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.

 

New MANDATORY Evacuation Law - Effective Sept 1 2009

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Starting September 1st, 2009, it will be ILLEGAL in the state of Texas to refuse evacuation orders directed to you by your local authorities.
If you refuse to abide by a mandatory evacuation order the police will be able to ARREST you.

This law gives county judges and mayors the power to authorize the use of "reasonable force" in order to remove (otherwise LAW ABIDING) citizens from whichever area is deemed "dangerous".



And yes it can be used in any type of "disaster" or "emergency".

The fall is fast approaching. Are you ready yet?



one comment I agree with on the video

"reasonable force", "Impending danger" lovely vague vocabulary which can be used for well anything...

What's impending danger? Some cop coming to your house with a gun to kick you out maybe?

What's reasonable force? A swat team? An armoured car?

Exactly my thoughts.


[edit on 19-8-2009 by warrenb]




posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Not exactly new news but for anyone want to read the bill itself, here it is.

HB 1831


SECTION 1.15. Section 418.172(b), Government Code, is
amended to read as follows:
(b) If sufficient funds are not available for the required
insurance, an agency may request funding from [petition] the
disaster contingency fund [emergency funding board] to purchase the
insurance [on the agency's behalf. The board may spend money from
that fund for that purpose].
SECTION 1.16. Subchapter H, Chapter 418, Government Code,
is amended by adding Sections 418.185, 418.186, 418.188, 418.1881,
418.1882, 418.190, and 418.191 to read as follows:
Sec. 418.185. MANDATORY EVACUATION. (a) This section does
not apply to a person who is authorized to be in an evacuated area,
including a person who returns to the area under a phased reentry
plan or credentialing process under Section 418.050.
(b) A county judge or mayor of a municipality who orders the
evacuation of an area stricken or threatened by a disaster by order
may compel persons who remain in the evacuated area to leave and
authorize the use of reasonable force to remove persons from the
area.
(c) The governor and a county judge or mayor of a
municipality who orders the evacuation of an area stricken or
threatened by a disaster by a concurrent order may compel persons
who remain in the evacuated area to leave.
(d) A person is civilly liable to a governmental entity, or
a nonprofit agency cooperating with a governmental entity, that
conducts a rescue on the person's behalf for the cost of the rescue
effort if:
(1) the person knowingly ignored a mandatory
evacuation order under this section and:
(A) engaged in an activity or course of action
that a reasonable person would not have engaged in; or
(B) failed to take a course of action a
reasonable person would have taken;
(2) the person's actions under Subdivision (1) placed
the person or another person in danger; and
(3) a governmental rescue effort was undertaken on the
person's behalf.
(e) An officer or employee of the state or a political
subdivision who issues or is working to carry out a mandatory
evacuation order under this section is immune from civil liability
for any act or omission within the course and scope of the person's
authority under the order.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Odd that this is happening in Texas. Really, this isn't something that I would expect to come from there. Very odd.

Thanks for posting the bill up by the way.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Imagine how worried any law enforcement official would be if they had to carry out this law. Remember, all us Texans are given a 6 shooter when we are born, accumulate even more as we grow up, and have a semi full of ammunition also.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaxium
 


Yeah I know, right
. That's probably the point of it, so they can take all the Texans' weapons while they are gone



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Credge
 


A bunch of weird bills were pushed through last session. Fortunately, HB 1440 was overturned. I haven't heard of this bill. It should be overturned or otherwise amended. The ACLU has its work cut out. The bill obviously does not apply to arrogant powerful men.



[edit on 19-8-2009 by eradown]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Hmmm... I have a question... If somebody in Texas refuses to leave during a mandatory evacuation and they arrest you, then what? Do they stick you in the local jail in the midst of the natural disaster, while everybody else evacuates the town? Or do they just give you an inter-state ride in the back of a cop car and just dump you off where they get a chance? Or, do they just putt you in cuffs and leave you in the car the whole time, until it is safe to return, and bring you all the way back, effectively being your natural-disaster-chauffeur, except forcing you along for the ride?



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Credge
 


Don't hurricanes wind up bashing Texan's when they make landfall?

Could be preventative medicine? It could be more to curb the cost of rescuing people that didn't leave and ended up in a bad situation. IMO But sadly, I can't say more because I can't watch the video at work.




posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by LetTheTruthBeTold
 


That's what the detention camps are for...

National Guard asked to explain 'internment' jobs
www.abovetopsecret.com...

yep, scary stuff




posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Epic fail for Texas.


I foresee them having alot of problems pulling this one off.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
What if people do not have the money or resources to leave? In Hurricane Katrina many of the poor stayed or went to the superdome due to no money or car.
Do they provide transportation to any emergency shelter of some sort. In hurricane Katrina they did not have buses to pick people and take them to a safer area. Do they really want people wandering around in the midst of a diaster?
If they ordered me to evcuate I may not have a lot of gas in my car or money to go anywhere. How can they punish people for simply being poor? I say it is up to each indivual to decide whether to stay or go. It would be one thing if the area is unsafe then transportation needs to be porvided and a safe shelter. Maybe a church or a school.
Many people have rode out hurricanes and made it through. I know here in missouri we don't evucuate for tornados or severe storms we just ride them out. I know a hurricane is worse but some of our storms could be the eqivulant of a category 2 hurricane.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Demoncreeper
 


Yes, but to force evacuations is pretty absurd.

I can sort of understand if the bill stated SPECIFICALLY that it was hurricanes... but it just said disasters. What is a disaster? It's loose language like that that is dangerous.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
So, they can only use "reasonable" force. What if I use "overwhelming" force to resist? Do I win?

A battering ram and assault team seem unreasonable, so if I refuse to open my doors and come out, and if I threaten violence to anybody who "breaks" in, then they don't have the authority to do anything!

The bill only provides "civil" penalties for reimbursement of damages or rescue efforts, so as long as I don't loot, or call for a rescue, I can resist evacuation effectively?!?

It sounds good, but I have a feeling that they would use excessive force in response to my unreasonable resistance, and we would all wind up hurt, dead, or in court for years!!



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Credge
reply to post by Demoncreeper
 


Yes, but to force evacuations is pretty absurd.

I can sort of understand if the bill stated SPECIFICALLY that it was hurricanes... but it just said disasters. What is a disaster? It's loose language like that that is dangerous.


Well, "disaster" really isn't loose language. The word has a pretty specific definition.

"A disaster is the tragedy of a natural or human-made hazard (a hazard is a situation which poses a level of threat to life, health, property, or environment) that negatively affects society or environment."
wikipedia.

I for one, wouldn't want to be caught in one. If they say I MUST leave, then BYE.

And to getreadyalready:

Reasonable force basically means they can use varying levels of force to effect their cause. It is adaptable to the amount of "resistance" given. As long as it is reasonable. Leaving that decision to certain HUMANS in a situation like that, is scarier than the order to actually leave. haha.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Demoncreeper]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Demoncreeper
 


I agree and that is why the term "reasonable" is worthless. Reasonable changes as the situation escalates!

For the subject of the Bill, the term "Disaster" would have to be a formal declaration by the Governor, President, or other entity. It is not up for interpretation. Sometimes they declare a "disaster area" prior to a storm so that certain emergency precautions can be enacted and funds made available. Sometimes they issue it after the fact, as in the case of a chemical spill or earthquake.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I am philosophically opposed to these kind of laws, but I certainly understand why they are in existence. I do think the government should provide evacuation services if they're going to make people evacuate.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I am philosophically opposed to these kind of laws, but I certainly understand why they are in existence. I do think the government should provide evacuation services if they're going to make people evacuate.


I agree, and I feel that if someone refuses an evacuation order, then they do not deserve to be rescued later. That seems par for the course. I probably would not evacuate in 99% of cases, but I would never expect others to risk their lives coming back for me either!

Personal experience:
My brother moved out of a bayfront home in Pensacola 3 weeks before a major hurricane in 2005. He told me that he would never have evacuated for any regular storm. The home was masonary, and there was a very safe room toward the rear of the home.

After the storm passed, we went to see the home, the entire rear was gone (including the 'safe' room). The water marks were 5-7 ft up the walls! There is no way somebody in that house would have survived the storm!



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Demoncreeper
 


I agree and that is why the term "reasonable" is worthless. Reasonable changes as the situation escalates!

For the subject of the Bill, the term "Disaster" would have to be a formal declaration by the Governor, President, or other entity. It is not up for interpretation. Sometimes they declare a "disaster area" prior to a storm so that certain emergency precautions can be enacted and funds made available. Sometimes they issue it after the fact, as in the case of a chemical spill or earthquake.


This is true.


But I do think "reasonable" is a very safe term. If I'm governed to use "reasonable" force, and you resist by not walking...I'd have to drag you. That would be reasonable. But, If I shot you in the arm to convince you, or better yet, tased you ...that would be unreasonable an adversely effecting my cause.. Mainly, because I'm supposed to be helping you. (in an evacuation situation)

In a perfect world, I should be held accountable for my unreasonable use of force.

But we are not perfect, and there will always be a downside to most stuff. As long as they let us see the good side too, we should be ok, no? haha.

I agree that all these rules could be used for "bad stuff" as well. haha.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready


I agree, and I feel that if someone refuses an evacuation order, then they do not deserve to be rescued later. That seems par for the course. I probably would not evacuate in 99% of cases, but I would never expect others to risk their lives coming back for me either!

Personal experience:
My brother moved out of a bayfront home in Pensacola 3 weeks before a major hurricane in 2005. He told me that he would never have evacuated for any regular storm. The home was masonary, and there was a very safe room toward the rear of the home.

After the storm passed, we went to see the home, the entire rear was gone (including the 'safe' room). The water marks were 5-7 ft up the walls! There is no way somebody in that house would have survived the storm!


Whoa, lucky then!

I do disagree on people not deserving rescue. Yeah, they were stupid enough to stay, but ...they are still a person. And their refusal to leave could have been any fellow ATS er, that was exercising their opinion that the law is bunk.
Definitely needing some rescue.
haha.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamseeker
 


It would be best for the poor to drive and sleep at rest stops. The New Orleans people would have been better off leaving even if it meant walking out. After the storm hit they were at the complete mercy of FEMA. It is probably not the poor people who will fight this though. Some guy with several gold bars in a safe and a survival stash will try to fight this. Usually, the cops do not have time to go door to door in the case of a real disaster.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join