Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 9/13/2005 4:37:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2005 6:38:37 PM EDT by 1928A1]
Link to story

I side with the police on this one.

Watch the video. CNN liberal spin if I ever saw it.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 4:46:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 4:47:52 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 4:49:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
img154.imageshack.us/img154/3046/racecard4aw.jpg



must...wipe...spittle...off...monitor.......must...save...pic...for...later


Link Posted: 9/13/2005 4:54:43 PM EDT
I have a hard time siding with anyone forcing people back into a flooded area. I know what they were trying to do but I'm sorry I don't agree with them. There were certainly non-looters amoung them and forcing them all back into a sesspool will not be viewed kindly.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 4:54:50 PM EDT
How is denying EVERYONE (black, white, old, or young) into your community in order to protect the property of your evacuated constituents racism?

Sounds like the police were doing just what they were sworn to do: protect and serve the members of their community.

The police said it themselves, they were in no better a situation to supply those evacuees with relief.

Can you imagine what those people would have done had they gotten to the town, found it evacuated with no buses, food, water, or shelter as promised to them? They would have broken into the homes for shelter and looted the stores/business.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 4:55:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
img154.imageshack.us/img154/3046/racecard4aw.jpg



Link Posted: 9/13/2005 4:56:05 PM EDT
Race had nothing to do with it, that’s painfully clear.

The police were simply trying to keep out all the raping, murdering, looting, low life scumbags, who just happened to be black.

Anyone not leaching off the government could figure that out.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 5:05:09 PM EDT
I applaud them. In a survival situation difficult and unpopular decisions must be made. That town was in survival mode and they chose to take care of numero uno. Outstanding that they had the guts to do it....Bravo.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 5:05:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BarnStormer:
Race had nothing to do with it, that’s painfully clear.

The police were simply trying to keep out all the raping, murdering, looting, low life scumbags, who just happened to be black.

Anyone not leaching off the government could figure that out.



Now...now...The media has been harping all day that they have no evidence of any of that in NO
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 5:05:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
img154.imageshack.us/img154/3046/racecard4aw.jpg



must...wipe...spittle...off...monitor.......must...save...pic...for...later






Snarfcom
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 5:10:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2005 5:28:00 PM EDT by Aimless]
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 5:12:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shooter0311:

Originally Posted By BarnStormer:
Race had nothing to do with it, that’s painfully clear.

The police were simply trying to keep out all the raping, murdering, looting, low life scumbags, who just happened to be black.

Anyone not leaching off the government could figure that out.



Now...now...The media has been harping all day that they have no evidence of any of that in NO



How careless of me, maybe I should have added “alleged” in front of that.

Better yet, maybe I should just call them all upstanding citizens just trying to survive by killing, raping, and stealing plasma screen TVs.

That sound better?
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 5:20:25 PM EDT
I liked your original statement just fine...I was just reflecting on the way the media has turned an about face on the looting, rapes, and murders. Of course their sources are relief groups from Mass. and Conn. I'm thinking...If they're up in the NE how can they honestly know what happend
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 5:49:31 PM EDT
I want to know what legal justification they had for closing the bridge.
Did the smaller city own the bridge?
Was there a legal basis for shutting down the bridge?

May sound OK to some, but people were fleeing a sunken city and if this guy didn't have the legal right to close the bridge, he should be strung up. Last I remember, Americans have the right to travel freely, wether a local sheriff wants them there or not.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 5:51:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:
I have a hard time siding with anyone forcing people back into a flooded area. I know what they were trying to do but I'm sorry I don't agree with them. There were certainly non-looters amoung them and forcing them all back into a sesspool will not be viewed kindly.



Well just let me know where you are in charge of public safety--So I will never move there
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 5:53:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Grunteled:
I have a hard time siding with anyone forcing people back into a flooded area. I know what they were trying to do but I'm sorry I don't agree with them. There were certainly non-looters amoung them and forcing them all back into a sesspool will not be viewed kindly.




He has a smaller essentially abandoned city to protect with probably not a huge police force. A mob comes tromping over the bridge from where he's seen fires and shooting since the flood.The mob tells him they are coming because there are buses to take them away in his town. He(well his officers) know there are not buses there and that there are none coming, obviously NOPD lied to these people to get them to leave the city as they had no more capacity at the Rapedome.

The couple that spoke during the interview glowing about how they had a "community" built around the food they had stolen as they apparently had no supplies. What does this mob of hungry people with no food do when they get to Greta and find out that there are no buses.? Tromp back to NO or start breaking into stores and homes looking for food (like they already have done)? Once they start foraging for food are they going to bypass valuables and firearms?

Basically NO tried to dump some of part of their failure to plan on Greta, Greta's police decided to choose protecting the homes and businesses of it's citizens, who left like they should have, over allowing NO citizens who did not leave or have adequate supplies to steal what they needed from the citizens of Greta.

I suspect the chief would rather have a bunch of food stealing yahoos from NO crabbing about him on CNN now v. having the owners of the local stores and homes under his protection calling for his head for letting them be looted after they left as he directed them to.



Who was that white trash couple anyway?
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 5:54:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
I want to know what legal justification they had for closing the bridge.
Did the smaller city own the bridge?
Was there a legal basis for shutting down the bridge?

May sound OK to some, but people were fleeing a sunken city and if this guy didn't have the legal right to close the bridge, he should be strung up. Last I remember, Americans have the right to travel freely, wether a local sheriff wants them there or not.



You need to get a job with Amnesty International and the ACLU
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 5:57:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JosieWales:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
I want to know what legal justification they had for closing the bridge.
Did the smaller city own the bridge?
Was there a legal basis for shutting down the bridge?

May sound OK to some, but people were fleeing a sunken city and if this guy didn't have the legal right to close the bridge, he should be strung up. Last I remember, Americans have the right to travel freely, wether a local sheriff wants them there or not.



You need to get a job with Amnesty International and the ACLU



You need to answer the question.

I always love it when someone refuses to answer the question and decides to accuse the poster of being a liberal. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:05:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By JosieWales:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
I want to know what legal justification they had for closing the bridge.
Did the smaller city own the bridge?
Was there a legal basis for shutting down the bridge?

May sound OK to some, but people were fleeing a sunken city and if this guy didn't have the legal right to close the bridge, he should be strung up. Last I remember, Americans have the right to travel freely, wether a local sheriff wants them there or not.



You need to get a job with Amnesty International and the ACLU



You need to answer the question.

I always love it when someone refuses to answer the question and decides to accuse the poster of being a liberal. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.



The Answer: Closing the bridge was a Part of Public safety for the Citizens of Gretna, Stoops.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:06:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:08:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By JosieWales:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
I want to know what legal justification they had for closing the bridge.
Did the smaller city own the bridge?
Was there a legal basis for shutting down the bridge?

May sound OK to some, but people were fleeing a sunken city and if this guy didn't have the legal right to close the bridge, he should be strung up. Last I remember, Americans have the right to travel freely, wether a local sheriff wants them there or not.



You need to get a job with Amnesty International and the ACLU



You need to answer the question.

I always love it when someone refuses to answer the question and decides to accuse the poster of being a liberal. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.




The guys with the guns standing on it owned the bridge. I side with them.

It's not all going to black and white here people, no pun intended. These guys had to protect their ground and they did.
If NO had of protected their ground, there would have been no confrontation on the bridge.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:11:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JosieWales:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By JosieWales:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
I want to know what legal justification they had for closing the bridge.
Did the smaller city own the bridge?
Was there a legal basis for shutting down the bridge?

May sound OK to some, but people were fleeing a sunken city and if this guy didn't have the legal right to close the bridge, he should be strung up. Last I remember, Americans have the right to travel freely, wether a local sheriff wants them there or not.



You need to get a job with Amnesty International and the ACLU



You need to answer the question.

I always love it when someone refuses to answer the question and decides to accuse the poster of being a liberal. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.



The Answer: Closing the bridge was a Part of Public safety for the Citizens of Gretna, Stoops.



Lame.
I can claim that nuking Detroit will make all surrounding cities safer, but I have no legal justification for doing so. There is some evidence that the city didn't even have jurisdiction over the bridge (federally funded and state controlled).

If it's determined that people died on that bridge for lack of food or water, and that they may have survived if allowed to cross, then somebody's in a world of shit. If people were allowed to suffer on that bridge, all because a local sheriff was afraid, he's fucked.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:12:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Grunteled:
I have a hard time siding with anyone forcing people back into a flooded area. I know what they were trying to do but I'm sorry I don't agree with them. There were certainly non-looters amoung them and forcing them all back into a sesspool will not be viewed kindly.




He has a smaller essentially abandoned city to protect with probably not a huge police force. A mob comes tromping over the bridge from where he's seen fires and shooting since the flood.The mob tells him they are coming because there are buses to take them away in his town. He(well his officers) know there are not buses there and that there are none coming, obviously NOPD lied to these people to get them to leave the city as they had no more capacity at the Rapedome.

The couple that spoke during the interview glowing about how they had a "community" built around the food they had stolen as they apparently had no supplies. What does this mob of hungry people with no food do when they get to Greta and find out that there are no buses.? Tromp back to NO or start breaking into stores and homes looking for food (like they already have done)? Once they start foraging for food are they going to bypass valuables and firearms?

Basically NO tried to dump some of part of their failure to plan on Greta, Greta's police decided to choose protecting the homes and businesses of it's citizens, who left like they should have, over allowing NO citizens who did not leave or have adequate supplies to steal what they needed from the citizens of Greta.

I suspect the chief would rather have a bunch of food stealing yahoos from NO crabbing about him on CNN now v. having the owners of the local stores and homes under his protection calling for his head for letting them be looted after they left as he directed them to.



From the CNN story:

Asked why Gretna authorities did not allow the group into town and call for buses, Lawson said, "Who were we going to call?"

"We had no radios. We had no phones. We had no communications, as I just told you," he said. "We had not spoken to the city of New Orleans prior to or during this event. Who were we going to call? What were we going to do with thousands of people without enough water to sustain them, without enough food to sustain them, or without any shelter?"

Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:12:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JosieWales:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By JosieWales:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
I want to know what legal justification they had for closing the bridge.
Did the smaller city own the bridge?
Was there a legal basis for shutting down the bridge?

May sound OK to some, but people were fleeing a sunken city and if this guy didn't have the legal right to close the bridge, he should be strung up. Last I remember, Americans have the right to travel freely, wether a local sheriff wants them there or not.



You need to get a job with Amnesty International and the ACLU



You need to answer the question.

I always love it when someone refuses to answer the question and decides to accuse the poster of being a liberal. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.



The Answer: Closing the bridge was a Part of Public safety for the Citizens of Gretna, Stoops.



Lame.
I can claim that nuking Detroit will make all surrounding cities safer, but I have no legal justification for doing so. There is some evidence that the city didn't even have jurisdiction over the bridge (federally funded and state controlled).

If it's determined that people died on that bridge for lack of food or water, and that they may have survived if allowed to cross, then somebody's in a world of shit. If people were allowed to suffer on that bridge, all because a local sheriff was afraid, he's fucked.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:13:31 PM EDT
After all that looting...

I can't blame them at all..

They had to protect their own town from all that BS..

Screw the libs..

+1 For the city of Greta, LA.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:16:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
I want to know what legal justification they had for closing the bridge.
Did the smaller city own the bridge?
Was there a legal basis for shutting down the bridge?

May sound OK to some, but people were fleeing a sunken city and if this guy didn't have the legal right to close the bridge, he should be strung up. Last I remember, Americans have the right to travel freely, wether a local sheriff wants them there or not.



Doesn't matter. The people of Greta were directed to leave for their own safety. They chose to do so, leaving their homes, businesses, and belongings in the care of their local government. This is the unspoken social contract that was offered. You leave, we keep your shit as safe as we can. That's the way it works.

The folks on the bridge were merely carrying out this task in as efficient a manner as possible.

Or perhaps you'd like it better if they'd let them across so that some of them could loot and pillage, and then started shooting the looters?
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:17:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By captainpooby:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By JosieWales:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
I want to know what legal justification they had for closing the bridge.
Did the smaller city own the bridge?
Was there a legal basis for shutting down the bridge?

May sound OK to some, but people were fleeing a sunken city and if this guy didn't have the legal right to close the bridge, he should be strung up. Last I remember, Americans have the right to travel freely, wether a local sheriff wants them there or not.



You need to get a job with Amnesty International and the ACLU



You need to answer the question.

I always love it when someone refuses to answer the question and decides to accuse the poster of being a liberal. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.




The guys with the guns standing on it owned the bridge. I side with them.

It's not all going to black and white here people, no pun intended. These guys had to protect their ground and they did.
If NO had of protected their ground, there would have been no confrontation on the bridge.



The "guys with the guns" also began confiscating legally owned weapons. I guess you stand by them?

If they had a right to close the bridge (jurisdiction), then I'm OK with the legal aspect. If not, then they violated the rights of those citizens, pure and simple. Wether they "had the guns" or not doesn't make it legal or even morally right.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:17:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
Lame.
I can claim that nuking Detroit will make all surrounding cities safer,




You'd be right!

Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:18:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By JosieWales:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By JosieWales:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
I want to know what legal justification they had for closing the bridge.
Did the smaller city own the bridge?
Was there a legal basis for shutting down the bridge?

May sound OK to some, but people were fleeing a sunken city and if this guy didn't have the legal right to close the bridge, he should be strung up. Last I remember, Americans have the right to travel freely, wether a local sheriff wants them there or not.



You need to get a job with Amnesty International and the ACLU



You need to answer the question.

I always love it when someone refuses to answer the question and decides to accuse the poster of being a liberal. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.



The Answer: Closing the bridge was a Part of Public safety for the Citizens of Gretna, Stoops.



Lame.
I can claim that nuking Detroit will make all surrounding cities safer, but I have no legal justification for doing so. There is some evidence that the city didn't even have jurisdiction over the bridge (federally funded and state controlled).

If it's determined that people died on that bridge for lack of food or water, and that they may have survived if allowed to cross, then somebody's in a world of shit. If people were allowed to suffer on that bridge, all because a local sheriff was afraid, he's fucked.



Dear SJ:
You have found your calling; Go volunteer to make the welfare mothers self suficient
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:23:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By JosieWales:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By JosieWales:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
I want to know what legal justification they had for closing the bridge.
Did the smaller city own the bridge?
Was there a legal basis for shutting down the bridge?

May sound OK to some, but people were fleeing a sunken city and if this guy didn't have the legal right to close the bridge, he should be strung up. Last I remember, Americans have the right to travel freely, wether a local sheriff wants them there or not.



You need to get a job with Amnesty International and the ACLU



You need to answer the question.

I always love it when someone refuses to answer the question and decides to accuse the poster of being a liberal. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.



The Answer: Closing the bridge was a Part of Public safety for the Citizens of Gretna, Stoops.



Lame.
I can claim that nuking Detroit will make all surrounding cities safer, but I have no legal justification for doing so. There is some evidence that the city didn't even have jurisdiction over the bridge (federally funded and state controlled).

If it's determined that people died on that bridge for lack of food or water, and that they may have survived if allowed to cross, then somebody's in a world of shit. If people were allowed to suffer on that bridge, all because a local sheriff was afraid, he's fucked.



Its not lame. Its about time somebody stood up and said no to this kind of crap. That sheriff should get a medal and the people of that town should be proud. New Orleans is/was a borderline warzone. Greta didn't want hundreds or thousands of people flooding into thier town, they had no place for them and the sheriff knew exactly what would have happened if he would have let them in.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:23:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
If it's determined that people died on that bridge for lack of food or water, it's because they were too fucking stupid to leave, and too fucking stupid to stock supplies.



Fixed.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:24:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mattimeo:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
I want to know what legal justification they had for closing the bridge.
Did the smaller city own the bridge?
Was there a legal basis for shutting down the bridge?

May sound OK to some, but people were fleeing a sunken city and if this guy didn't have the legal right to close the bridge, he should be strung up. Last I remember, Americans have the right to travel freely, wether a local sheriff wants them there or not.



Doesn't matter. The people of Greta were directed to leave for their own safety. They chose to do so, leaving their homes, businesses, and belongings in the care of their local government. This is the unspoken social contract that was offered. You leave, we keep your shit as safe as we can. That's the way it works.

The folks on the bridge were merely carrying out this task in as efficient a manner as possible.

Or perhaps you'd like it better if they'd let them across so that some of them could loot and pillage, and then started shooting the looters?



WTF?

People were fleeing a disaster area, which may have been a federally declared disaster area. They were also under a mandatory evacuation. Although there's a very specious legal argument for a "mandatory evacaution", that sheriff may have interfered with state and federal authorities by closing that bridge.

1. People in a crowd are not, and cannot be assumed to be, looters. Just because there was looting going on in NO, does not allow the sheriff to use "prior restraint" (an actual legal term, unlike "unspoken social contract" )
2. The sheriff must have jurisdiction to conduct any operation on the bridge. If not, his "unspoken social contract" isn't gonna do him jack shit.
3, The sheriff could have used other means to prevent looting. He could have shot a looter. I'm cool with that because the person can be positively identified as a looter/rioter. He could have even closed off routes directly into the town, which were in his jurisdiction.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:26:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JosieWales:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By JosieWales:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By JosieWales:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
I want to know what legal justification they had for closing the bridge.
Did the smaller city own the bridge?
Was there a legal basis for shutting down the bridge?

May sound OK to some, but people were fleeing a sunken city and if this guy didn't have the legal right to close the bridge, he should be strung up. Last I remember, Americans have the right to travel freely, wether a local sheriff wants them there or not.



You need to get a job with Amnesty International and the ACLU



You need to answer the question.

I always love it when someone refuses to answer the question and decides to accuse the poster of being a liberal. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.



The Answer: Closing the bridge was a Part of Public safety for the Citizens of Gretna, Stoops.



Lame.
I can claim that nuking Detroit will make all surrounding cities safer, but I have no legal justification for doing so. There is some evidence that the city didn't even have jurisdiction over the bridge (federally funded and state controlled).

If it's determined that people died on that bridge for lack of food or water, and that they may have survived if allowed to cross, then somebody's in a world of shit. If people were allowed to suffer on that bridge, all because a local sheriff was afraid, he's fucked.



Dear SJ:
You have found your calling; Go volunteer to make the welfare mothers self suficient



Yeah, I'd fit in very well.
Now, go and help collect those guns. They might be dangerous.

I'll just stay here and conduct a rational argument of facts.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:27:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shooter0311:
I liked your original statement just fine...I was just reflecting on the way the media has turned an about face on the looting, rapes, and murders. Of course their sources are relief groups from Mass. and Conn. I'm thinking...If they're up in the NE how can they honestly know what happend



Thats wht I was doing too, maybe with not enough sarcasm..after all, everyone has to be PC in this day and age.....
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:27:38 PM EDT
Gretna, having no resources, had every right to refuse entry to people who amounted to a pulsing blob of need. If NO had the right to declare mandatory evacuation, surrounding communities had the right to shut down. No municipality has an obligation to serve as a spittoon for the overflowing folly of another. The fact that the excluded persons probably represented a Superdome on the hoof is just gravy.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:27:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mattimeo:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
If it's determined that people died on that bridge for lack of food or water, it's because they were too fucking stupid to leave, and too fucking stupid to stock supplies.



Fixed.



Unprepared people are entitled to flee a disaster area, in the same manner that smart, prepared people are. Hell, there are plenty of "prepared' people in Mississippi that watched all their gas, guns and ammo float away.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:28:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1928A1:
Link to story

I side with the police on this one.

Watch the video. CNN liberal spin if I ever saw it.



It's Gretna and they got some pretty good peeps over there!

BigDozer66
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:30:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Gretna, having no resources, had every right to refuse entry to people who amounted to a pulsing blob of need. If NO had the right to declare mandatory evacuation, surrounding communities had the right to shut down. No municipality has an obligation to serve as a spittoon for the overflowing folly of another. The fact that the excluded persons probably represented a Superdome on the hoof is just gravy.



Did Gretna have jurisdiction over the bridge?
If so, then they may be on legally sound grounding.
If not...
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:30:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By mattimeo:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
If it's determined that people died on that bridge for lack of food or water, it's because they were too fucking stupid to leave, and too fucking stupid to stock supplies.



Fixed.



Unprepared people are entitled to flee a disaster area, in the same manner that smart, prepared people are. Hell, there are plenty of "prepared' people in Mississippi that watched all their gas, guns and ammo float away.



Excellent. I agree.

Where, however, is it stated that they have an inalienable right to egress the area through Gretna?
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:32:57 PM EDT
I say that we give this Sheriff a PROMOTION.

Yes, a PROMOTION..


We need this guy in charge of OUR borders, and give him all the powers that he needs to protect them..

Oh hell.. I want him to run for President...

Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:40:20 PM EDT
And another fun point:

"We were told by the commander at the police command post ... that we should cross that bridge, and there would be buses waiting to take us out," he said on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360."


Yay. Who is this New Orleans police commander that he commits the supposed resources of Gretna to the aid of these people?

Even better, why did he mislead them?

Gretna was closed. The NOPD may not have known this, true.

But evacuation was without a doubt known to be available from the area of the Superdome. Why not send them there, to definitely be evacuated? Why send them to a place where, through either incompetence, or outright deceit, you know there is no evecuation?
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:48:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
Did Gretna have jurisdiction over the bridge?
If so, then they may be on legally sound grounding.
If not...



What if the flag behind the Gretna police chief's desk had fringe on it?
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:48:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By captainpooby:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By JosieWales:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
I want to know what legal justification they had for closing the bridge.
Did the smaller city own the bridge?
Was there a legal basis for shutting down the bridge?

May sound OK to some, but people were fleeing a sunken city and if this guy didn't have the legal right to close the bridge, he should be strung up. Last I remember, Americans have the right to travel freely, wether a local sheriff wants them there or not.



You need to get a job with Amnesty International and the ACLU



You need to answer the question.

I always love it when someone refuses to answer the question and decides to accuse the poster of being a liberal. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.




The guys with the guns standing on it owned the bridge. I side with them.

It's not all going to black and white here people, no pun intended. These guys had to protect their ground and they did.
If NO had of protected their ground, there would have been no confrontation on the bridge.



The "guys with the guns" also began confiscating legally owned weapons. I guess you stand by them?

If they had a right to close the bridge (jurisdiction), then I'm OK with the legal aspect. If not, then they violated the rights of those citizens, pure and simple. Wether they "had the guns" or not doesn't make it legal or even morally right.



Not in Gretna or Jefferson Parish--Please STFU when do don't know WTF you are talking about
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:49:22 PM EDT
Once again, I understand thier point but I see it differently. If it ment they needed to appropriate some supplies and repay the owners later then do it. To stand on a bridge and force everyone back into the flood does not stand as the paragon of virtue. I don't like the class of people left in NO any more then you guys do but I would not stand on a bridge and force people back into filthy flood waters at gunpoiint. I've never even heard of that happening before.

They had every right to escape the flooding. Every one of you arguing this knows damn well if it were your family that got turned back you'd be mad as hell and with reason. Force 'em to move on if you want to but sending them back to the water was pretty low as far as I'm concerned.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:49:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:
I have a hard time siding with anyone forcing people back into a flooded area. I know what they were trying to do but I'm sorry I don't agree with them. There were certainly non-looters amoung them and forcing them all back into a sesspool will not be viewed kindly.



No time to sort the wheat from the chaff.
I also applaud their actions. The fact that "innocent" people live in the midst fo scum is a choice they make everyday. Piss on 'em. Should have had the foresight to get the fuck out a long time ago, sure as Hell with Katrina bearing down on them at Cat 5. They live in a cesspool everyday and nobody wants their crap coming to them.

I live in a fairly remote area with plenty of Chicago assholes who come up here all the time. They will find plenty of obstacles if a SHTF scenario occurs here. Like I said, piss on 'em.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:50:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rebel_Marine:

Originally Posted By Grunteled:
I have a hard time siding with anyone forcing people back into a flooded area. I know what they were trying to do but I'm sorry I don't agree with them. There were certainly non-looters amoung them and forcing them all back into a sesspool will not be viewed kindly.



No time to sort the wheat from the chaff.
I also applaud their actions. The fact that "innocent" people live in the midst fo scum is a choice they make everyday. Piss on 'em. Should have had the foresight to get the fuck out a long time ago, sure as Hell with Katrina bearing down on them at Cat 5. They live in a cesspool everyday and nobody wants their crap coming to them.

I live in a fairly remote area with plenty of Chicago assholes who come up here all the time. They will find plenty of obstacles if a SHTF scenario occurs here. Like I said, piss on 'em.



That's a disgusting attitude in the misdt of a crisis.

Link Posted: 9/13/2005 7:01:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mattimeo:
And another fun point:

"We were told by the commander at the police command post ... that we should cross that bridge, and there would be buses waiting to take us out," he said on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360."


Yay. Who is this New Orleans police commander that he commits the supposed resources of Gretna to the aid of these people?
Even better, why did he mislead them?

Gretna was closed. The NOPD may not have known this, true.

But evacuation was without a doubt known to be available from the area of the Superdome. Why not send them there, to definitely be evacuated? Why send them to a place where, through either incompetence, or outright deceit, you know there is no evecuation?



A moron named eddie compass who was apointed by hip-hop thug ray nagin
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 7:02:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:
They had every right to escape the flooding. Every one of you arguing this knows damn well if it were your family that got turned back you'd be mad as hell and with reason. Force 'em to move on if you want to but sending them back to the water was pretty low as far as I'm concerned.



Again, someone show us where they had the right to go through Gretna. When a disaster is headed your way, does your neighbor have the right to tear ass across your yard, destroying it as he goes?

If ifs and buts where candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas. This would not be my family. We'd have unassed the area long before it came to this.

And if you escort them through and 'force them to move on?' Then you have to police every available point of ingress, not just a bridge.

Link Posted: 9/13/2005 7:03:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By mattimeo:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
If it's determined that people died on that bridge for lack of food or water, it's because they were too fucking stupid to leave, and too fucking stupid to stock supplies.



Fixed.



Unprepared people are entitled to flee a disaster area, in the same manner that smart, prepared people are. Hell, there are plenty of "prepared' people in Mississippi that watched all their gas, guns and ammo float away.



Yes but not when they are murderers, rapists and thugs
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 7:03:45 PM EDT
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top