Massachusetts-State of Emergency

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77


I'm just here because it is an active thread at 5 AM. Martial law it is clearly not. I don't see armed military personnel shooting people on sight for being out after curfew. We really can disagree, it is ok. I am not going to change my mind over a declared state of emergency (which happens every hurricane btw). I don't agree with the excessive fines and threatened jailtime and have said as much. I can't see any wrong with issuing the State of Emergency though.

No I am pretty sure it is Constitutionally legal to walk around and drive during hurricanes.

This is technically martial law because they are issuing orders to the public vs threatening punishment if they do not comply. That is the very definition of martial law, a suspension of ordinary law in favor of militaristic doctrines.

The "normal" declarations we are more accustomed do not restrict Constitutional rights nor compel citizens through extortion or coercion.

Also may I ask, how would you "see" armed military personnel had they been there or not? You wouldn't, like you said you are in a shelter at 5am. So whatever is out there is unknown to all of us, and it is beside the point anyways.

Martial law doesn't need military forces when everyone stays home and obeys.
They don't need to shoot anyone on sight as that isn't a requisite for martial law either.

Plus the way cops are armed these days, they are essentially 'soldiers' fighting the "war on crime" are they not?

We can twist this thing around a thousand ways till Sunday but it doesn't change the fact this is indeed martial law in actuality.

reply to post by CranialSponge


Ditch that link - there's no power in that location. That webcam is dead.
Try this one for streaming news. www1.whdh.com...

reply to post by Trexter Ziam


Ooo, good link.

It's showing some news now.

Thx !

reply to post by strokker

I think it's a great idea! Two years ago we had a snow storm in North Lanarkshire which occurred at rush hour. This meant the roads were full of vehicles driven by morons who had no idea how to drive in the snow. The end result was lots of abandoned cars and blocked roads. The blocked roads meant the gritters and snow ploughs could not clear the roads. The result : total gridlock for miles and miles.

If the roads had been clear at the time the snow fell the gritters and snow ploughs would have cleared the roads and everyone could have travelled for the following three days without any problems. Instead most people went nowhere for 2 days and the third day took ages navigating around abandoned vehicles.

So in my opinion it's a good idea to clear the roads of morons.

reply to post by Trexter Ziam


HA! "BLIZZARD 2013!".........The live reporter out in the field should be enough to show anyone that you should go about your business regardless of the States' mandates. It is snowing yes....but if you live there, you are accustomed to it; it happens....often.

I caught a bit of the news reporter mentioning that the last time this type of "state of emergency" was implemented was back in 1978 for about 2 or 3 days after a blizzard hit...

Originally posted by CranialSponge
I caught a bit of the news reporter mentioning that the last time this type of "state of emergency" was implemented was back in 1978 for about 2 or 3 days after a blizzard hit...

I guess he must have better sources than we do. Did he cite where this info came from?
Here is a link I found
NE Blizzard US 1978

It states they did declare an emergency to evacuate all of the public areas, but the real problem was that they declared the evacuation too late and many got caught in the middle of the storm. So actually things went wrong back then partially because of poor government management and poor meteorological prediction abilities.

It says they did ban driving afterwards but not walking hmm.

I seriously doubt they banned walking freedoms like that, but maybe they did. So, anyone have a source for that or are we expected to "believe it" because the guy on TV has so much credibility as a historian?

In fact, I would go so far as to claim that had they better prediction abilities to foresee the storm, just merely warning everyone to take the day off work and prep a few days in advance would be enough to mitigate the major problems associated with these storms in urban areas.

reply to post by muzzleflash


I could swear I read somewhere that pedestrians would be given a ride to a shelter. That could save a life. Being in this region has given me a more pragmatic outlook. I lived in hurricane alley too, 3 canes in one season passed over us...I learned to stock up...but never had any real problems. I just think pragmatically with these kinds of things.

When I first moved here someone gave me a chart of the time it takes to get frostbite in temperature ranges. Really spooked me.

blog.wolframalpha.com...

Originally posted by CranialSponge
I caught a bit of the news reporter mentioning that the last time this type of "state of emergency" was implemented was back in 1978 for about 2 or 3 days after a blizzard hit...

Throughout eastern Massachusetts, automobile traffic was banned for the remainder of the week. Thousands of people walked around the quiet city streets and frozen Charles River, some on cross-country skis.

From the link in post above.

So walking wasn't banned it appears.

And their "driving ban" lasted an entire week it claims.
Although I cannot find an exact citation for this specific allegation.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

I could swear I read in the OP that pedestrians would be given a ride to a shelter. That could save a life. Being in this region has given me a more pragmatic outlook. I lived in hurricane alley too, 3 canes in one season passed over us...I learned to stock up...but never had any real problems. I just think pragmatically with these kinds of things.

So if someone resisted being taken on that "ride", would you support using deadly force to "contain" them?
Because that is the inevitable eventuality of such a situation, if the 'citizen' refuses to comply by all means.

Will they chase them like a criminal if they try to run?

This is going way too far. Way way too far.

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
reply to post by CranialSponge

 

Are all employers going to release their employees early so that everyone can get themselves home before this 4pm thing kicks in ?!

The malls and fast food places will stay open as late as possible, always about the dollars.

My friend works at the Mall of New Hampshire and as far as he's heard, they are planning to keep their regular mall hours till 9:30pm tonight. Those employees will be trapped in the parking lots.

Greed and logic, never the 2 paths shall cross.

yea while the owners of said are calling in demands to local managment from the the sunny gulf coast ect. Or even local but holed up in the crib well stocked.

It's perfectly legal and justified to restrict driving under dangerous conditions. You aren't just risking your own life. You risk the lives of the emergency crews that have to rush to save you. Additionally, the congestion that can build up on roads without this restriction during bad conditions slow or even stop first responders from getting to where they need to go. If doctors and other hospital staff can't get to work, people can die.

Having people off the roads lessens the need for first responders and it significantly improves the likelihood that they'll reach those that need help.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Regarding your license, it is several things but not a privilege.

The government is granting you the privilege to drive a motor vehicle on public streets legally. They can take it away if the situation allows them to....

Yes it is common sense to not go out during this period of course, but the State has decided that your lives are not important (except for the exemptions of course of those they "allow" to be out in the storm) and they know best.

Cry more

It's not that serious..

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
In NY cars are stuck on the expressway

bigstory.ap.org...

As Horus posted;



See why they're telling you not to drive now?
Really simple..

reply to post by WaterBottle


You keep saying the martial law part 'isn't serious', then you claim that a storm and some traffic jams are really serious and dangerous.

I think you are fooling yourself and are thinking backwards.

In reality, martial law is the most dangerous policy, whereas traffic jams are part of modern life.

I am certain you are over hyping and sensationalizing the reality of the traffic jam, and are emphasizing the whole "oh no people could die" aspect.

Well people could die unjustly during martial law as well.

You cannot trade your freedom for safety. Doesn't work, never will work.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
The government is granting you the privilege to drive a motor vehicle on public streets legally. They can take it away if the situation allows them to....

Skip over the part where I pointed out that as a free citizen you have every right to travel freely and fall back on the whole "they licensed you, so they can restrict you" all you want. A license doesn't grant you the ability to operate a vehicle nor even operate it safely. By your logic, the State can decide when and where you can drive at a whim.

Cry more

It's not that serious..

I wasn't crying and neither is this storm "that serious"; as storms have affected this particular area since man has occupied it. Difference is, the State is starting to prohibit people from their lives because they think they know best and using the full force of the law to meet those demands.

I am all for a public statement that pleads with the People to personally restrict their movements to only necessary travel; not to wholesale restrictions because they can. Big difference.

They have limited traffic to only what "they" have deemed acceptable but what about that family who needs to get to work to pay their bills? Call in and say "sorry the Governor says I cannot drive...." I am sure you will go off on some rant and tangent about that but people have to live their lives and do what they need to regardless of what the Government has decided.

People can decide for themselves...

My father in law lives in Madison Connecticut .. about an hour south of Massachusetts. They have 32 inches of snow on the ground and it's still snowing. Hamden CT has 34 inches on the ground .. and it's still snowing. I think Connecticut got nailed the worst ....

reply to post by muzzleflash


they showed a bread delivery guy on the news this morning who braved the martial law and tryanny and delivered bread at 5 am

While I don't agree with nanny laws, i doubt you could really go anywhere even if you wanted to. My truck has about 13" of ground clearance and 12" of snow is about the limit. 25-30 inches of snow? No thanks, i'll be inside cooking up a huge meal.

The problem with all that snow is that there's nowhere to put it. Your roof needs to be cleared, and sidewalks, roads, it adds up quick. When the plow comes by, your car will be buried for awhile no doubt.

reply to post by muzzleflash


You cannot seriously believe that this is "Martial Law" right?

The amount of hyperbole and fearmongering going on in this thread is astounding....especially for something as mundane as a state issuing a warning to it's citizens about harsh weather.

If you really for one minute believe that pedestrians or people making snow angels in the park are gonna be dragged off and arrested then you've obviously let paranoia take over my friend.

When this is all over compare the number of people who lose their lives from this very bad storm,which I hope are low...to the number of people that were actually "arrested" due to this State of Emergency,and I think you'll begin to see that you're making a mountain out of a mole hill here.

HLF