Strange example, the man has no car. You will now have the burden of proof that he ignored a mandatory evacuation notice. The mandatory evacuation notice came when? After bus service was already suspended I believe.
I might. I might not. Right now, I’m trying to decide; this discussion will hopefully outline the pros and cons of such an approach and help make the decision clear.
Reminding you that we’re discussing those people that had the means and the ability, and chose not to leave, I can see fining them. They took up resources - rescue boat and helicopter space, food and water - that were needed by people that HAD no choice. People that couldn’t leave should not be fined – people that could but chose not to, I’m not so sure yet.
The first link has a question ot me that I missed, but have now answered. The second link does not.
He said it was his decision. Burden of proof is on you to say it was not.
The article seems silent on that point – how do you conclude Mr. Nolan has no car?
To **Bricker ** & Mr. Moto
You are both asking a victim to either plead no contest or hire and **pay ** a lawyer, and if they lose be accessed a fine and court costs. SOunds pretty expensive
Who exactly are your targets.
What about the people who live above sea level and not in the Orleans Parish.
What are the parameters.
Bricker, it sounds like after my angry post (sorry), you already gave some.
I will go with the Detroit example.
If going forward (because we definately cannot legally do anything to NO victims)
we have laws in place that say that if you had the means and ignored a manatory evacuation, you will be fined a fee for rescue. I am a little more comfortable with this. Of course this would now have to be part of the evacuation notice and the legalities may be impossible.
We will need some of the boards contributing Lawyers to answer the legality of such fines.
Is it time yet for a link to the definition of “Santorum”?
How was the notice to evacuate disseminated? Radio? Television? A link three clicks in on the New Orleans’ webpage? A really loud bullhorn? I mean, not knowing there’s a hurricane coming in this day and age is pretty darn stupid but, try as you might, you can’t legislate stupidity away.
There’s no law saying you MUST look at the Weather Channel every time it gets cloudy outside. So what’s to stop someone from claiming complete ignorance of the mandatory evacuation notice?
On the second page of the article, he mentioned there were no buses at the convention center. He mentioned a dry street. Only about a third of French Quarter Residents keep cars. It is much like Manhattan in that regard.
The little clues in the article, adds up to a likelihood of his having no car.
Again, let’s not confuse criminal and civil process.
Consider snow removal. Most municipalities that have snow also have rules regarding a property owner’s responsibility to remove snow. The failure to comply with these rules can mean a fine. You may contest the fine by showing that the allegation is in error, or that it doesn’t apply to you because you meet some exception.
What I’m discussing is a similar system for mandatory evacuations.
Anyone covered by the mandatory evacuation order.
Well… ahem… I don’t see any legal problem with such a practice, providing that financial means is a defense, and traditional “necessity” at law is a defense.
He also escaped on a school bus, apparently stolen by someone who sold seats at $100 each. That suggests that he lacked his own transportation.
Having no car is no excuse here.
The man had resources and plenty of advance warning. Apparantly he had lots of wine and Spanish cognac available as well.
He decided to stay all on his own.
What he lacked was judgement, and that got him into trouble. And in this regard, the additional incentive of a law and a fine might help him make a far better choice.
I see no point in clogging the already over-burdened justice system with what is largely a symbolic guesture which will make no difference in the future, anyway.
What will you do? Put them in prison if they’re found guilty? The prisons in this country are already clogged with murderers and rapists. Fine them? Can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip.
These people are already somewhat mistrustful of “the system”. Many of them feel they were abandoned when they needed help the most. Prosecuting them will only lead to more hostility.
Secondly, despite what the politicians tell you, harsh penalties do not keep people from doing certain acts. Everyone already knows that the penalty for murder is sometimes death but people keep doing it anyway. Why? Because they either don’t stop to consider the consequences, or they think they won’t get caught.
Thirdly, there’s really no fair way to try these people. If you’re going to excuse people who didn’t have cars, don’t you then have to make allowances for those with sick mothers? If you’re going to state that some excuses are valid, but others are not, you’re being unfair. The law is black and white-- either an act is illegal or it’s not. You can’t make exceptions for circumstance.
Nothing at all.
But in the law, there are strict liability offenses… you are considered liable even if you didn’t know. They are highly disfavored in crimininal law, but permitted in administrative contexts. We even see them in criminal law at times: statutory rape comes to mind. It’s no defense if you thought the girl was eighteen; it’s no defense if the girl gave you a fake ID that SAID she was 18… if she’s fifteen, you’re liable.
You know that Bricker is, uh, like a lawyer and stuff, right?
Cite
I can see how punishing people would create a harried situation for a judge.
Say you’re a part of a large family comprised of: you, your spouse, your elderly mother, you spouse’s elderly father, your adult siblings, and an assortment of neices and nephews.
All together, you have one vehicle at your disposal: a Ford Escort.
You have a choice: pile everyone you can in the car and evacuate, leaving behind the others (some of them helpless) or you can all stay together. You pick the latter choice because the idea of leaving behind people disturbs you so much. Five days later, you’re all being airlifted off of your roof.
Remember now. You had a choice and a way to get out. Should you be penalized for having “family values”?
Perhaps Santorum doesn’t know this (but maybe he does and he doesn’t care): After the storm hit and the flooding had started, people tried to evacuate on foot, but they were barred from doing so. They had no choice BUT to stay in NO after that point. Read here and then watch this.
If you’re going to punish people who could have evacuated but didn’t, fine. But don’t punish them if they want to get out on their own and the government won’t let them. How can anyone complain when it was the government who made them helpless? Santorum and all those defending him are willful idiots.
Did you notice in the article, he said he chose to stay, not that he ignored the evacuation orders. He may not of known about the mandatory until it was too late.
No, I didn’t and I will bow to his knowledge therefore if he says this is enforceable.
Well, since we’re talking about civil process, as mentioned above, I would say that mentioning prison is rather strange. And since we’re talking about people that HAD the means, I don’t see why you’re talking turnips.
There’s no question that some people are dissuaded by the penalities for murder, and some are not. If your theory is correct, what is the rationale for ANY criminal penalty?
Thank you for your lesson on the law.
I refer you the concept of “necessity” in the law, which is quite well-developed and refined. Necessity is a defense well-recognized in law, and is quite capable of juggling sick mothers and lack of cars.
Did you even read the article? Nobody was endangered because he stayed. He was in the French Quarter, which didn’t flood. Presumably he knew he was on high ground. He made his own way out, paying $45 for a bus ticket.
Framed in that light, I can see your point. But I’m still not sure I agree with it.
There has been talk of imposing fines on people warned not to climb certain mountains during heavy snow storms. When these people do anyway, the rescue costs can climb into the tens of thousands. I’m good with charging them for that.
But there is a difference in telling someone not to climb a mountain and telling them to abandon their homes. For many people, home means safety, so there may be a strong psychological block to leaving. And can you really enforce evacuation? Can you really force someone to abandon that which is rightfully and legally theirs? It seems a bit sticky, at best.
The other problem I have is the ex post facto factor, if I may use that term incorrectly. You can’t make up a fine after the fact.