Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-13-2018, 10:38 PM
Tastes of Chocolate Tastes of Chocolate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: slightly north of center
Posts: 4,698
How much do we owe people that ignore incoming storms and "ride out the storm"

The news about incoming hurricane Florence got me thinking about this, again. I've pondered it before, around past disasters.

Hurricane Florence has been in the news for the last couple of days. On Tuesday, the governor of South Caroline issued an evacuation order for the entire sea coast of that state, the order has been adjusted as the storm has gotten closer and predictions have gotten tighter.

Yet still people decide to ride out the storm at home. Ok, that's their choice. We have a whole thread on why people might chose to do that.

But once a flood/hurricane/wild fire/blizzard etc has been identified as a major threat, and warning has been given, how much support does local/state/federal government owe to those people, DURING the disaster. If you chose to stay in your home in California until it is surrounded by wild fire, should the government be risking the lives of rescuers to come save you? If you decide you'll throw some plywood over the windows, buy a few flats of water and extra batteries, and stay at home during a hurricane, should police/fire/national guard/etc be risking their lives to get you out of your fully flooded house, while 100 MPH winds whip around them?

Yes, we should be trying to help or save people after the disaster, when the risk to first responders should be more controllable, but what about during?

This doesn't apply to people caught in spur of the moment events (although I feel sort of the same way about people that

Personally, I believe that if you chose to stay, despite being warned, then you have also decided to take on the risks associated with that, and that others should not have to face high risks due to your miscalculations. With all of the information we have available to us today, it's pretty hard to reasonably claim that you didn't know there was a storm coming, or that the wild fire you've been smelling is closing in on you.

I have a lot of respect for the people that are first responders and rescuers. It takes a lot of guts and training and dedication to do these jobs. The rest of us should at least be working to mitigate the risks they take, saving us. I expect that the next week will be filled with stories of heroic actions taken to save the victims of hurricane Florence. I hope that rescuers don't end up paying the price for this actions.
  #2  
Old 09-13-2018, 11:12 PM
zombywoof zombywoof is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,136
People who have the means to leave (a vehicle, money to pay for a motel or who perhaps know someone somewhere else they can stay with, etc.) don't get my sympathy, but those who don't do.

Last edited by zombywoof; 09-13-2018 at 11:13 PM.
  #3  
Old 09-13-2018, 11:17 PM
elbows elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 13,855
So....you want to means test your compassion for people who are suffering.

Are they worthy of rescue? Is that it?
  #4  
Old 09-14-2018, 12:04 AM
China Guy China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
So....you want to means test your compassion for people who are suffering.
Ya, I kinda do. Certainly, if you can't get out of the disaster area I'm a hella more sympathetic. If you have the means and chose not to, then not so much.

FYI. I write this as someone who has been thru at least a dozen typhoons. None were epically bad even though I took a few direct hits (Taipei, Hong Kong and Tokyo). That said, China at least have thousands that die in typhoons all the time when folks are in the wrong place, wrong time, don't have means to duck, and live in flimsy housing.
  #5  
Old 09-14-2018, 12:36 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,214
In at least one of the California fires those who chose to stay were told that they were not getting rescued. They all had ample means to leave. The government has an obligation of assisting people to leave who can't do it themselves, but anyone who can leave and refuses should be on their own,
  #6  
Old 09-14-2018, 12:58 AM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,996
Owe? Nothing.

But owing is IMO the wrong question.
  #7  
Old 09-14-2018, 02:03 AM
Tastes of Chocolate Tastes of Chocolate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: slightly north of center
Posts: 4,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
Owe? Nothing.

But owing is IMO the wrong question.
Then what is the right question?
It seems to me that the government has a duty to/owes lots of things to it's people. But that includes it's rescuers. One of the things owed to the rescuers is to not put them into unnecessary danger.
  #8  
Old 09-14-2018, 03:19 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
So....you want to means test your compassion for people who are suffering.

Are they worthy of rescue? Is that it?
Well, we could means-test it after the fact. Rescue them first, and charge them for the rescue if they can afford it.

That could also have a deterrent effect on the behavior of people who can visualize the possibility of being charged many thousands of dollars more clearly than they can apparently visualize the possibility of being drowned in a storm surge.
  #9  
Old 09-14-2018, 06:50 AM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? What Exit? is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 28,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
Ya, I kinda do. Certainly, if you can't get out of the disaster area I'm a hella more sympathetic. If you have the means and chose not to, then not so much. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
In at least one of the California fires those who chose to stay were told that they were not getting rescued. They all had ample means to leave. The government has an obligation of assisting people to leave who can't do it themselves, but anyone who can leave and refuses should be on their own,
I have to agree with both of these.
  #10  
Old 09-14-2018, 07:52 AM
blob's Avatar
blob blob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Australia
Posts: 940
I don't think rescuers should be going out into the thick of it. When I did my first aid training, the first thing to consider was whether you yourself were in danger before you approached anyone. That isn't anything to do with decisions made by others, it's just a practical consideration to wait until it's died down/passed over before going in to assist.
  #11  
Old 09-14-2018, 08:09 AM
j666 j666 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Away for a while
Posts: 7,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Well, we could means-test it after the fact. Rescue them first, and charge them for the rescue if they can afford it.

That could also have a deterrent effect on the behavior of people who can visualize the possibility of being charged many thousands of dollars more clearly than they can apparently visualize the possibility of being drowned in a storm surge.
That sounds like it makes sense, but I don't like the idea of charging people for life-saving services. Could the funds be earmarked for disaster relief aid? That would work for me.

I have complete sympathy for people who want to protect their homes, though.
  #12  
Old 09-14-2018, 08:47 AM
Mangetout's Avatar
Mangetout Mangetout is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 57,805
I would say if they don't have the means to leave, but want to, efforts should be made to help them.

If they have the means to leave, but choose not to, I think it's probably best to try to keep the option open for them to change their mind as long as it is possible without creating greater risk to someone else's life.
  #13  
Old 09-14-2018, 10:05 AM
bordelond's Avatar
bordelond bordelond is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: La Rive Ouest
Posts: 9,835
I'm interested to see information to the contrary, but:

Governmental first responders do not go out and rescue people during an active, ongoing disaster. The answer to the OP is "During the disaster, nothing is owed to those staying behind." That's a big part of what a mandatory evacuation means: that governmental services will be on hiatus.

Now once the storm passes and the winds die down ... then first-response work will ensue in relative (if not complete) safety. The famous shots of people being airlifted off of their roofs after Katrina burn memorable images into people's minds, but those kinds of rescues are far from typical or common.
  #14  
Old 09-14-2018, 10:18 AM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 30,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tastes of Chocolate
Personally, I believe that if you chose to stay, despite being warned, then you have also decided to take on the risks associated with that, and that others should not have to face high risks due to your miscalculations.
"Shanna, they bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash."
  #15  
Old 09-14-2018, 10:28 AM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 6,881
Wildfires sometimes come faster than people can reasonably be expected to flee beforehand. Itís like asking people to flee an area with a tornado warning. Of course in those situations thereís little rescuers can do anyway, but wait for the threat to decrease.

But when thereís sufficient warning to escape beforehand, those who donít shouldnít expect rescue. If they can be rescued with reasonable risk, then let the would-be rescuers decide for themselves.
  #16  
Old 09-14-2018, 10:33 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
In at least one of the California fires those who chose to stay were told that they were not getting rescued. They all had ample means to leave. The government has an obligation of assisting people to leave who can't do it themselves, but anyone who can leave and refuses should be on their own,
Agreed, although I'm willing to give them a Darwin Award for their bravery.

Actually, I'm OK with rescuing such folks as long as the rescue effort doesn't put the lives of the rescuers in significant danger. I would have no problem levying a fine against them, assuming they simply ignored the evacuation order frivolously.

Last edited by John Mace; 09-14-2018 at 10:34 AM.
  #17  
Old 09-14-2018, 10:49 AM
PastTense PastTense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,936
And this situation is happening with Florence:
Quote:
At least 150 people were awaiting rescue in New Bern early Friday morning as Hurricane Florence lashed the North Carolina coast with strong winds and life-threatening storm surge.

As of 5 a.m. Friday, 200 people had already been rescued as waters rose on the Neuse and Trent rivers, according to Colleen Roberts, a city public information officer.

New Bern, a city of about 30,000 residents, saw significant storm surge flooding as the rivers overflowed their banks and swept into town. A flash flood emergency was declared in the area that includes Carteret, Craven, Pamlico and Jones counties Friday morning...

New Bern Mayor Dana Outlaw told The Weather Channel that about 16 county crews were out rescuing those who had refused to heed evacuation warnings and were now stranded.
https://weather.com/storms/hurricane...es-neuse-river
  #18  
Old 09-14-2018, 11:17 AM
Just Asking Questions Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 6,037
I have a friend that rode it out in Marshallberg. He knew the risks, but he's fine. He made his choice, and it worked out.

But I wouldn't have said the emergency teams should have risked lives to rescue him if things went bad. Thems the breaks.

Like the famous case of Harry R Truman. Everyone told him to leave, but he knew better. I wonder if, as he was dying, choking on superheated air and being covered with volcanic ash, if he said to himself, "You know, maybe they were right?"
  #19  
Old 09-14-2018, 11:22 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,047
How are rescuers supposed to tell the difference between people who chose to stay, and people who wanted to leave but couldn't?

Do they have to carefully question every person in a desperate situation before they rescue them? And leave them if they turn out to be 'undeserving'?
  #20  
Old 09-14-2018, 11:35 AM
ivylass ivylass is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Orlando(ish)
Posts: 21,782
I think before a hurricane there is plenty of time for those who can't get out to ask for assistance. But during the actual event, you're asking first responders to put their lives in danger and possibly increase the death toll.

I think if you were asked to evacuate, you were told to evacuate, and still didn't, then you made your choice. Others shouldn't pay for your poor decision. I like to idea of charging people for rescue if they could evacuate but didn't.

My local news had an interesting thought...how much of this "I'm staying put" is driven by social media, in that they wanted to stay behind to get the good pics to upload to Facebook or livestream on Twitter?

Last edited by ivylass; 09-14-2018 at 11:35 AM.
  #21  
Old 09-14-2018, 11:58 AM
Mumberthax Mumberthax is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 217
I'm with the 'fuck those guys; let them rot' with one condition: There is a system in place to evacuate those that are unable to leave by themselves, and that no one is left behind because of circumstances outside their control. Also, all children under 18 will be evacuated, and that goes no matter what the parents / guardians have to say about it. If the parents choose to get in the way and cause trouble, make it crystal-fuckan-clear to them that they have a choice - stay out of the way, or get arrested for child endangerment (and lose custody, btw).
__________________
Sincerely,
Mumberthax
My pronouns are they/them. What are yours?
  #22  
Old 09-14-2018, 12:14 PM
Spiderman's Avatar
Spiderman Spiderman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: somewhere East of there
Posts: 9,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by bordelond View Post
Governmental first responders do not go out and rescue people during an active, ongoing disaster.
Bullshit!


Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
And this situation is happening with Florence:

https://weather.com/storms/hurricane...es-neuse-river
Holy s#!+! They're barely into this. The eye probably isn't over them yet, rivers rising is a trailing event, meaning they continue to go up for hours after the rain stops. If they're crying "Uncle" this early in the process, they should be rescued, only to be given a slug to the back of the head & dumped back into the water. Clearly too stoopit to live. Why are they there if they're in trouble so early in the process? What happens when the rivers / storm surge ends up on the second floor, as was predicted?


Quote:
Originally Posted by ivylass View Post
I think if you were asked to evacuate, you were told to evacuate, and still didn't, then you made your choice. Others shouldn't pay for your poor decision. I like to idea of charging people for rescue if they could evacuate but didn't.
My community was subject to frequent flash floods; an all day rain was no issue, but a thunderstorm would overwhelm the creek's ability & it would overflow it's banks bad enough that it would float the cars of the idjits who'd attempt to drive thru; many times moving/driving around road closed sawhorses.
I'm not sure what came of it but there was talk of charging those people, not just moving violations for failure to follow a traffic control device (the road closed barrier) but even reckless endangerment for Fire/EMS who were endangered by performing the rescue. That's a misdemeanor charge; arrested, handcuffs, mug shots, bail, etc. all for being stupid!
  #23  
Old 09-14-2018, 03:52 PM
Tastes of Chocolate Tastes of Chocolate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: slightly north of center
Posts: 4,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderman View Post
I'm not sure what came of it but there was talk of charging those people, not just moving violations for failure to follow a traffic control device (the road closed barrier) but even reckless endangerment for Fire/EMS who were endangered by performing the rescue. That's a misdemeanor charge; arrested, handcuffs, mug shots, bail, etc. all for being stupid!
I'm all for that. I believe people should be allowed to try to climb cliffs, wander in the wilderness, sail the Pacific, etc. But if you need to be rescued, you should have to pay the bills. It's part of cost of that activity. To often right now, the rest of society has to bear the costs, because someone wants an adrenaline rush (or be stupid).
  #24  
Old 09-14-2018, 04:34 PM
Grrr!'s Avatar
Grrr! Grrr! is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,653
Do what we can to help. But dang it! If it can be determined that a rescued individual could have left, but didn't? Fine the ever living shit out of them to help pay for rescue efforts.
  #25  
Old 09-14-2018, 08:44 PM
blob's Avatar
blob blob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Australia
Posts: 940
What about other "stupid" people? Smokers with related illnesses. Fat people who didn't/couldn't drop weight and get sick because of it? etc etc Should they be left to rot, or fined/made to reimburse the costs of their "stupidity"?

Fining somebody who couldn't afford the petrol and accommodation costs to leave is obviously pointless. People with some means won't have the hundreds of thousands of dollars that sending helicopter teams would cost, especially if they've lost everything from the disaster, so fining them is probably pointless.....
  #26  
Old 09-14-2018, 09:14 PM
epbrown01 epbrown01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by blob View Post
What about other "stupid" people? Smokers with related illnesses. Fat people who didn't/couldn't drop weight and get sick because of it? etc etc Should they be left to rot, or fined/made to reimburse the costs of their "stupidity"?.
Don't they already do this? Most of the high cost of cigarettes is taxes, supposedly to mitigate the costs of caring for smokers. Same with alcohol. Taxing/fining over-eating is more problematic since everyone eats and there's no way to distinguish between a lazy slob eating 5000 calories a day and a bodybuilder eating the same amount.
  #27  
Old 09-14-2018, 09:22 PM
Fair Rarity's Avatar
Fair Rarity Fair Rarity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,969
There was a heartbreaking two-episode piece on The New York Times' podcast The Daily today and yesterday about a family who tried to ride out Harvey last year. I highly recommend it.

I think there is a huge difference between "can't" and "won't" evacuate. Like maybe the humans can leave but their pets can't go. Is that can't or won't? If after the disaster that was the shelters in New Orleans during Katrina you are afraid of shelters, is that can't or won't?
  #28  
Old 09-14-2018, 10:39 PM
blob's Avatar
blob blob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Australia
Posts: 940
Quote:
Originally Posted by epbrown01 View Post
no way to distinguish between a lazy slob eating 5000 calories a day and a bodybuilder eating the same amount.
The bodybuilder, of course, being the more "stupid" and should be paying more? I suppose they could levy extra charges on gym members doing bodybuilding......
  #29  
Old 09-15-2018, 04:44 AM
epbrown01 epbrown01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,607
You wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by blob View Post
What about other "stupid" people? Smokers with related illnesses. Fat people who didn't/couldn't drop weight and get sick because of it?
Now you're writing:

Quote:
Originally Posted by blob View Post
The bodybuilder, of course, being the more "stupid" and should be paying more?
...which only makes sense if it's your position that bodybuilders are a burden on the healthcare system. In a country where only about 3% of the population exercises regularly but 70% is overweight, that seems... unlikely.

Your original counter-argument won't work. It happens. Perhaps we can go back to the thread topic? You're welcome to start another about this if you'd like.

Five people reported dead so far, which is a high price to pay stupidity. (Ignorance is a lack of information, stupidity is ignoring the information in front of you.) Several people rescued admit feeling stupid for ignoring the warnings, disregarding the claims that this storm was more powerful and would generate more severe flooding. I've yet to see anyone claim they couldn't have evacuated, even for reasons others might find spurious.
  #30  
Old 09-15-2018, 06:33 AM
blob's Avatar
blob blob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Australia
Posts: 940
Quote:
Originally Posted by epbrown01 View Post
...which only makes sense if it's your position
No, it makes perfect sense in relation to my actual position.
  #31  
Old 09-15-2018, 07:43 AM
Bayaker Bayaker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: A town on Galveston Bay
Posts: 2,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fair Rarity View Post
There was a heartbreaking two-episode piece on The New York Times' podcast The Daily today and yesterday about a family who tried to ride out Harvey last year. I highly recommend it.

I think there is a huge difference between "can't" and "won't" evacuate. Like maybe the humans can leave but their pets can't go. Is that can't or won't? If after the disaster that was the shelters in New Orleans during Katrina you are afraid of shelters, is that can't or won't?
While definitely heartbreaking, that story has nothing to do with evacuation for a hurricane. Hurricane Harvey hit Rockport, TX - about 150 miles southwest of Houston. My inlaws evacuated from Rockport to my house in the Houston area for safety. The flooding in Houston was because TS Harvey meandered up the coast and parked itself in the area, dropping record-breaking rains. There were no dangers from wind, no storm surge, and no hurricane evacuation order or even a suggestion of one for Houston.
  #32  
Old 09-15-2018, 08:51 AM
j666 j666 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Away for a while
Posts: 7,136
The real problem with means testing is that it will be decided that staying behind to protect an expensive house and furnishings is allowable, but not walking out to stay in a shelter with no security is not.
  #33  
Old 09-15-2018, 10:15 AM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Well, we could means-test it after the fact.
We could (and do) means test it before the fact. Rescuers are worth as much as the people being rescued. When the risk becomes too great then rescuers are not available. You can't fly a helicopter in 100 mph winds. You can't drive a fire truck over a tree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zombywoof View Post
People who have the means to leave (a vehicle, money to pay for a motel or who perhaps know someone somewhere else they can stay with, etc.) don't get my sympathy, but those who don't do.
There are temporary shelters set up away from the hurricane zone for people who can't afford motels.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #34  
Old 09-15-2018, 10:28 AM
CelticKnot CelticKnot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: BackHome again in Indiana
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by j666 View Post
That sounds like it makes sense, but I don't like the idea of charging people for life-saving services. Could the funds be earmarked for disaster relief aid? That would work for me.

I have complete sympathy for people who want to protect their homes, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tastes of Chocolate View Post
I'm all for that. I believe people should be allowed to try to climb cliffs, wander in the wilderness, sail the Pacific, etc. But if you need to be rescued, you should have to pay the bills. It's part of cost of that activity. To often right now, the rest of society has to bear the costs, because someone wants an adrenaline rush (or be stupid).
"At your own risk" needs to be financial, or else people will fear no consequences of their stupidity. If someone wants to defy warnings to get an adrenaline rush or a terrific selfie, then they should pay for their rescue. Calling out first responders or Search-and-Rescue is not at all inexpensive. Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize people's search for adventure.
  #35  
Old 09-15-2018, 11:09 AM
epbrown01 epbrown01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by j666 View Post
I have complete sympathy for people who want to protect their homes, though.
Yeah, I'm more sympathetic to people that want to protect their lives. Once the people are out, there's nothing in the house I'm not willing to lose.
  #36  
Old 09-15-2018, 12:01 PM
j666 j666 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Away for a while
Posts: 7,136
Sure, but a house is more than an asset to a lot of people. I have sympathy for people who stay to protect their homes, more than for those who stay because they did not take the warnings seriously.
  #37  
Old 09-15-2018, 05:44 PM
Roy Batty Roy Batty is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 120
Here's my take on this:

I would not expect ANYONE to come & try to rescue me under these circumstances. I.e., if I'm warned ahead of time that there is a storm/tornado/hurricane coming & it's strongly recommended that I leave, I will say Thanks for the info. but I'm staying. I would even go one step further & tell them that I don't want or expect to be rescued; I would not put anyone else's life at risk due to my decision. Obviously, if I put my life at risk because of this, so be it.

I remember when Hurricane Katrina hit the NO area back in 2005; there was one guy being interviewed by the press (he was a lawyer, I think) and he said that he was NOT going to evacuate under any circumstances, and that if anyone tried to force him to evacuate they would regret it. I completely agree with this mindset.

Again, there are worse things than drowning in a hurricane/tornado - as I keep saying on this board.

Last edited by Roy Batty; 09-15-2018 at 05:45 PM.
  #38  
Old 09-15-2018, 06:41 PM
chaika's Avatar
chaika chaika is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 462
I think we (collectively, as a society) are obligated to try to save anyone in danger. Deciding who is worthy of our efforts is wrong IMO. That way madness lies. Even if someone ignores warnings or takes a calculated risk to stay put during an emergency, that person should be treated no differently from those who did everything “right.” At the scene of a car accident or a house fire, no one asks who was at fault. The paramedics and other first responders do their best to save lives, sometimes risking their own in the process.

Later there may be situations when individuals should be held accountable for reckless actions. But it shouldn’t be a consideration at the moment a rescue is needed.
  #39  
Old 09-15-2018, 08:35 PM
Cazzle's Avatar
Cazzle Cazzle is offline
Friend of Cecil
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 7,706
What drives the stupid? How have these people come to a decision to stay given the prior warning and the widespread information about the dangers of staying?

Is it recklessness, disregard for the safety of rescuers, or something other foolish, fickle impulse like the aforementioned Instagram moments?

Are any of them driven by dementia, mental health problems, low IQ, phobias, panic, poverty, infirmity, trauma... ? As a society, does anyone benefit if you penalise people for making poor choices when they were not equipped to make better ones?

I live in Australia. Every summer, the threat of bushfire is a constant concern. There have been times when we've had to contemplate that we may be asked to evacuate. That hits hard - just thinking about walking away from 90%+ of all you own and your home, your safe place and refuge from the world.

How many of these people were already coping with everything they could handle in their lives before they were faced with this situation too?

And how do you separate out those people from the genuine morons after the fact?
  #40  
Old 09-15-2018, 11:18 PM
Gatopescado's Avatar
Gatopescado Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 20,417
Nobody "owes" anybody, anytime for anything.
  #41  
Old 09-16-2018, 12:08 AM
Mangosteen Mangosteen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Namche Bazaar
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
Wildfires sometimes come faster than people can reasonably be expected to flee beforehand. Itís like asking people to flee an area with a tornado warning. Of course in those situations thereís little rescuers can do anyway, but wait for the threat to decrease.

But when thereís sufficient warning to escape beforehand, those who donít shouldnít expect rescue. If they can be rescued with reasonable risk, then let the would-be rescuers decide for themselves.
Tornado warnings are very different from Hurricane warnings because the areas destroyed by a tornado are quite narrow. Tornadoes arrive with little notice and often dissipate in a relatively short time. And few people that live in an area that is under a particular tornado warning will actually have their home destroyed and suffer any injury. The science behind a tornado warning is still not exact, but the weather service simply does its best to warn people of a possible catastrophic event.

Hurricane warnings come days in advance and offer most people plenty of time to get out of harms way.
__________________
Its only funny until someone gets hurt, then its fuckin' hilarious!
  #42  
Old 09-16-2018, 12:17 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,143
Do posters feel differently about rescuing those who ignored warnings and stayed behind than they do about those who have skied off path and into trouble, or ignored warnings about climbing in a certain area/season and have gotten stuck?
  #43  
Old 09-16-2018, 12:31 AM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,996
When there are clear warnings such as "Danger - Do Not Leave The Path - Unstable Terrain" or whatever, I think a two-pronged approach is right: rescue them, and immediately detain them until they've paid the full cost of the rescue.

These are (to me anyway) FAR more clear-cut than forcing someone out of their own home. People who ski off the path or get in trouble climbing have already made the choice to take the risks just for fun, and there's no issue over separating them from their security and their possessions.

Last edited by DavidwithanR; 09-16-2018 at 12:34 AM.
  #44  
Old 09-16-2018, 12:48 AM
elfkin477 elfkin477 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NH
Posts: 22,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Do posters feel differently about rescuing those who ignored warnings and stayed behind than they do about those who have skied off path and into trouble, or ignored warnings about climbing in a certain area/season and have gotten stuck?
I don't. Then again, I live in one of the few states that charges people for mountain rescues that are the result of gross negligence.
  #45  
Old 09-16-2018, 08:17 AM
j666 j666 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Away for a while
Posts: 7,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Do posters feel differently about rescuing those who ignored warnings and stayed behind than they do about those who have skied off path and into trouble, or ignored warnings about climbing in a certain area/season and have gotten stuck?
I cannot see how someone might ski off a path or climb in an unstable area because of lack of resources. Isn't most skiing on private land? Then who would be responsible for paying, and how well the dangerous areas must be marked are other concerns.

I'm a bit less sympathetic to people who don't have the good sense to stay inside with a good book, enjoying nature through a window, than people who are in the way of a natural disaster through no fault of their own.
  #46  
Old 09-16-2018, 08:37 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,143
The op specified those that choose to ignore the warnings/mandatory orders and decide to "ride out the storm."

These are people who may have what they think are good reasons to ignore the warnings that they think is better judgement than what they are being told.

Rescuing those who are trapped by no reckless decision making of their own was not the op.

To my read those who choose to stay and ride out a storm in the face of a "mandatory" evacuation are worse than the mountain climbers and skiers who take risks as those who are rescuing them are at the moment a resource in very limited supply in the face of a great demand. The time and energy spent rescuing them from their stupid choice is time and energy they do not have providing other desperately needed recovery service, maybe time and energy not spent helping someone who had no resources and no choice.

But I would not leave the reckless mountain climbers to die either. I'd just resent their selfishness.

I would propose that a conscious choice to ignore mandatory evacuation orders be considered a crime and that some jail time is indicated for their reckless disregard of the safety and needs of others that their action has caused.
  #47  
Old 09-16-2018, 08:43 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,769
It's an interesting conundrum. I'm one of the non-evacuees. In my semi-rural - not for much longer - South Carolina town I'd say not one person in ten evacuated. We're about 35 miles from the coast northwest of Charleston. I've only been here eight years or so but even I knew the governor issued his evacuation order too early to get anyone to take it seriously. He's just playing it safe because he has an election in six or seven weeks and he's a replacement governor who would like to be an elected governor.

But this is a fairly mixed area. Some people, like me, could go if we wanted. But there are a LOT of people - my cleaning woman, for one - who couldn't get out if you spotted her the car and the gas. Four kids, deadbeat ex husband, lives out in the woods somewhere near the lake. I stayed because I ran the odds in my head - chance of a hit, chance of flood and so forth - she stayed because her options are truly limited.

It really comes down - as so many things do - to the fact that humans are very bad at assessing risk and are prone to being influenced by outsiders. For every person accused of being influenced to stay by social media there's a lot more being influenced by the fearmongers on the weather channel and its equivalent. Yes, people were harmed and died and needed rescue. But we'll never hear about the ones who were harmed and died because they evacuated. We'll also never connect a real cost - lost wages, lost productivity, theft, vandalism and such and compare it with a normal week. Hell, my kid missed a week of school. She's going to have to make that up, almost certainly during Spring Break. And that's also lost opportunity. Vacations planned for that time, outside activities and so forth. There's an economic cost as well as a human cost and those add up.

Hurricanes kills, yes. But so does stress, economic, fear and otherwise.
  #48  
Old 09-18-2018, 02:06 AM
MarvinKitFox MarvinKitFox is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 152
People that ignore a MANDATORY evacuation order, and then need rescuing?
Charge them with one misdemeanor for ignoring the legal instruction, and BILL them the exact cost of the rescue.
If a rescuer dies in the process of rescuing them, charge them with Felony-murder. After all, they *knowingly* committed a crime, which lead to the death of a person.
  #49  
Old 09-18-2018, 04:25 AM
Ambivalid's Avatar
Ambivalid Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In my head
Posts: 13,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarvinKitFox View Post
If a rescuer dies in the process of rescuing them, charge them with Felony-murder. After all, they *knowingly* committed a crime, which lead to the death of a person.
It's up to each state to determine what the penalties (if any) are for not complying to mandatory evacuation orders. For example Florida, a veteran of natural disasters and forced/voluntary evacs, has no legal penalty for non-compliance with the mandatory orders. Even the states that do penalize the act, including South Carolina, do so only to the extent of misdemeanors, usually in the form of fines. That hardly qualifies for inclusion in the Felony Murder umbrella.
  #50  
Old 09-18-2018, 05:00 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,938
Is full compliance even possible, let alone desirable? Like, I saw a story saying that there were a million people in the evacuation zones in South Carolina. Would it really have been a good thing if they all tried to leave? I'm thinking that things would break down pretty quickly (possibly in a catastrophic way) if a mandatory evacuation was actually treated as mandatory by the residents. In that case, it would be pretty twisted to punish the people who stayed. It would be like punishing third class passengers for having to get fished out of the water after the Titanic sank.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 09-18-2018 at 05:04 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017