Well, I think they should bear some of the cost. Or, at least, have to wait until it's safe the the responders to rescue them (or for them to get out on their own).I see stories of people who have to be rescued and I wonder: if they were IN the evacuation zone and chose to stay and then need to be rescued, shouldn't they be fined? I personally think the fine should be pretty hefty. Thoughts?
That is very nice of you.I hosted evacuees here over the last 4 days. We all shook our heads over the reports of people calling for help who were in the mandatory evac areas. I believe they should be charged for the cost of the rescue.
In AZ during monsoon season we can have roadways flood, we have a law called the stupid motorist law which allows the first responders to fine a driver that stupidly tried crossing and got stuck or washed away and required rescue..they are then financially responsible for the cost of their rescue.
Seems fair, it's discretion based so if you have a good excuse or whatever you may not have to pay.
Given that most people who "choose" to stay do so largely due to reasons related to poverty, I would say no.I see stories of people who have to be rescued and I wonder: if they were IN the evacuation zone and chose to stay and then need to be rescued, shouldn't they be fined? I personally think the fine should be pretty hefty. Thoughts?
First responders don't have to answer 911 calls, they can tell people "no" if they want