should government agencies bill chasers for their own rescue?

[the ghost of leroy]

mapgirl thinks that would be not classy, i disagree.  now you folks can weigh in.

 

[USCG RS]

First, let Josh be found first. Last I heard, he is still listed as missing.

Secondly, to do so creates several issues, mainly which that this amounts to a tax by a United States entity. The founding fathers looked at tax as the ability to kill an individual, so while there are valid points behind the desire for this, there is also legal precedent which would likely disallow this.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[the ghost of leroy]

1 minute ago, USCG RS said:

Secondly, to do so creates several issues, mainly which that this amounts to a tax by a United States entity. The founding fathers looked at tax as the ability to kill an individual, so while there are valid points behind the desire for this, there is also legal precedent which would likely disallow this.

 

yeah, the core of this controversy is wacky libertarian theory.  thanks for your contributions.

[Benadrill]

People are already billed for their rescue. 

[the ghost of leroy]

2 minutes ago, Benadrill said:

People are already billed for their rescue. 

Mmhmm. And some people in the weather world think that practice is bad. Hence the thread. 

[Benadrill]

Just now, the ghost of leroy said:

Mmhmm. And some people in the weather world think that practice is bad. Hence the thread. 

They say this as they nearly orgasm from watching storm chasing live streams or doing it themselves. Statisticaly speaking very few Americans could afford a rescue operations bill. If you are rescued by the government you generally aren't billed. It is only when private helicopters get involved, etc. Your body is billed like a car that is towed. But if you never asked them to help you then you shoud owe 0$, as no contract was ever agreed upon. 

[H2O]

Only people who snowmobile in blizzards should get billed.

[RevWarReenactor]

Yep, bill em. But also stop doing unconstitutional things like closing public areas during Hurricanes. You can't close a beach. You can't tell me I can't be on public land.

I don't know how these chasers actually get away with what they do. When Sandy hit, NJ beaches were essentially closed. It was illegal to be there. Which is unconstitutional to the max.

So in summary. I can be on whatever public land whenever I want, if EMS can't reach me, or bills me for services, or I die because of my stupidity;  that is on me.

[H2O]

oh here we go with this shit again

[the ghost of leroy]

10 minutes ago, RevWarReenactor said:

Yep, bill em. But also stop doing unconstitutional things like closing public areas during Hurricanes. You can't close a beach. You can't tell me I can't be on public land.

I don't know how these chasers actually get away with what they do. When Sandy hit, NJ beaches were essentially closed. It was illegal to be there. Which is unconstitutional to the max.

So in summary. I can be on whatever public land whenever I want, if EMS can't reach me, or bills me for services, or I die because of my stupidity;  that is on me.

You work at a department of defense facility owned by the public...mind if I stroll right in?

[mappy]

11 minutes ago, RevWarReenactor said:

Yep, bill em. But also stop doing unconstitutional things like closing public areas during Hurricanes. You can't close a beach. You can't tell me I can't be on public land.

I don't know how these chasers actually get away with what they do. When Sandy hit, NJ beaches were essentially closed. It was illegal to be there. Which is unconstitutional to the max.

So in summary. I can be on whatever public land whenever I want, if EMS can't reach me, or bills me for services, or I die because of my stupidity;  that is on me.

you should have tagged along with Chris Christie when he closed beaches then took the family there instead. 

[Mello]

No, basic services like this shouldn't be nickle and dimed.  The focus should be on saving people.  If this is really such an issue that action has to be taken (I don't think we're there yet) I'd rather it be a criminal offense for non-residents to put themselves in evacuation areas. 

[RevWarReenactor]

1 hour ago, the ghost of leroy said:

You work at a department of defense facility owned by the public...mind if I stroll right in?

Different set of circumstances. There are security risks with that. There are no security risks to standing on a public beach or other public property.

1 hour ago, mappy said:

you should have tagged along with Chris Christie when he closed beaches then took the family there instead. 

LOL

[tramadoc]

As someone who deployed to Staten Island two days after Sandy hit, I feel like people who don’t have the ability to evacuate during a mandatory evacuation should be given transport away. Many people don’t have the means to evacuate. How can you bill someone who pays taxes, but doesn’t have the means to escape? I put my life on the line for many years as a public servant. The public’s taxes paid my salary. I was there to give assistance to the best of my ability. I’ll be damned if someone should be charged for me doing my job.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[the ghost of leroy]

2 minutes ago, tramadoc said:

As someone who deployed to Staten Island two days after Sandy hit, I feel like people who don’t have the ability to evacuate during a mandatory evacuation should be given transport away. Many people don’t have the means to evacuate. How can you bill someone who pays taxes, but doesn’t have the means to escape? I put my life on the line for many years as a public servant. The public’s taxes paid my salary. I was there to give assistance to the best of my ability. I’ll be damned if someone should be charged for me doing my job.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

to be clear, the context here is relatively wealthy chasers voluntarily going into these zones and needing rescue, not the people who cannot evacuate because they lack the means to do so...

[KPITSnow]

2 hours ago, RevWarReenactor said:

Yep, bill em. But also stop doing unconstitutional things like closing public areas during Hurricanes. You can't close a beach. You can't tell me I can't be on public land.

I don't know how these chasers actually get away with what they do. When Sandy hit, NJ beaches were essentially closed. It was illegal to be there. Which is unconstitutional to the max.

So in summary. I can be on whatever public land whenever I want, if EMS can't reach me, or bills me for services, or I die because of my stupidity;  that is on me.

I think you should try standing on interstate construction when they are blasting a road through a mountain.

[tramadoc]

to be clear, the context here is relatively wealthy chasers voluntarily going into these zones and needing rescue, not the people who cannot evacuate because they lack the means to do so...

Ok. Guess I misconstrued what you said. Storm chasers that purposely put themselves in harms way and ignore governmental warnings? Yes. Charge them for man hours, fuel, flight cost, etc. They should have to pay for that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[USCG RS]

Yep, bill em. But also stop doing unconstitutional things like closing public areas during Hurricanes. You can't close a beach. You can't tell me I can't be on public land.
I don't know how these chasers actually get away with what they do. When Sandy hit, NJ beaches were essentially closed. It was illegal to be there. Which is unconstitutional to the max.
So in summary. I can be on whatever public land whenever I want, if EMS can't reach me, or bills me for services, or I die because of my stupidity;  that is on me.

Here's the thing, the reason a mandatory evacuation is ordered is to absolve the responder of the liability associated with said responder not responding when they are called. The other side of that is the fact that a person not evacuating is endangering that same responders life and it is also meant to protect the responder in that way as well.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[RevWarReenactor]

14 minutes ago, USCG RS said:

Here's the thing, the reason a mandatory evacuation is ordered is to absolve the responder of the liability associated with said responder not responding when they are called. The other side of that is the fact that a person not evacuating is endangering that same responders life and it is also meant to protect the responder in that way as well.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

 

It's a valid point; and I wouldn't want any responder putting their life in danger for someone who didn't heed a mandatory evacuation. Then again, a responder always goes into dangerous situations to rescue people who put themselves in harms way. Where is the line? At what point are you infringing on my rights as a citizen to peacefully assemble on public property?

I've been told that a beach was "closed" for 50 mph winds from some tropical storm 100 miles off the coast. That is infringing upon my rights. Because if we are going to go down that road then chasing is illegal. Are we ready to prosecute chasers? Are we ready to arrest people for exercising their constitutional rights?

[the ghost of leroy]

4 minutes ago, RevWarReenactor said:

 

I've been told that a beach was "closed" for 50 mph winds from some tropical storm 100 miles off the coast. That is infringing upon my rights. Because if we are going to go down that road then chasing is illegal. Are we ready to prosecute chasers? Are we ready to arrest people for exercising their constitutional rights?

what part of the constitution enshrines the right to be on a beach again?

[Chicago Storm]

Yes.


.

[H2O]

42 minutes ago, the ghost of leroy said:

what part of the constitution enshrines the right to be on a beach again?

BoR amendments 3 and a pinch of 9

[nj2va]

1000% yes.  The foolish chasers who voluntarily put themselves in harms way should have to pay for their rescue.  

[vogelhund]

They should be charged double if they dial 911.

[Torch Tiger]

good luck proving who was "chasing" though

[H2O]

Look for the cars with chaser stickers festooning the side of a SUV

[Lady Di]

Your run of the mill chasers doing it for the thrill of it-yes.  Chasers that are going in for research purposes to further the science of meteorology, no.

How to tell the difference?  Have the local authorities permit of deny access to their locale.  Ex:  like a passport or needing a permit.  It can be accepted or rejected based on credentials and abilities.  I don't see where that infringes on your constitutional rights.  When an area is placed under an evacuation order, it's just that temporary.   

 

tramadoc-----Thank you for your service!

 

[Torch Tiger]

51 minutes ago, H2O said:

Look for the cars with chaser stickers festooning the side of a SUV

they'd disappear faster than a slushy DC inch

[eyewall]

Depending on the circumstances I would say yes. Depends on the purpose of the chase. I don't know what category Josh fits in. I know he would have the financial resources it seems for it.

[The Dude]

16 hours ago, the ghost of leroy said:

what part of the constitution enshrines the right to be on a beach again?

I think it can be implied in the right to bare arms.