Leave Or We'll Drag You Out

[Dragoon68]

Aren't there higher priorites to deal with than forcing the evacation of those who want to stay?

Don't people have a right to protect their own property and to make a decision to accept the risks of doing so?

Are they in any more danger than those sent to remove them?

Wouldn't it be better concentrate on those who are causing trouble or those who want to leave and, somehow, still have not been able to do so?

New Orleans Mayor: Leave or We'll Drag You Out

This one really bothers me!

 

[carpro]

It would have made sense to take that stance when it would have saved lives before the hurricane hit.

As usual with this mayor, he's too late for anything except grandstanding.

 

[Dragoon68]

This is dumb!

New Orleans Mayor to Enforce Evacuations

Extract from New Orleans Mayor to Enforce Evacuations:
... Nagin's directive which superseded an earlier, milder order to evacuate made before Hurricane Katrina crashed ashore Aug. 29 came after rescuers scouring New Orleans found hundreds of people ignoring warnings to get out. ...

Why is it now "necessary" when it was not before?

Extract from New Orleans Mayor to Enforce Evacuations:
... By midday Wednesday, however, no forced evacuations were reported. Police Capt. Marlon Defillo said police were focusing for now on people who wanted to be rescued. And Art Jones of the state Homeland Security Department said the National Guard does not work for the mayor and has yet to receive orders from the military to force people out. ...

The focus needs to remain on those that want to be rescued. There are much greater needs. Those remaining behind and behaving themselves aren't a threat to any one else. They've already bravely weathered the storm and they shouldn't have to worry about their own city police threatening them now with the foolish order. There is no justification to forcing them out.

It's a good thing the National Guard doesn't "report" to the mayor of New Orleans.

Extract from New Orleans Mayor to Enforce Evacuations:
...They included Dennis Rizzuto, 38, who said he had plenty of water, food to last a month and a generator powering his home. He and his family were offered a boat ride to safety, but he declined.

"They're going to have to drag me," Rizzuto said.

That was a sentiment Capt. Scott Powell of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources kept hearing as he tried to evacuate people by air boat.

"A lot of people don't want to leave. They've got dogs and they just want to stay with their homes. They say they're going to stay until the water goes down," he said.

Let the people who want to take care of themselves alone! Let 'em protect their property and respect their preparation, determination, ability, and courage to do so.

Maybe the city should just drop off some food, water, and ammunition to citizens willing to hold their ground.

 

[Deacon]

People that want to stay will eventually need to be re-rescued later when their supplys run out or when a health emergency occurs.

Yes it's late to force a person out now but in this case it's better to make them leave now and declare a neighborhood empty than have to continue re-rescuing the stupid dolts that think they know better and stay with their homes.

Rob

 

[Daisy]

There are gas leaks throughout the city. The standing water is toxic with rotting corpses, fecal matter and petroleum. There is no source of clean water, no way to dispose of sewage. The danger from fire, ironically, and disease is immediate.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by Deacon:
People that want to stay will eventually need to be re-rescued later when their supplys run out or when a health emergency occurs.

Yes it's late to force a person out now but in this case it's better to make them leave now and declare a neighborhood empty than have to continue re-rescuing the stupid dolts that think they know better and stay with their homes.

Rob

It may or may not be "better" but let them - whether they're stupid, prepared, or lucky - decide that for themselves and then hold them accountable for their choice!

If property owner's are willing to take the risks, let 'em do so and provide help to them in doing it. It's no more of a problem to do that than it is to move them to some shelter and take care of them there where they have no choice.

The only people left in the neighborhoods, otherwise, will be the thugs and the police neither of which is a particularly good thing.

The government line of "It's for your own good!" turned into mandatory proclamations and laws is a very dangerous thing.

The excuse of "health emergency" is greatly overstated relative to the hazard of getting blown or washed away in the storm. Plenty of people are going to be in the area during the next several months exposed to some health hazards as they work on final rescue and recovery operations and then clean up. They'll be just a vulnerable as those who live there.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by Daisy:
There are gas leaks throughout the city. The standing water is toxic with rotting corpses, fecal matter and petroleum. There is no source of clean water, no way to dispose of sewage. The danger from fire, ironically, and disease is immediate.

They understand the risks are willing to take them just like the thousands of people who will be in the area working for the government agencies, the volunteer organizations, and the contractors hired to do the clean up work.

It's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. It's our choice to take the risks we want and it's our right to protect our property even if its flooded, burned, fallen down, or worthless.

Only when what we do causes harm to another does our government, on behalf of other citizens, have a right to intercede and force us to do something we don't want to do.

 

[webdog]

You evacuate the people to protect the rescuers and volunteers, not to take away those who do not wish to leave and their civil liberties.

 

[just-want-peace]

It's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. It's our choice to take the risks we want and it's our right to protect our property even if its flooded, burned, fallen down, or worthless.

Herein lies the most outstanding difference between a conservative and a liberal; the difference between individual freedoms and the nanny state!

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by webdog:
You evacuate the people to protect the rescuers and volunteers, not to take away those who do not wish to leave and their civil liberties.

We have a government to help the people protect themselves and their property. We do not have a government to protect itself.

We're getting the roles reversed when we start making decisions based upon the "safety" of public servants verses the support of citizens willing to take care of themselves.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by just-want-peace:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. It's our choice to take the risks we want and it's our right to protect our property even if its flooded, burned, fallen down, or worthless.

Herein lies the most outstanding difference between a conservative and a liberal; the difference between individual freedoms and the nanny state! </font>[/QUOTE]The correct view is probably somewhere in the middle. I don' think I would want urination sections in swimming pools just because someone didn't want their individual freedoms encroached. The government has a certain responsibility to protect it's citizens, and the citizens have a certain responsiblity to have responsibilities.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Dragoon68:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
You evacuate the people to protect the rescuers and volunteers, not to take away those who do not wish to leave and their civil liberties.

We have a government to help the people protect themselves and their property. We do not have a government to protect itself.

We're getting the roles reversed when we start making decisions based upon the "safety" of public servants verses the support of citizens willing to take care of themselves. </font>[/QUOTE]Not entirely true. There is a fine balance. Without the government protecting the citizens to an extent would ultimately lead to anarchy, an everything goes society. A paid government employee has the right to be protected by his employer: the government.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Originally posted by Dragoon68:
We have a government to help the people protect themselves and their property. We do not have a government to protect itself.

We're getting the roles reversed when we start making decisions based upon the "safety" of public servants verses the support of citizens willing to take care of themselves.

Not entirely true. There is a fine balance. Without the government protecting the citizens to an extent would ultimately lead to anarchy, an everything goes society. A paid government employee has the right to be protected by his employer: the government. </font>[/QUOTE]Citizens prevent anarchy by being prepared, willing, and able to protect themselves and their property banding together as needed and using the resources of their government to help when they can't do so alone.

Those who want to stay in New Orleans on their property, take care of themselves, and protect their own property - whether conditions are adverse or not - need to be left alone to do so. If anything, they need to helped by their government in that effort. They don't need someone "dragging them out" just because some government official believes they know what's best for them.

The safety of public servants is a concern but it should not become an excuse for stepping on citizens who aren't doing anything that threatens anyone else nor as some procedural excess so typical of bureaucratic organizations. Inherent risks also come with the job and those have to be accepted as a duty.

The police need to be concentrating on rounding up the remaining thugs while leaving the residents who aren't causing any trouble alone.

 

[webdog]

Those same people now who do not want to leave now, will be the same ones who are getting sick, dying, and standing on their rooftops complaining we are too slow in rescuing them. Then the rescuers who are trying to rescue those from the initial tragedy won't be able to get to those who NOW need help, or will have to leave those who needed help initially to rescue the morons who do not want to leave.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by webdog:
Those same people now who do not want to leave now, will be the same ones who are getting sick, dying, and standing on their rooftops complaining we are too slow in rescuing them. Then the rescuers who are trying to rescue those from the initial tragedy won't be able to get to those who NOW need help, or will have to leave those who needed help initially to rescue the morons who do not want to leave.

It is not the "same people". They are not "morons". They are people who chose to stay, prepared for it, and have survived. People can be tougher than even the government believes. Regardless, they want to take the risk so let them do so. Put 'em on the "low priority" rescue list if that's a concern. If they don't make it, then it was their choice.

The situation will rapidly improve in New Orleans. The predictions of near eternal death in the city are the usual "gloom and doom" reports that follow a disaster. The city will be swarming with workers, on top of those already there, as cleanup and reconstruction gets into full gear. Those citizens who do stay will soon become a very small minority of persons in the area.

 

[webdog]

It is not the "same people". They are not "morons". They are people who chose to stay, prepared for it, and have survived. People can be tougher than even the government believes. Regardless, they want to take the risk so let them do so. Put 'em on the "low priority" rescue list if that's a concern. If they don't make it, then it was their choice.

And that disqualifies them as "moron's" how?

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It is not the "same people". They are not "morons". They are people who chose to stay, prepared for it, and have survived. People can be tougher than even the government believes. Regardless, they want to take the risk so let them do so. Put 'em on the "low priority" rescue list if that's a concern. If they don't make it, then it was their choice.

And that disqualifies them as "moron's" how?

</font>[/QUOTE]They're not "morons" for deciding to accept the risk of staying to protect their property. All along the Gulf Coast people have stayed when warnings have been issued because they either didn't believe the warnings which are sometimes excessive, believed the chances were small they'll actually be hit by the storm, or they weighed the matter and figured what they have was worth staying to protect. Throughout history mankind has been willing to die for the land they held. There's nothing unusual about this. Whether we understand or agree with their logic it is not our place to make them leave so long as they're not harming anyone else. We've got to get past the idea that the government is responsible for protecting us from ourselves.

 

[Deacon]

There is no such thing as a "low-priority rescue"!

Weeks from now we'll still be seeing images of tearful, sick and diseased people knashing their teeth and calling out to God for rescue while the aid workers continue to comb neighborhoods and re-rescue people again and again. (And CNN will report that it's the Presidents fault. )

At some point the rescuing needs to stop and clean-up needs to begin.

Rob

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by Deacon:
There is no such thing as a "low-priority rescue"!

Weeks from now we'll still be seeing images of tearful, sick and diseased people knashing their teeth and calling out to God for rescue while the aid workers continue to comb neighborhoods and re-rescue people again and again. (And CNN will report that it's the Presidents fault. )

At some point the rescuing needs to stop and clean-up needs to begin.

Rob

There are always priorities in major disasters or accidents. What's ordinarily an emergency can wait while other more critical needs are handled. Choices are made.

Water will continue to recede. More pumps will be brought in. Some areas never were flooded. Some people are still dry. Some are stocked with water, food, and ammunition. The dead will be found and collected. Clean up will start very soon.

There'll be lots of people going into New Orleans to work on these things. The one's already there, and not wanting to leave because they're prepared, won't be in any greater risk than those coming in.

Yes, unfortunately, whatever happens it will be the President's or the Governor's fault.

 

[LorrieGrace]

Do people now days EVER have to take ANY responsibilites for their decisions??