home

To Protect and to Serve?

By TChris, Section Huricanes Katrina and Rita
Posted on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 03:44:59 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

This is why some were unable to leave New Orleans:

Police agencies to the south of New Orleans were so fearful of the crowds trying to leave the city after Hurricane Katrina that they sealed a crucial bridge over the Mississippi River and turned back hundreds of desperate evacuees, two paramedics who were in the crowd said.

Officers reportedly shot over the heads of people who resisted their command to turn back. According to four witnesses, an officer told 200 evacuees to leave their encampment, then confiscated their food and water.

"The police kept saying, 'We don't want another Superdome,' and 'This isn't New Orleans,' " said Larry Bradshaw, a San Francisco paramedic who was among those fleeing.

< How Low Can He Go? | Guantanamo Using Feeding Tubes on Hunger-Striking Detainees >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    To Protect and to Serve? | 16 comments (16 topical)
    Re: To Protect and to Serve? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Joe Bob on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:37 PM EST
    Can the sheriffs responsible for this atrocity be held accountable under any criminal statute? I'm absolutely horrified by their depraved indifference to plight of people who were trying to flee a complete hellhole.

    Re: To Protect and to Serve? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Aaron on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:37 PM EST
    No doubt there are many white Republicans, including some political leaders, in Louisiana who would have loved to see the National Guard open fire on these crowds of Black people. It just goes to show that if things turn really bad in America, words like genocide and Holocaust will likely be employed by future historians when speaking and writing about our history. It's happened before with the Native Americans in this country... and history has a way of repeating itself.

    Re: To Protect and to Serve? (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:38 PM EST
    Aaron - You should read the link. The reputed incident incident happend on Thursday, 9/1, or two full days after the hurricane went through. The people complaining were tourists who were asked to leave, basically thrown out, a NO hotel - I'd love to know the chain - and first were sent to the convention center and then to the bridge, by NO police. So the crowd wasn't "black," but a mixed group of people, as society is, looking for help. Now that you have a better understanding you may debate the issue as to whether or not the other town, suburb really, should have taken them in.

    Re: To Protect and to Serve? (none / 0) (#4)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:38 PM EST
    PPJ: What would you have done if you were the cop on the other side of the bridge?

    Re: To Protect and to Serve? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:38 PM EST
    No, there is no debate about whether they should have taken them in. If towns and families all across america can take them in then their neighbors can and should. "By Day Four, our hotels had run out of fuel and water. Sanitation was dangerously bad. " And confiscating their food and water is inhuman.

    Re: To Protect and to Serve? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:38 PM EST
    Why isn't this a civil liberties issue? It seems to me that Chief Lawson and the city of Gretna deprived many people of freedoms, some even their life, while causing them to experience much greater suffering than need be. I also wish the Democratic Party would renounce Lawson and foster a recall effort.

    Re: To Protect and to Serve? (none / 0) (#7)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:38 PM EST
    I want to PPJ the wise man to answer this.

    Re: To Protect and to Serve? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:38 PM EST
    In the city I live in there is an area of extreme poverty, drug addiction, prostitution, and all the associated diseases, AIDS especially. People jokingly call it "grimtown". The city is growing fast, development is booming, and encroaching on this area. The population of the area is being slowly pushed east block by block as development and construction replaces the run down buildings with high priced condos and shopping areas. No one else in the surrounding neighborhoods wants to deal with the displaced people and the crime and social problems they bring either, but they can't force them back. This is happening, not overnight, but over a period of years. The attitude is: "NOT IN MY BACKYARD - and I don't care where you send them, but NOT HERE" Out of sight... out of mind...

    Re: To Protect and to Serve? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:38 PM EST
    PPJ, you say:
    The people complaining were tourists who ... first were sent to the convention center and then to the bridge, by NO police ... Now that you have a better understanding you may debate the issue as to whether or not the other town, suburb really, should have taken them in.
    What are we supposed to debate? If police anywhere in the US encounter a group of innocent people walking down a road into their community, are there circumstances in which it is actually legal for them to use force to block those people from continuing to walk? I imagine that this will be interesting news to anyone thinking of planning a walking tour in the US. What if they had been riding bicycles -- would that make a difference?

    Re: To Protect and to Serve? (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:39 PM EST
    aw - It is a tough question. On one hand we have 20,000, or so, people who want to leave a very foul place and go to a place that has no ability to handle them, so what you will rapidly get is another very foul place. Strangely enough, that is the same position Jesse Jackson used when asked why didn't the Mayor of NO use the busses to transport people out pre-hurricane. Careful FNC link to broadcast transcript.
    JACKSON: And land them where? There must be some reception
    The real question is, what did the city officals - Mayor? City Manager? - tell the Police Chief to do? They are the ones who set policy, not the police. What would I do? I really don't know. If I was true to my oath to protect and serve the people of the town who hired me, I would have to block the people who were coming from NO. Cymro - I'm not a lawyer, but I think the area was under martial law. If people disobey a lawful police order, I think they can be shot. Now, if martial law didn't exist, I don't know. I would guess that, if the police thought the advancing people represnted a grave threat and harm to their city and themselves they could shoot.

    Re: To Protect and to Serve? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:39 PM EST
    Yes, threaten to kill them and confiscate their food and water instead of guiding them to shelters.
    He said Gretna had been "a closed and secure location" since before the storm hit.

    "There was no food, water or shelter" in Gretna City, Lawson said.

    "If we had opened the bridge, our city would have looked like New Orleans does now: looted, burned and pillaged."
    Apparently he's not familiar with TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

    Re: To Protect and to Serve? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:39 PM EST
    Gretna is a predominantly white suburban town of around 18,000 inhabitants. In the aftermath of Katrina, three quarters of the inhabitants still had electricity and running water.


    Re: To Protect and to Serve? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:39 PM EST
    Jim as Sailor points out it was probably not a lawful order. And certainly not ethical or humane. Secondly in many municpalities, and Gretna is one, the Chief of Police is an elected position. Lawson (D) was elected to a four year term as Chief of Police in '05and therefor has a great deal of latitude in policy and direction. From what is avail online it appears that he cannot be removed except by recall or conviction. Finally most office oaths also contain a clause to uphold the US Constitution and laws as well LA laws and constitution. Although I was not able to find any Gretna office oaths.

    Re: To Protect and to Serve? (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:40 PM EST
    Sailor-How can we get the criminal chief of police prosecuted?
    the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
    TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 242

    Re: To Protect and to Serve? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:40 PM EST
    FWIW - Louisiana doesn't have a provision in law for "martial law." However things are set up to create a martial law-like state is legal technicalities that I don't know anything about. But whatever it is, it's not martial law. Whether there's any substantive difference is way beyond my scope of knowledge.

    Re: To Protect and to Serve? (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:41 PM EST
    notanumber - As I noted, it would be a tough call for me. But the fact remains, elected or not, the police are expected to serve and protect those that hired them. That NO's officials did a lousy job is sad, but factual. And the Governor's delay in establishing martial law certainly contributed to the problem.

    To Protect and to Serve? | 16 comments (16 topical)