Arresting People Who Stay to Protect Their Property During Disaster

Artesticle - why wouldn't your old ID work?

 

San Diego, 2007

 

Bnb, I did not know you had to be a libertarian to disagree with a law.
Also, if you don't think the way they are doing it now and on top of that they will arrest you if you don't follow is a disaster in itself, you are off your rocker.

Rimrocker, those are nice pictures. I am first assumming you worked that, planned the evacuations, and arrested any who didn't follow. Then I am gonna assume this was just the start of it and it got much worse. Then I am gonna assume that all those fires started and spread all at once instantly with only one or days to get everyone out. Then I am gonna assume that everyone in the whole town including those in the safe zones, shelters, along with those in the early ME you show here, along with several counties around it were all Mandatory Evacuated. I am assuming that your leave or be arrested plan got everyone in SanDiego and all surrounding counties safely out in a day or 2 and everyone was not evacted into another much worse fire. Because that is how Hurricane evacs go.
Bravo sir, you are the end all, be all on this subject and I shall not question you anymore and I will blindly follow you like the rest.
You know that is not the case and it is nothing like a hurricane evacuation. You being the great prophet on this whole subject is like having an electrician repair the motor on my airplane before takeoff and then telling the pilot how to fly, and the best route to take down the runway, while making the descision that everyone has to stay on the airplane. I would would much rather have an avionics mechanic fix it, let the pilot do the flying, while the flight planners plan, and I decide if I am staying on or getting off. At the end of the day, is that not the way it should be?

 

The SoCal fires in 2007 are important not just because of the numbers. but because in 2003 there were fires of similar magnitude and complexity. From the lessons learned on the 2003 fires, the 2007 fires were managed more effectively with much more information provided to the public about strategic and tactical decisions, as well as evac and re-entry timelines.

 

I have a better idea. When a storm like that is on the way, they should declare martial law and call the national guard.

THAT would be a police state.

Stop being such a drama queen.

 

Except Gatest wasn't arrested on a burglary charge but for not following the orders of an officer.

 

Except I didn't say "forest fire" I said "wildfires". You talk about personal experience well I personally experienced the 1991 Oakland hills wildfire that took place in a populuated urban area.

To your rather childish explanation. I fully understand the dangers of evacuation. If you read through my post you will see I agree there are dangers of an evacuation. That said there are very real risk to not evacuating that put both residents and rescuers in far greater danger. That is the case in a wildfire, flood or hurricane where you can predict to some extent the direction of where the disaster is going.

 

Rocketsjudoka and Rimrocker, I can admit there is danger in all disasters. I would be a fool not too, but I keep hearing the same thing over and over, "you are putting the rescue workers in danger." While this is very mildly true, lets look at it from a realistic perspective and figure out who is really putting who in danger with this new law, Since it is so easy for you to just look over the fact they were not rescueing anyone during the hurricane as I have pointed out.

Lets compare the numbers from all the recent hurricanes in Texas and even throw in Katrina and Gustav to just Rita's evacuation deaths. Lets see how many rescue workers were killed in Dolly, Gustav, Rita, Katrina, and Ike and compare that to just the numbers of evacuee's that they admit to during the Rita evacuation. Then you tell me who is really putting who in danger. If you can't even admit that, then I guess there is no real point in debating it any further.

 

Just during Ike, there were several linesmen that were electrocuted by fallen power lines that they could not see.

Let's assume that no rescue workers were killed. That does not mean that there was no additional peril to them. Anytime somebody needs rescue, that means that it is a dangerous situation. If it weren't, they wouldn't need rescue. In other words, one thing goes wrong during the rescue, and it becomes a much different headline.

Nobody ever said that the entirety of Houston be a mandatory evac zone. That would be silly unless it is a cat 5 headed directly at Galveston. The mandatory zone for Ike was roughly 245,000 people. Post-Rita, they will do future evacs in stages in the days leading up to the storm.

A law requiring you to leave a mandatory evac zone will further allow the authorities to enforce an orderly evacuation, thus making it safer.

It is incredible to me that people would argue that folks should be allowed to stay. I would say good riddance if it was just themselves they put at risk. You will never tell a rescue worker to not rescue somebody . That is not how they are wired. As a consequence, the rescue workers are put in jeopardy needlessly.

 

Let's see...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hurricane/ike/5998538.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hurricane/ike/5998682.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hurricane/ike/5998439.html



No one was rescued during the storm itself because it was too dangerous for even rescue personnel. After the storm there were plenty of people who needed help, many of whom too ignorant to understand that just because they weren't in mortal danger last time doesn't mean they'll be safe again. If this law helps to get more people to leave (under threat of arrest) or pulls more people into safer areas (actual arrests) then good. Disaster relief personnel shouldn't have to waste their time rescuing people who were told to leave, had the means and opportunity to, and didn't.

 

It also allows the forced evacuation of those that are mentally handicapped that may lack the understanding and/or wherewithal to evacuate.

In an urban setting, this is an ability that will save lives and avoid unnecessary hardship.

 

Junkyard Dog, Thanks for pulling that up and proving what I had been saying the whole time that nobody wants to hear. They were not rescueing during the storm.

 

Of course they weren't. That is not the issue. As people have posted over and over during this thread, it is immediately after the storm that is the issue. You must have some kind of reading comprehension problem.

 

.


Because it was too dangerous. People needlessly put their own lives (and possibly their family's lives) in danger. And when they realized they were in over their heads they called for help. Yes rescue workers didn't go during the middle of the storm, but once they did, conditions were still plenty dangerous. That they would have to risk their lives (plucking people from rooftops or from floodwaters still presents a very real risk), waste manpower and waste resources on people that could have and should have fled is justification enough for this law.

Let's say with this law authorities will be able to preemptively rescue people. Maybe that makes it sound better.

 

Actually there were rescues during the storm. The following is Coast Guard video showing a rescue during Ike. The video also mentions that thousands are going to have to be rescued because they didn't obey the evac order.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Cb5WmruA508&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Cb5WmruA508&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

Refman, Were you here in Galveston?
In what way did all the rescue workers and people who stayed behind get killed after the storm? It is like when 1 battlecry is shot down, you just move to another. I do not have a reading comprehension problem, but maybe you do or just ignore that which hurts your argument. Again, If you add all the rescue workers killed in hurricanes Dolly, Gustav, Katrina, Rita, and Ike and compare just to the numbers of the Rita evacuee's, what do you get? Again, who is putting who in the real danger here? Can you answer these questions or will you gloss them over again?
By the way, an electrician/lineman doing his job would neither be a person who ignored evac orders or a rescue worker. He would have to do his job whether the city was full of people or he was the only one there.

Rocketsjudoka, That video looks to be pretty daylit. Are you sure that was during the storm? Looks to me to be a clip from the surge the day before the storm.

 

I am in League City.

I rode the storm out in the Rice Military area (50 miles inland). Anybody who has a clue about disasters will tell you that the most dangerous part of a disaster is after the event occurs.

I have no idea how many rescue workers have been killed. Of course, something can be dangerous without actual death occurring. Tell me, oh sage "I ain't gonna leave the island," how many people were injured without access to a hospital?

There is no way that people staying can do anything other than make a bad situation worse. We learned that during Andrew and Katrina.

This really isn't brain surgery.

 

You remind me of a friend of mine that I attempt not to argue with, an exercise often impossible due to his amazingly obstinate nature. It doesn't matter what logic, what information, or what experience anyone has on this issue, you are going to continue to pretend everyone else is wrong. There is no nuance. Nuance is a planet orbiting another solar system.

 

Deckard, Are you serious? I have answered every question asked of me in this debate. People do not choose to answer mine, because they do not help their argument. Somebody who has a job fighting wildfires is more qualified on hurricanes than the people who have gone through them and the evacuations associated with them? That is pretty much all of your views on the situation.
When they talked about all of the danger of rescues during a hurricane, I pointed out they do not rescue during a hurricane. When they said no, it is the dangers after the hurricane, I pointed out again, this was not the case. When they talked about getting it right next time, I asked am I supposed to blindly follow because they have such a good track record.
I have answered each of their arguments with facts. I asked them to compare the numbers of rescue workers killed in all recent hurricanes in Texas and threw in Katrina and Gustav to help them against just the numbers of Rita evac deaths they admit to. Giving them Katrina was nice, since that was one of the greatest clusterfudges ever.
I am in no advocating everyone stay for a hurricane. I am simply saying that it is their choice.
The best comeback you could come up with was no matter what someone says you say something back and call me an object in orbit. Isn't that what debates are for.Brilliant
You remind me of a friend of mine that argues his political points to no end and throws all experience someone has out the window, because someone you know has studied it, or you googled it. It doesn't matter what logic, what information, or what experience anyone has on this issue, you are going to continue to pretend everyone else is wrong. I have lived these. Stayed for one, left for the other. I know both sides. You have talked about them. Big differrence. Again, brilliant

 

This tells us all we need to know about you. Your political philosophy and experience from your "own eyes" (anecdotal evidence) are worth more than the experiences of someone who has dealt with disasters for two decades and is worth FAR more than any empirical evidence that anyone might bring to the table.