Further rights erosion in Texas

[Beachbum 0]

http://www.khou.com/news/state/stories/khou090727_tnt_mandatory-evacuation-law.7fa0914c.html


I think it was much better as was ... they told you that you SHOULD get your behind out, but if you stayed, you knew you would have no emergency services and were on your own. If the state would have kept to that, they'd have no problem risking lives of emergency personnel, but no .... they let them try to rescue people who stayed behind anyway, putting them at risk as well as the rescuees.

It will be interesting to see what they determine to be "reasonable force" when someone who wants to stay to protect their home/belongings confronts them with a weapon in order to stay. I don't believe the state should be able to tell someone they cannot make an informed decision to remain in order to protect their property under any circumstances, especially when it's a situation where looting is commonplace.

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[TomAiello 25]

Let me get this straight, you can be arrested for simply staying in your home and refusing to leave?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[AggieDave 6]

I would have much rather seen something setup that if you stayed, you were on your own, completely on your own. Or maybe that you had to pay every penny expended in your rescue because you were too much of an idiot to leave.

I don't know what the logistics would be, since prisoners are typically transported to other jails when a hurricane is headed towards an area. At that point LEO are way over worked getting everything ready (including their own families out of town) to really do much in the way of trying to arrest a couple of people refusing to leave.

Kind of like Illegal Recruitment of an Athlete, I don't see this one being charged all that often. When it does happen, I expect an appeals process and the law being over turned by case law.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

I would have much rather seen something setup that if you stayed, you were on your own, completely on your own. Or maybe that you had to pay every penny expended in your rescue because you were too much of an idiot to leave.

Absolutely. It's your right to stay in your home. It's not your right to have someone else rescue you if things go badly.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

It's not your right to have someone else rescue you if things go badly.

A LOT of people don't realize that. Its also not a right to get two years of FEMA money to pay for rent and other things because you weren't prepared!

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[futuredivot 0]

I thought Texas is where we sent refugees to, not brought them from.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

I thought Texas is where we sent refugees to, not brought them from.

You're from Louisiana?

I knoew you were weird.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Beachbum 0]

Quote

I would have much rather seen something setup that if you stayed, you were on your own, completely on your own. Or maybe that you had to pay every penny expended in your rescue because you were too much of an idiot to leave.

That is what was SUPPOSED to take place as it was ... but some agencies sent or allowed rescuers in anyway ... not the people's fault that they didn't stick to guidelines and stay out. As for "idiot" ... I think that term would be better applied to local officials who call for a total evacuation way before one is needed too many times ... the "cry wolf" syndrome. I understand their predicament to some extent ... they wait too long and then people complain that they weren't warned in time, too early, and the opposite. But to me it boils down to something you and I have discussed before ... lack of taking responsibility for one's self by a lot of folks. In this case, they are punishing people FOR being willing to do so (law encouraging more of that "sheep" behavior I know you like to refer to ... ;) ... )!! People who stay may not ought to in some circumstances, granted ... but if they're willing to risk their lives to protect what is their's then I don't think the state should be arresting them for it. Lawmakers WAY overstepped the boundaries with this one as far as I'm concerned. Plus, as you mention, it would be further burden on enforcement to carry out the searches/arrests, plus the logistics of transporting the now prisioners from the area to a "safe" location.

edit to add:

As for the payment aspect ... IF they call for help, perhaps ... but not when rescuers are sent in without request for assistance, which has been the case at least some of the instances I am aware of that I was told were used to help pass this.

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

I would have much rather seen something setup that if you stayed, you were on your own, completely on your own. Or maybe that you had to pay every penny expended in your rescue because you were too much of an idiot to leave.

Absolutely. It's your right to stay in your home. It's not your right to have someone else rescue you if things go badly.

My general inclination is to agree with you - especially if the only real risk to refusing to evacuate is the risk to oneself. But I note that the article doesn't give the bill's proponents' justification for the proposed law, and I'm willing to be open-minded to hearing what those might be. Maybe some authorities have specific reasons, perhaps based on anecdotal experience, for concern that people remaining in an evacuation zone will present some risk to the public (and/or burden or hazard to the authorities) beyond simply a person assuming a risk to himself.

[Beachbum 0]

As far as the info I've been told went (source always been reliable to this point), the excuse used to sell it in legislature was the "endangering rescuers" line, but behind the scenes, there was some of "I got a call during Ike about such and so's father (mother, whoever) that stayed down on the island" type of thing ... calls from worried people who apparently were not happy that their relative(s) elected to ride the storm out on the coast, and were now supposed to be without rescue options due to the proximity of the storm. These people either live in, or have property that they frequent at the beach. It's not like they have no clue what a hurricane is or what it can do, yet they decided to stay. It seems it was their relatives and/or friends calling the politicians. Keep in mind, that with costs along the coast what they are now, many of these are families with significant money and influence.

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[futuredivot 0]

Then they can afford waterwings-Seriously I was looking at more the individuals right to protect their property side of things. You should be able to stay but one the evac becomes "mandatory" you are on your own and public services are absolved of any responsibility. More on that later

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[Andy9o8 0]

You might be right, but it's still hearsay-upon-hearsay. Primary sources (or expert opinions, like LEOs, Nat'l Guard, etc.) obviously are preferable.