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: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Shut off all your lights, tv's and radios. Close up your curtains with 'blackout' panels (or board your windows up). When they knock, don't make a sound. In fact, if they announce to evacuate, have a cardboard sign ready to put in you're front door that states:

"Home evacuated:
Boobie-trapped for looters.
Enter at your own risk!"

Once all the streets are quiet, resume normal but quiet life to see what actually happens. Have your artillery ready should they forcibly enter.

Have your webcam rolling at all times to capture footage for a live feed.




posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Don't forget the swine flu. This could very well be used to evacuate places under the guise of protecting people from the flu and getting them into camps or simply out of areas. Herding people into containment zones.




posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
There have been cases where people stayed behind to "ride out" the storm.

There have been cases where these people were killed.

If you want to stay behind when the cat 5 storm is approaching the piece of coast that you live on, then just don't answer the door if the police knock.

However, you might be a candidate for the next round of Darwin awards.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Oh I would like to see them TRY and make me leave my house!

*looks at .223 scoped rifle next to computer desk*

just TRY.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
The purpose is spelled out very clearly in Amaxium's post:


Sec. 418.185. MANDATORY EVACUATION...
  • (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.

(formatting and emphasis mine to improve clarity)
Source

This is not about police raids on towns just before a disaster hits; it's about money. If you stay behind in a hurricane and then the government has to come bail your butt out of trouble, expect to be charged for it. This is really similar to the law in CA that allows a person to be charged the cost of rescue because they were rescued. The mandatory evacuation part is necessary, otherwise it could be argued that someone was under no obligation to leave and therefore was not civilly liable for their rescue. this way, that argument is gone.

I have this sneaking feeling that the great state of Texas is starting to have some money concerns as well as many other states are having.

Also, I found this little tidbit concerning what a 'disaster' is a bit earlier in the bill:

SECTION 1.01. Section 418.004(1), Government Code, is amended to read as follows:
  • (1) "Disaster" means the occurrence or imminent threat of widespread or severe damage, injury, or loss of life or property resulting from any natural or man-made cause, including fire, flood, earthquake, wind, storm, wave action, oil spill or other water contamination, volcanic activity, epidemic, air contamination, blight, drought, infestation, explosion, riot, hostile military or paramilitary action, extreme heat, other public calamity requiring emergency action, or energy emergency.

(formatting and emphasis mine to improve clarity)
Same source

So it appears this is a bit hyped up as well. The language is not all that loose.

Insidious? I doubt it this time. Could it be used in the future for insidiousness? Possibly... but then again, I'm a conspiracist.


TheRedneck


[edit on 8/20/2009 by TheRedneck]



new topics

top topics
 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join