What rights? Police can use force to compel evacuation

[rbell]

SOURCE

OK...I think people that stay in most instances have a screw loose. Some stay to protect their stuff. Others stay because they don't believe it will get that bad. Still others have different reasons. Some ideas I get...others, I just shake my head at.

This new law allows police to arrest folks who don't follow mandatory evacuation notices.

Arrest them? Come on, now.

One solution...that people who stay are responsible for the cost of rescuing them...I can certainly understand that. If it's too dangerous to stay, then I can understand recouping the cost from those who won't listen.

But arrest them? Last I checked, there was this issue called "property rights." How quaint.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The problem I have with most american government run systems is the cost. We are not getting the bang for our buck. Per dollar Europeans and Canadians are getting more. We're getting close to the tax rates of these countries yet receive so much less. We went to war over taxation without representation. Now we're represented and its getting worse!

 

[sag38]

I'll tell you who I would like to see mandatory evacuations for. How about all of congress? Please leave and don't come back. After all they are the disater that is happening to the United States even as we speak.

 

[Johnv]

This is a state issue, not a federal issue, affecting the State of Texas only. One must question, however, whether the law would be a violation of US Constitution Amendment V, which guarantees that a person cannot be deprived of their property (state laws must conform to the US Constitution). The crux of that issue would be if allowing a person to remain in their property in an emergency disaster situation is required to guarantee the protections of Amendment V.

 

[billwald]

If they are arrested people will have a place to stay.

If the govt can force evacuation then they should force motel chains to give a discounted rate.

 

[Johnv]

I neglected to note earlier that there are indeed situations that SCOTUS has ruled it is permissible to detain US Citizens and remove them forceibly from their property. A good example is the relocation of US Citizens of Japanese ancestry to interment camps. In Korematsu v. U.S., SCOTUS ruled that it was not unconstitutional. Removing a person from his/her property in an emergency vacuation is certainly more of a dire situation than that, so it's likely that the Texas law is Constitutional.

 

[rbell]

Unfortunately, it probably will be upheld.

But hey, it's not like a right to private property exists anymore, anyway...it's all "public." (read: government)

As I have said: I have no problem with authorities telling a person that's dug in: "Look, you can stay, but you'll have to foot the bill for any rescue we do for you."
Fine, do that.

But, I now have to depend on bureaucrats to tell me when it is safe or not? These are the same bureaucrats who spent most of Katrina trying to remove their heads from their collective behinds. I certainly understand skepticism.

Not to mention...government works in reactionary ways. Case in point: When a disaster catches government folks napping, (or pretty much anyone, for that matter)...the next time around, they are usually hyper-cautious--sometimes to the point of being silly. I guess that's just human nature.

But I can see a scenario in which a person makes a rational, thought-out decision to stay put.

Now...there are many more who stay put because they want to get drunk and have a "hurricane party," or they have an irrational desire to protect stuff, or they say, "Well, it's never been that bad before, so..." and other "brilliant" deductions.

But the US Constitution does not make provisions for making stupid illegal. It also doesn't offer protection to citizens from the consequences of being stupid.

 

[BigBossman]

As I have said: I have no problem with authorities telling a person that's dug in: "Look, you can stay, but you'll have to foot the bill for any rescue we do for you."

I agree with that. If a person stays during a major disaster after being told to leave, then they should be on their own & pay for any rescues made.

Of course, I'm not the kind of person that will just up & leave town at the first sign of a hurricane. During both Hurricanes Ivan & Katrina, those people that left had to wait for the go ahead to return to their property after the storm was overwith. We were spared for the most part during Ivan & Katrina, but I could only imagine what it would have been like if I had to live in a motel 100 miles from my home, because I'm not allowed to return to see if anything is salvageable. I would have been extremely irritated at the authorities if my home was in descent shape & was looted by someone who stayed behind. I have even heard stories of people having to carry guns with them to the grocery store during the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew (in Miami), becuase people would rob them just for their food.

 

[LadyEagle]

I'll tell you who I would like to see mandatory evacuations for. How about all of congress? Please leave and don't come back. After all they are the disater that is happening to the United States even as we speak.

Amen to that! Can we make a citizen's arrest? After all, they are like leeches, living off of us.