Does anyone think mandatory evacuations should be enforced?

[SouthernDem2004]

Should the Police force people to leave their residents if a mandatory evac is ordered? I have noticed some people in the press seem to think so.

[ixion]

1. I don't...

I think it's up to the individual.

[applegrove]

2. Try actually evacuating all those that want out first. Once you have

taken care of that.. then worry about the people who want to stay behind. Think of the elderly & the people without cars. Take care of them - and if you have time and resources - then consider all the others.

[dmkinsey]

3. It's a flawed concept

I think the most important lesson from the two hurricanes is that it's impossible to evacuate a large city. Too much traffic for the available roads, too many families driving more than one vehicle, no way to provide fuel for the exodus.

There would have to be much stricter rules as to the required use of public transport and scheduled departure day/time to keep traffic levels manageable.
Can't imagine it would ever happen. Also can't imagine those Houston folk will ever evacuate again, no matter how serious the looming storm.

[tx_dem41]

7. Spot on post! I agree with everything you said. n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. I do too

------------------------------------------------------------------
Peace Rally SUPER THREAD:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4870788

Save this nation one town, county, and state at a time:
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[Horse with no Name]

4. Ackk this is such an iffy subject--depends why the evac

Overall, I think that in a mandatory evac that those people who choose to stay should be allowed to stay at their own peril.
However, I also think that anyone that wants to leave and doesn't have the means to leave should be provided the means.
People are gonna do what they are gonna do.
I think it is pretty silly to jump out of airplanes, however, it isn't illegal, neither should riding out a hurricane be illegal.
However, if a person staying will contribute to a public health problem, then they should be forced to leave.
I don't care if they hurt themselves, I just don't advocate them hurting others.

[sui generis]

5. I am of two minds on this one

Let's say your house on the edge of the firebrake is in danger of exploding into flames in a wildfire evacuation notice, and you decide you're going to throw bottled perrier on your roof to keep it from bursting into flames, and later three firemen die trying to rescue you from your burning McMansion, as they surely will try, the answer is a resounding YES. Drag the son of a bitch out kicking and screaming.

But their pets need to be accommodated - whatever you think about pet rescue, the on-the-ground-reality is that people will do irrational things to protect their little furballs, including putting their own lives and the lives of emergency responders at risk.

Flooding - it's hard to say. Mandatory evac of someone with an advanced medical condition can sometimes (often) kill them, as recently demonstrated in Katrina. You can't take someone who is on oxygen on a 12 hour road trip with 11 hours of oxygen.

We need better planning, MUCH BETTER public awareness of our responsibility, and I think we actually need to drill.

[whatelseisnew]

11. Perhaps a DNR code

Do Not Rescue database and/or symbol at the property location.

[sui generis]

12. any thinking feeling person could not stand by

knowing that there were idiots on a DNR list who were in imminent danger of dying.

We couldn't and shouldn't go that route - and still get to call ourselves human.

The solution isn't in waiting until the last moment - it's in training, public awareness, and conducting some kind of drill. We drill in schools and office buildings for fire and tornados and earthquakes. Why not drill in real life too, within reason?

Just the fact of the event and news coverage would keep awareness of its necessity fresh. Every time people who participate in the drill are forced to assess whether they have adequate transportation, food supplies, medicine, a place to go, etc., it will save lives and point out to officials who did NOT have access to transportation, what the realities might have or would have been.

I would call the Federal agency responsible for overseeing state and local required drilling the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency -

[whatelseisnew]

13. Do you feel the same way about the other DNR?

Do not resucitate. Just asking.

[sui generis]

14. is that .. . bait . . . I smell?

:P

Simple question with an ocean of answers. A DNR signed by an individual in a medical setting is quite different. Medical professionals understand the complex reasons a person may choose not to be resuscitated and generally respect those reasons, and in nearly 100% of the time with a DNR emergency responders who are dedicated to preserving life are not themselves put at risk doing their calling.

Lay people as a general rule, do not intrinsically understand DNRs. If someone wants to commit suicide, we pull them into lockdown psych ER for an evaluation. If your child (your adult child) told you he or she intended to burn down with their house in the forest, would you be able to live with yourself if you didn't at least try to get your kid out? First responders don't have that luxury. They don't get to stop and ask questions and cross reference lists that may or may not be up to date or even have typos on them.

So of course, I respect DNR's in a hospital setting, but there is a difference between a medical DNR and a "I've got to save the family china" DNR.

[whatelseisnew]

17. No baiting, as I said, just asking

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the DNR parallel. I respect your opinion and I have a different one. The Do Not Rescue concept was an idea to throw out for consideration, not something I necessarily advocate.

I agree that we need better planning and better public awareness.
I disagree that evacuation should be enforced unless there is a public health concern (ie. controlling an outbreak of a plague).

<spelling>

[sui generis]

23. so I'm curious now

if your adult child called to tell you he or she was staying at the family forest cabin in the path of a million acre forest fire because he or she didn't think anything was going to happen and not to worry, had signed a DNR so no firemen's lives would be at risk trying to save her if the fire did sweep over the cabin and they wouldn't waste time looking for survivors, you would be okay with that? I couldn't. I'd go all rambo on my brat's ass and drag him or her out kicking and screaming by the hair.

I think if I were a fire chief, it would be tremendously difficult on my firefighters to conceive of obeying such a DNR, or having to be in the position of being forced to legally respect such a situation to begin with.

I know it sounds paternalistic and even militaristic to think that there are some situations besides plague that might in some cases warrant a forced evacuation, but I at least have to consider that I wouldn't want a blanket rule to prevail in every case, either way.

I guess "forced evacuation" carries many connotations - but if we define them up front rather than guess at the worst of them we will have a better happy medium for saving the most lives in the most cases.

[whatelseisnew]

24. I wouldn't want a blanket rule either

Yes, "forced evacuation" is a complex idea and I agree that defining the details up front is the preferred approach.

I happen to believe that individuals have the right to assess their own situation take their own risks (even if it means facing death).

As for the question of the child, you say "didn't think anything was going to happen". If I had information to the contrary, I would indeed give them that information. But the choice is theirs, not mine.

[wtmusic]

6. yes

same as forcing them to leave a condemned building, an area threatened by wildfire, etc. For their own good and for the public good.

[Igel]

8. I like how the city of Galveston did it.

Mandatory evacuation.

Then go from door to door, making sure that people know they should get out. Provide transportation. No one was there that didn't have the risk explained to them and didn't decide to stay. (And then, because Galveston could, it sealed off the city.)

Then put the area under a curfew: if you're there, we don't like it, but stay inside or face arrest. At least until it's too dangerous for the law enforcement folks to be out.

[brokensymmetry]

9. Yes.

Forcing people out of their homes - even if it's for their own good - goes against my beliefs in freedom and liberty.

If I want to eat too much bacon - even though it may be bad for me - I should have the right to do so. From this, all else must follow.

[longship]

10. I don't think that's possible

The gov't does not have the right to take a person off their land without due legal process. This is fairly clear in the Constitution. You'll notice that when they began resorting to forcing people out of NOLA they stopped quickly.

The government, local or federal, has no rights here. They can strongly urge people to leave; they can even call it a manditory evac as long as they don't enforce it. Because they *can't* legally enforce it.

Note: IANAL.

[ComerPerro]

19. That's about where I am. I don't think it could be done

[Silverhair]

15. No.

I once thought so, but have now come to believe it to be greatly over done. People are being ordered to evacuate that aren't in any serious danger, thereby compounding the problem.

[RobinA]

16. No I Do Not

First of all, the police have better ways to use their pre-disaster time than pulling stubborn Americans from their houses. Second, people should be free to be stupid if they want. It should be made clear that if they don't leave rescue is by no means a foregone conclusion until the storm is over. I do not think the Coast Guard should have to risk their lives at the height of the storm to pull refusers from raging water. After the worst is past they should, of course, attempt to rescue. You are free to be a refusenik, but you aren't free to be supported in your efforts by life-risking responders.

[ComerPerro]

18. Yes and no.

Should they force people who firmly don't want to leave to go?
I don't think so, but then I could see that such people would have to be responsible for their own health and safety.

However, maybe one nice thing about forced evacuations would be that there might be some measure to be sure that those who need to evacuate but can't (either because they have nowhere to go and can't afford a hotel/campground or because of some medical or physical condition) will receive assistance in evacuating.

But I doubt that will happen.

The GOP tactic will probably be: You must leave, and if you don't you will be arrested.

[WA98296]

21. Not enough police...it would take ARMED military -- that's a BAD idea

[SouthernDem2004]

26. I agree.

[txaslftist]

22. ABSOLUTELY. RESISTORS SHOULD BE SHOT>

It's for their own safety, after all.

Where do they think they live, some crazy terrorist country? Don't they realize they have to obey their government and that is their highest duty? Freedom means being kept free from harm by their government. Obedience to the government helps us stay free.

Freedom is obedience.

[Javaman]

25. Not after the colossal fuck ups during Katrina and Rita...

I think after those, it will be amazing to get anyone to leave their homes.

[WilliamPitt]

27. Bodies in the water, petrochemicals, threat of cholera, bacteria...

My friend Nate met a woman from NOLA whose daughter got eaten by a goddam alligator. They were everywhere, apparently.

It's an impossible question because it is a no-win situation. But if more people will die if they are let back into a disaster area, I think mandatory evacuations make sense.

If it was a nuclear incident and people wanted to stay, I think people would be OK with forced evacuations.