incarceration?
     
  12. mjolnir

    mjolnir Thor's Hammer 2.1.3beta

    Jun 15, 2006
    Houston, TX
    I think you underestimate the foolishness of the some 24,000 people who chose not to evacuate Galveston when asked to do so. Here's a good example:

    There was a man who had the means and the time to evacuate safely, yet chose to not only remain, but to advertise that he was going to plant his ass right on the sea wall and face Ike head on. Now, I'm not suggesting all 24,000 people are anywhere near that stupid, but I'm sure they had at least part of his mentality in one form or another. If they hunker down despite the warnings expecting nothing to happen and end up having to be choppered out of there because of their own foolishness, I don't see a fine as being entirely unreasonable.
     
  13. mjolnir

    mjolnir Thor's Hammer 2.1.3beta

    Jun 15, 2006
    Houston, TX
    I see you've adequately read up on Rita a few years back, but Ike was a whole different situation. Yes, I understand some Galveston residents would have probably been skeptical about the severity of Ike, possibly hoping it would turn at the last minute just like Rita did, but it didn't, and the storm swells were being reported almost an entire day before Ike actually hit. The roads were clear. I45, the main highway heading out of Galveston and into Houston, was practically empty Friday.
     
  14. MakiSupaStar

    MakiSupaStar The Lowdown Diggler

    Apr 12, 2006
    Huntington Beach, CA
    This is what I deal with every day as a lifeguard. We have a rule of three at our beach. If we talk to you three times about doing the same thing, you're ejected from the beach. Perhaps we should do implement this with people that get in trouble. If they stay behind and nothing happens to them, then that's ok, but if are spoken to, refuse to listen, then they should be charged for the services. Still, on the other hand, these people are job security. ;)
     
  15. Whaa..? Give even MORE power to already abusive and arrongant law enforcement agencies? I should think that would be a huge, costly mistake.. Seems more and more things are becoming "illegal" not to mention infractions that were once considered 'minor' are being upgraded into felonies.. what is the point of going in that direction?
     
  16. L-A

    L-A

    Jul 17, 2008
    Eh?
    The "abusive arrongant" agency could let you drown, instead.

    It's not an infraction to anyone who stays, that we're talking of. It's the principle of paying if you need to be rescued after ignoring an order that would have spared such a need.
     
  17. Chriss62

    Chriss62

    Jul 24, 2000
    Austin, Texas
    Citations all around!

    Seriously though, some people are stubborn and stupid.
     
  18. DeaconK

    DeaconK

    Nov 17, 2006
    I have been in Search and Resuce operations and have family members currently involved in Galveston. My opinion is that when a "Mandatory Evacuation" order is given, after a certain amount of time passes that allows everyone that is able, to evaucate under their own power, or make use of those resources that will assist with evacuation, those that chose not to evacuate be placed under arrest and evaucated forcibly.
     
  19. john turner

    john turner You don't want to do that. Trust me. Staff Member

    Mar 14, 2000
    atlanta ga
    if not prosecute, at the very least bill them for the efforts.
     
  20. SpankyPants

    SpankyPants That's Mr. SpankyPants to you.

    Aug 24, 2006
    Brooklyn, NY
    After seeing the billions of buses provided for Ike... and considering the amount of people that stayed... Yes.

    If they were not able to go, then they probably won't be convicted.
     

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.