It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"reasonable force", "Impending danger" lovely vague vocabulary which can be used for well anything...
What's impending danger? Some cop coming to your house with a gun to kick you out maybe?
What's reasonable force? A swat team? An armoured car?
SECTION 1.15. Section 418.172(b), Government Code, is
amended to read as follows:
(b) If sufficient funds are not available for the required
insurance, an agency may request funding from [petition] the
disaster contingency fund [emergency funding board] to purchase the
insurance [on the agency's behalf. The board may spend money from
that fund for that purpose].
SECTION 1.16. Subchapter H, Chapter 418, Government Code,
is amended by adding Sections 418.185, 418.186, 418.188, 418.1881,
418.1882, 418.190, and 418.191 to read as follows:
Sec. 418.185. MANDATORY EVACUATION. (a) This section does
not apply to a person who is authorized to be in an evacuated area,
including a person who returns to the area under a phased reentry
plan or credentialing process under Section 418.050.
(b) A county judge or mayor of a municipality who orders the
evacuation of an area stricken or threatened by a disaster by order
may compel persons who remain in the evacuated area to leave and
authorize the use of reasonable force to remove persons from the
area.
(c) The governor and a county judge or mayor of a
municipality who orders the evacuation of an area stricken or
threatened by a disaster by a concurrent order may compel persons
who remain in the evacuated area to leave.
(d) A person is civilly liable to a governmental entity, or
a nonprofit agency cooperating with a governmental entity, that
conducts a rescue on the person's behalf for the cost of the rescue
effort if:
(1) the person knowingly ignored a mandatory
evacuation order under this section and:
(A) engaged in an activity or course of action
that a reasonable person would not have engaged in; or
(B) failed to take a course of action a
reasonable person would have taken;
(2) the person's actions under Subdivision (1) placed
the person or another person in danger; and
(3) a governmental rescue effort was undertaken on the
person's behalf.
(e) An officer or employee of the state or a political
subdivision who issues or is working to carry out a mandatory
evacuation order under this section is immune from civil liability
for any act or omission within the course and scope of the person's
authority under the order.
Originally posted by Credge
reply to post by Demoncreeper
Yes, but to force evacuations is pretty absurd.
I can sort of understand if the bill stated SPECIFICALLY that it was hurricanes... but it just said disasters. What is a disaster? It's loose language like that that is dangerous.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I am philosophically opposed to these kind of laws, but I certainly understand why they are in existence. I do think the government should provide evacuation services if they're going to make people evacuate.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Demoncreeper
I agree and that is why the term "reasonable" is worthless. Reasonable changes as the situation escalates!
For the subject of the Bill, the term "Disaster" would have to be a formal declaration by the Governor, President, or other entity. It is not up for interpretation. Sometimes they declare a "disaster area" prior to a storm so that certain emergency precautions can be enacted and funds made available. Sometimes they issue it after the fact, as in the case of a chemical spill or earthquake.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
I agree, and I feel that if someone refuses an evacuation order, then they do not deserve to be rescued later. That seems par for the course. I probably would not evacuate in 99% of cases, but I would never expect others to risk their lives coming back for me either!
Personal experience:
My brother moved out of a bayfront home in Pensacola 3 weeks before a major hurricane in 2005. He told me that he would never have evacuated for any regular storm. The home was masonary, and there was a very safe room toward the rear of the home.
After the storm passed, we went to see the home, the entire rear was gone (including the 'safe' room). The water marks were 5-7 ft up the walls! There is no way somebody in that house would have survived the storm!