Looters in New Orleans Options

[bruecksteve]

Politics over duty

This is a post from a reporter in Merritt Is, FL, a reporter who's been researching what went on before the storm hit.
~~~~~~
I think all of Mayor Nagin's pomp and posturing is going to bite him hard in the near future as the lies and distortions of his interviews are coming to light.

On Friday night before the storm hit Max Mayfield of the National Hurricane Center took the unprecedented action of calling Nagin and Blanco personally to plead with them to begin MANDATORY evacuation of New Orleans and they said they'd take it under consideration. This was after the NOAA buoy 240 miles south had recorded 68' waves before it was destroyed.

President Bush spent Friday afternoon and evening in meetings with his advisors and administrators drafting all of the paperwork required for a state to request federal assistance (and not be in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act or having to enact the Insurgency Act).



Just before midnight

Friday evening the President called Governor Blanco and pleaded with her to sign the request papers so the federal government and the military could legally begin mobilization and call up.



He was told that they didn't think it necessary for the federal government to be involved yet. After the President's final call to the governor she held meetings with her staff to discuss the political ramifications of bringing federal forces. It was decided that if they allowed federal assistance it would make it look as if they had failed so it was agreed upon that the feds would not be invited in.

Saturday before the storm hit the President again called Blanco and Nagin requesting they please sign the papers requesting federal assistance, that they declare the state an emergency area, and begin mandatory evacuation.


After a personal plea from the President, Mayor Nagin agreed to order an evacuation, but it would not be a full mandatory evacuation, and the governor still refused to sign the papers requesting and authorizing federal action.

In frustration the President declared the area a national disaster area before the state of Louisiana did so he could legally begin some advanced preparations. Rumor has it that the President's legal advisers were looking into the ramifications of using the insurgency act to bypass the Constitutional requirement that a state request federal aid before the federal government can move into state with troops - but that had not been done since 1906 and the Constitutionality of it was called into question to use before the disaster.

Throw in that over half the federal aid of the past decade to New Orleans for levee construction, maintenance, and repair was diverted to fund a marina and support the gambling ships.



Toss in the investigation that will look into why the emergency preparedness plan submitted to the federal government for funding and published on the city's website was never implemented and in fact may have been bogus for the purpose of gaining additional federal funding as we now learn that the organizations identified in the plan were never contacted or coordinating into any planning - though the document implies that they were.

The suffering people of New Orleans need to be asking some hard questions as do we all, but they better start with why Blanco refused to even sign the multi-state mutual aid pack activation documents until Wednesday which further delayed the legal deployment of National Guard from adjoining states.



Or maybe ask why Nagin keeps harping that the President should
have commandeered 500 Greyhound busses to help him when according to his own emergency plan and documents he claimed to have over 500 busses at his disposal to use between the local school busses and the city transportation busses - but he never raised a finger to prepare them or activate them.

This is a sad time for all of us to see that a major city has all but been destroyed and thousands of people have died with hundreds of thousands more suffering, but it's certainly not a time for people to be pointing fingers and trying to find a bigger dog to blame for local corruption and incompetence. Pray to God for the survivors that they can start their lives anew as fast as possible and we learn from all the mistakes to avoid them in the future.

[Jeff97FST/A]

Last week I was at the local Wally World. There was a group collecting donations in the form of goods, and passed out a flyer of suggested goods to purchase.

My donation was a box of size 3 diapers. I figured there may be some little one the size of my daughter in need of diapers - and if someone did shoot-and-loot to get them, at least they can only be used on a baby!

[Rob Hood]

The looters are taking the goods (whatever they are) and using it as barter or selling it for drugs, sex, liquor, or perhaps just to make money off of other storm-affected people.

[John_D.]

d. Keep your important papers (wills, deeds, ***ET slips***, ***suspension setups***, inventory of personal effects) in a lockable strongbox that you can carry.

I had to read your post a couple of times before I caught this... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

There were a lot of good ideas in there.

[robz71lm7]

Want to make your blood boil?

http://mfile.akamai.com/12948/wmv/vod.ibsy...946889.300k.asx

Takes some big men to tackle an ~80 year old woman. What scares me most is that there is little reaction to this.

Not to mention the fact that they're disarming everyone down there.

Sorry to bring politics to the board, but personal freedom crosses all boundaries.

[ESPCamaro]

They SHOULD be disarming everone. It will help to make a volotile situation less so.

Personal freedom's don't include shooting someone for kicks. And the guy who is a law abiding citizen, with a registered weapon isn't going to be on the streets anyway. All he's concerned about is a roof over his families head.....


The right to bear arms is a "personal freedom" that is ALWAYS taken to extremes by folks with a single agenda. Those willing to to sell their soul to the devil to push their "personal freedom" agenda. I hope the NRA DIES. It's what they do. They push certain politicians REGARDLESS of what the politician has planned for other agendas.


Go tell the 100's of thousands who have lost their job, and the people who drive for a living and can't afford to now that they should have a right to own an assault rifle.


Anyone who votes on a single issue shouldn't be allowed to vote. Which is what the majority of NRA members do.


Of all the issues at hand I can't fucking beleive that the right to bear arms comes up all the damn time. I feel we should have the right. I'm planning to buy an SW 460 or 500 revolver in the near future, but that right is the LEAST of my concern. And with things going on in this country now, it should be the LEAST of EVERYONES concern.

[Nick]

They SHOULD be disarming everone. It will help to make a volotile situation less so.

Personal freedom's don't include shooting someone for kicks. And the guy who is a law abiding citizen, with a registered weapon isn't going to be on the streets anyway. All he's concerned about is a roof over his families head.....

...

The law abiding citizen's might willingly give up their weapons... leaving only the 'looters' with guns.

I'd be keeping mine to provide some measure of safety for my family.

[rpoz-29]

I don't think anyone can speak for how"most NRA members" vote. Sure they push their political agenda. So does the UAW, UMW, USWA, NOW, AARP, etc, etc. And I find their agendas questionable as well. I paid no mind to the political opinions of "Steelabor" when I was a member, and I pay no mind to the "American Rifleman's" now. I vote for the politician that I feel has the best interests of this country in mind, regardless of his party, or his position on guns. And I am an NRA member.

[trackbird]

Don't forget the abortion crowd (ok, the anti-abortion crowd). My sister in law voted for president strictly because he was anti abortion. That was the only reason she voted for him. One issue. He could have been a recovering axe murderer (who kills axes, just to watch them die), but as long as he was anti abortion, she was not voting for the other guy.

The NRA diehards do push an agenda, so do the abortion people, the anti Iraq people, the.....

Everyone has an agenda, do I have to agree with them? Nope. Does it make one group worse than others? Not really. Yes, the NRA can get a bit extreme. So can Cindy Shehan, and the NRA seems more mentally stable. I work for a union, and I don't give a damn what they told me to vote for. I guess I just don't take direction well.

Also, "registered weapon" is a bit of a mis statement. They are not registered. The manufacturer will know what wholesaler he sold them to. The wholesaler will know what dealer he sold a weapon to. The dealer will know the first owner of the weapon that he sold it to. They will then knock on your door and ask if you still own it and if not, who you sold it to. And they go from there. There is not a registry of weapons/owners (unless local laws require it, such as our Columbus, OH assault weapons ban requiring you to register your previously owned "pre ban" weapons with them to grandfather the ability to own them....no thanks).

If I were in NO, I'd be there armed. Sorry, that's just how it goes. I'm not looking to cause trouble, but I have a reasonable expectation that it will find me if I'm there long enough.

[robz71lm7]

They SHOULD be disarming everyone. It will help to make a volotile situation less so.

In a perfect world maybe. But the only people handing over their weapons are the honest individuals-they are the ones that get hurt.

Personal freedom's don't include shooting someone for kicks. And the guy who is a law abiding citizen, with a registered weapon isn't going to be on the streets anyway. All he's concerned about is a roof over his families head.....

And how can he protect his family when we disarm him? Of course personal freedom doesn't include shooting people for kicks.

The right to bear arms is a "personal freedom" that is ALWAYS taken to extremes by folks with a single agenda. Those willing to to sell their soul to the devil to push their "personal freedom" agenda. I hope the NRA DIES. It's what they do. They push certain politicians REGARDLESS of what the politician has planned for other agendas.

I suppose the freedom of speech is also taken to extremes. The right to bear arms is part of the constitution-it's not something to be turned on and off at your own whim.

Go tell the 100's of thousands who have lost their job, and the people who drive for a living and can't afford to now that they should have a right to own an assault rifle.

Assault rifle is a media term referencing a fully automatic weapon which isn't legal to own anyways. Call a rose by another name and show clips of automatic weapons and it's easy to push your own agenda. But that is a whole other arguement.

Anyone who votes on a single issue shouldn't be allowed to vote. Which is what the majority of NRA members do.

I'm an NRA member and I don't care for Bush. The notion that someone shouldn't have the right to vote because of how they vote on one issue is absurd. I don't think I need to say more regarding that. It's a slippery slope and before you know it a steak knife is an assault weapon-ask the people across the pond.

Of all the issues at hand I can't fucking beleive that the right to bear arms comes up all the damn time. I feel we should have the right. I'm planning to buy an SW 460 or 500 revolver in the near future, but that right is the LEAST of my concern. And with things going on in this country now, it should be the LEAST of EVERYONES concern.

My rights as a human being are always my number one concern. I was born with the right to freedom and the right to defend myself. The Constitution does not grant me any rights (notice they are NOT privileges) it enumerates them. If someone comes to my door looking to disarm me, a law-abiding citizen, in the middle of a disaster there will be hell to pay. The news journalists have large corporations that have dipped into their pockets to hire armed security contractors to protect them in New Orleans. Obviously they don't feel the police have control of the situation, given their security guards, but they insist we lay down our arms. How is the poor man supposed to protect himself and his family? It's obvious that some people believe these rights only belong to certain people.

I know there will be a sh!tstorm because of this, but I haven't cussed anyone and was legitimately bringing up an issue that I feel is of great importance in this disaster.

[pknowles]

If I were in NO, I'd be there armed. Sorry, that's just how it goes. I'm not looking to cause trouble, but I have a reasonable expectation that it will find me if I'm there long enough.

I argee. I'm definatly the non-violent type, but I do own a rifle. My wife and I had a discussion and she said that she would feel better owning a gun herself and learning how to use it just in case she had too, in the event that something like what has happening in NO happens here.

I really don't have a problem with voting on one issue. You will never find someone that you agree with on every issue. During the last election I changed my mind at least 6 times figuring out who I was going to vote for because I didn't agree with everything they stood for. I honestly made up my mind while I was driving to the polls.

[trackbird]

Anyone who votes on a single issue shouldn't be allowed to vote. Which is what the majority of NRA members do.

I'm an NRA member and I don't care for Bush. The notion that someone shouldn't have the right to vote because of how they vote on one issue is absurd. I don't think I need to say more regarding that. It's a slippery slope and before you know it a steak knife is an assault weapon-ask the people across the pond.

I do agree that they should be allowed to vote. As stated, it bothers me when it seems that people don't take the best interests of the country into account (unless they think that elminating abortion will save the world) and vote for their single minded pursuit of one "agenda". It's their right, but it's frustrating to me. I fully suspect that Kerry would have done more harm to one of my hobbies (firearms) than Bush, but I suspect Kerry might have done less harm to the country as a whole than Bush. So, who do you vote for? My own hobbies, or "all of us"?

And, for the anti abortion crowd who voted for Bush, what has he done for you lately? (nothing). It's great to rally behind your guy for your chosen cause, but when he gets in office and ignores the issue, what was the point of voting for him. You could have voted for another issue that might actually get addressed during his administration and come up with something useful. I guess it's a way to feel that you are doing your religious duty by voting for a "cause". Even if it lacks any bearing in the real world.

I'm not picking on the anti abortion group so much as using the first hand example that I have (my sister in law). You can insert any group here and it often applies.

[robz71lm7]

So, who do you vote for?

Michael Badnarik.

[Formula WS6]

boy did this thread change topics.

personally i think more people need to carry guns legally. by legally i mean having a concealment perment, takign the required classes, and going about it in a law abiding way. heres the reason why i feel this way.

monday or suday night a 30yo mother was car jacked outside of ATL. the car jacker kidnapped her as well when he was taking her truck. he ended up turning in front of a cement truck. the woman was killed. the car jacker lived long enough to point his gun at someone that had watched everything go down and was reportedly following behind them. the guy he pointed the gun at dropped him on the spot with three shots. as far as im concerned the car jacker got off easy. i would have shot for the stomach and watched him die suffering in pain.

im sick and tired of the liberal pansies in this country who wont allow chain gangs. who think letting them have cable and AC is better. i say work them so damn hard they are too tired to fight each other. make jail such a living hell no one will want to go there and will think twice about commiting a crime. i fully support the sherriff in AZ that makes his immmates wear pink and live in tents in the desert. because of these liberals, who care more about the criminals rights than the victim of the crime, a criminal lives a better life behind bars than a soldier who signed up for duty. there is something wrong with that. something is very wrong with it. and don't any give me some crap about how hard life behind bars is. appearently its not bad enough as people don't seem to be afraid to return. the stats don't lie.

now here is the tie in with the original topic. as i said before any person carring anything out of a store that is not neeeded to live such as a TV should be shot on sight. it would put an end to the looting real quick. there is zero excuse for looting a TV in a situation like this. bartering for food is BS and not at all what was on the mind of the person carrying the TV.

im just sick and tired of seeing all these crimes commited where innocent people are harmed and the criminal gets more sympathy than the victim. it happens everyday many times a day. my solution is to cut out this pansy crap and make the criminal repay his debt and really punish them. the curent correction system is a joke. we need more tent cities in the desert for the prisoners. we need more chain gangs on the side of the road cleaning it up instead of paying a worker to do it, and just because its 95* outside doesnt mean you get the day off either.

This post has been edited by Formula WS6: Sep 14 2005, 03:12 AM

[Rob Hood]

personally i think more people need to carry guns legally. by legally i mean having a concealment perment, takign the required classes, and going about it in a law abiding way. heres the reason why i feel this way.

I agree 100%. What should really happen is a list of NON-gun owners should be published, to include their home addresses. THAT would be interesting.

i fully support the sherriff in AZ that makes his immmates wear pink and live in tents in the desert.

That would be Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County. Some may disagree with him, but he gets very good results.

Right now, our society supports criminals, restrains law-abiding citizens, and restricts free speech for anything but a liberal agenda.

The looting is the fault of the Governor for failing to post the Guard immediately, and the fault of the Mayor for not enforcing his mandatory evacuation and for not having a competent disaster plan. The looting is also the fault of the people themselves for not leaving the area prior to the storm, and for not having the integrity to leave someone else's stuff alone regardless of reason. Looters are typically those who have no regard for rule of law anyway and do not care about their fellow man. I would love to see Wal-Mart and other stores NOT reopen the looted stores, but that would impact the legitimate hardworking people who were employees at those stores.

[trackbird]

personally i think more people need to carry guns legally. by legally i mean having a concealment perment, takign the required classes, and going about it in a law abiding way. heres the reason why i feel this way.

You're actually preaching to the choir here, at least to some extent. There are several "enthusiasts" here with the proper paperwork. It's just not something that is typically advertised. It's better to leave them wondering such things. Or, you don't see what you don't expect to see.

[Formula WS6]

oh yeah i tried reading the lost dignity thread and got lost myself about half way through the first sentence. a couple of my friends carry and one carries at all times. youd never know it though.

i see places that have extremely harsh punishments and as a result the crime does not occur because no one is willing to face the punishment. now im not saying we should get so extreme that a hungry person looses their hand for stealing a loaf of bread, but we need to get much harsher that what we are now.

[Crazy Canuck]

BTW, Mathew Patterson (00 Trans AM) lives in New Orleans ....

last post was Aug 26 (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)
hope he is fine.

has anyone heard from Mat ?
he hasn't come online since (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)
Hope he's ok.

[Crazy Canuck]

BTW, Mathew Patterson (00 Trans AM) lives in New Orleans ....

last post was Aug 26 (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)
hope he is fine.

has anyone heard from Mat ?
he hasn't come online since (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)
Hope he's ok.

anyone have any clue ????

[Formula WS6]

im hoping maybe hes just no longer frequenting this board.