Should Emergency personnel risk their lives to rescue people who refused to eva
Should Emergency personnel risk their lives to rescue people who refused to evacuate?
Hurricane Sandy, a superstorm will hit the east coast in about 5 hrs. Some people in low lying areas have refused to heed the evacuation warnings. The winds are beginning to get ferocious and some of them are now calling for help while there is still time. Others still insist they can ride it out. Should Emergency personnel risk their lives to rescue these people in the midst of the storm?No, once people know conditions require departure, then should they choose not to go they're on their own. The phrase "mandatory evacuation" is misleading. The authorities have no legal right coercively to remove you from your home, and so such orders are not truly mandatory, but when they announce one no court will entertain a subsequent complaint they bore any responsibility to respond had you called for help.
IOW, if you choose to remain in your house on the beach with a hurricane bearing down on it, it's your problem once the public is told it's not safe to stay there. If you change your mind as the breakers roll over you, don't call us, we'll call you. Bon voyage.I agree and not because I am callous but because first responders are risking their lives in the midst of a treacherous storm to go save people who should have heeded the warnings. They have families as well.
Many of them do, and those who don't still have a right to life. They go when they can, even after warnings and evacuation orders have been issued, but there must be no requirement they do.
Many of these people don't refuse. They just can't. If they have no money, no transportation and nowhere to go, what do they do? Shelters fill up, roads close and nothing is free. Then they don't know if there will be anything left to go back to. How do you decern these people from the true refusers? You don't. You deal with it after the fact in some way.
One thing I do know is that it's easy to form that opinion, sitting here in front of a computer. We can't put ourselves in their place either. Unless we have been under that actual distress, making those difficult decisions, we don't condemn or abandon that person that is.
Emergency personnel's safety has to be considered, but why join the Army if you're not willing to go to war? If a person doesn't understand the risks of rescue, they shouldn't sign up.
You don't ask a person why they are there before you pull them drowning. Save now; ask later.I watched the news coverage before and after the storm and these were just people who wanted to stay and watch their homes or who thought they knew more than the experts.
So, now that the storm is over and we know there are thousands of people stranded that decided to stay, should we tell them that we'll get to them when we can and to quit complaining how long it's taking for help to arrive?
I would. Don't reward dum!
- Justsilvieposted 11 years ago
0Emergency Personnel are doing their job and I doubt they consider whether someone is deserving of their attention or not. This same question came up during Katrina and the stories of being trapped were heartbreaking, some may have used bad judgement but I think the majority just have no way out. This might be something they should look at for future disaster planning.
Do you mean are young men and women in uniform fighting for the ideals of an undeserving population?
