Surely, this CAN'T be true, CAN IT?

[Stephanie]

azsnowman
Storm2k Moderator



Joined: 05 Feb 2003
Posts: 5908
Location: White Mountains of Az, Pinetop
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2005 8:46 am Post subject: Surely, this CAN'T be true, CAN IT?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ya know.......the news that's just now coming out, I DON'T understand, WHY would they do this?

http://www.azcentral.com

Suburban police blocked evacuees, witnesses say

Gardiner Harris
New York Times
Sept. 10, 2005 12:00 AM

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

The paramedics and two other witnesses said officers sometimes shot guns over the heads of fleeing people, who, instead of complying immediately with orders to leave the bridge, pleaded to be let through, according to the paramedics and two other witnesses. The witnesses said that they had been told by New Orleans police to cross this same bridge because buses were waiting for them there.

Instead, a suburban police officer angrily ordered about 200 people to abandon an encampment between the highways near the bridge. The officer then confiscated their food and water, the four witnesses said. The incidents took place in the first days after the storm last week, they said. advertisement




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.

Arthur Lawson, chief of the Gretna, La., Police Department, confirmed that his officers, along with those from the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office and the Crescent City Connection Police, sealed the bridge.

"There was no place for them to come on our side," Lawson said.

He said that he had been asked by reporters about officers threatening evacuees with guns or shooting over their heads, but he said that he had not yet asked his officers about that.

"As soon as things calm down, we will do an inquiry," he said.

The lawlessness that erupted in New Orleans soon after the hurricane terrified officials throughout Louisiana, and a week later, law enforcement officers rarely entered the city without weaponry.

Bradshaw and his partner, Lorrie Beth Slonsky, wrote an account about their experiences that has been widely e-mailed and was first printed in the Socialist Worker.

Cathey Golden, a 51-year-old from Boston, and her 13-year-old son, Ramon Golden, on Friday confirmed the account.

Nearly 200 guests at the Hotel Monteleone gathered to make their way to the Convention Center together, the four said. But on the way, they heard that the Convention Center had become a dangerous pit from which no one was being evacuated. So they stopped in front of a police command post near Harrah's casino on Canal Street.

A New Orleans police commander whom none of the four could identify told the crowd that they could not stay there and later told them that buses were being brought to the Crescent City Connection, a nearby bridge to Jefferson Parish, to carry them to safety.

The crowd cheered and began to move. Suspicious, Bradshaw said that he asked the commander if he was sure that buses would be there for them. "We'd had so much misinformation by that point," Bradshaw said.

"He looked all of us in the eye and said, 'I swear to you, there are buses waiting across the bridge,' " Bradshaw said.

But on the bridge there were four police cruisers parked across some lanes. Between six and eight officers stood with shotguns in their hands, the witnesses said. As the crowd approached, the officers shot over the heads of the crowd, most of whom retreated immediately, Bradshaw, Slonsky and Golden and her son said.

[Stephanie]

Okay, the thread is back after the Mods and Admins discussed it.

One word of warning, though it is a verified story and we have agreed that it should stay in this forum, if this topic does not stay civil, it will be locked.

[Anonymous]

I think it is important to note that the 2 meidcs in question have a history of rabble rousing, and that should be considered when listening to their accounts.

While the events may have taken place, assigning motive to the involved officers is pure conjecture and is designed to exacerbate an already tense racial situation.

[Stephanie]

I think it is important to note that the 2 meidcs in question have a history of rabble rousing, and that should be considered when listening to their accounts.

While the events may have taken place, assigning motive to the involved officers is pure conjecture and is designed to exacerbate an already tense racial situation.

Do you have a link to this or is this just your opinion?

[Eye10TX]

On Monday morning (8/29/05), before the NWern eyewall had even reached NOLA, there had already been three arrests for looting in NOLA proper, according to an AP report from early afternoon which quoted Chief Compass.

Around the same time, Gov Blanco made an announcement that anyone who had left Orleans, Jefferson, St Tammany, St Bernard, or Plaquemines parishes should not try to return, as the roads would be blocked.

[jburns]

Are you now, or have you ever been a law enforcement officer? Just curious, as I seved in the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, and at present Dennis (azsnowman) is a policeman in AZ; we are appalled.

I have no direct background in local law enforcement. If I tell you more I'd have to kill you.


So if west St Louis ended up in full riot and several thousand people started across the bridges to St Louis the SL Met police would not close off the bridges?

No one in, no one out until the situation is stabilized. To many people head directly toward any major civil disturbance having the sole purpose of fanning the flames. Keep in mind I am talking civil unrest here and not a disaster. Unfortunately in this case we had both.

[clueless newbie]

Mods, thanks for bringing this thread back.

I think it is important to note that the 2 meidcs in question have a history of rabble rousing, and that should be considered when listening to their accounts.

Link?

While the events may have taken place, assigning motive to the involved officers is pure conjecture and is designed to exacerbate an already tense racial situation.

Assigning motive to the medic's comments is pure conjecture.
After the ordeal they went through, who would be 100% politically correct?
Actually, I don't care about their comments, I can filter them out. I want facts, the rest I can figure out better myselt, thank you.

Confirmed facts:
1) people blocked from crossing the bridge
2) people left stranded at Superdome and Convention Center with no/very little support, for SEVERAL DAYS

Alleged(sometimes difficult to confirm):
1) inhumande/humiliating treatment by law enforcement, handling everybody as a criminal
2) several cases of red tape blocking/slowing relief efforts, especially the ones coming outside FEMA

Frankly, the Superdome/Convention Center case should be enough for heads to roll and to start figuing out FAST how to respond better next time. There is no guarantee the next disaster would not strike soon (Tampa Bay can easily get hit even this season).

As far as the inhumane/humiliation treatment goes: Personally, I don't believe it is a racial thing (but then I have not lived in the south either), I suspect 'white trailer trash' would have been handled the same.

[stormie_skies]

I think it is important to note that the 2 meidcs in question have a history of rabble rousing, and that should be considered when listening to their accounts.

While the events may have taken place, assigning motive to the involved officers is pure conjecture and is designed to exacerbate an already tense racial situation.

Do you have a link, source, or something verifiable to back up your "rabble rousing" accusation? Or is that just an opinion?

I don't think it can be disputed that the events took place. There are witnesses on the bridge who saw it, and the police chief says he ordered it. What is to doubt, then??? The nasty details about food and water and namecalling might be questionable - but all parties agree that the bridge was closed to pedestrians, period.

As for assigning motive.... motive is nearly impossible to prove, of course, especially when it comes to "ism's". Who is going to come out and admit something like that?? But even if we all, for the sake of keeping this thread relatively clean, assume that there were no "ism"s involved, we are left with a police department that prevented more than 100 desperate, scared and thirsty people from leaving an area that everyone knew was dangerous. Thats not exactly my idea of protecting and serving...

[streetsoldier]

I believe that the reference to "rabble-rousing" may stem from this story being first published in a "Socialist Worker" paper...not the best source, or the most objective to be found. One can but wonder why this "rag" was given an exclusive by the paramedics; could it be that this paper was the first one available to them, or could they be actively supporting its agendae? We may never know.

That having been said, the two other witnesses, both seen on MSNBC, have more credibility (and no particular axe to grind)...thus the corroboration is valid.

As to motive...anything opined herein is mere speculation, and nothing more. The effects of the police actions, however, are a matter of record; and IMHO should be investigated with all due dispatch and vigor, at a higher level than the sheriff's office.

[caribepr]

I believe that the reference to "rabble-rousing" may stem from this story being first published in a "Socialist Worker" paper...not the best source, or the most objective to be found. One can but wonder why this "rag" was given an exclusive by the paramedics; could it be that this paper was the first one available to them, or could they be actively supporting its agendae? We may never know.

That having been said, the two other witnesses, both seen on MSNBC, have more credibility (and no particular axe to grind)...thus the corroboration is valid.

As to motive...anything opined herein is mere speculation, and nothing more. The effects of the police actions, however, are a matter of record; and IMHO should be investigated with all due dispatch and vigor, at a higher level than the sheriff's office.

LARRY BRADSHAW and LORRIE BETH SLONSKY are emergency medical services (EMS) workers from San Francisco and contributors to Socialist Worker. They were attending an EMS conference in New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina struck. They spent most of the next week trapped by the flooding--and the martial law cordon around the city. Here, they tell their story.

http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-2/5 ... roes.shtml
This is taken from the Socialist Worker story, it is the header of the article.
And while yes, this publication is very blatant about its leanings, it is quite far from a "rag". The history of the Socialist Worker movement in America is pretty fascinating, just from a human interest point of view from any perspective, and Dorothy Day is one of America's more colorful characters
to read about. Her work with the poor has been a model for cities around the country. Sometimes it is, for me, not what someone's motivation is (left, right, religious, humanistic), but what they accomplish with it!

[Anonymous]

Do a google of the names of the two authors. I did. Slonsky was disciplined at her medic job for comments made in a newsletter she wrote called the "Gurney Gazette".

These two have been writing articles like this for years.

Also, remember that the Gretna Police are not the same police force that was looting and stealing. Don't throw them into the same mix with NOLA police.

As far as objectivity, how can you call this objective: (directly from the article:

"These were code words for: if you are poor and Black, you are not crossing the Mississippi River, and you are not getting out of New Orleans."
Or this:
"The two young guardsmen apologized for the limited response of the Louisiana guards. They explained that a large section of their unit was in Iraq and that meant they were shorthanded and were unable to complete all the tasks they were assigned."

"Most of us had not eaten all day because our C-rations had been confiscated at the airport—because the rations set off the metal detectors." The military has not issued C rations since 1983. I highly doubt the military is giving out C rations.

"Now—secure with these two necessities, food and water—cooperation, community and creativity flowered. We organized a clean-up and hung garbage bags from the rebar poles. We made beds from wood pallets and cardboard. We designated a storm drain as the bathroom, and the kids built an elaborate enclosure for privacy out of plastic, broken umbrellas and other scraps. We even organized a food-recycling system where individuals could swap out parts of C-rations (applesauce for babies and candies for kids!).

This was something we saw repeatedly in the aftermath of Katrina. When individuals had to fight to find food or water, it meant looking out for yourself. You had to do whatever it took to find water for your kids or food for your parents. But when these basic needs were met, people began to look out for each other, working together and constructing a community."

If you read the actual article, it is a piece of thinly veiled socialist propaganda. The link:

http://www.selvesandothers.org/article11364.html

[x-y-no]

The military has not issued C rations since 1983. I highly doubt the military is giving out C rations.

I just read this as ignorance of the difference between C rations and MREs.

As for "rabble rousing" - when I googled these authors on first seeing this story, I saw assorted references to union organizing activities. I suppose you could call that "rabble rousing."

I think the events described are bad enough without the ascribed motives, however. And there does appear to be corroboration of the bare facts.

[stormie_skies]

I don't see where anyone said that these two paramedics were "objective." They aren't journalists, they have no obligation to be objective - and frankly, had I been through a similar ordeal, I sure as heck wouldn't be able to be objective about it. But how does their lack of "objectivity" (a.k.a. their political leanings, which you so clearly find distasteful) change the facts of what happened on the ground?

For one thing, there are other eyewitness accounts, including this one:

she saw many groups of people decide that they were going to walk across the bridge to the west bank, and those same groups would return, saying that they were met at the top of the bridge by armed police ordering them to turn around, that they weren't allowed to leave. so they all believed they were sent there to die.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/6/211436/8987

(check the updates for verification of the witnesses identity)

And on Sunday, September 4, Mayor Nagin said on Nightline that when people tried to cross the bridge, they “were met (at the county line) with attack dogs and police officers with machine guns saying ‘You have to turn back...’.”

Not to mention the fact that the Gretna Police Chief himself said that he ordered the road block. The troubling quote about keeping people out so the city wouldn't be "looted, burned and pillaged" came from an interview with the man himself, not from the account of the two paramedics you are so suspicious of.

So what exactly is it that you are questioning here?

[artist]

from what I heard from a Gretna inhabitant there had already been looting in there town at this point and fires started - that was one of the reasons why this was done.

[stormie_skies]

from what I heard from a Gretna inhabitant there had already been looting in there town at this point and fires started - that was one of the reasons why this was done.

Was this reported anywhere? Because I have seen and read a couple of interviews with the police chief, and he never mentions it.....

[artist]

i have no idea - just heard it from someone that lives there.

[Anonymous]

Actually, according to my Uncle, who is on the West Bank, there was a shopping center that was burned. I think it was in Metarie. Have to check, though.

[stormie_skies]

Actually, according to my Uncle, who is on the West Bank, there was a shopping center that was burned. I think it was in Metarie. Have to check, though.

Do they know for sure that it was arson? Fires start after hurricanes for plenty of other reasons...

Was it someone from New Orleans who started it? Did it give the police reason to believe that these specific people were going to cause trouble if allowed to pass through?

[Windy]

Do a google of the names of the two authors. I did. Slonsky was disciplined at her medic job for comments made in a newsletter she wrote called the "Gurney Gazette".

Uh oh. The swiftboating has begun.

The NY Times, MSNBC, and AZ Central have reported this (and that's just the few I've read/seen). The sheriff admitted to blocking the bridge, which is the main and most serious charge these people made. That really happened.

[Anonymous]

Believe what you want, but I googled her name and found an article she wrote in that same paper in October of 2001, complaining about the discipline and asking people to write the fire commissioner to have the decision overturned.

"Swiftboating", as you call it shows how some people are so out to discredit President Bush, that they will stoop so low as to use a deadly disaster to make him look bad, regardless of the truth.

From wikipedia:

"Bigotry is not "intolerance," but "unreasonable intolerance". For example, some Jews may be intolerant of Nazi Anti-Semitism; that doesn't necessarily make them anti-Nazi bigots.

A bigot will continue to hold these opinions even when confronted with evidence that challenges such stereotypes. To protect his views, he may either dismiss the challenges he encounters as an aberration to the norm and ignore the fact that they threaten to undercut his prejudices. On a more extreme level, he may deny the evidence altogether. Both reactions can be classified as forms of cognitive dissonance."

Just for the record- I don't agree with many of the things he has done, but come on, let's not turn this into a political debate.