It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Miami shelters homeless against their will as Irma closes in

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: badw0lf

What?


Who?




posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Black_Fox

But the act isn't about being homeless. It's about being a danger to yourself or others.


Is it?

Cause one might think this could be applied for the rest of the year.
If you google or youtube Miami's approach to the homeless, and it's laws, you might think they could care less about the homeless.

And why wouldn't this apply to people who wont evacuate?
And refuse to leave their homes?

Aren't they "crazy" for staying and putting themselves in danger?

And wouldn't they need to be rescued?



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: chadderson



A man should be able to make decisions such as these, life and death included.

I agree but when I have to pay or physically clean up your dead body, well in that case I am going to exercise my free will and stop your dead body from being a future problem.


So it's not just homeless people then.

You're for locking up as patients, Anyone who refuses to evacuate.

Why is this being targeted towards one segment I wonder.... and not just a blanket "If you do not evacuate, you will be arrested and placed in mental care."

Strange...



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I say if you want to off yerself, who am I to intervene? I'm not responsible for your life, yet if something happens to you while I rescue you from your own short sightedness, I'm liable? No thanks...you're free to do as you see fit even if that means ending yourself...as long as you aint bugging no one else it's all you.

You are free to get wet with wind in your hair....if I offer to shelter you and you say no...your choice.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

There is nothing to refute. If the homeless wants to stay homeless during a hurricane and die, they should be allowed to.

You are attempting to create an argument out of your original statement "Let them die? Who would inform their families?" By which i replied with "The same families allowing them to be homeless?" ( a knock on how much they care about said street urchin )
edit on 9-9-2017 by chadderson because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Black_Fox

But the act isn't about being homeless. It's about being a danger to yourself or others.


“We’re going out and every single homeless person who is unwilling to come off the street, we are likely going to involuntarily Baker Act them,” said Ron Book, chairman of the Miami-Dade Homeless Trust

Ok, as long as we're going after everyone who refuses to evacuate. Oh wait.....



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Black_Fox

I think it should be applied to everyone all year round.

If you're a danger to yourself or others, there is something wrong that needs looked at.

And yes. If families are staying and it's a choice to stay and their building KNOWINGLY wouldn't stand up to the hurricane, I would say that's a danger to yourself and (if they have kids and/or dependants there too) others.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Yes, but it's not being applied that way.

That's the problem.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

And you'll wind up finding someone that doesn't want your intervention....and may wind up a dead body as well...then who cleans you up? Things don't always happen the way you want. Seen it happen numerous times. You think you're saving someone and then become a victim as well. If they aint asking you to stop em from being free to die or live as they wish, you both could end up dead.

Is what it is...you cannot control another human being, and sometimes good intentions don't always make the best decisions. Your government is famous for not learning that lesson.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: chadderson

But the families have to allow them to if they have freedom.

If they don't allow them to, it's not freedom.

So why should the families be responsible if they have no choice but allow them to be homeless because "freedom".



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Black_Fox
a reply to: TerryDon79

Yes, but it's not being applied that way.

That's the problem.



I think it should, in my opinion.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I agree with you.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Black_Fox

Thanks.

Thing is, it's always going to be a split decision. Some will be for it, some against it, some for a middle ground and so on.

Good thread though.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: chadderson

I think I misconstrued what you said earlier, just want to say I agree with you.






posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Nowhere did I claim families are responsible for their homeless urchin, yet you are trying to create an argument out of nothing.

Argument is over.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: chadderson
Just goes to show one is not "free" at all.

A man should be able to make decisions such as these, life and death included.

This mindset of "saving" the homeless for their own sake is the same one enabling the leeching from our welfare system.


Yeah.

It's called law and order.

Welcome to the 21st century.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: chadderson
Just goes to show one is not "free" at all.

A man should be able to make decisions such as these, life and death included.

This mindset of "saving" the homeless for their own sake is the same one enabling the leeching from our welfare system.


On the other hand, leaving the homeless outside during such a hurricane puts all the rescuers lives at risk.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Black_Fox

Under Florida law if the Governor declares a state of emergency he is able to enforce emergency rules and regulations. Ignoring a mandatory evacuation can be a crime however I dont think i have ever seen anyone charged for refusing to evacuate. The concept is to protect the public by knowing that a very large disaster is in progress and that emergency services will be unable to act.

The purpose of law enforcement is to protect society as a whole and not the individual. Remaining behind not only places that person / persons in danger but can place emergency services in danger if they are forced to deal with the people who remained behind.

I see both sides of it and am on the fence because of it. Looking at Texas and the number of people who remained because mandatory evacuations werent declared turned into a massive search and rescue operation.

Why risk it?

The baker act is a part of their mental health laws and all states have them. Trying to argue a person is a danger to themselves or others for refusing to leave, imo, is nowhere near the intent of the law in question and I doubt a court would uphold it being used in that fashion.

You issue a mandatory evacuation and then you hope for the best with those who didnt comply. If they die it cant be argued they werent warned.

Property can be replaced... lost lives cannot.
edit on 9-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: chadderson
Just goes to show one is not "free" at all.

A man should be able to make decisions such as these, life and death included.

This mindset of "saving" the homeless for their own sake is the same one enabling the leeching from our welfare system.


Yeah.

It's called law and order.


Welcome to the 21st century.






posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Black_Fox

They are saving these people's lives, it show's that at least someone still recognized them as fellow human being's and cares enough about them to do something.

People are homeless for many reason's but those include poverty and of course mental health, even if they started sane most people forced to live on the street snap at some point - there is one thing about being a fellow human being and another when so many treat them as dirt and those that do so are actually the morally deficient one's whom in an ideal world ARE the one that should be on the street simply because they lack human empathy at least until they learn what it is actually like to be in a hole from which there seem's no escape.

To be fair there should be managed community's, if necessary like little town's with specific law's and strong enforcement were these people could be rehoused and educated, given job's and reintroduced into society.
But these should be a last resort, in such special community's mental health could be properly identified and treated, low intelligence could also be addressed and other issues which should be catered for in time's of such crisis by any CARING state.
In the real world though there are just too many that do not give a monkey's behind what happen's to these poor soul's.

In this case there is someone that care's and even a law that is rightly being used in a time of severe danger to keep them safe and alive and that is commendable to say the least.




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join