Massachusetts-State of Emergency

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
It is one thing to declare a "state of emergency"; which by the way has really nothing to do with the citizens of the respective state and everything to do with Federal monies....so really declaring it was a preemptive strike by the states to get in line to the Federal trough.

Indeed, this is the primary reason for the declaration – like piglets fighting over which will suck the hind teat the first one to declare gets first crack at the money.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
But declaring such a state doesn't give carte blanche to the State to limit the free movement of peoples because they say so.

While I agree that the Governor of a State should have the right and does have the authority to do many things in his State – suspending the rights of people to freely travel in anticipation of a winter storm seems to be an excessive over reaction.

Limiting any right of the people should be an absolute last resort in the face of the most overwhelming of circumstances and based in facts rather than presumption. Bottom line it should not be an preemptive action taken for the convenience of the government to make their jobs easier.

I think this is crazy. Pull-up your big boy pants and work within the law and framework of our freedoms and solve the problems - without suspending the rights of the people. I guess that would be too hard...?

I’m sure everyone would love to have the authority basically and declare themselves dictator just because it would make their job easier in a crisis by not having to deal with pesky citizen rights for instance….

The fact that this seems the solution is pure laziness on the part of the legislatures and the suspension of constitutional law to "assist" any leader do his job in a crisis is plain and simple a violation of their oaths.

It’s a winter storm not WWIII or Armageddon…

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
That in its self is draconian and people should use common sense when they move about their lives as they need to do, not as the Government has decided they need to do.

Indeed, the government can make a travel advisory or warning and tell the people that they should not travel but to suspend their right to do so altogether is another level of intrusion not warranted. If they get stuck and block the lanes the just plow their car under or push it to the side – they took the risk who cares about their car. If someone gets stuck and calls for rescue – bill them for the cost. Punish the offenders not the general public.

However, this is IMO pretty much par for the course on the left coast.

Punish everyone for the actions of the stupid or criminals.

reply to post by snowspirit


OK. Try driving around a city with a population of millions with high traffic..... Not very easy. Especially if you're not in some sort of truck/suv.

Your whole gigantic province only has 3 million people.

NYC has 8 million alone.. and NYC could probably fit in Alberta 400 times if not more.

Urban USA is much much diff than the boondocks of Alberta.

reply to post by Golf66

Indeed, the government can make a travel advisory or warning and tell the people that they should not travel but to suspend their right to do so altogether is another level of intrusion not warranted

A good clarification and welcome in this dialogue if I may say so. Likely they think people will ignore the warnings, as Katrina proved by example.

reply to post by WaterBottle


I understand not wanting people driving around in the cities. Outside of the cities is completely different.

I live rural, nearest town half hour either north or south.
Edmonton is an absolute nightmare in this type of weather. Accidents everywhere. They shove the vehicles off to the side of the road in these situations, until help comes. That's a business in itself.

Edmonton and Calgary are the 2 largest populated cities in the province. Everywhere else is much smaller.

I avoid Edmonton in the winter as much as possible.

When an area gets the type of weather we get, people are equipped with good tires - in the winter (6 months minimum) that is mandatory.
Most people in the prairie provinces also drive 4 wheel drives out of necessity.


I would NOT want to drive in a place as busy as New York, ever.
That would be stressful in the best of weather, and I grew up in Vancouver.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Golf66

 

Indeed, the government can make a travel advisory or warning and tell the people that they should not travel but to suspend their right to do so altogether is another level of intrusion not warranted

A good clarification and welcome in this dialogue if I may say so. Likely they think people will ignore the warnings, as Katrina proved by example.

Funny you should mention this, we had people arrested on my street for not heeding the warning and out doing donuts in thier vehicles in the storm. Now just imagine how many more there may have been out being idiots had the state of emergency not been issued.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Golf66

 

Indeed, the government can make a travel advisory or warning and tell the people that they should not travel but to suspend their right to do so altogether is another level of intrusion not warranted

A good clarification and welcome in this dialogue if I may say so. Likely they think people will ignore the warnings, as Katrina proved by example.

reply to post by defcon5


I totally agree with what you said in that post.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Likely they think people will ignore the warnings, as Katrina proved by example.

I think that is exactly what "they" fear.

They fear one another thing perhaps even more; having anyone die or be not prepared enough to ride it out and blaming their lack of preparation on the government not giving explicit enough or emphatic enough warnings.

They don't really care for the people or their plight really it's more they care that their constituents in the quest to blame everyone but themselves for their poor choices would blame the government and vote them out of office.

I fear that the government is simply reacting to what the sheeple want (as seen right here in this thread) they want someone to make their decisions for them. To accept responsibility for their safety because they don't want to be responsible for their own.

We have created this thirst for over reaction on the government's part with our whinny responses to every situation - demanding government assistance and aid for things that we should be prepared for ourselves.

What did people do before FEMA and "State's of Emergency"? They laid in firewood and food for a long winter and hoped for the best. If they got snowed in the improvised and adapted and either survived or perished on their own merits. The end result was a stoic and prepared citizenry who could handle their own problems for the most part. Those who could not were stricken from the gene pool. However, now we coddle and soothe the stupid and the unprepared so they procreate and do so usually with vigor and enthusiasm taking advantage of the many social safety nets available - "for the sake of the children".

In all honesty, this is only going to get worse from here. As we ask for more intrusion because so many cannot or will not make appropriate steps to prepare for things - the government will be happy to provide it for us at the low, low, price of our freedom.

This may not be an option for everyone but I live rural and me sending a copy of the below to the appropriate authority is a simple thing - I walk into the Sheriff's office and give it to him and forward a copy to the only fire department in the County along with the only ambulance. I gave them this and put one on file at the clerk’s office in the courthouse too.

I _____________________ do hereby serve notice to the local state and federal authorities that I do not recognize your authority to direct compel or require me as a sovereign citizen to vacate my home or land; of which I am sole owner in title and deed in the event of any state of emergency or disaster for my own protection of for the supposed protection of others.

With regard to the protection of others; I do hereby serve notice that in the event of a natural disaster, war, terrorism or other “acts of god” that I do not require nor do I desire any attempt to rescue me or my assets by the government of the United States, State of Missouri or any of its agents or any other government or persons; this is without regard to the perceived lethality of the threat or extended duration of the “emergency”.

I take sole responsibility for my own life and property and without regard to any insurance coverage that may be in effect reserve the right to protect them both within the full extent of the law.

I reserve the right to defend myself and my life sustaining items with force if necessary as a last resort under the Constitution of the United States and Missouri State law.

I will not infringe upon the rights or property of others and only wish to be left alone so that I may take care of my property.

I recognize the risk of possible death and have communicated my intent along with a copy of this affidavit to my next of kin so that they know this decision is mine alone for purpose of absolving the government(s) of any liability for inaction.

Seal and witnesses and such….

reply to post by defcon5

As any cop will tell you, “your rights end, when they cross over another persons rights”...

Yes, I hear what you are saying. In this case, someone in authority made a decision he thought was in the best interests of everyone.
This is unlike the authority Mayor Bloomberg expects to wield by telling people they should not be allowed to have a big gulp because it may cause the city to have to bring out the emergency vehicles after they get a big sugar rush. I cannot imagine any other reason for this intrusion, honestly.

Apparantly they're saying you can only be on the roads if you provide proof you provide critical services within your community.

Seems extreme to lay down the law on it like this. Its fair to advise people stay off the roads, but an outright ban and jail time if you don't comply??

Here's the Executive Order

reply to post by Golf66

What did people do before FEMA and "State's of Emergency"?

Yes, this was part of why I posted about "Anne of Green Gables". During the pioneer days and people lived in rural farm communities with houses hours away from town on distant country roads, the infrastructure just was not there to accomodate what we have today in terms of emergency vehicles, ambulances, snow plows and so on.
In a large city though,. large amounts of traffic can indeed ball things up for numbers of people. I do remember in my hometown, we had several repeated snowfalls which caused problems in the city, and the snow piled up pretty high on the sides of the road, and the Mayor did actually declare one day people were not allowed to be on the streets "unless absolutely necessary", so there was still some discretion allowed for private citizens.

Originally posted by violet
Apparantly they're saying you can only be on the roads if you provide proof you provide critical services within your community.

Seems extreme to lay down the law on it like this. Its fair to advise people stay off the roads, but an outright ban and jail time if you don't comply??

Here's the Executive Order

edit on 9-2-2013 by violet because: (no reason given)

It states explicitly that people supporting food stores and gas stations are critical to the community and therefore are excluded from the ban..... so if workers in food stores are not banned, then going to the foodstore must by reason not be banned.....I dunno seems like a certain level of individual discretion involved here. I see nothing about people being arrested and taken to jail in that order, and no bans on walking.

Originally posted by defcon5
It’s perfectly okay for the state to suspend “certain rights” during a “state of emergency”.
Again, being in an area that has these issues on a regular basis, you learn that people are stupid, and put themselves in harms way for no good reason.

I agree - however, this here seems to be a pretty low threshold for the suspension of all legal travel. It should be an absolute last resort – the counter to absolute chaos not the counter to something yet to occur. The bar gets ever lower and lower until eventually a “State of Emergency” will simply be the normal state of being.

Originally posted by defcon5
In this case, your right to act like an idiot ends when you start placing the lives of the emergency works, who are required to come to your aid, in danger.

I'd rather they suspend emergency response and tell people if you chose (key word) to go out despite the warning they are on their own. Tell them no one will be forced to come to their aid and that their choice to ignore the warning is in effect a waiver of liability and no lawsuits, relief or remedy will be granted or entertained. That I can get behind. See the emergency people work for the government they can be told what to do and not do it's really that easy.

Originally posted by defcon5
Folks who will often disregard emergency “closures” or “evacuations”, then once that the situation becomes apparent, and they realize that they are in a “life and death” situation, they start calling for emergency folks to risk their lives to rescue them from their own stupidity at ignoring the warnings.

Indeed they do – so let them enjoy their Darwin award in peace in a pine box or unmarked grave for the stupid who disregard fair warning.

I’d rather the above than we preemptively punish the general public because “some people” in this case "might" act imprudently in the face of a winter storm. How about instead we bill the idiots who act in this manner if they need rescue, then prosecute them for placing the rights of others at risk and allow the families of the injured or deceased seek remedy under the law in civil court? Why punish us all preemptively, because taking away someone’s rights is in effect a punishment is it not? It generally requires due process and all that jazz.

Originally posted by defcon5
Over time, this has become such an issue, that they can now “Force” you to follow the rules, and arrest you if you don't.

Only because we accept it...I don't accept it.

Originally posted by defcon5
Its perfectly legal for the government to do so for the “greater good” of others whose lives you endanger.

It is only legal because the people making such a decision are a part of the government (judges are government employees after all) and therefore benefit from making such a decision.

Leave these things up to a jury as our system intended. Oh the Highway State Patrol is suing Joe Public for the cost of his rescue on the night of XXXX when he did act in a willfully negligent manner by choosing to ignore the travel advisory by operating his vehicle on Highway 95 for no purpose other than personal pleasure. Also, the Widowed Mrs. Trooper is suing Joe Public for the tragic loss of her husband’s life when he was killed in the attempt to rescue him on the same night. I bet the jury would agree that his actions were negligent…

However, suspending everyone’s rights because the above might be cumbersome or inconvenient is simply lazy governance.

Make the offenders pay not the people in general.

I'm going to pull the "conspiracy card" here.


Do you imagine that government (be it state or federal) imposes such dictates in order to see what they can get away with?

Law generally runs on precedent. So if enough times occur that we followed those "rules" that they impose, would they then try to make such things permanent?

Originally posted by beezzer
I'm going to pull the "conspiracy card" here.

That is basically my stance that every time they do this the threshold for invoking a State of Emergency for "the safety of the general public and our public servants" gets a little lower.

At some point we will be in a declared State of Emergency - which gives the government extraordinary power and usurps our rights as a general rule.

I think we have been in a declared State of National Emergency since 9/11 have we not? That crisis has long since passed.

Originally posted by beezzer
Do you imagine that government (be it state or federal) imposes such dictates in order to see what they can get away with?

Yes, absolutely.

Originally posted by beezzer
Law generally runs on precedent. So if enough times occur that we followed those "rules" that they impose, would they then try to make such things permanent?

This is the slippery slope argument people say doesn't exist in dealing with the government. Anyone can eat an elephant one bite at a time...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by violet
Apparantly they're saying you can only be on the roads if you provide proof you provide critical services within your community.

Seems extreme to lay down the law on it like this. Its fair to advise people stay off the roads, but an outright ban and jail time if you don't comply??

Here's the Executive Order

edit on 9-2-2013 by violet because: (no reason given)

It states explicitly that people supporting food stores and gas stations are critical to the community and therefore are excluded from the ban..... so if workers in food stores are not banned, then going to the foodstore must by reason not be banned.....I dunno seems like a certain level of individual discretion involved here. I see nothing about people being arrested and taken to jail in that order, and no bans on walking.

reply to post by Golf66

Originally posted by defcon5

Also people taking children with them into these situations, where the child is really stuck in a situation that is not of their own choice or making.

So the government can supercede parental authority on a risk that just "may" occur?

Where does that stop???

Aren't you opening the door to silly laws imposed on parents then?

reply to post by beezzer


Your rights end when they cross the lines of another person.
That includes your children (you know they actually do have rights, a right to being safe being one of them), and rescue workers.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by beezzer

 

Your rights end when they cross the lines of another person.
That includes your children (you know they actually do have rights, a right to being safe being one of them), and rescue workers.

Quite true. But I fear the day when my door is broken by a SWAT team because I gave my son seconds on bacon.

Granted, a bit hyperbolic, but parental authority should supercede government authority. Unless the child is in imminent risk. This is the "slippery slope" so many of us go on about here on ATS. We cede authority to our children's education with schools. With their diets. With what they watch on tv. With what games they play.