Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
"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.
"We're Just Trying to Help You, Ma'am"
Comments to ""We're Just Trying to Help You, Ma'am"":
The Wine Commonsewer | September 12, 2005, 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.
Rich Ard | September 12, 2005, 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?
quasibill | September 12, 2005, 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...
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."
Stevo Darkly | September 12, 2005, 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.
Jennifer is right. The only people surprised by this are the ones who haven't been paying attention for the past few decades.
quasibill | September 12, 2005, 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.
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).
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".
Jennifer | September 12, 2005, 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?
Russ D | September 12, 2005, 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 | September 12, 2005, 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>
JMoore | September 12, 2005, 2:32pm | #
Russ DI'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?
SP | September 12, 2005, 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...
SP | September 12, 2005, 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
David | September 12, 2005, 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.
Kwix | September 12, 2005, 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.
Captain Awesome | September 12, 2005, 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.
Captain Awesome | September 12, 2005, 3:04pm | #
But apparently they haven't yet begun to regulate my spelling, so I got that going for me, and that's nice.SP | September 12, 2005, 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?
bandini | September 12, 2005, 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...
rob | September 12, 2005, 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...
MikeP | September 12, 2005, 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.
Has anyone heard word about Michael Brown (reassigned FEMA director) having just resigned?
SP | September 12, 2005, 3:13pm | #
Never mind. The Brown story just moved on the AP wire...per joe's logic from another thread | September 12, 2005, 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.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?
Russ D | September 12, 2005, 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 | September 12, 2005, 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.
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 | September 12, 2005, 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?
quasibill | September 12, 2005, 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 | September 12, 2005, 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.
MikeP | September 12, 2005, 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.
Flyover Country | September 12, 2005, 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.Kwix | September 12, 2005, 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.
Jennifer | September 12, 2005, 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.
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.
Anyone have a different link to that video? I can't seem to access it.
mediageek | September 12, 2005, 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.
rafuzo | September 12, 2005, 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.
Deus ex Machina | September 12, 2005, 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.)Eric the .5b | September 12, 2005, 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.
Evan Williams | September 12, 2005, 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.
MikeP | September 12, 2005, 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 | September 12, 2005, 7:24pm | #
From TWC.comIn 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.
Ron Hardin | September 12, 2005, 8:16pm | #
They could dart her. That's what Marlin Perkins would have done.matthew hogan | September 12, 2005, 8:18pm | #
If you have a comment on the video, it can go here:news@ktvu.com
Stevo Darkly | September 12, 2005, 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.
Seamus | September 12, 2005, 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.
mediageek | September 13, 2005, 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 | September 13, 2005, 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.
rafuzo | September 13, 2005, 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.
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.