Should Mandatory Evacuations be Legal?

[Angel!]

Not sure who is following the Waldo Canyon Fire, but at yesterday's 4 PM press conference there was a very irate individual. He was claiming that state law forbids the City from creating mandatory evac zones & that he should be allowed back in his home.

Honestly I don't know about the details regarding the laws, but it created quite a few conversations around here regarding whether or not the govt should be allowed to keep you from your home.

Just curious how others feel about the issue.

[Abby Normal]

He should be allowed to stay if that is what he really wants. However, no one should have to go get him if he changes his mind or ends up in danger.

[thyme4change]

Watching all those dumbass people who refused to evacuate when Katrina was coming, and the amount of risk, effort and expense that was spent to help them - yes, they should be mandatory.

[wodehouse]

In one sense this parallels mandatory health insurance. Both mandatory evacuation and mandatory health insurance may impinge on individual's rights. But on the other hand both protect everyone else from the risks that some individuals care to bear. In the fire zone we don't want to risk personnels' lives, and equipment and material, trying to rescue some old coot who wants to stay in his home. In the case of insurance we are protecting the general society from having to pick up the costs of uninsured peoples' care when they drop by the hospital emergency room for care.

[souldoubt]

I agree with agilemom but the problem with allowing someone to stay is that sooner or later there will be lawsuits. Example - guy says leave me be and they do, he ends up dead and his family sues. Or suddently the guy is on his roof waving for help because he realizes he's screwed and then lives are risked and it costs more money to get him out which taxpayers end up paying. I think in some cases you actually have to listen to the government and this would be one of them.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Yes they should be mandatory and if you want to stay then no one comes and helps your sorry ass. We had people cost the state MILLIONS when they refused to evacuate due to the Missouri flooding. The state finally told them you get only so many warnings and if you don't leave we aren't coming to rescue you. It was costing a ton and putting rescue workers in danger.

[Abby Normal]

Jun 29, 2012 10:54:14 GMT -5 souldoubt said:

I agree with agilemom but the problem with allowing someone to stay is that sooner or later there will be lawsuits. Example - guy says leave me be and they do, he ends up dead and his family sues. Or suddently the guy is on his roof waving for help because he realizes he's screwed and then lives are risked and it costs more money to get him out which taxpayers end up paying. I think in some cases you actually have to listen to the government and this would be one of them.

To me as soon as a mandatory vacuation is issued, if someone chooses to stay- they waive all their rights. No rescue, no lawsuits - nothing.

You can choose to stay, but accept the consequensces. But I could see where the family would say "but crazy uncle bob wasn't fit to make that decision".

[Deleted]

Jun 29, 2012 10:50:41 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Watching all those dumbass people who refused to evacuate when Katrina was coming, and the amount of risk, effort and expense that was spent to help them - yes, they should be mandatory.

x 100

[movingforward]

"You can choose to stay, but accept the consequensces. But I could see where the family would say "but crazy uncle bob wasn't fit to make that decision".

That's why I think it should be mandatory. I have heard some older people who refuse to leave say "they have been through this before and know what they are doing." Somebody just needs to get them the hell out of there because sometimes they truly don't understand.

[Deleted]

What happens if someone in a mandatory evacuation doesn't?

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Jun 29, 2012 11:19:38 GMT -5 @moneyjenny82 said:

Jun 29, 2012 10:50:41 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Watching all those dumbass people who refused to evacuate when Katrina was coming, and the amount of risk, effort and expense that was spent to help them - yes, they should be mandatory.

x 100

People who choose to stay are putting the lives of the firefighters and policemen and Guardsmen at risk.

There was one woman who died here in the No. Colorado fire last month, and that was because she chose to stay with her home. That's fine, but she also risked the life of a sherrif's deputy who was sent to try to get her out when the fire was reaching her home. He was literally chased off of her property by the flames that were consuming her home. So, it's not just about the folks who want to stay behind, but also about the people who will be forced to try to make their decision work.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Jun 29, 2012 11:28:00 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

What happens if someone in a mandatory evacuation doesn't?

During the fire here, people were told that if they chose to stay in the evac zone, they would be allowed to do so. But if they left, they would not be allowed back in past the Natl Guard roadblocks. The county made formal notations about anyone who chose to stay for posterity.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Jun 29, 2012 10:57:39 GMT -5 Abby Normal said:

Jun 29, 2012 10:54:14 GMT -5 souldoubt said:

I agree with agilemom but the problem with allowing someone to stay is that sooner or later there will be lawsuits. Example - guy says leave me be and they do, he ends up dead and his family sues. Or suddently the guy is on his roof waving for help because he realizes he's screwed and then lives are risked and it costs more money to get him out which taxpayers end up paying. I think in some cases you actually have to listen to the government and this would be one of them.

To me as soon as a mandatory vacuation is issued, if someone chooses to stay- they waive all their rights. No rescue, no lawsuits - nothing.

The problem is putting that into practice. First, firefighters and policemen and volunteers are going to try to save lives, regardless of that stance. They are there to save lives, and it's human instinct to do what they can.

Secondly, who would want the horrible PR from a bunch of firefighters standing around a home in an evacuation area while the guy inside died? I don't think the public is going to react well even if they're told the guy waived his right to rescue. It's a PR nightmare when that happens because people chose not to pay a fire protection area assessment and then their house catches on fire. It's a legal, defensible process, but it doesn't go over well with our general sense of morality.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

What happens if someone in a mandatory evacuation doesn't?

State pretty much told them they were on their own, there is a reason we're telling you to evacuate now.

[thyme4change]

What happens if someone in a mandatory evacuation doesn't?

We should shoot them, and then charge them for the bullet.

[Deleted]

So they aren't really mandatory then?

[swamp]

Jun 29, 2012 11:34:49 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

What happens if someone in a mandatory evacuation doesn't?

We should shoot them, and then charge them for the bullet.

Don't forget to charge him for the cost of the person who does the shooting.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Jun 29, 2012 11:34:52 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

So they aren't really mandatory then?

No, only going back in was disallowed.

Interestingly, the county tried to help mitigate people's reasons to stay behind by making arrangements for the Humane Society to go into evac zones when it was relatively safe and care for livestock and/or retrieve pets left behind. They really do try to do all they can to help people make the smart decision, but they wouldn't force anyone out by gunpoint.

[Deleted]

Jun 29, 2012 11:35:57 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jun 29, 2012 11:34:49 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

We should shoot them, and then charge them for the bullet.

Don't forget to charge him for the cost of the person who does the shooting.

and to charge for the time needed to do the billing for the charging on the bullet and the cost of the person.

[thyme4change]

Don't forget to charge him for the cost of the person who does the shooting.

and to charge for the time needed to do the billing for the charging on the bullet and the cost of the person.

As a tax payer, I will happily shoulder those costs.

[alabamagal]

Jun 29, 2012 10:57:39 GMT -5 Abby Normal said:

Jun 29, 2012 10:54:14 GMT -5 souldoubt said:

I agree with agilemom but the problem with allowing someone to stay is that sooner or later there will be lawsuits. Example - guy says leave me be and they do, he ends up dead and his family sues. Or suddently the guy is on his roof waving for help because he realizes he's screwed and then lives are risked and it costs more money to get him out which taxpayers end up paying. I think in some cases you actually have to listen to the government and this would be one of them.

To me as soon as a mandatory vacuation is issued, if someone chooses to stay- they waive all their rights. No rescue, no lawsuits - nothing.

You can choose to stay, but accept the consequensces. But I could see where the family would say "but crazy uncle bob wasn't fit to make that decision".

Yes! I also think that anyone who dies by disobeying evacuation or other orders should not be counted in the death toll.

For instance, the tropical storm before the most recent one, they reported there was one death. It is a guy who was swimming at the beach when there was a no swimming order. His death was due to stupidity, not due to the storm!

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Jun 29, 2012 11:37:15 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Jun 29, 2012 11:35:57 GMT -5 swamp said:

Don't forget to charge him for the cost of the person who does the shooting.

and to charge for the time needed to do the billing for the charging on the bullet and the cost of the person.

Depending on the accuracy of the shooter, we may need to charge the family for the bullet. So we should make sure to get next of kin info before firing.

[movingforward]

Slightly OT - but there is always some idiot here in TX that decides they are going to drive their big ass truck or SUV through a clearly marked flood zone. We don't get a ton of rain but when we do we flood easily. Every time you hear on the news that either someone had to be rescued or died because their vehicle was swept away.
Crazy ass fools

[973beachbum]

Jun 29, 2012 10:48:04 GMT -5 Abby Normal said:

He should be allowed to stay if that is what he really wants. However, no one should have to go get him if he changes his mind or ends up in danger.

About a year ago when Hurricane Irene came through I was in a mandatory evacuation zone. State Troopers came door to door and told us individually just about what you said. They really wanted no one left in the zone. They also made it clear that NO ONE was going to come help us if we realized too late that it wasn't safe. They then went over the top and told us that if we stayed that they had toe tags for everyone that they wanted us to wear so they could identify our bodies later.

I actually did evacuate like I had planned. The ironic part was that I went three hours away to No Jersey so I was out of the "evacuation zone". Irene totally missed my entire county but crushed where I had gone.

[Abby Normal]

Jun 29, 2012 11:41:11 GMT -5 alabamagal said:

For instance, the tropical storm before the most recent one, they reported there was one death. It is a guy who was swimming at the beach when there was a no swimming order. His death was due to stupidity, not due to the storm!

My idiot cousin live in Gaveston. A few years back, she decided to ride out the hurricane and ignore the evacuation (hence the reason I call her idiot). The storm was massive ( I can't remeber which one it was) Thankfully, her and her family survived but she said it was terrifing and it nearly tore her house appart. She now evacuates when they issue the warnings.

[movingforward]

Jun 29, 2012 12:01:42 GMT -5 Abby Normal said:

Jun 29, 2012 11:41:11 GMT -5 alabamagal said:

For instance, the tropical storm before the most recent one, they reported there was one death. It is a guy who was swimming at the beach when there was a no swimming order. His death was due to stupidity, not due to the storm!

My idiot cousin live in Gaveston. A few years back, she decided to ride out the hurricane and ignore the evacuation (hence the reason I call her idiot). The storm was massive ( I can't remeber which one it was) Thankfully, her and her family survived but she said it was terrifing and it nearly tore her house appart. She now evacuates when they issue the warnings.

I am very familiar with Galveston. I can't believe she would elect to stay there. I can't remember the name of the storm either but I remember it was destructive. My job requires me to work with several hotels around the state and there was serious damage to most of them in the Galveston area.

ETA: I wouldn't have a problem evacuating if someone told me I needed to. I don't understand these people that refuse to leave.

[Abby Normal]

Jun 29, 2012 12:05:47 GMT -5 movingforward said:

I am very familiar with Galveston. I can't believe she would elect to stay there. I can't remember the name of the storm either but I remember it was destructive. My job requires me to work with several hotels around the state and there was serious damage to most of them in the Galveston area.

ETA: I wouldn't have a problem evacuating if someone told me I needed to. I don't understand these people that refuse to leave.

The thing that irratated me most- was she stayed with her kids. It's one thing to be stupid with your own life.. but keeping your kids there....

[Sum Dum Gai]

Slightly OT - but there is always some idiot here in TX that decides they are going to drive their big ass truck or SUV through a clearly marked flood zone. We don't get a ton of rain but when we do we flood easily. Every time you hear on the news that either someone had to be rescued or died because their vehicle was swept away.
Crazy ass fools

That was a big problem in Arizona too, so they passed the idiot law (I don't know the actual name, but that's the nickname it got). It basically says that if you drive past one of those signs that says don't enter when flooded, you have to foot the entire bill for the rescue operation when they try to fish your stupid ass out downstream. Rescue personnel and equipment ain't cheap by the way. You're easily looking at $50-100k if they have to call out a chopper and whatnot.

[GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl]

Maybe they need to phrase like NJ Governor Chris Christie did last year before Irene: "get your asses of the beach(out of the canyon, out of the neighborhood, etc.) because we are NOT coming in to rescue you".

I'm not a fan of Christie, but he certainly speaks well.

[zibazinski]

In Florida they won't rescue you if you stay. They tell you they won't. They don't. Good thing for all concerned. In some states if you hike or climb where you aren't supposed to, they charge you for the rescue.