Looters? Are you kidding!!!

[Drip_Torch]

That's the only legit (?) reason to ignore evac, sometimes. The police patrols during these situations can only do so much.

Yeah, I'd beg to differ and would suggest worst possible reason ever. Stuff can be replaced, even if it's stolen.

Never "ignore an evacuation order" would be my advice.

[mexi cali]

I like my stuff. Even if it is just stuff to some. If I could reasonably protect it from puss eating, pig fornicating, feces eating pieces of, I would.

[tsayta]

I like my stuff. Even if it is just stuff to some. If I could reasonably protect it from puss eating, pig fornicating, feces eating pieces of, I would.

+1

[mexi cali]

I just thought of this; remember the trunk mounted gattling gun in the last episode of breaking bad?

[tsayta]

Oh I don't know, perhaps the occasion calls for something like this?...

free html images

[Drip_Torch]

I like my stuff. Even if it is just stuff to some. If I could reasonably protect it from puss eating, pig fornicating, feces eating pieces of, I would.

Yeah, I get that, but I'll say it again; "never ignore an evacuation order". I'm not saying exactly what'll get me the most likes; but I am saying if you're getting an evacuation order, you should give it some very serious thought. I hope you would analyze things beyond "I like my stuff". You're probably facing a fairly serious situation.

I still think it's the worse reason ever to decline an evacuation order and ignoring an evacuation order is a really bad idea.

[Woodenhead]

Been there, done that. After a good risk assessment, OFC. No worries. Situations can vary.

[Drip_Torch]

Been there, done that. After a good risk assessment, OFC. No worries. Situations can vary.

I don't mean to get all preachy on you and perhaps I just picked at a poor choice of wording, but it seems you and I do agree in the end.

Situations do vary and looting is just another hazard that people may be facing this fire season - I'm not sure that I'd even call it a secondary hazard, as the risks are a plenty. I stood on the soapbox for a while shouting out to the moon in support of peoples right to make an informed decision based on their own individual situation. So perhaps, I feel a little responsibility to balance that position. I'd never encourage anyone to decline an evac order without first giving it a "good risk assessment".

Take the Tl'etinqox First Nation as an example of one of the other risks that can develop in these situations. A community of 1000, currently has 300 members that have chosen to stay behind. When I first heard of the situation I thought good for them, local communities are in the best position to understand their circumstances, plan for it and shape outcomes. Then I read the story of how tempers had flared between them and the RCMP. Just another risk: a member trying to do the right thing, perhaps in a situation that is entirely new them, and maybe even one they'd rather not be in and things escalated quickly.

The list of risks is long one, and that's why I'd say never ignore an evacuation order, but I certainly am onside with your right to make an informed choice.

[Woodenhead]

It's OK, DT, you certainly aren't wrong.

[mexi cali]

Been there, done that. After a good risk assessment, OFC. No worries. Situations can vary.

I don't mean to get all preachy on you and perhaps I just picked at a poor choice of wording, but it seems you and I do agree in the end.

Situations do vary and looting is just another hazard that people may be facing this fire season - I'm not sure that I'd even call it a secondary hazard, as the risks are a plenty. I stood on the soapbox for a while shouting out to the moon in support of peoples right to make an informed decision based on their own individual situation. So perhaps, I feel a little responsibility to balance that position. I'd never encourage anyone to decline an evac order without first giving it a "good risk assessment".

Take the Tl'etinqox First Nation as an example of one of the other risks that can develop in these situations. A community of 1000, currently has 300 members that have chosen to stay behind. When I first heard of the situation I thought good for them, local communities are in the best position to understand their circumstances, plan for it and shape outcomes. Then I read the story of how tempers had flared between them and the RCMP. Just another risk: a member trying to do the right thing, perhaps in a situation that is entirely new them, and maybe even one they'd rather not be in and things escalated quickly.

The list of risks is long one, and that's why I'd say never ignore an evacuation order, but I certainly am onside with your right to make an informed choice.

Been evacuated twice. Left both times. It's not just me I have to be concerned about. Under the right circumstances though, I would protect my stuff. Like with that jeep. Oh yah baby. Light em up.

[Merry]

The penalty for looting should be much more severe than the usual penalty for stealing.

If the looters knew they were guaranteed to get at least 5 years (without parole) they just might think twice.

[my5cents]

The penalty for looting should be much more severe than the usual penalty for stealing.

If the looters knew they were guaranteed to get at least 5 years (without parole) they just might think twice.

You took the words right out of my mouth Merry. Even the 5 year sentence.

It is always terrible for someone's home to be violated by a B&E. I think any politician, judge, prosecutor and police officer involved in B&E legislation or investigations should be someone who has already been the victim of a B&E.

Now add to the violation felt in just a "normal" B&E the frustration of being forced out of your home by authorities, only to leave your property wide open to crime. The reluctance for some homeowners to leave and remain in danger to protect their property because of the apparent ineptness of the police, makes the need for a much more severe penalty for B&E during an evacuation.

I always find it so pitiful that a person trying to sneak past the blockade of an evacuated area to rescue an abandoned pet or whatever is generally caught, it's just the low lifes that manage to get past the "always vigilant" police. Perhaps they are too busy adding up all the overtime they are making while the homeowners worry and suffer and the thieves empty the homes of valuables.

[mexi cali]

If the looters knew they were guaranteed to get at least 5 years (without parole) they just might think twice.

Well now, right there's yer problem.

[youjustcomplain]

The penalty for looting should be much more severe than the usual penalty for stealing.

If the looters knew they were guaranteed to get at least 5 years (without parole) they just might think twice.

Wondering what the penalty is for breaking an evacuation order. Maybe that penalty should just be increased.
So that would mean that a looter who enters an area protected by an evacuation order is breaking both the evac order aswell as the theft. So maybe breaking the evac should have a max of 10 years in prison.

Lets face it, if the EOC is made aware of a person stuck in an active fire zone, they are going to make every reasonable effort to rescue the person. If they're in an Evac area, the EOC will be putting SAR, Fire, Police and Ambulance staff at risk to perform the rescue. There needs to be a severe penalty to this for someone who has broken the evacuation order.

Again though, this doesn't apply to home owners who are still at their residence. It only applies to people who enter the zone.

[Bsuds]

[quote="youjustcomplain"
Wondering what the penalty is for breaking an evacuation order. [/quote]

I thought I read in one of the recent articles that they cannot force you to leave, so there would be no penalty. It's your choice and if you stay then no one should put themselves at risk to get you out.