Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"We're Just Trying to Help You, Ma'am"
"They're not dragging people from their homes," says the reporter in New Orleans, immediately after showing us a video of a woman being dragged from her home.
The Wine Commonsewer|9.12.05 @ 12:51PM|#
Thanks Jesse, I've been looking for this video since Mrs TWC
told me about.
I swear to god, I don't think anything the government has done
prior to Katrina has enraged me as much as the entire hurricane
fiasco. Not even Waco.
|9.12.05 @ 1:02PM|#
Sadly, I think this serves as an object lesson in why one does
not hold out a gun without the intent to discharge it.
I wonder if she let them in to the house?
|9.12.05 @ 1:06PM|#
It's not even the gun thing. What is truly disturbing is the
reporter stating that the officers are "entitled" to use deadly
force in this scenario.
It reinforces my belief that people don't really think much about
government power grabs. I mean, if the whole justification of this
effort is to "save her life", then using deadly force in any
instance is just flat out counter-productive, even if you are a
fascist. Yet most people don't even blink an eyelash at such
idiocy.
"Killing them for their own good" is now accepted government
policy...
|9.12.05 @ 1:11PM|#
Well, Quasibill, are you surprised? This is the same government that says, "Drugs will destroy your life, so to prevent you from destroying your life we're going to lock you in prison for thirty years. Enjoy your gang-rape."
|9.12.05 @ 1:12PM|#
"She was an elderly woman, and she did not appear to be a threat
to anyone, but she did have a gun."
That's all the excuse they need now.
|9.12.05 @ 1:19PM|#
Jennifer is right. The only people surprised by this are the ones who haven't been paying attention for the past few decades.
|9.12.05 @ 1:22PM|#
Sadly, Jennifer, I am not surprised. However, I am slightly
surprised at the blatant use of this justification in this
scenario.
IMHO, your statement about the war on drugs is an accurate
description, but the rationale isn't blatant at first glance. To
me, it really can't get any more blatant than "well, we have to
rescue her, and we're justified in killing her to effectuate the
rescue, especially if she doesn't want to be rescued."
It's not the fact that the government uses such logic (Iraq is the
ever-present reminder) - it was the fact that the reporter didn't
even flinch in putting it out there.
|9.12.05 @ 1:25PM|#
What I don't understand is why the tape is edited such that it cuts immediately to the tackling of the old lady without any lead up to it. My guess is that since this seems to be a very pro-cop report the reason is that the woman didn't provoke the attack (aside from by exercising her consitutional rights).
|9.12.05 @ 2:10PM|#
Seems like just desserts for the people who stayed behind for whatever reason, and now that they're knee deep in fetid water they expect the government to help. Funny how everyone's pro-freedom and individualist until they encounter a situation that's Not Their Fault(tm). I forget who said it but the apt quote here is "the only power government can possibly claim is that abdicated by the individual".
|9.12.05 @ 2:15PM|#
Seems like just desserts for the people who stayed behind
for whatever reason, and now that they're knee deep in fetid water
they expect the government to help.
The people with ample food and supplies, who just want to be left
alone, deserve to be forcibly evicted from their homes?
|9.12.05 @ 2:16PM|#
I don't know what's scarier, the police dragging the woman from
her house, or the reporter saying they aren't after showing that
they are.
But you know if the woman shot the officer, the story on the news
would have been "Officer shot!" rather than "Woman forced from her
home!"
Larry A|9.12.05 @ 2:17PM|#
From seeing the longer tape it was obvious that the woman did
indeed provoke the officers.
While inside her own home she held her inexpensive revolver
(Saturday night special) in plain sight but in a way so she could
not have fired it and said something along the line of, "I don't
want to leave. I don't want you in my house."
Obviously she was a violent antisocial probably drug connected and
maybe even terroristic individual who deserved the pummeling she
recieved at the hands of several cursing law enforcement
officers.
And the news reporters said, "Amen."
<Barf>
|9.12.05 @ 2:32PM|#
Russ D
I'm voting that the reporter's flat out lie about his own video
(and the newsreaders' agreement to this lie) is the scarier. If the
press is bold enough to say such a thing when it is so obviously
untrue, how much more likely are they to lie when the truth is less
evident?
|9.12.05 @ 2:40PM|#
This is goddamned sickening to watch. "For her own safety."
Jesus Christ.
First they made me wear a seatbelt, and I said nothing...
|9.12.05 @ 2:49PM|#
"I'm voting that the reporter's flat out lie about his own
video (and the newsreaders' agreement to this lie) is the
scarier."
Really? Which of these is actually scarier?
-- An American citizen says something untrue (at worst), while
exercising his First Amendment rights
-- An American citizen, having committed no crime, is forcibly
removed from her property, in an egregious violation of the Fourth
Amendment and god-knows-what-else
|9.12.05 @ 2:56PM|#
I wonder what Ken Wayne's definition of "dragging people out of
their homes" is if pulling a screaming old lady out of her house
doesn't fit the bill.
Oh wait, it's different. She's elderly, and had a gun and a
knife.
|9.12.05 @ 2:58PM|#
SP,
I feel that just the pure lack of outrage by the press is a valid
indicator of just how controlled our populace has become. That
authorities order the confiscation of weapons is not uncommon, as
has been the case throughout history. That our press, and the
populace as a whole is willing to go along with the order is
astonishing. The free press, the guardians of the public
conscience, should tacitly agree with the illegal actions of the
government is amazing. Next stop is state controlled media, if it
hasn't effectively already arrived.
|9.12.05 @ 3:03PM|#
Next stop is state controlled media, if it hasn't effectively
already arrived.
Regulation of Cigarete and alchahol advertisements. McCain-Feingold
cases against radio jocks for talking about politicdal
issues. An FCC that fines and threatens to revoke licenses at the
drop of a hat, and wouldn't allow a bra on tv until less than 20
years ago. Endless streams of propaganda by the DEA. Will full
suppression of research by the DEA. Free media was dead long before
I was even born.
|9.12.05 @ 3:04PM|#
But apparently they haven't yet begun to regulate my spelling, so I got that going for me, and that's nice.
|9.12.05 @ 3:07PM|#
"The free press, the guardians of the public conscience,
should tacitly agree with the illegal actions of the government is
amazing."
Yes, amazing -- and apalling. But not more appalling than the
"illegal actions of the government," even if our benchmark is
merely "constitutional is better than unconstitutional."
"That authorities order the confiscation of weapons is not
uncommon, as has been the case throughout history."
I'm sure many here know much more than I do about the topic. But in
these historical cases, was the confiscation undertaken under the
guise of protecting each individual from himself? And did it
include the Extra Special Bonus of yanking the individuals
themselves off their own property?
|9.12.05 @ 3:08PM|#
the sluggish, half-hearted response to the initial
anarchy/crime/lawlessness seems to make more sense now -- it gave
them cover to do whatever they wanted once they decided to take
control...
that's the Man for you...
|9.12.05 @ 3:08PM|#
This is what happens when the federal gov't intervenes... "I'm
from the gov't and I'm here to help." Remember?
Just in case everyone here who has been screaming that the federal
gov't is the answer to the mess caused by Hurricane Katrina, rather
than the state and local folks who SHOULD have been in charge.
Anytime someone is placed in the hands of "authorities" outside
their own neighborhood, those people are at greater risk for this
kind of nonsense. It's just logical.
Usually people from your own neighborhood are more likely to let
you stay in your home, not mistake your address for that of a drug
dealer, not treat you disrespectfully - because they have to live
there WITH you.
But this begs the question of everyone who wants to place the blame
at the federal level who sees this being done - is this really what
you want done and how you want it done? Doesn't it suddenly make a
lot more sense to have the locals and the state running things
rather than the feds - who will surely send a bunch of knuckleheads
from California to rough you up and evict you from your home...
|9.12.05 @ 3:10PM|#
I feel that just the pure lack of outrage by the press is a
valid indicator of just how controlled our populace has
become.
I think it goes with the "FEMA must save the people of New Orleans"
train of thought that the media is stuck on, and it should
seriously reinforce arguments against making early disaster
response a federal issue.
The media has been saying, "The feds must do something -- anything
-- to help in New Orleans." Okay, now law officers from a far-away
state are ripping people from their homes without due process.
Well, the media asked for this, didn't it. And the media can't have
been wrong.
|9.12.05 @ 3:11PM|#
Has anyone heard word about Michael Brown (reassigned FEMA director) having just resigned?
per joe's logic from another t|9.12.05 @ 3:19PM|#
Actually, since the cops' power was derived from the consent of the governed, this was actually an example of cooperation. Funny looking one, I know, but well, logic's logic.
MP|9.12.05 @ 3:22PM|#
Everyone appears to be overlooking the bigger picture around a "mandatory evacuation order". OK, let's assume that such an order was issued before the hurricane. Also, let's assume many people disregarded said order, and later became trapped. Now, in libertopia, would these people be penalized in some way, by having to pay (either via cash or jail time) to be rescued?
|9.12.05 @ 3:30PM|#
Really? Which of these is actually scarier?
-- An American citizen says something untrue (at worst), while
exercising his First Amendment rights
-- An American citizen, having committed no crime, is forcibly
removed from her property, in an egregious violation of the Fourth
Amendment and god-knows-what-else
OK, I'll admit that holocaust deniers aren't as scary as Nazis.
Then again, the first people to deny the holocaust WERE the
Nazis.
Meanwhile, many cops quit the force and all we get is reports that
other cops call them overwhelmed "cowards" rather than any
viewpoints of the officers quitting; perhaps some thought the
orders they were given were illegal.
fyodor|9.12.05 @ 3:38PM|#
MP,
Now, in libertopia, would these people be penalized in some
way, by having to pay (either via cash or jail time) to be
rescued?
Essentially yes, they'd all be ultimately responsible for their own
wellbeing, not the government, just like the rest of us. You make a
good point, because that's probably the underlying justification
for forcibly evicting people, that if they don't go, the government
will be "responsible" for saving their asses later.
|9.12.05 @ 3:39PM|#
In libertopia there would be no mandatory evacuation order. Just a strongly worded recomendation that you get the fuck out of Dodge. If you don't you're on your own.
MP|9.12.05 @ 3:39PM|#
libertopia is the land ruled by libertarian principles.
I brought up my points because their doesn't seem to be a lot of
commentary regarding the mandatory nature of this evacuation. If it
is to be mandatory, then of course their will be evacuations
against people's will. The question is thus is rights lost in a
mandatory evacuation worth the cost savings of not having to rescue
anyone?
|9.12.05 @ 3:43PM|#
"Actually, since the cops' power was derived from the consent of
the governed, this was actually an example of cooperation. Funny
looking one, I know, but well, logic's logic."
Eerily equivalent to Woodrow Wilson's logic that draftees were
"volunteers", because the people were in charge of the
government.
"Now, in libertopia, would these people be penalized in some way,
by having to pay (either via cash or jail time) to be
rescued?"
Note the use of the word "penalized" - loaded that question for
bear, didn't you? How about this - if they want to get rescued,
they can pay for it, or rely on the kindness of their fellow man to
charitably rescue them (at the cost of those good samaritans who do
the rescuing, and anyone who volunteers to assist them monetarily).
They have no right to require others to save them after they
willingly took an ureasonable risk. But neither do we have a right
to "rescue" them if they're happy where they are.
fyodor|9.12.05 @ 3:46PM|#
The question is thus is rights lost in a mandatory
evacuation worth the cost savings of not having to rescue
anyone?
In a word, no. But of course, this just shows that making your own
well-being someone else's responsiblity inevitably means giving up
rights.
|9.12.05 @ 3:47PM|#
Now, in libertopia, would these people be penalized in some
way, by having to pay (either via cash or jail time) to be
rescued?
In libertanarchia the "mandatory" order would have been made by the
insurance (or other) company you had a prearranged evacuation
policy with. And since it's loads cheaper for them to put you on a
bus before the storm than to fetch you in a boat after the storm,
I'd expect you'd be paying more on your policy for the option of
ignoring the mandatory order, or you'd be paying a surcharge
afterwards.
In a limited government libertaria I'd hope that "mandatory" would
still mean what it roughly meant in Louisiana this time -- "Get
out!" -- rather than the more forceful "The National Guard will
haul all your butts onto buses if your are not out by such and such
a time." But afterwards, if someone needs rescue, yes the
government can charge for it just like they charge for people who
need rescue from the wilderness after idiotic behavior.
That said, any private evacuation or relief company or organization
should be able to undercut the price the government will
charge.
Coming back to the New Orleans situation, there are massive
resources that could have been mustered to rescue or provision
those trapped in New Orleans. But, due to the mentality of
governments in emergency situations, private, for-profit,
nongovernmental, nonvolunteer resources are neither considered nor
allowed. And even volunteers and charitable efforts were outright
forbidden while tens of thousands were stranded.
|9.12.05 @ 4:13PM|#
I think that a "mandatory evacuation" actually does mean that if you stay you are on your own. I don't think people are forced out if they refuse to leave. I think North Carolina has law enforcement go around with magic markers to have people write their social security numbers on their body so that they will be easier to identify after the hurricane goes through.
|9.12.05 @ 4:19PM|#
. But, due to the mentality of governments in emergency
situations, private, for-profit, nongovernmental, nonvolunteer
resources are neither considered nor allowed. And even volunteers
and charitable efforts were outright forbidden while tens of
thousands were stranded.
I can see the issue with a "for-profit" organization only because
of the demographics of the stranded. Most could not afford the
"rescue-fee" if offered a ride. However, I don't think that anybody
should have been prevented from trying to make a few bux at it. I
definately don't think that non-profits and charitable orgs. should
have been kept out of the area. That is "cutting your nose to spite
your face" logic. But then again, we are talking about modern
government.
|9.12.05 @ 4:25PM|#
I think that a "mandatory evacuation" actually does mean
that if you stay you are on your own.
Harrumph. That's what it used to mean, when this country
was still under rule of law. Now it means whatever the guys with
the guns and the government backing SAY it means.
|9.12.05 @ 4:26PM|#
Where's joe? I want to hear why it's perfectly reasonable to invade peoples' (NON-FLOODED) homes against their will, seize property they are guaranteed the right to possess (by both the LA and US constitutions), and kidnap them. Then he can explain why the talking heads are right to cheer this on and proclaim black to be white.
|9.12.05 @ 5:37PM|#
Zero-
Try here:
NOLA
Gun Confiscation Video
It should be avaiable in a couple of different formats, but you may
need to poke through the links.
|9.12.05 @ 5:38PM|#
Seems like just desserts for the people who stayed behind
for whatever reason, and now that they're knee deep in fetid water
they expect the government to help.
The people with ample food and supplies, who just want to be left
alone, deserve to be forcibly evicted from their homes?
Not at all. If you read my original comment completely and
thoroughly you'll see I make no such suggestion. If anyone, they
*aren't* the ones we're hearing from. Quite a number of people
stayed behind in their houses after being told to flee the city or
go to the Superdome, and many of them were the ones carping about
the government not doing anything for them after ignoring advice to
leave. My point was that they tend to be the ones carping loudest,
both before they'd told to leave ("you're not getting me out of my
house!") and after ("why aren't you helping me and putting the
power back on!"). Because of that backlash that "the government
isn't doing enough", we have this ridiculous situation of people
being dragged from their homes.
Sometimes it amazes me anyone gets pissed off at yet another
infringement of a civil right in this country.
|9.12.05 @ 6:23PM|#
Did anyone catch the clip of Gen. Honore ordering passing National Guard units to lower their guns. He said something to the effect of: "You're delivering food, not fighting a war". At least someone down there knows the constitution. (And I'm aware that the US Army does not have direct control of Nation Guard units, but since it seems that no one has control at the moment, gestures like this go a long way.)
|9.12.05 @ 6:24PM|#
Which of these is actually scarier?
-- An American citizen says something untrue (at worst), while
exercising his First Amendment rights
-- An American citizen, having committed no crime, is forcibly
removed from her property, in an egregious violation of the Fourth
Amendment and god-knows-what-else
The latter happens, and then the former happens in a clumsy attempt
to deny it. That's scariest.
|9.12.05 @ 6:38PM|#
"My point was that they tend to be the ones carping loudest,
both before they'd told to leave ("you're not getting me out of my
house!") and after ("why aren't you helping me and putting the
power back on!"). Because of that backlash that "the government
isn't doing enough", we have this ridiculous situation of people
being dragged from their homes."
Rafuzo:
Do you have anything other than personal, anecdotal, observational
evidence to support your conclusion that the stay-behinds are the
ones "carping the loudest"? Could it be that you saw a few
interviews on teevee with stay-behinds wherein they were "carping",
and thus, without any further investigation, you concluded that the
stay-behinds "tend to carp the loudest"? Yeah, you know, somehow, I
doubt that you came to this conclusion after a thorough
investigation of the situation.
Regardless, it doesn't really matter who is carping the loudest.
The second amendment is the second amendment. And forcing people to
leave their homes against their will is appalling, no matter how
you shake it. If need be, post a notice on their door that says if
they don't vacate, then the state isn't responsible for their
rescue. Then, the burden is on them, where they want it. This poor
old lady just wanted to stay in her house with her guns and her
dogs. No matter who is "carping", what happened to her was wrong,
wrong, wrong. The wholesale firearm prohibition is wrong, wrong,
wrong. It's illegal. It's unconstitutional.
Yes, it's hypocritical for someone to ignore evac instructions,
then yell at someone else when they're up shit's creek...but that's
really a peripheral point at best. Such hypocrisy should rightly be
met with smug refusals from gov't officials to help them. This
isn't the best PR plan, of course, but logically speaking, it's
pretty much watertight.
|9.12.05 @ 7:04PM|#
I can see the issue with a "for-profit" organization only
because of the demographics of the stranded. Most could not afford
the "rescue-fee" if offered a ride.
Actually, I would think that disaster evacuation like that needed
in New Orleans would be quite affordable.
First of all, evacuation has extremely good economy of scale. One
might even think that the economy of scale is so good that
evacuation services are a natural monopoly that should be entirely
controlled by the government. But when the government's resources
or decision-making are overwhelmed by the situation, that position
looks pretty bad.
And second, whether you like the thought or not, the consumer
surplus between living and dying is very large, even for a poor
person. Just be ready for the anti-gouging tirade from government
and the media.
The Wine Commonsewer|9.12.05 @ 7:24PM|#
From TWC.com
In Virginia they don't force you out of your home:
Virginia rescue workers go door to door. If people resist the plea
to leave, Mr. Judkins told The Daily Press in Newport News, rescue
workers give them Magic Markers and ask them to write their Social
Security numbers on their body parts so they can be identified.
"It's cold, but it's effective," Mr. Judkins explained.
|9.12.05 @ 9:22PM|#
"The free press, the guardians of the public conscience, should
tacitly agree with the illegal actions of the government is
amazing."
&
"I feel that just the pure lack of outrage by the press is a valid
indicator of just how controlled our populace has become."
Others here will disagree, but I don't think the Big Traditional
Media are particularly inclined to be lapdoggy to the government
these days.
They are, however, terrified of guns in the hands of private
citizens. In this case, that completely trumped any anti-gov't
watchdog impulses.
|9.12.05 @ 10:35PM|#
"Did anyone catch the clip of Gen. Honore ordering passing
National Guard units to lower their guns. He said something to the
effect of: "You're delivering food, not fighting a war". At least
someone down there knows the constitution."
Amen to that. There was a picture in the Washington Post yesterday
showing a National Guardsman "helping" some resident by kicking in
the door and pointing an automatic weapon inside, just as if the
house was harboring a suspected Iraqi insurgent. Gives a whole new
meaning to "We're from the government, and we're here to help
you."
On second thought, it's not that new a meaning.
|9.13.05 @ 1:36AM|#
Word on the grapevine is that the confiscations have
stopped.
I can't personally verify if it's true or not, but evidently the
backlash against this BS has been so visceral from all over the
nation that the NOPD and their cronies (most notably the California
Highway Patrol)have rescinded the confiscation order and are even
returning the confiscated firearms.
Again, I have to stress that this is hearsay, so I'll be curious to
see if anyone on the nooze makes a peep about this over the next 48
hours or so.
As far as I'm concerned, the statists tipped their hand.
Vic Napier|9.13.05 @ 2:07PM|#
FWIW, I tried to call the TV station that aired the tape to get
confirmation of it's legitimacy. No one would talk to me, so I sent
a polite and respectful email to one of the anchors. And then
forwared it to a friend who spent 30 years managing radio and TV
stations. He fowarded it to several of his news buddies.
I'll keep you posted.
|9.13.05 @ 3:28PM|#
Yes, Evan, my evidence, much like yours and everyone else's, is
anecdotal. Most of the voices on this issue that are available
right now are also not knee-deep in water. All I know is what I see
and hear in the media, and the overarching theme to all that
coverage is that "the government isn't doing enough". And all this
egging on is exacerbating the problem.
And yes, because apparently I didn't make it abundantly clear
earlier, the 2nd (and 4th!) Amendments matter here, and both were
being violated, and that's a terribly shitty situation that has no
justification whatsoever. I was trying to bring attention to the
people who stayed behind in defiance of government orders and then
expect that very same government to help them out. They're the ones
getting quotes on my anecdotal TV set and my anecdotal newspapers.
The experts and analysts are saying the same things. And all those
people, anecdotally, are responsible for situations like this. I
happen not to see that as a secondary issue. I'm sorry if I didn't
express the requisite anger by taking every opportunity to curse
the government and spit three times afterwards, but that one point
aside, I happen to strenuously agree with you.
|9.16.05 @ 11:05PM|#
the fact that the lady wasn't arrested shows that she was never really a threat. What do you think happens when people point a gun at and/or threaten the police? They're arrested, not led out un-cuffed WITH THEIR PETS to be taken to "safety". I also believe they cut the tape that way because it was unprovoked. No matter what these reporters allege, the old woman did nothing wrong.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245