Should the taxpayers have to pay for rescuing these people?

---

No. Will they cry like [BLEEP] when the Coasties are not there to snatch them off their roofs. You bet.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

Arizona has a "Stupid Motorist Act" that charges people for their own rescue if they drive into a flash flood. While I'm not opposed to it in principle, the people bring rescued from hurricane zones have typically lost everything to water and wind. I don't think it's right to fine or bill them in that situation (or even humane, really), and I would NOT want to be the politician answering questions about why people who just barely survived a hurricane are now being sent to collections by the government.

That's not even going into how there are, unfortunately, legitimate reasons not to evacuate. Figuring out where to draw the line would be a partisan nightmare. It's just not practical or ethical. An idiot that drives their car into a flash flood is one thing. A major hurricane survivor is another entirely.

---

I feel like a fine of some sort would be appropriate. Should they need rescuing, they're not just risking their own lives but those of the people trying to rescue them. I'd be far more reluctant if there wasn't so much prior warning and evidence showing that it would be devastating.

---

It would take a level of bipartisanship that were currently incapable of.

---

I feel like a fine of some sort would be appropriate. Should they need rescuing, they're not just risking their own lives but those of the people trying to rescue them. I'd be far more reluctant if there wasn't so much prior warning and evidence showing that it would be devastating.

"Sorry you lost your house. Here's a $500 fine for making us come get you."

Somehow that just seems really awful.

---

I feel like a fine of some sort would be appropriate. Should they need rescuing, they're not just risking their own lives but those of the people trying to rescue them. I'd be far more reluctant if there wasn't so much prior warning and evidence showing that it would be devastating.

"Sorry you lost your house. Here's a $500 fine for making us come get you."

Somehow that just seems really awful.

Im with you if we want to go down that road do we start fining for neglegant emegencies? Guy falls asleep with a smoke in hand sets his home on fire fine him! 

I thought the whole  idea of property taxes was to fund services, do we not pay first responders for situations just like this? 

Tell you what eliminate my mandatory property taxes and I won't ask for your emergency services, didn't think so.

---

I feel like a fine of some sort would be appropriate. Should they need rescuing, they're not just risking their own lives but those of the people trying to rescue them. I'd be far more reluctant if there wasn't so much prior warning and evidence showing that it would be devastating.

Please if I evacuated everytime the media claimed the storm of a lifetime was immenenet I'd have to take up partial living in an RV. I don't blame people that ignore all these warnings one bit. Unless you literally live on the beach crack a beer and enjoy the empty neighborhood.

---

I feel like a fine of some sort would be appropriate. Should they need rescuing, they're not just risking their own lives but those of the people trying to rescue them. I'd be far more reluctant if there wasn't so much prior warning and evidence showing that it would be devastating.

"Sorry you lost your house. Here's a $500 fine for making us come get you."

Somehow that just seems really awful.

If you had the ability to leave and chose not to then I don’t see a problem with imposing a small fee for your rescue. While you may think that’s mean, I think staying in the path of a storm that everyone is warning may destroy your home and potentially kill you is stupid. Having said that, I think the fee should be used sparingly and only on those that had the ability to leave. People limited by medical issues and the like would be exempt.

---

I just wouldn't send anyone to rescue them. People have been warned for days to evacuate. It's not like they didn't have time to pack up their pets and leave town. I'd only save the animals left behind by careless people. The animals didn't have a choice. I would then bill the pet owners who left them, if they could be identified. I have no sympathy for those people.

---

"Sorry you lost your house. Here's a $500 fine for making us come get you."

Somehow that just seems really awful.

Im with you if we want to go down that road do we start fining for neglegant emegencies? Guy falls asleep with a smoke in hand sets his home on fire fine him! 

I thought the whole  idea of property taxes was to fund services, do we not pay first responders for situations just like this? 

Tell you what eliminate my mandatory property taxes and I won't ask for your emergency services, didn't think so.

---

I feel like a fine of some sort would be appropriate. Should they need rescuing, they're not just risking their own lives but those of the people trying to rescue them. I'd be far more reluctant if there wasn't so much prior warning and evidence showing that it would be devastating.

Please if I evacuated everytime the media claimed the storm of a lifetime was immenenet I'd have to take up partial living in an RV. I don't blame people that ignore all these warnings one bit. Unless you literally live on the beach crack a beer and enjoy the empty neighborhood.

Are you saying that they claim the storms are overblown or that you shouldn’t leave because they warn you too often?

---

Im with you if we want to go down that road do we start fining for neglegant emegencies? Guy falls asleep with a smoke in hand sets his home on fire fine him! 

I thought the whole  idea of property taxes was to fund services, do we not pay first responders for situations just like this? 

Tell you what eliminate my mandatory property taxes and I won't ask for your emergency services, didn't think so.

---

Please if I evacuated everytime the media claimed the storm of a lifetime was immenenet I'd have to take up partial living in an RV. I don't blame people that ignore all these warnings one bit. Unless you literally live on the beach crack a beer and enjoy the empty neighborhood.

Are you saying that they claim the storms are overblown or that you shouldn’t leave because they warn you too often?

Yes.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

"Sorry you lost your house. Here's a $500 fine for making us come get you."

Somehow that just seems really awful.

If you had the ability to leave and chose not to then I don’t see a problem with imposing a small fee for your rescue. While you may think that’s mean, I think staying in the path of a storm that everyone is warning may destroy your home and potentially kill you is stupid. Having said that, I think the fee should be used sparingly and only on those that had the ability to leave. People limited by medical issues and the like would be exempt.

Now you're asking the government to draw a big red line, which is something we've seen plenty of evidence that they're incapable of doing.

There's a difference between mean and inhumane. Even putting the inhumane argument aside, how are you going to enforce it? Send them to collections? Good luck with that, for all kinds of reasons. Have the IRS garnish their wages? Good luck with that, too--you've just weaponized the IRS, and your political career is over. You'd have to make it a criminal offense to stick, and the first time you try to send someone to jail for nonpayment, the Eighth Amendment would be drawn into the conversation. There's really no winning from a practical standpoint, even if you are of the opinion that it's not morally wrong to hand someone a bill for rescuing them from their destroyed house in their now-former neighborhood.

---

Are you saying that they claim the storms are overblown or that you shouldn’t leave because they warn you too often?

Yes.

No one is saying you should be forced to leave or that they don’t often exaggerate storms. But they don’t usually give this much attention to every storm that comes through, so I’m still not sure what point is being made since those examples don’t mean you shouldn’t take steps toward self preservation.

---

If you had the ability to leave and chose not to then I don’t see a problem with imposing a small fee for your rescue. While you may think that’s mean, I think staying in the path of a storm that everyone is warning may destroy your home and potentially kill you is stupid. Having said that, I think the fee should be used sparingly and only on those that had the ability to leave. People limited by medical issues and the like would be exempt.

Now you're asking the government to draw a big red line, which is something we've seen plenty of evidence that they're incapable of doing.

There's a difference between mean and inhumane. Even putting the inhumane argument aside, how are you going to enforce it? Send them to collections? Good luck with that, for all kinds of reasons. Have the IRS garnish their wages? Good luck with that, too--you've just weaponized the IRS, and your political career is over. You'd have to make it a criminal offense to stick, and the first time you try to send someone to jail for nonpayment, the Eighth Amendment would be drawn into the conversation. There's really no winning from a practical standpoint, even if you are of the opinion that it's not morally wrong to hand someone a bill for rescuing them from their destroyed house in their now-former neighborhood.

You do realize that the government already charges for many or types of rescues, right? This isn’t anything new. You’re also sensationalizing how the process would go. It’s all civil, and if the fee isn’t paid then they go to civil court. It certainly doesn’t have to be criminal. A lot of county ordinances are civil penalties, and those tickets you get from traffic cameras too. This isn’t as cruel, difficult, and uncommon as you’re making it.

---

Awesome, Weather Channel has officially joined the fake news revolution. And we wonder why people aren't taking their orders serious.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/15/wea...ssion=true

---

Awesome, Weather Channel has officially joined the fake news revolution. And we wonder why people aren't taking their orders serious.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/15/wea...ssion=true

I'll see your Weather Channel and raise you a vintage NBC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgm3_jzcNm4

---

Awesome, Weather Channel has officially joined the fake news revolution. And we wonder why people aren't taking their orders serious.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/15/wea...ssion=true

I'll see your Weather Channel and raise you a vintage NBC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgm3_jzcNm4

Why overhype something that doesn't need hype? It's just not necessary.

---

Yes.

No one is saying you should be forced to leave or that they don’t often exaggerate storms. But they don’t usually give this much attention to every storm that comes through, so I’m still not sure what point is being made since those examples don’t mean you shouldn’t take steps toward self preservation.

---

Now you're asking the government to draw a big red line, which is something we've seen plenty of evidence that they're incapable of doing.

There's a difference between mean and inhumane. Even putting the inhumane argument aside, how are you going to enforce it? Send them to collections? Good luck with that, for all kinds of reasons. Have the IRS garnish their wages? Good luck with that, too--you've just weaponized the IRS, and your political career is over. You'd have to make it a criminal offense to stick, and the first time you try to send someone to jail for nonpayment, the Eighth Amendment would be drawn into the conversation. There's really no winning from a practical standpoint, even if you are of the opinion that it's not morally wrong to hand someone a bill for rescuing them from their destroyed house in their now-former neighborhood.

You do realize that the government already charges for many or types of rescues, right? This isn’t anything new. You’re also sensationalizing how the process would go. It’s all civil, and if the fee isn’t paid then they go to civil court. It certainly doesn’t have to be criminal. A lot of county ordinances are civil penalties, and those tickets you get from traffic cameras too. This isn’t as cruel, difficult, and uncommon as you’re making it.

C'mon now, they've been overpromoting these storms for ratings since Andrew.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Eh...

Probably not...

but a lot of them die also... and so... we have nature's population control thinning the herd.
Perhaps they'll continue to test fate and we can be rid of all the ignorant folks for good.


:SIGH: probably not though...

---

No one is saying you should be forced to leave or that they don’t often exaggerate storms. But they don’t usually give this much attention to every storm that comes through, so I’m still not sure what point is being made since those examples don’t mean you shouldn’t take steps toward self preservation.

---

You do realize that the government already charges for many or types of rescues, right? This isn’t anything new. You’re also sensationalizing how the process would go. It’s all civil, and if the fee isn’t paid then they go to civil court. It certainly doesn’t have to be criminal. A lot of county ordinances are civil penalties, and those tickets you get from traffic cameras too. This isn’t as cruel, difficult, and uncommon as you’re making it.

C'mon now, they've been overpromoting these storms for ratings since Andrew.

While many of them are seriously dangerous. I know every single storm that comes through the Gulf of Mexico is deemed the next big one by all local stations.
It drives local economy.... It's crazy how many people run to the gas stations, empty the shelves of all the bottled water and beef jerky... and then when the storm isn't that bad... they use the goods up instead of saving and storing in case of the next one.

Rinse. Repeat.

---

Should the taxpayers have to pay for rescuing these people?

Nope.  I think that the people that stayed after an evacuation order was given should foot the bill.  I could understand people in a "non-evacuation zone" being given help.  If an area floods unexpectedly or a tornado hits an area, by all means use government resources (taxpayer money) to help those people.  If people are warned ahead of time and refuse to evacuate, then they should shoulder the cost of the outcome.  The only exception that I could think of is if someone is physically unable to evacuate.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

This storm was crazy. It has flooded all the way into central NC. There is a lot of flooding in my county (Moore County if you care to look it up) and there are folks who are still without power here. The amount of water pushed up through the river system and dropped on us from the sky broke previous records set less than two years ago with hurricane Matthew. We didn't have evacuation orders here because we're so far inland but people have had to be rescued. The closest evac orders were for those who live along the Cape Fear river in Fayetteville less than 60 miles east of us. Fayetteville was waterlogged with Matthew and it's even worse with Florence.

---