It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Edumakated
originally posted by: KansasGirl
I thought about this myself yesterday when I read a quote from a sheriff in one of the towns in the bullseye. He said "We are not going to put our personell in harm's way for people who didn't get out when they had the chance."
Which brought up conflicting states of mind for me. One the one hand, yeah, why should some little girl possibly not see her daddy that night, because he was sent in to rescue someone who didn't evacuate, and he perished trying to help them?
On the other hand, well what are taxpayers paying them for, then, if not emergencies? And did those people not choose their profession, knowing the risks?
What about house fires that start because someone falls asleep with a lit cigarette? Do we not send in firefighters because obviously that person ignored the warnings not to smoke in bed?
Put it this way... lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine. The issue with things like hurricanes is that people are given prior warning. In addition, it is a huge burden to public services to try to rescue folks during/after a hurricane when an entire town is screwed up.
House fires aren't really an apples to apples comparison. Rescuing someone, even if it is their own fault, isn't a huge burden when there is nothing else really going on. On the other hand, if a town has been devastated, rescuing someone who really shouldn't have needed rescuing in the first place is a burden.