Social Question

tinyfaery's avatar

Should those who ignore mandatory evacuations be arrested and/or prosecuted?

Asked by tinyfaery (44249points) August 31st, 2009

Currently, there is a huge fire raging in Los Angeles. People who ignored mandatory evacuations are trapped and firefighters have to risk their own lives to save them, not to mention the resources involved. Mandatory evacuation cannot be enforced. In other words, residents cannot be forced to leave.

If residents don’t leave after a mandatory evacuation has been ordered should they be arrested for their own safety and the safety of others? Or do they have right to stay and potentially risk the lives of others and waste precious resources? If these people do need to be rescued, should they be charged for the resources used to save them?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

14 Answers

The_Compassionate_Heretic's avatar

Good question.
I’d like to know why they are deciding to stay. Are they just being stubborn? Do they lack the means to flee (i.e. no car), or have issues with personal mobility?

Arresting them isn’t a great idea since we’ve already packed our prisons to the point where we have to release prisoners because there’s just no more room. Putting more people in jail for non-violent offenses sounds like a bad idea.
I’d be alright with fining people who refuse to cooperate with evacuation orders.

We don’t want to drag people from their homes because police will get shot doing this wether it be fire, flood, earthquake volcano or whatever.

Harp's avatar

One consideration is that whereas state and federal authorities are immune from lawsuits brought by individuals, local authorities are not. By forcing evacuation, they could be opening themselves up to lawsuits by people or businesses that suffer losses related to the evacuation or are injured during it, especially if the evacuation turns out not to have been necessary.

Darwin's avatar

Where we live we also have mandatory evacuations when a hurricane threatens. Although those who refuse to comply are not arrested, the powers that be make certain they understand that there will be no support during or immediately after the disaster. That means no police, no medical care of any sort, and no food or water other than whatever the residents might have in their own home.

The recent storm that hit Galveston was a case in point, made all the more poignant by the existence of cell phones, so friends and family could hear people they loved being swept away to their deaths.

In the aftermath of that storm our City has decided to send police door to door at a certain point to make residents aware of what they may face, and to get waivers agreeing not to sue if they survive the disaster. They also offer transportation to an evacuation bus in case the resident has no car or cannot drive.

While it might be simpler to just arrest them all, the logistical problems would be a nightmare. In our city of 230,000 if just 1% of the population refused to evacuate, the police would have to arrest, transport and house 2300 people during a disaster wherein normal jail facilities are unavailable.

Thus, our town has chosen a middle road: require evacuation, offer transport to those who cannot evacuate due to transportation-related problems, and get signed waivers from those who still refuse to evacuate but instead choose to shelter in place.

In our area, the problem is that we haven’t had a direct hit by a hurricane since Celia (1971) so there is a whole generation that has absolutely no concept of what such a storm can do. They simply cannot believe that their brick house can be blown away by 200 mph winds.

hungryhungryhortence's avatar

If apart from @The_Compassionate_Heretic has said, it’s stubbornness then yes, I think those people should foot their rescue bills.

jbfletcherfan's avatar

@hungryhungryhortence Good thought. Look at all the people who put themselves at risk to help the Katrina people. You gotta help yourself, dang it. It’s just common sense. They wouldn’t have to tell ME twice to leave!

Supacase's avatar

I don’t think anyone should go to great lengths to help or save people who ignore evacuation mandates. They should know that if they decide to stay, they are on their own. They have every right to choose to risk their own lives, but they do not get to scream for help when they find themselves up shit creek.

God, I sound heartless.

Bugabear's avatar

I think we should just leave them there. If they dont want to leave than thats fine.

jbfletcherfan's avatar

@Supacase No, you don’t. If someone wants to stay & brave it out for material things, they get what they get.

galileogirl's avatar

Personally, I think if someone refuses to leave, they should have to sign a release and list a next of kin. Then the firefighters should forget they are there and carry on fighting the fire. It may take a few deaths to make people realize Superman isn’t going to bail them out. In the 1989 Oakland fire, so many people died (and those mostly were trying to evacuate but were cut off by the firestorm) that residents are ultravigilent and leave at once. Unfortunately 1989 was a replay of 1926 with more people involved. Maybe it takes a couple of generations to forget

YARNLADY's avatar

I believe I have read that in California, they are fined for disobeying a mandatory evacuation, and can be charged for rescue related expenses.

augustlan's avatar

I asked a similar question a while back, and I still don’t think I have a full grasp on the issues. I do think there should be some consequence to defying the order.

casheroo's avatar

I know it’s the same in certain parts of Jerset as @Darwin said. My grandmother usually sticks around when they do “mandatory evacuations” for hurricanes. Depending on the hurricane, she has to hide her car in the back though. They have made it clear that they will not be back, and she assumes this risk herself.
I do think there should be some sort of consequence, I think it’s ridiculous we lose men and women who have to go back and rescue the idiots. I can’t believe people felt the need to sit and wait out a fire…that sounds pretty damn dumb.

BBSDTfamily's avatar

I don’t think we should send rescuers and food to them if they decide to stay. Offer everyone a way to evacuate (buses, etc.) and those who stay are on their own. It sounds harsh, but I don’t think firefighters, policemen, and volunteers should have to risk their life to save someone who wanted to be a dumbass.

RabidWolf's avatar

In a way, I agree with a lot of the answers here on this question. But…I’ll not leave my frightened pets behind. No fucking way. I’ll not trust some stranger to take them to a place of safety. We had a flood here several years back, and I stayed put. I didn’t leave my pets, they were taking people to a place of safety but the pets were left behind. I’m an asshole, I’ll admit that, but I’m not some heartless bastard. I had food and back up water for me and the pets, lost power, and I ate my meat raw. You go with what you have, and I had the will to not let Mother Nature beat me.I never asked for help or to be rescued. Arrest me? I’d love to see that one stick. There’s also the matter of looters, We don’t have much, but I’ll be damned if some bastard is going to just come in and rob us blind during some disaster. One Winter we had 30 below temperatures and I found a way to stay warm. Maybe not as toasty as others were, but I obviously didn’t freeze to death.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther