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.

 

Legal consequences of not heeding a mandatory evacuation?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   
As it currently stands, there do not seem to be any legal consequences associated with failing to follow a mandatory evacuation order, such as this most recent situation with Hurricane Ike.

If a mandatory evacuation order is accompanied by a well-conceived and executed evacuation plan, should there be penalties for not heeding the order? What penalties should be considered?

I've read in other threads that those who stay behind and then need to be rescued should be given some sort of bill for the rescue. Having likely just lost everything they possess in the storm, is this fair?

What if they stay behind and make it through without needing any assistance? Can those who stay behind be cited, perhaps charged and fined? Is that going too far? Not far enough?

Should it remain the individual's choice or should the authorities be able to make such an intrusive step?

Is this a matter of public safety or individual freedom?




posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Well i think people should have the choice to stay behind ( as long as they do not endanger other people like children). I for one do not like the idea of a world were governments can force us to move to were ever they like. I know it seems small and insignificant but the more power we give these people the more they will take.
Flag from me.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Elemensa
 


I agree that it sets a dangerous precedent if we allow the government to move us around at will.

At the same time, can't these people be said to be endangering those who have to rescue them?

Also, if we agree that staying behind in a mandatory evacuation zone with children is irresponible, is it worthy of actual charges being filed? IOW, is it legally negligent?



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   
I am getting really sick of EVERYTHING being "omg omg the children".

No matter what concept comes up now, whether they want to ban something, or simply take away rights from others. Not to mention, "OMG SAVE THE CHILDREN" being used as a way to force the government into innocent peoples' households.

Personal responsibility to every parent, to make the choices for themselves and their family should rest on THEM alone.
Just because you think Sponge Bob is making your kids gay, doesnt mean you should ban it so mine cannot watch it.

As far as this topic, no I don't think anyone should be held accountable in any way if they choose to go against a government order. If someone decides to put themselves in danger, this is their own choice. Even if it is "certain" death, and the person does not die. The government should not then, in disappointment that they survived, turn around and FINE them.

Maybe we should ban swimming at the beach, since people can drown or be eaten by sharks. Perhaps we should make it criminal for people to eat deep fried foods since it can give them a heart attack.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by LostNemesis
 


I agree with you that the choice should remain with the individual. I'm just curious where others stand on the issue.

Do you think we might see people beginning to face consequences in the future?

If not legal consequences, then perhaps related to insurance?

For instance, if you're bodily injured or even killed while staying against a mandatory evacuation, will we start to see insurance companies sneaking out of payments or something similar?



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
There should be no mandatory evacuations. But if people don't heed the warnings, they should be left to die. No one should be risking their lives to save a few idiots who had prior warning yet decided to stay.

As for the children of aforementioned idiots, they should be taken away by child services for the duration of the storm and then returned after it passes (assuming there's anyone to return them to).

Lots of gray area on this one.



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join