User Tag List

Results 1 to 8 of 8

  1. #1
    Senior Member Misty_Mountain_Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    1,123

    Default Disaster Evacuations/Situations and the Non Compliant

    I read this article this morning:

    Evacuation holdouts defy danger to protect homes - Yahoo! News

    and it made me wonder what the 'right' thing to do is.

    On one hand, you have people who are endangering themselves and others by staying behind in potential disaster areas...

    On the other hand, you have people who are protecting what is their own (as you read nearer to the end of the article there are some seemingly legit reasons for staying)

    The article mentions a law that allows police to arrest people who will not evacuate when told.

    The questions in my head are:

    1. Should the government be able to forcefully remove someone from their home, regardless of the circumstances. (IE - Pandemic, Flood, Fire, Hurricane, etc)

    2. Are officials morally bound to rescue someone who refuses to evacuate when it could endanger the lives of rescue workers?

    3. Can Constitutional rights be over-ruled during crisis situations?


    The third question comes from a different article that I also read today about possible Pandemic laws that would allow the government to trample Constitutional rights in order to protect the masses. At first I thought it was a propoganda page, but the link to the actual bill is at the top of the article, and the bill is almost verbatim what they wrote in the article.

    Cops jump on swine-flu power: Shots heard 'round the world

    This one seems a little more disturbing.

    The highlights are below:

    "As stated in the bill, upon declaration by the governor that an emergency exists that is considered detrimental to public health or upon declaration of a state of emergency, a local public health authority, with approval of the commissioner, may exercise the following authorities (emphasis added):

    • to require the owner or occupier of premises to permit entry into and investigation of the premises
    • to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated, or to destroy any material
    • to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons
    • to control ingress to and egress from any stricken or threatened public area, and the movement of persons and materials within the area
    • to procure, take immediate possession from any source, store, or distribute any anti-toxins, serums, vaccines, immunizing agents, antibiotics, and other pharmaceutical agents or medical supplies located within the commonwealth as may be necessary to respond to the emergency (This includes your home and your guns if they deemed it 'necessary to respond')
    • to require in-state health care providers to assist in the performance of vaccination, treatment, examination, or testing of any individual as a condition of licensure, authorization, or the ability to continue to function as a health care provider in the commonwealth
    • to collect specimens and perform tests on any animal, living or deceased
    "

    I read through the bill and it also includes some other interesting tidbits, such as:

    line 217 -

    "Whenever a person required to report learns of a case of a reportable disease or health condition, an unusual cluster or a suspicous event, that he or she reasonably believes may have been caused by a criminal act... he or she shall immediately notify the state police. Whenever the department learns of [the problem] [describes the chain of 'notification' thereafter]."

    line 238 -

    "No person making a report under this section shall be liable in any civil or criminal action by reason of such report if it was made in good faith.

    Any person required to report who refuses to file a report required by this section shall be subject to a fine..."



    Thoughts?
    Embrace the possibilities.

  2. #2
    Senior Member iamathousandapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    495

    Default

    3 is a definitive no. Constitutional rights should never be taken away, under any circumstance.

  3. #3
    I'm a star. Kangirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    Imo, refusing to evacuate is a straight up statement of "I'm taking my life into my own hands here, and will agree not to call on emergency services from this point on". People should be able to stay if they so choose, but emergency workers should not be expected to risk their lives rescuing these people.
    "Only an irrational dumbass, would burn Jews." - Jaguar

    "please give concise answers in plain English" - request from Provoker

  4. #4
    Senior Member millerm277's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    978

    Default

    1. Should the government be able to forcefully remove someone from their home, regardless of the circumstances. (IE - Pandemic, Flood, Fire, Hurricane, etc)

    For those over 18, no. I am a firm believer in the theory that you have the right to be stupid, and pay the consequences for your actions. And, on that same note, there ARE people that have different situations, that may cause them to NOT have that need to evacuate. Some people in socal, have real firefighting systems, and have eliminated anything flammable from within a large area of their property. There are people that have the ability to stay. Same goes for a hurricane.

    I do believe that the govt should be able to forcibly evacuate those under 18, however.

    2. Are officials morally bound to rescue someone who refuses to evacuate when it could endanger the lives of rescue workers?

    No. Should they try if possible? Yup, but I won't hold it against them if they can't.

    3. Can Constitutional rights be over-ruled during crisis situations?

    No.
    I-95%, S-84%, T-89%, P-84%

  5. #5
    IRL is not real Cimarron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Posts
    3,424

    Default

    The Constitution makes a few exceptions for law when in times of war or insurrection. Does a "disaster" or "emergency" provide enough of a reason to make a similar exception? Maybe it could be claimed that they were meant to be handled differently because wars are political in nature and therefore affect the function of government directly, but not so with natural disasters, for instance. Or do you think it's just a matter of using "emergency power of government" too readily, but that it's okay in extreme cases?
    You can't spell "justice" without ISTJ.

  6. #6
    Senior Member dga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    360

    Default

    if the army wants to help fight a fire or build a dam when the local fire dept and dept of public works is overworked and public danger is obviously eminent, i'll gladly accept their help.

    if there is a breakdown of society because of a natural disaster, i'll also gladly accept their help, but would rather control was left as locally as possible

    if someone does not want to comply with evacuation, i'd rahter they accept being marked as stupid so additional help can pass on them

  7. #7
    Senior Member swordpath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    ISTx
    Posts
    10,552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangirl View Post
    Imo, refusing to evacuate is a straight up statement of "I'm taking my life into my own hands here, and will agree not to call on emergency services from this point on". People should be able to stay if they so choose, but emergency workers should not be expected to risk their lives rescuing these people.
    Unfortunately, how are you going to distinguish which people have put themselves in harm's way of their own volition, and then, those who "somehow" weren't able to get away or weren't informed (how that happens, I don't know, but trust me, it would become debate). If there's wounded or dead bodies, they HAVE to be tended to, which in turn will become a liability and one that CAN be avoided, at least to a much greater degree if proper evacuations are performed. If people really want to endanger their own lives for the sake of their possessions, whatever, so be it. That's how I feel. The problem is that it's not that easy and therefore, it's necessary to force evacuations. Human life is more important than worldly possessions. A person that wants to stay to see their homes destroyed - We'll see loss of/damage of property and possessions, as well as injuries/death. The objective should be to minimize the losses.

  8. #8
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    For the sake of the emergency workers, force evacuate everybody.

    The rescuers cannot abandon anybody in a disaster zone that can be saved... even if these people have been informed but still insisted on staying. There is the ethics... and then there is the political side.

    There will always be complaints if the rescue team did not go in to save them. Telling them because these people chose not the evacuate is never a good excuse. People will be irrational like that.
    My stuff (design & other junk) lives here: http://nnbox.ca

Similar Threads

  1. The Banned and The Damned
    By Haight in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 331
    Last Post: 11-30-2017, 07:12 PM
  2. [Non Spiritual Atheists] Your beliefs and the rest of the world.
    By Rasofy in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-07-2012, 11:22 PM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-25-2009, 02:20 AM
  4. [Te] The Message and the Messenger
    By proteanmix in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-17-2007, 09:39 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO