What's your opinion of people stranded on the islands?

[Dave Gray]

A law making it a crime to ignore an evacuation order is unconstitutional, IMHO.

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.

[MaineDolFan]

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.

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

[Landshark]

^^^

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

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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.

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..

 

 

[Spider-Dan]

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?

[Landshark]

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.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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?

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.    

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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

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

[Phishfan]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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.

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.  

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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.

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)

[Phishfan]

 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.  

 

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.

[bsmooth]

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.