The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I was reading comments in the paper after one of the articles and people seem to be overwhelmingly negative towards the stranded people. I know it's common to have negative comments in the paper but it made me wonder about how people felt in general. There were posts like

-do not send any extra $$ to evacuate the stupid !!
- only help them when all the other people have been looked after
- we should help the children and leave the idiot parents there
- these people should be forced to pay their rescuers, because they refused to leave when    asked to, so they only have themselves to blame..!!!
- They wanted to sit it out, so let them sit. I am sure the resources could be used elsewhere.
- Honestly it is hard to muster up any sympathy for folks who arrogantly and foolishly ignored mandatory evacuations. Why should our tax payer dollars go towards prioritising their 'rescue'.

So my question to you guys are do you have any sympathy and compassion for thiose that chose to ride it out but were told to evacuate?

I have to admit, I don't have much knowledge on the specific situation. Is this a big issue? I just did a quick search for some background and it brought back stories covering one rescue by the polic helicopter. How many of these rescues are we really talking about?

Throwing a charge for the service doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. I tend to be sympathetic and feel as a society we just can't sit by and watch someone starve or dehydrate while sitting on top of their house but I also see that they need to take some responsibility. I know a neighbor of mine has their grandfather living somewhere on Long Island and they took some water. The last I heard no one had made contact since the water started coming in, before the majority of the storm hit.

I think, in the future, they ought to make it clear that there will be NO rescue operations in mandatory evacuation zones.  We told you to get out and you didn't listen.

I think there needs to be individual accountability and that needs to be stated ahead of time, as it will affect people's decision-making.  I don't think you can leave these people stranded now, but I think you also need to make it clear that ignoring the evacuation order isn't a wise idea. 

Last I heard was about 500 people stranded. That could have been a high estimate but it still in the hundreds. I saw a teen girl died because her dad refused to leave.

I agree here.  My house is on the water, therefore I'm in a mandatory evactuation zone.  I remember being ordered to evacuate during Ivan and Katrina.  I wasted no time doing so.

Bottom line is this:  When officials declare your area a mandatory evacuation zone, they are doing it because they feel that people's lives will be in danger if they stick around during a storm.  If you choose to ignore their decree, don't blame anyone but yourself if any disaster befalls you.

That is tragic and raises a question. Providing he survived, would anyone support or be opposed to charging him for manslaughter (by hearing teen I envision she was a minor still)?

Do you also believe that we should do BAC screenings on drivers before we provide medical services at the site of a car accident?  I mean, we told you not to drink and drive, so individual accountability demands that we let you bleed out on the side of the road.  Well, you, and anyone else you were driving.

So are you suggesting that we should revoke their houses and put these people in jail?  Because that's what happens if you get caught drinking and driving...

If you're saying we should bill people for rescue services, fine.  I don't think we should leave people dying on rooftops to prove our dedication to accountability.

And for the record: you don't put a drunk driver's passengers in jail.  Similarly, not every person that's in an evacuation zone is there because they personally made the choice for Rugged Individualism.

I think you have to indiscriminately help people in emergency situations.  Some people are idiots.  Some are uninformed.  Some don't have the means to get out.  Some are dependent on those that do.  What if you're taking care of a stubborn old coot who refuses to get out, so you stay behind to tend to your aging, senile father and now you're both stranded.  Every situation is different.  It's easy for us to judge not knowing everything.  On top of that, these things are unpredictable.  Lots of times we prep for hurricanes and it's not a big deal and we mock the news organizations for over-reacting.

It's immoral to let people die if you can help them.

She was 13 and they lived on Staten Island. Apparently he is still missing and mom is in critical condition.

We most certainly can't leave them to die.

I would not have a problem with the gov't requiring that those who ignored manditory orders to leave to repay the cost of rescues.

I also woud not have a problem with passing laws making it criminal to ignore evecuation orders and prosecute those who ignore them ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITION - that all who ignore it are prosecuted regardless of the actual storm outcome.  E.g. Govenor orders flordia key evecuated.  Storm heads out to sea at last minute resulting in almost no damage and requiring zero rescues -- every person who didn't leave is still required to pay what ever the fine is for not evecuating. (I can't see making this a law that results in going to prison)

^^^ If there is no rescue effort, how do you document who left and who didn't? Too much involved with that theory.

A law making it a crime to ignore an evacuation order is unconstitutional, IMHO.  However, I agree with making people repay the cost of rescue efforts if they ignore an evacuation order.  Also, a negligence charge if someone dies or gets hurt as a result I would also agree with.

Is it, though?

It seems akin to having a state mandated curfew.  Yes, under normal circumstances, not allowing people to be in certain places would violate constitution, but during declared states of emergency, I think that the constitution kinda goes out the window.

Actually, these orders have more to do with covering their own behinds once the storm starts.  Once an event starts, calls for help roll in.  It is the obligation of emergency responders to help, if they are able.  However, this (mandatory evacuation) is a loop hole. 

From the link I've posted below (interesting article touching on this subject):

"Mandatory evacuation involves some of the same considerations as quarantine. In sharp contrast to quarantine, however, which is designed to protect the community from contagion, those who defy an evacuation order place primarily themselves at risk."

--Ultimately each state and situation will deal with these things in each unique situation.  However the people on this island brings out an interesting question.  I heard one woman on CNN.  Anderson Cooper flat out asked "why didn't you leave?"  Her answer was "it was only supposed to be a category 1."  Cooper: "Have they ever issued mandatory evacuation for a cat 1 before for your island?"  Answer: "No."  Cooper:  "Do you get a lot of hurricanes there at all, much less a cat 1?"  Answer: "No."  Cooper: "So why would you think it was wise to defy orders from someone who has access to information you don't have?"  Answer: Silence.

The woman couldn't answer, she had no answer.  The answer is this:  She, and the other 500 people, simply didn't listen, or they thought NOAA was "crying wolf."  Either way, they are now in a position where they need to be rescued, and it's not going to be an easy process.

Being a member of a unit used for support for evacs at one time, these measures are also put in place to protect the first responders.  It's unfortunate, but it happens:  Someone will state they are "riding out the storm" and ignore mandatory evacuation orders, however try to contact emergency resources during the middle of a storm.  Those requests, at times, will be denied under the premise of the mandatory evacuation (which was ignored).

Basically put:  Those calls for help can, and will be, ignored.  You've not only put yourself at risk, you've put other people at risk.

There is a ton to this, it's an interesting read.  I'm still part of the IRR with my unit and was actually deployed to New Hampshire to help with the floods, so I try to keep up with this stuff.  Have a peek at it yourself:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/4/958.full

^^^

Good to see you back Maine.  Where ya been?  Any word on if you've gotten a Cleveland Indians cap?

Care to be more specific.  Please cite which clause or amendement you think this would violate.

There are several advantages to a blanket fine as opposed to paying for rescues:

1) You are punishing behavior, not luck.  Everyone who ignores an evecuation order pays $1000.  You punish behavior.  Anyone who ignores an evecuation order and is unlucky enough to need a rescue pays $20,000 punishes being unlucky.

2) Much better chance of collecting.  Someone who owns a home and owes the gov't $1000 will pay it to avoid losing their home to a forclosure sale.  Some one who owes the gov't $20,000 and has had their home destroyed and is now homeless will declare bancrupcy. 

3) Better chance at getting people to actually comply with evecuation order.  Folks who stay behind don't think they are going to need to be rescued.  Threatening to not rescue or require them to pay for their rescue is unlikely to motivate them.  Knowing it will cost them $1000 bucks might do the trick, however..

 

 

Hoodie, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that if NOAA predicts that Hurricane Jermichael will hit South Carolina, issues a mandatory evacuation, and the hurricane misses, the feds should then fine everyone who didn't evacuate?

Is this some sort of plan to sow unrest, or to have all incumbents thrown out of office?

Exactly my point.  You can't fine someone for causing a car accident if there was no accident.

Yes, that is basically what I am saying.  

However, I am not advocating such a policy.  I support keeping things the way they are, e.g. if a storm hits the gov't does its best to rescue those in need regardless of any evacution order w/o fining or charging the victims.

But I while I am not advocating such a policy, I would not oppose it either.  And I certainly think it would be a better policy than the charge for rescue proposal that is being suggested.  

I also think if such a proposal was inplemented it should be state NOT federal law.  Right now neither NOAA nor FEMA issues evecuation orders -- Governors and Mayor do.  So it would be a matter of an individual state passing such a law.    

But you can send someone to jail for driving reckless or drunk driving even if they don't crash the car. 

Again, how do you determine who left and who did not. The administration of such a policy is virtually impossible unless they needed the rescue effort, you have no idea where they were.

The difference is that reckless or drunk driving are objectively dangerous acts that put other humans at risk.  Evacuation orders (particularly ones that turn out to be unwarranted) are not nearly the same thing.

More importantly, from a logistical standpoint, if you want to fine one person for DUI, failing to evacuate, etc., they can bitch and moan all they like but at the end of the day, there's not much they can do about it.  However, if you decide that you're going to fine a couple thousand people... well, now you are in riot/electoral strikeback territory.

Not that hard to catch most, wouldn't catch all.

Often the evecuation orders are for areas that have accessablity issues -- Florida Keys, Cape Cod, Outer Banks.  Only one or two bridges on or off.

So Gov. of Florida order evecuation of the Keys.  Cops go door to door.  (not hard to figure out who didn't leave, car is still in driveway) Anyone still left is fined a $1000 and told to get moving or be escorted off the keys in handcuffs.  

Once again I am saying this is better than the current system, just better than the "pay for your own rescue" plan.  

Beforehand we don't know if they are warrented or unwarranted evecuation orders. 

Ignoring an evacuation order is objectively dangerous - 1) to yourself (if the state can require someone to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle they can require somone not to go kite flying in a huricane) 2) to other family members.  (if mom and dad decide to stick around the 8 year old can't decided for herself to head for safer ground.  3) to first responders (unless we are going to adopt the "let'm die" appoach, then firefighter, police officers, national guard etc are all put at unnecessary risk from someone not evecuating) 4) you are putting others at risk by taxing the 1st responders there may be other people in need in areas not under evecuation that also had damage requiring the first responders.

Once again, I am not advocating such a policy, just saying it is preferable to the pay for own rescue plan (or the let them die plan)

Cops going door to door, seriously? There isn't any better use of their time while preparing for an emergency? Looking at the cars in the driveway? What about carpooling neighbors? What about multi-car families? The logistic of your plan are very faulty in efficiency and an inaccurate measure.

Sorry to say, but I have little sympathy for those who ignore(d) the mandatory evacuation warnings. There is good reason that authorities make these proclamations.