Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 9/12/2005 2:52:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2005 2:54:37 PM EDT by Mucor]
www.ktvu.com/video/4946889/detail.html

This has gotten me so upset about how this could happen in this country. We need to mobilize ar15 army to find this lady and set up a legal fund to sue these bastards.

So if anyone is good at investigative work to find this lady, please do it, and we'll get the fund started.

I'm in for $100

Link Posted: 9/12/2005 2:58:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2005 3:03:00 PM EDT by mobius]
all she needs to do is contact any slick shyster lawyer, and there are plenty of those that will do it for a cut of the settlement, or award..........no real need to find her or send money for a 'defense fund".......in fact, I bet she probably was already contacted by several of them already.......it's like people who die in aircraft accidents, the lawyers are there at the relatives home, before the airline lawyers are.

lawyers are like sharks, they can smell a big law suit, and find those people before you can say ouch
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 3:16:22 PM EDT
Every time I watch that video I get mad spitless.

God help those men. They certainly do not have the judgment or the skill necessary for the job they are doing.
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 3:22:49 PM EDT
Why didn't they treat Sean Penn the way they treated that lady?
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 3:29:34 PM EDT
What are you guys talking about, those California cops saved her life
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 3:48:36 PM EDT
Sue, sue, sue........ I can appreciate the woman wanting to stay at home, but she would have eventually died. Don't blame the cops, their just doing their jobs. Its people that stayed home like her that caused such a cluster down there anyway.
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 6:28:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2005 6:39:24 PM EDT by mobius]

Originally Posted By 1stCavVet:
Sue, sue, sue........ I can appreciate the woman wanting to stay at home, but she would have eventually died. Don't blame the cops, their just doing their jobs. Its people that stayed home like her that caused such a cluster down there anyway.



sometimes people are too stupid to get the hell out, or think they can ride it out.........any person with a ounce of common sense that saw that satellite picture of the hurricane katerina coming toward them, would have un-assed that area long before any evacuation order......damn I mean the thing was a monster cat 4-5...... I know if I was stupid enough to live in a area that is below sea level, I would at least have the common sense to have gotten the fuck out, and look to live somewhere else, after collecting on the insurance of my devasted home, and start fresh



cops are put between a rock and a hard place, if they would have left her ass, and she died, which would have been the case.......they would have been called callous, uncaring for leaving her to die by the media, and all the cop bashers here would have have a field day bashing them for that decision......so they took her, and look what happens, the cops bashers are basing them for taking her. they were in a no win situation no matter how you look at it
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 6:33:52 PM EDT
I don't think we should be forcing anyone to do anything. They should go around asking all the residents to leave. If they don't, then they should inform them that they are totally on their own and may die if they don't leave. If they still refuse, leave them and let them fend for themselves.

I feel the same about this issue as I do laws regarding seatbelts and helmets. I would encourage everyone who drives to buckle up. Anyone who rides a bike should wear a helmet. But I don't think the government has any business ordering people to do either.

If people wanna be stupid, then let them. That's their choice. Then let Darwin go to work thinning them out, not the JBT's.

JMO.

-CH
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 6:38:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2005 6:38:48 PM EDT by thesacrifice]
What exactly did they do so wrong to you fellas?

Lay on a woman armed with a knife and gun that stated herself that you'd have to use deadly force to remove her from her house? The woman and the officers left the house uninjured..I'd say mission accomplished.... It's a mandatory evacuation...

get a life
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 6:40:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
I feel the same about this issue as I do laws regarding seatbelts and helmets. I would encourage everyone who drives to buckle up. Anyone who rides a bike should wear a helmet. But I don't think the government has any business ordering people to do either.



enjoy higher than necessary insurance premiums much?
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 6:49:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2005 6:51:02 PM EDT by NonConformist]

Originally Posted By thesacrifice:
What exactly did they do so wrong to you fellas?

Lay on a woman armed with a knife and gun that stated herself that you'd have to use deadly force to remove her from her house? The woman and the officers left the house uninjured..I'd say mission accomplished.... It's a mandatory evacuation...

get a life



While I'm "getting a life" YOU need to read the Constitution
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 7:12:21 PM EDT
Every one of those pieces of shit should be dead now!



Wise or not, if that woman desired to stay, she should have been left unmolested.



The truely sad part is, everyone of those assholes and many of their ilk here probably think what they did was a good thing.
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 11:52:50 PM EDT
She was taken for "processing".

Link Posted: 9/13/2005 12:02:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JHMC79:
Every one of those pieces of shit should be dead now!

Wise or not, if that woman desired to stay, she should have been left unmolested.

The truely sad part is, everyone of those assholes and many of their ilk here probably think what they did was a good thing.



Thanks...

Link Posted: 9/13/2005 12:04:44 AM EDT
I am sure she is nice and safe in the thunderdome superdome. Especially now that she has been disarmed. I am sure that when the cops come to take you to the concentration internment camp, you will surrender your guns and leave all of your possesions to looters.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 12:11:29 AM EDT
Send your money to the NRA, let them send a team of lawyers.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 12:33:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2005 12:35:24 AM EDT by 4get_No1]

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
I don't think we should be forcing anyone to do anything. They should go around asking all the residents to leave. If they don't, then they should inform them that they are totally on their own and may die if they don't leave. If they still refuse, leave them and let them fend for themselves.

I feel the same about this issue as I do laws regarding seatbelts and helmets. I would encourage everyone who drives to buckle up. Anyone who rides a bike should wear a helmet. But I don't think the government has any business ordering people to do either.

If people wanna be stupid, then let them. That's their choice. Then let Darwin go to work thinning them out, not the JBT's.

JMO.

-CH



Yep. The "you're on your own" message is what happens here but I guess we've gotten used to the damn hurricanes here too.

I also think there are major differences between FL and NO - a dense urban area beneath sea-level, extremely high crime rate and all that goes with it, individual willingness (or whatever) to prepare before the storm hits, personal knowledge of just how much your specific area can take regarding CAT 3 or above, etc. etc. etc.

I continue to be totally astounded by that "it's someone else's fault" attitude. Indeed, "you're on your own".

OT but WTH - a little voice of experience here:

Make a wise decision and recognize that all the wisdom in the world is easily overcome by a few hours of a hurricane over warm water. Check conditions hourly and be ready to bug out immediately because bugging-in requires a lot of preparation and is only okay if winds stay below your individual limits. Don't even consider buggin-in unless you already know your family's threshold of pain too. It's surprisingly hard for some folks to do without electricity/ice.

BTW: We bugged-in here on the beach for all the storms last year but would scram if I thought our local winds were going to exceed CAT-3 - YMMV.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 12:36:02 AM EDT
So the crazy old bint wanted to stay behind, with no fresh water, no access to food, no access to medical services (except, of course, when she goes crying to the relief workers, who have problems enough to deal with), and I am supposed to have pity for her?

Fuck that. NO is no longer a city. She will starve to death, or dehydrate, or die of any of a myriad reasons if she stays in that toxic cesspool. The gov't can and does intervene to stop suicides; that is all they did in this case.

Link Posted: 9/13/2005 1:25:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tomislav:
Fuck that. NO is no longer a city. She will starve to death, or dehydrate, or die of any of a myriad reasons if she stays in that toxic cesspool.



That is her god given, unalienable right.

If she wants to take her chances, that's her own business.

The .gov is NOT a nanny and should not act as such. IF she wants to stay, fine, have at it. But you're on your own.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 1:36:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2005 1:37:20 AM EDT by AROptics]
Fund? She don't need no stinking fund! It is called a "contingency fee" and when the possible award is this big and with this venue (CHP being sued in Louisiana, even if in Federal Court) she is going to do quite well. Maybe some kind-hearted attorney will represent her for free? I think those dogs are going to be eating steak along with granny from here on out. CA settles everything like this anyway...it will never go to trial because it is a blight/pox/stain on the CHP and they know it.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 1:36:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2005 1:36:50 AM EDT by Tomislav]

Originally Posted By NAM:
The .gov is NOT a nanny and should not act as such. IF she wants to stay, fine, have at it. But you're on your own.



And you damned well know that isn't how things work. People who were in auto accidents aren't turned away from the hospital, even if they were at fault. Stupid mountian climbers and hikers are rescued, at considerable expense, on a regular basis.

Anyone that is staying in what used to be New Orleans will definitely need public aid. Fuck that. If I am paying for their stupid asses, I am paying to take them where said aid will be cheap and easily accessible. It is stupid to expect the rest of us to support these idiots that want to stay behind, and haven't thought it out.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 1:44:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

Originally Posted By NAM:
The .gov is NOT a nanny and should not act as such. IF she wants to stay, fine, have at it. But you're on your own.



And you damned well know that isn't how things work. People who were in auto accidents aren't turned away from the hospital, even if they were at fault. Stupid mountian climbers and hikers are rescued, at considerable expense, on a regular basis.

Anyone that is staying in what used to be New Orleans will definitely need public aid. Fuck that. If I am paying for their stupid asses, I am paying to take them where said aid will be cheap and easily accessible. It is stupid to expect the rest of us to support these idiots that want to stay behind, and haven't thought it out.



Your missing the point. If they refude to leave, then they are on their own. Were not supporting them anymore
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 1:49:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BigB1129:
Your missing the point. If they refude to leave, then they are on their own. Were not supporting them anymore



And you are missing the point: For whatever reason, America doesn't do that. Even stupid people get public help. Sure, I say let the crazy bitch starve or die of dysentry from the filthy water or whatever, but that wouldn't happen, so take her ass out of that cesspool.

If I am going to pay for these idiots one way or another, I say do it the cheap way and drag their asses out of NO. That will cost less than dragging them out once they contract whatever disease or condition, paying for their hospital bill, and then still relocating them.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 1:52:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 1stCavVet:
Don't blame the cops, their just doing their jobs. Its people that stayed home like her that caused such a cluster down there anyway.





If you really believe that, you need to either read and understand the Constitution and the meaning of the word "liberty" or you need to move to a nation that is already a socialist state and stop trying to make the U.S. into one.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 2:46:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2005 2:57:39 AM EDT by tommygun2000]

Originally Posted By thesacrifice:
What exactly did they do so wrong to you fellas?

Lay on a woman armed with a knife and gun that stated herself that you'd have to use deadly force to remove her from her house? The woman and the officers left the house uninjured..I'd say mission accomplished.... It's a mandatory evacuation...

get a life


-----------
What did they do wrong? First of all, they entered the womans home with the intent to evict her.
Thats wrong number 1.

They disarmed a citizen who's right to possess a firearm is protected under the Constitution of the United States. This right is not negated under any declaration of emergency or otherwise. Wrong number 2.

They used physical battery against a 90yr old woman to further their first two crimes. Wrong number 3.

They were carrying out pattently unlawful orders, something which their oath of office obligates them to deny. Wrong number 4.........need I go on?

If you think that what was being done here is right in any way shape or form, you are sadly misinformed of the laws that govern this country and your duty to uphold them. I suggest you get an education before it costs you your job and/or your freedom or worse, your life.

Stop being a government appologist for the wrongs that others commit against society just because you are part of a big blue wall. That wall can be penetrated, legally and physically.

--------------
Read and heed, it might keep you alive and a free man some day.

It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. "Color of law" simply means that the person doing the act is using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, state or federal). Criminal acts under color of law include acts not only done by local, state, or federal officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may also be covered under color of law, if the perpetrator asserted their official status in some manner. Color of law may include public officials who are not law enforcement officers, for example, judges and prosecutors, as well as, in some circumstances, non governmental employees who are asserting state authority, such as private security guards. While the federal authority to investigate color of law type violations extends to any official acting under "color of law", the vast majority of the allegations are against the law enforcement community.

The Supreme Court has had to interpret the United States Constitution to construct law regulating the actions of those in the law enforcement community. Enforcement of these provisions does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed.

Investigative Areas

Most of the FBI's color of law investigations would fall into five broad areas:

excessive force;
sexual assaults;
false arrest/fabrication of evidence;
deprivation of property; and
failure to keep from harm.

In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to utilize whatever force is "reasonably" necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast. The spectrum begins with the physical presence of the official through the utilization of deadly force. While some types of force used by law enforcement may be violent by their very nature, they may be considered "reasonable," based upon the circumstances. However, violations of federal law occur where it can be shown that the force used was willfully "unreasonable" or "excessive" against individuals.

Sexual assaults by officials acting under "color of law" could happen in a variety of venues. They could occur in court scenarios, jails, and/or traffic stops to name just a few of the settings where an official might use their position of authority to coerce another individual into sexual compliance. The compliance is generally gained because of a threat of an official action against the other if they do not comply.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using his authority provided under the "color of law" is allowed to stop individuals and even if necessary to search them and retain their property under certain circumstances. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power that a violation of a person's civil rights might occur. An unlawful detention or an illegal confiscation of property would be examples of such an abuse of power.

An official would violate the color of law statute by fabricating evidence against or conducting a false arrest of an individual. That person's rights of due process and unreasonable seizure have been violated. In the case of deprivation of property, the official would violate the color of saw statute by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining the property of another. In that case, the official has overstepped or misapplied his authority.

The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process and the Eighth Amendment also prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. In an arrest or detention context, these rights would prohibit the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The idea being that a person accused of a crime is to be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.

The public entrusts its law enforcement officials with protecting the community. If it is shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm that official could be in violation of the color of law statute.

Filing a Complaint

In order to file a complaint alleging a violation of the criminal laws discussed above, you may contact your local FBI office by telephone, in writing, or in person. The following information should be provided:


all identifying information for the victim(s);
as much identifying information as possible for the subject(s), including position, rank, and agency employed;
date and time of incident;
location of incident;
names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any witness(es);
a complete chronology of events; and
any report numbers and charges with respect to the incident.
You may also contact the United States Attorney's Office in your district, or send a written complaint to:


Criminal Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 66018
Washington, D.C. 20035-6018

Investigations vary in length and although there are internal limitations, the investigation will proceed to its logical conclusion. The FBI is the investigative component of the Department of Justice. It is, therefore, not responsible for the prosecution of a case. That is the responsibility of the Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., and the United States Attorney's Office within the local jurisdiction. After the FBI has completed its investigation, it forwards its findings to the United States Attorney's Office and to the Department of Justice. They then make the determination as to whether to proceed toward prosecution or not.


Civil Applications

Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141, makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement agencies to allow officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. This law is commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute. This law gives DOJ the authority to seek civil remedies in cases where it is determined that law enforcement agencies have policies or practices which foster a pattern of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an agency, not against individual officers. The types of issues which may initiate a Pattern and Practice investigation include:


Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers' actions.
Officers not providing justification or reporting incidents involving the use of force.
Lack of, or improper training of officers.
A department having a citizen complaint process which treats complainants as adversaries.

Under Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1997, DOJ has the ability to initiate civil actions against mental hospitals, retardation facilities, jails, prisons, nursing homes, and juvenile detention facilities, when there are allegations of systemic derivations of the constitutional rights of institutionalized persons.

Civil Rights Home Page
Hate Crime
Color of Law
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances
Involuntary Servitude/Slavery
Federal Civil Rights Statutes
News and Issues





Link Posted: 9/13/2005 3:06:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tomislav:
So the crazy old bint wanted to stay behind, with no fresh water, no access to food, no access to medical services (except, of course, when she goes crying to the relief workers, who have problems enough to deal with), and I am supposed to have pity for her?



How do you know she's not prepared? She may have a huge stockpile of food, water, etc. These people are being evicted from their homes on the assumption that they're too stupid to take care of themselves. THis is setting a dangerous precedent. This is the government telling us that they know better than us. We can't be trusted to take care of ourselves. Personally, I think the government already does way too much thinking (and I use that word loosely) for us. What's next? A Federal agent tearing a quarter pounder with cheese out of my hands because it has too much fat, cholesterol, etc.?
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 3:10:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2005 3:21:12 AM EDT by Tomislav]

Originally Posted By tommygun2000:
What did they do wrong? First of all, they entered the womans home with the intent to evict her.
Thats wrong number 1.



Not illegal according to LA and Federal laws. You may not like it, but that's reality for you.

Some of you guys are pathetically ill-informed regarding the law of the land. The Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act gives local authorities the legal ability to do what they are doing. Various Federal emergency power acts allow the feds to do what they are doing.

Don't confuse your own ignorance or dislike of the law with any action being 'illegal'.


Originally Posted By Arc_Angel:
How do you know she's not prepared? She may have a huge stockpile of food, water, etc.





Ya, sure. And when she runs out of cat food to eat, and goes crying for help, we get to pick the tab up yet again, for what? Fuck that.



These people are being evicted from their homes on the assumption that they're too stupid to take care of themselves.



They are.

NO is a former-city. It's dead, Gone. No more infrastructure. No food or water. No medical facilities. Houses are stucturally unsafe. The damned water is giving rescue workers chemical burns. No reasonable and informed person would choose to live in that circumstance.

This isn't a case of someone living out in the boonies on their own, this is someone living in a open sewer that will probably be largely leveled before any reconstruction begins.



THis is setting a dangerous precedent...



No, it's not. People are evicted from disaster areas all of the time, and it's been like that for a long while. Difference is, most people aren't screaming morons that refuse to go, even when it's apparent their former hometown is no more.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 11:32:28 AM EDT
The moe people cry the Constitution the less likely they are to know what they are talking about.

If you expect most of the bashers here to understand the law or the Constitution , or the BoR, you will be sadly mistaken.

You know the guys that scream about the seizures and searches always seem to have never read the part that says UNREASONABLE.

And they almost always have no clue about where the Stateand the Fed Constitutions differ and how the states have far more powers than the Feds and they try to assign the BoR restrictions on the Feds to the States. It ain't so and they never understand it.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 11:37:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PaDanby:
The moe people cry the Constitution the less likely they are to know what they are talking about.

If you expect most of the bashers here to understand the law or the Constitution , or the BoR, you will be sadly mistaken.

You know the guys that scream about the seizures and searches always seem to have never read the part that says UNREASONABLE.

And they almost always have no clue about where the Stateand the Fed Constitutions differ and how the states have far more powers than the Feds and they try to assign the BoR restrictions on the Feds to the States. It ain't so and they never understand it.



And just who decides what's "reasonable " ??
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 11:52:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thesacrifice:
What exactly did they do so wrong to you fellas?

Lay on a woman armed with a knife and gun that stated herself that you'd have to use deadly force to remove her from her house? The woman and the officers left the house uninjured..I'd say mission accomplished.... It's a mandatory evacuation...

get a life



...possibly the dumbest reply I've seen on AR15.com. What a maroon
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 12:08:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2005 12:15:19 PM EDT by rickinvegas]

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

Originally Posted By tommygun2000:
What did they do wrong? First of all, they entered the womans home with the intent to evict her.
Thats wrong number 1.



Not illegal according to LA and Federal laws. You may not like it, but that's reality for you.

Some of you guys are pathetically ill-informed regarding the law of the land. The Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act gives local authorities the legal ability to do what they are doing. Various Federal emergency power acts allow the feds to do what they are doing.

Don't confuse your own ignorance or dislike of the law with any action being 'illegal'.


Originally Posted By Arc_Angel:
How do you know she's not prepared? She may have a huge stockpile of food, water, etc.





Ya, sure. And when she runs out of cat food to eat, and goes crying for help, we get to pick the tab up yet again, for what? Fuck that.



These people are being evicted from their homes on the assumption that they're too stupid to take care of themselves.



They are.

NO is a former-city. It's dead, Gone. No more infrastructure. No food or water. No medical facilities. Houses are stucturally unsafe. The damned water is giving rescue workers chemical burns. No reasonable and informed person would choose to live in that circumstance.

This isn't a case of someone living out in the boonies on their own, this is someone living in a open sewer that will probably be largely leveled before any reconstruction begins.



THis is setting a dangerous precedent...



No, it's not. People are evicted from disaster areas all of the time, and it's been like that for a long while. Difference is, most people aren't screaming morons that refuse to go, even when it's apparent their former hometown is no more.



Well said.

Just to add,

NO has been CONDEMNED! Condemnation and the ensuing evictions are completely legal powers of the government. Like it or not, there is nothing wrong (legally) with removing these people.

If you guys don't like it then change the law.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 12:18:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

Originally Posted By tommygun2000:
What did they do wrong? First of all, they entered the womans home with the intent to evict her.
Thats wrong number 1.



Not illegal according to LA and Federal laws. You may not like it, but that's reality for you.

Some of you guys are pathetically ill-informed regarding the law of the land. The Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act gives local authorities the legal ability to do what they are doing. Various Federal emergency power acts allow the feds to do what they are doing.

Don't confuse your own ignorance or dislike of the law with any action being 'illegal'.


Originally Posted By Arc_Angel:
How do you know she's not prepared? She may have a huge stockpile of food, water, etc.





Ya, sure. And when she runs out of cat food to eat, and goes crying for help, we get to pick the tab up yet again, for what? Fuck that.



These people are being evicted from their homes on the assumption that they're too stupid to take care of themselves.



They are.

NO is a former-city. It's dead, Gone. No more infrastructure. No food or water. No medical facilities. Houses are stucturally unsafe. The damned water is giving rescue workers chemical burns. No reasonable and informed person would choose to live in that circumstance.

This isn't a case of someone living out in the boonies on their own, this is someone living in a open sewer that will probably be largely leveled before any reconstruction begins.



THis is setting a dangerous precedent...



No, it's not. People are evicted from disaster areas all of the time, and it's been like that for a long while. Difference is, most people aren't screaming morons that refuse to go, even when it's apparent their former hometown is no more.


Thank you Tomislav, very well put
It is amazing how some people think...
Sean
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 12:21:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rickinvegas:

Well said.

Just to add,

NO has been CONDEMNED! Condemnation and the ensuing evictions are completely legal powers of the government. Like it or not, there is nothing wrong (legally) with removing these people.

If you guys don't like it then change the law.



Isn't being rounded up to be shipped off to a govt holding pen contrary to this little gem "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"?
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 12:27:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rickinvegas:

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

Originally Posted By tommygun2000:
What did they do wrong? First of all, they entered the womans home with the intent to evict her.
Thats wrong number 1.



Not illegal according to LA and Federal laws. You may not like it, but that's reality for you.

Some of you guys are pathetically ill-informed regarding the law of the land. The Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act gives local authorities the legal ability to do what they are doing. Various Federal emergency power acts allow the feds to do what they are doing.

Don't confuse your own ignorance or dislike of the law with any action being 'illegal'.


Originally Posted By Arc_Angel:
How do you know she's not prepared? She may have a huge stockpile of food, water, etc.





Ya, sure. And when she runs out of cat food to eat, and goes crying for help, we get to pick the tab up yet again, for what? Fuck that.



These people are being evicted from their homes on the assumption that they're too stupid to take care of themselves.



They are.

NO is a former-city. It's dead, Gone. No more infrastructure. No food or water. No medical facilities. Houses are stucturally unsafe. The damned water is giving rescue workers chemical burns. No reasonable and informed person would choose to live in that circumstance.

This isn't a case of someone living out in the boonies on their own, this is someone living in a open sewer that will probably be largely leveled before any reconstruction begins.



THis is setting a dangerous precedent...



No, it's not. People are evicted from disaster areas all of the time, and it's been like that for a long while. Difference is, most people aren't screaming morons that refuse to go, even when it's apparent their former hometown is no more.



Well said.

Just to add,

NO has been CONDEMNED! Condemnation and the ensuing evictions are completely legal powers of the government. Like it or not, there is nothing wrong (legally) with removing these people.

If you guys don't like it then change the law.



Really? I Googled New Orleans condemned and I did find that Bush was condemned, FEMA was condemned, the mayor the governor the tinker the tailor and the candle stick maker were condemned, but I couldn't find the part about all the property being condemned.

Please provide a link.

TIA

Link Posted: 9/13/2005 12:35:04 PM EDT
Don't be suprised, many of these old people have enough food and water stock piled to last months. It goes back decades from prior hurricanes and learning from their parents who grew up during the depression. BTW - some parts of NO did not flood and have running water. Look around in that video clip, her area did not flood. And those that remained behind are getting lots of water and food. My uncle for example, who remained, his area did not flood. When I went back in he was fine. I dropped off enough food and water to last a month in addition to what he already had.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 12:53:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
Isn't being rounded up to be shipped off to a govt holding pen contrary to this little gem "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"?



What do you want to talk about? Eviction or people "being rounded up to be shipped off to a govt holding pen"?

I have not heard of people being kept anywhere against thier will. Where is this happening? I would be interested in knowing about that.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 1:05:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2005 1:20:54 PM EDT by rickinvegas]

Originally Posted By Merrell:
Really? I Googled New Orleans condemned and I did find that Bush was condemned, FEMA was condemned, the mayor the governor the tinker the tailor and the candle stick maker were condemned, but I couldn't find the part about all the property being condemned.

Please provide a link.

TIA




Does this mean that if someone showed you a piece of paper signed by the appropriate authority your views would change? I doubt it.

Even if they aren't calling it "Condemnation", this is what they are doing and there is nothing illegal about it.

Now, I'm not saying that I like what I'm seeing. If it were me, I would probably end up on the news as well but like it or not...........being right is not the same as legal. Like I said before, If you don't like it, work to change the laws.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 1:12:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NAM:

Originally Posted By Tomislav:
Fuck that. NO is no longer a city. She will starve to death, or dehydrate, or die of any of a myriad reasons if she stays in that toxic cesspool.



That is her god given, unalienable right.

If she wants to take her chances, that's her own business.

The .gov is NOT a nanny and should not act as such. IF she wants to stay, fine, have at it. But you're on your own.



You know, if she would leave it at that, that would be fine. But, you know damn well that in a week or so, she would be on TV whining about how they left her to die.

I am not defending the cops and I agree she should have been left, but the reality is that she would not have let it go at that once she realized she was fucked.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 1:14:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By 1stCavVet:
Don't blame the cops, their just doing their jobs. Its people that stayed home like her that caused such a cluster down there anyway.





If you really believe that, you need to either read and understand the Constitution and the meaning of the word "liberty" or you need to move to a nation that is already a socialist state and stop trying to make the U.S. into one.



Well, it really is the people that stayed behind that helped to turn this into a major clusterfuck, all the other dealings aside.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 1:16:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
Isn't being rounded up to be shipped off to a govt holding pen contrary to this little gem "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"?



State of emergency laws were invoked at city, state, and federal levels. Due process has been served.

Again, I understand that some of you don't like the laws, but that doesn't make the laws 'illegal' or 'unconstitutional'. (Unless we have the USSC posting incognito here...)
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 1:18:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By rickinvegas:

Well said.

Just to add,

NO has been CONDEMNED! Condemnation and the ensuing evictions are completely legal powers of the government. Like it or not, there is nothing wrong (legally) with removing these people.

If you guys don't like it then change the law.



Isn't being rounded up to be shipped off to a govt holding pen contrary to this little gem "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"?



Sheesh, whatever happened to being smart enough to get the fuck out there on your own?
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 1:20:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By rickinvegas:

Well said.

Just to add,

NO has been CONDEMNED! Condemnation and the ensuing evictions are completely legal powers of the government. Like it or not, there is nothing wrong (legally) with removing these people.

If you guys don't like it then change the law.



Isn't being rounded up to be shipped off to a govt holding pen contrary to this little gem "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"?



Sheesh, whatever happened to being smart enough to get the fuck out there on your own?



It's supposed to be a free country. That decision is supposed to be up to the individual, for better or for worse. Just like who you marry, what you drive, where you live, owning guns, smoking, drinking and all the other things we're supposed to be allowed to make up our own minds about.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 1:23:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rickinvegas:

Originally Posted By Merrell:
Really? I Googled New Orleans condemned and I did find that Bush was condemned, FEMA was condemned, the mayor the governor the tinker the tailor and the candle stick maker were condemned, but I couldn't find the part about all the property being condemned.

Please provide a link.

TIA




Does this mean that if someone showed you a piece of paper signed by the appropriate authority your views would change? I doubt it.



Don't derail the subject. YOU said NO was condemned, and I asked for a link.


Even if they aren't calling it "Condemnation", this is what they are doing and there is nothing illegal about it.


First you claim it's happening, then you talk about people showing pieces of paper, then you say they aren't calling it that, but that's what it is... make up your mind (are you sure you're not a woman?)


Now, I'm not saying that I like what I'm seeing. If it were me, I would probably end up on the news as well but like it or not...........being right is not the same a legal. Like I said before, If you don't like it, work to change the laws.


Like has nothing to do with it. The fact is they went in there uninvited, were asked to leave, did not do so, physically assaulted her and then dragged her out and hauled her off. A member in England said they were running the unedited video on ITV in which they promised not to come in, then stormed in after she let a news crew in. Tackling old women to save them is blisteringly retarded, even for CHP. Go re-watch the video.

Link Posted: 9/13/2005 1:26:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By 1stCavVet:
Don't blame the cops, their just doing their jobs. Its people that stayed home like her that caused such a cluster down there anyway.





If you really believe that, you need to either read and understand the Constitution and the meaning of the word "liberty" or you need to move to a nation that is already a socialist state and stop trying to make the U.S. into one.



Well, it really is the people that stayed behind that helped to turn this into a major clusterfuck, all the other dealings aside.



No, it was the assclown Mayor & Governor that did not maintain control (by not ordering looters shot on sight) that turned this into a zoo. That old lady wasn't out there looting cases of Heinekin (nor was the lawyer, Ashton O'Dwyer or the homeowners who were disarmed by OK NG)
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 1:28:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By rickinvegas:

Well said.

Just to add,

NO has been CONDEMNED! Condemnation and the ensuing evictions are completely legal powers of the government. Like it or not, there is nothing wrong (legally) with removing these people.

If you guys don't like it then change the law.



Isn't being rounded up to be shipped off to a govt holding pen contrary to this little gem "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"?



Sheesh, whatever happened to being smart enough to get the fuck out there on your own?



It's supposed to be a free country. That decision is supposed to be up to the individual, for better or for worse. Just like who you marry, what you drive, where you live, owning guns, smoking, drinking and all the other things we're supposed to be allowed to make up our own minds about.



And if the individual involved would accept their fate that resulted from their decision, that would be fine. However, it doesn't happen that way. If she had been left, she would be on TV next week screaming how they left her there to die.

The fact that she is still there says something about her lack of intelligence.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 1:29:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By rickinvegas:

Well said.

Just to add,

NO has been CONDEMNED! Condemnation and the ensuing evictions are completely legal powers of the government. Like it or not, there is nothing wrong (legally) with removing these people.

If you guys don't like it then change the law.



Isn't being rounded up to be shipped off to a govt holding pen contrary to this little gem "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"?



Sheesh, whatever happened to being smart enough to get the fuck out there on your own?



It's supposed to be a free country. That decision is supposed to be up to the individual, for better or for worse. Just like who you marry, what you drive, where you live, owning guns, smoking, drinking and all the other things we're supposed to be allowed to make up our own minds about.



And if the individual involved would accept their fate that resulted from their decision, that would be fine. However, it doesn't happen that way. If she had been left, she would be on TV next week screaming how they left her there to die.

The fact that she is still there says something about her lack of intelligence.



It says she was brighter than the people that went to the Sheepledome to get raped and murdered!!!

Link Posted: 9/13/2005 1:40:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By rickinvegas:

Well said.

Just to add,

NO has been CONDEMNED! Condemnation and the ensuing evictions are completely legal powers of the government. Like it or not, there is nothing wrong (legally) with removing these people.

If you guys don't like it then change the law.



Isn't being rounded up to be shipped off to a govt holding pen contrary to this little gem "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"?



Sheesh, whatever happened to being smart enough to get the fuck out there on your own?



It's supposed to be a free country. That decision is supposed to be up to the individual, for better or for worse. Just like who you marry, what you drive, where you live, owning guns, smoking, drinking and all the other things we're supposed to be allowed to make up our own minds about.



And if the individual involved would accept their fate that resulted from their decision, that would be fine. However, it doesn't happen that way. If she had been left, she would be on TV next week screaming how they left her there to die.

The fact that she is still there says something about her lack of intelligence.



Very well, you feel it says something about her intelligence. She should be allowed to make the decision about staying in her home regardless of what you feel it says about her intelligence.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 1:48:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By rickinvegas:

Well said.

Just to add,

NO has been CONDEMNED! Condemnation and the ensuing evictions are completely legal powers of the government. Like it or not, there is nothing wrong (legally) with removing these people.

If you guys don't like it then change the law.



Isn't being rounded up to be shipped off to a govt holding pen contrary to this little gem "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"?



Sheesh, whatever happened to being smart enough to get the fuck out there on your own?



It's supposed to be a free country. That decision is supposed to be up to the individual, for better or for worse. Just like who you marry, what you drive, where you live, owning guns, smoking, drinking and all the other things we're supposed to be allowed to make up our own minds about.



And if the individual involved would accept their fate that resulted from their decision, that would be fine. However, it doesn't happen that way. If she had been left, she would be on TV next week screaming how they left her there to die.

The fact that she is still there says something about her lack of intelligence.



Very well, you feel it says something about her intelligence. She should be allowed to make the decision about staying in her home regardless of what you feel it says about her intelligence.



And I will say it again..............she will not let it go at that. If they had left her, she would be on TV in week whining about how they left her to die.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 1:58:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By rickinvegas:

Well said.

Just to add,

NO has been CONDEMNED! Condemnation and the ensuing evictions are completely legal powers of the government. Like it or not, there is nothing wrong (legally) with removing these people.

If you guys don't like it then change the law.



Isn't being rounded up to be shipped off to a govt holding pen contrary to this little gem "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"?



Sheesh, whatever happened to being smart enough to get the fuck out there on your own?



It's supposed to be a free country. That decision is supposed to be up to the individual, for better or for worse. Just like who you marry, what you drive, where you live, owning guns, smoking, drinking and all the other things we're supposed to be allowed to make up our own minds about.



And if the individual involved would accept their fate that resulted from their decision, that would be fine. However, it doesn't happen that way. If she had been left, she would be on TV next week screaming how they left her there to die.

The fact that she is still there says something about her lack of intelligence.



Very well, you feel it says something about her intelligence. She should be allowed to make the decision about staying in her home regardless of what you feel it says about her intelligence.



And I will say it again..............she will not let it go at that. If they had left her, she would be on TV in week whining about how they left her to die.



I don't think it's right to deny people due process etc because of what you anticipate they will do later.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 2:00:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By rickinvegas:

Well said.

Just to add,

NO has been CONDEMNED! Condemnation and the ensuing evictions are completely legal powers of the government. Like it or not, there is nothing wrong (legally) with removing these people.

If you guys don't like it then change the law.



Isn't being rounded up to be shipped off to a govt holding pen contrary to this little gem "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"?



Sheesh, whatever happened to being smart enough to get the fuck out there on your own?



It's supposed to be a free country. That decision is supposed to be up to the individual, for better or for worse. Just like who you marry, what you drive, where you live, owning guns, smoking, drinking and all the other things we're supposed to be allowed to make up our own minds about.



And if the individual involved would accept their fate that resulted from their decision, that would be fine. However, it doesn't happen that way. If she had been left, she would be on TV next week screaming how they left her there to die.

The fact that she is still there says something about her lack of intelligence.





Very well, you feel it says something about her intelligence. She should be allowed to make the decision about staying in her home regardless of what you feel it says about her intelligence.



And I will say it again..............she will not let it go at that. If they had left her, she would be on TV in week whining about how they left her to die.



I don't think it's right to deny people due process etc because of what you anticipate they will do later.



Reality sucks, don't it. I wish they had let her stay and the news covered it. Then, next week when she is whining about being left behind, many that are defending her right now would be bashing her.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 2:00:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By rickinvegas:

Well said.

Just to add,

NO has been CONDEMNED! Condemnation and the ensuing evictions are completely legal powers of the government. Like it or not, there is nothing wrong (legally) with removing these people.

If you guys don't like it then change the law.



Isn't being rounded up to be shipped off to a govt holding pen contrary to this little gem "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"?



Sheesh, whatever happened to being smart enough to get the fuck out there on your own?



It's supposed to be a free country. That decision is supposed to be up to the individual, for better or for worse. Just like who you marry, what you drive, where you live, owning guns, smoking, drinking and all the other things we're supposed to be allowed to make up our own minds about.



And if the individual involved would accept their fate that resulted from their decision, that would be fine. However, it doesn't happen that way. If she had been left, she would be on TV next week screaming how they left her there to die.

The fact that she is still there says something about her lack of intelligence.



Very well, you feel it says something about her intelligence. She should be allowed to make the decision about staying in her home regardless of what you feel it says about her intelligence.



And I will say it again..............she will not let it go at that. If they had left her, she would be on TV in week whining about how they left her to die.



Why not serve a legal eviction notice then? Tell her she has 72 hours to clear out - let her make arrangements to at least save some of her possessions? (which have all probably been looted by now) Just what the hell would that hurt?

Nooooooooooooo, CHP JBT's say jump and by God she's gotta do it RFN. Complaints? Fuck that, let's tackle this old bat and teach her a lesson. Rules are rules. Obey or else.

Cripes, I get the feeling that some folks watch that video and cheer when he decks her.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top