Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
One would think that the grocery stores sign would be visible from the air.

As were the Wal-mart signs, I'm sure.

Man, I was under the impression that there was some good, some bad, some people harassed for struggling to save their own lives, some people who took advantage of a gakky situation to get what they wanted.

I'm glad you've come around to make it clear that everyone on the ground was a model citizen, and it was just the National Guard coming in with the jackboot of authority that screwed everything up.

National Guard forces normally operate in state active duty (SAD) status when responding to disasters and civil emergency. During such assistance efforts, one of their primary functions is to reinforce law enforcement agencies. The National Guard, once federalized, like the Active Army, becomes bound by the Posse Comitatus Act and loses the ability to act as a law enforcement agency.

How does it paralyze government response?

One would think that the grocery stores sign would be visible from the air.

An indicator of a possible looting area.


So your alright for the NG to stand by nearby while looting occurs. Remember that households also have food, clothes, water, and whatever of items that can be walked off. If your house was being looted would you ask the NG to stop it?

I think I I had the option between looting water to survive and the national guard stopping me without giving me the water I need, then I would fight for my family.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but how do they know they're stealing water/food and not crates of wine/booze. Grocery stores sell stuff that can be hocked on the black market.

They don't. It makes policework from the side of a helicopter a foolish thing to do in disaster situations where there could be humane and legitimate reasons to steal or loot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

National Guard forces normally operate in state active duty (SAD) status when responding to disasters and civil emergency. During such assistance efforts, one of their primary functions is to reinforce law enforcement agencies. The National Guard, once federalized, like the Active Army, becomes bound by the Posse Comitatus Act and loses the ability to act as a law enforcement agency.

How does it paralyze government response?

One would think that the grocery stores sign would be visible from the air.

An indicator of a possible looting area.


So your alright for the NG to stand by nearby while looting occurs. Remember that households also have food, clothes, water, and whatever of items that can be walked off. If your house was being looted would you ask the NG to stop it?

I don't think the national guard should put itself into a situation where there is a reasonable chance that it will have to shoot citizens who are trying to save their own lives. Televisions and clothes can be replaced, lives can't. The national guard exists to protect people, not belongings. It's mission was flawed because it was a disaster relief scenario and it was being treated like a riot.

I think I I had the option between looting water to survive and the national guard stopping me without giving me the water I need, then I would fight for my family.

This will get you in trouble. Thought maybe you should ask the soldiers where a Service TOC is located to recieve the basic essential? Mind you. We cannot give you water or food from ourselves. Nor will we let you loot the store. That puts us in danger and you in danger.

don't think the national guard should put itself into a situation where there is a reasonable chance that it will have to shoot citizens who are trying to save their own lives. Televisions and clothes can be replaced, lives can't. The national guard exists to protect people, not belongings. It's mission was flawed because it was a disaster relief scenario and it was being treated like a riot.

Same applies to the above. We are protecting the people. If individuals are willing to loot what they need like D-USA say what would prevent you from killing/maiming/hurting other individuals to get what you need. Mind you people are "fighting for their lives". Its a deterrent force.

This will get you in trouble. Thought maybe you should ask the soldiers where a Service TOC is located to recieve the basic essential? Mind you. We cannot give you water or food from ourselves. Nor will we let you loot the store. That puts us in danger and you in danger.

"Help me I'm dying from dehydration"
"No"
"Can I get some water out of the store behind you?"
"No"

The national guard!

Same applies to the above. We are protecting the people.

No, you're protecting peoples things. If you were protecting people you'd land the chopper and help get the soon to be rotting food out of the store and into peoples hands.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Ellen Barkin is a prominent source?

Frazz... he does have a point...

prominent source for what? Being a wackjob?

As I have a terrific fear of hurricanes, as one of my last surviving relatives died in Katrina in an ambulance being evacuated, she can go herself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheHammer wrote:
Yeah, who?

Not that her sentiment is bad, I think if you manage to be all the things she listed that I wouldn't really mind if you did drown.

I also find it funny that those on the right get really upset about stupid comments that nobodies make, while liberals refuse to talk about actual violence committed on the poor and disadvantaged in this nation every day.

excuses are like donkey-caves. Everybody got one. Recognize the crazies in your own party (wait I think yours is the communist party given your throwing around terms like "fascist" and "beougousie" in the past) and its easier for others to recognize the crazies in other parties (yes I'll agree Ted Nigent is both crazy and an opportunist).

My in laws over by Beumont had the roof lifted up from their house and had a wicked load of anxiety before and after Katrina. I agree with what you say about the woman and what she can do.

Help me I'm dying from dehydration"
"No"
"Can I get some water out of the store behind you?"
"No"

"Sir the relief point is four blocks from here. You need to head there. We cannot give you water from ourselves nor the store. Make haste please to beat the line. Your the second person to approach us."

No, you're protecting peoples things. If you were protecting people you'd land the chopper and help get the soon to be rotting food out of the store and into peoples hands.

Sorry people. The closest Relief Point is located at such and such intersection. Please head there.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but how do they know they're stealing water/food and not crates of wine/booze. Grocery stores sell stuff that can be hocked on the black market.

Like water and food?

Like water and food?

Sir the Relief Center is four blocks from. Please head there now to beat the line. You are the 3rd person who has inquired about this.

 Jihadin wrote:

How does it paralyze government response?

It prevents the use of consumables already on site, therefore theoretically requiring more effort to be devoted to shipping in goods from offsite.

I can see prohibiting looting, though not because it involves taking the possessions of others, but because it leads to a chaotic and dangerous situation where people start competing for goods. However, it would be hypothetically possible for the government to reimburse any property holder for goods seized by the state in the name of the relief effort, especially perishable goods that will effectively be a loss in either case. Well, or be covered by the relevant insurance provider.

 Jihadin wrote:

Like water and food?

Sir the Relief Center is four blocks from. Please head there now to beat the line. You are the 3rd person who has inquired about this.

I was making a comment on what can be sold on the black market in a disaster situation.

Apparently, according to Shuma, private property laws should cease to exist the minute a disaster strikes. By your own admission, you can't find a source. National Guard soldiers had rules of engagement in NO/LA. Typically simplified as show, shout, shove, shoot.

Show your presence/Show that you are armed.
Shout that you have to stop whatever it may be that you are doing
Shove or some other form of non-lethal behavior such as detain, warning shot (although we no longer really do warning shots), aim your weapon etc...
Shoot - self explanatory.

Those wasn't the exact ROE for NO, but the National Guard was called in to keep and restore order as well as provide disaster relief. Without the option to use force, it's damn hard to restore order.

Apparently, according to Shuma, private property laws should cease to exist the minute a disaster strikes. By your own admission, you can't find a source. National Guard soldiers had rules of engagement in NO/LA. Typically simplified as show, shout, shove, shoot.

Which don't work in a helicopter.

It prevents the use of consumables already on site, therefore theoretically requiring more effort to be devoted to shipping in goods from offsite.

I can see prohibiting looting, though not because it involves taking the possessions of others, but because it leads to a chaotic and dangerous situation where people start competing for goods. However, it would be hypothetically possible for the government to reimburse any property holder for goods seized by the state in the name of the relief effort, especially perishable goods that will effectively be a loss in either case. Well, or be covered by the relevant insurance provider.

MRE's will be provided at the Relief Center. I cannot allow you to "loot" the store. There's no gray area in this. Its one or the other. It helps prevent a "Black Market" situation.

edit

I've installed speaker system on a Blackhawk.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Apparently, according to Shuma, private property laws should cease to exist the minute a disaster strikes. By your own admission, you can't find a source. National Guard soldiers had rules of engagement in NO/LA. Typically simplified as show, shout, shove, shoot.

Which don't work in a helicopter.

Helicopters weren't armed in Katrina. No one brought a M240H to a disaster zone.

Or a air 60.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Apparently, according to Shuma, private property laws should cease to exist the minute a disaster strikes.

It'd be a good time to become lax about said property laws in regard to essential goods located in stores, yes.

It'd be a good time to become lax about said property laws in regard to essential goods located in stores, yes.

No. If uncontrolled looting occured then there's major issues.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

Show your presence/Show that you are armed.
Shout that you have to stop whatever it may be that you are doing
Shove or some other form of non-lethal behavior such as detain, warning shot (although we no longer really do warning shots), aim your weapon etc...
Shoot - self explanatory.

Spoken like a true soldier. Repeat the procedures to absolve you of moral responsability. If that doesn't work, repeat louder.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Apparently, according to Shuma, private property laws should cease to exist the minute a disaster strikes. By your own admission, you can't find a source. National Guard soldiers had rules of engagement in NO/LA. Typically simplified as show, shout, shove, shoot.

Which don't work in a helicopter.

Helicopters weren't armed in Katrina. No one brought a M240H to a disaster zone.

The men in the helicopters weren't unarmed.

 Jihadin wrote:

It'd be a good time to become lax about said property laws in regard to essential goods located in stores, yes.

No. If uncontrolled looting occured then there's major issues.

Like goods being peddled on black markets? Not exactly as major as death, IMHO.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Apparently, according to Shuma, private property laws should cease to exist the minute a disaster strikes.

It'd be a good time to become lax about said property laws in regard to essential goods located in stores, yes.

What about goods located in your home? Since we're being generous, can I have your food and water if we get flooded? What about a small store that's already facing major economic hurdles and loss of livelihood from having their home and business destroyed? People pay their taxes with the expectation that the laws apply whether they are convenient or not.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
What about goods located in your home? Since we're being generous, can I have your food and water if we get flooded? What about a small store that's already facing major economic hurdles and loss of livelihood from having their home and business destroyed? People pay their taxes with the expectation that the laws apply whether they are convenient or not.

Yes, even in my home. Good samaritan morality applies weither it's willful or not. If I'm not in my home, in the middle of a major issue, and someone is in dire need of something, then they can go and take it. How about the authorities supervise such appropriation, instead of repeating the mantra : ''that would cause other issues''.

Insurances will cover it up. If I'm caring that much about material goods. Honestly, I'd rather know they went to help someone who needed it, and didn't get away in time.

I'm I going to sue someone for trespassing, if took shelter in my home while I wasn't there, in the middle of a disaster? Feth no. I have a heart.

Spoken like a true soldier. Repeat the procedures to absolve you of moral responsability. If that doesn't work, repeat louder

Moral responsibility eh. Your not grasping whats this leading to. Nor how a soldier chain of thought is going to take him/her to. We cannot take sides. Its one or the other.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Apparently, according to Shuma, private property laws should cease to exist the minute a disaster strikes. By your own admission, you can't find a source. National Guard soldiers had rules of engagement in NO/LA. Typically simplified as show, shout, shove, shoot.

Which don't work in a helicopter.

Helicopters weren't armed in Katrina. No one brought a M240H to a disaster zone.

The men in the helicopters weren't unarmed.

there's a big difference between an M9 and an M240H. As a Blackhawk piot who works with over a hundred people who helped deliver supplies, fly rescue flights, and was on the ground within 24 hours of Katrina passing though (basically as soonas the weather was clear enough to get there) people were not shooting from helicopters to the ground. People were however, shooting AT helicopter FROM the ground.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Apparently, according to Shuma, private property laws should cease to exist the minute a disaster strikes. By your own admission, you can't find a source. National Guard soldiers had rules of engagement in NO/LA. Typically simplified as show, shout, shove, shoot.

Which don't work in a helicopter.

Helicopters weren't armed in Katrina. No one brought a M240H to a disaster zone.

The men in the helicopters weren't unarmed.

there's a big difference between an M9 and an M240H. As a Blackhawk piot who works with over a hundred people who helped deliver supplies, fly rescue flights, and was on the ground within 24 hours of Katrina passing though (basically as soonas the weather was clear enough to get there) people were not shooting from helicopters to the ground. People were however, shooting AT helicopter FROM the ground.

Yeah, I mentioned that one two pages back. That stuff was all over the news. As a blackhawk pilot who worked with over 100 people to deliver supplies, did you do anything about looting? Did you take part in the effort to disarm people in their own property?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

Show your presence/Show that you are armed.
Shout that you have to stop whatever it may be that you are doing
Shove or some other form of non-lethal behavior such as detain, warning shot (although we no longer really do warning shots), aim your weapon etc...
Shoot - self explanatory.

Spoken like a true soldier. Repeat the procedures to absolve you of moral responsability. If that doesn't work, repeat louder.

Actually, moral responsibility has nothing to do with it. I was legally ORDERED to keep and maintain peace. It was a legal order. AGAIN, no one has provided proof that a National Guard member shot a looter in NO. Prove to me that protecting private property from looters is immoral. As a soldier, I have a legal responsibility to carry out legal orders. I have a legal obligation to refuse illegal orders. Preventing people from looting (and thus upholding the law) is a legal order. Therefore, I am legally bound to carry out that order.

 Jihadin wrote:

Spoken like a true soldier. Repeat the procedures to absolve you of moral responsability. If that doesn't work, repeat louder

Moral responsibility eh. Your not grasping whats this leading to. Nor how a soldier chain of thought is going to take him/her to. We cannot take sides. Its one or the other.

Here is advocated the shooting of civilians in the case they become too persistent in trying to obtain essential goods, because, in a city where all semblence of law and order has gone, it is defined as illegal. Yes, I cannot understand it.

 Jihadin wrote:

MRE's will be provided at the Relief Center. I cannot allow you to "loot" the store. There's no gray area in this. Its one or the other. It helps prevent a "Black Market" situation.

I'm not talking about looting at this point, you'll notice I said it should be prohibited, I'm talking about the state seizure of onsite consumables to supplement goods being brought in. The original owners would, of course, be compensated for their loss. Indeed, assuming they had the proper insurance, this could result in a net profit for them.

Granted, this is a comment on government policy, not a decision to be made by individual soldiers.

Here is advocated the shooting of civilians in the case they become too persistent in trying to obtain essential goods, because, in a city where all semblence of law and order has gone, it is defined as illegal. Yes, I cannot understand it.

Scruffy covered the legal portion of my orders. What would cause me to fire onto civilians KO.

edit

I'm not talking about looting at this point, you'll notice I said it should be prohibited, I'm talking about the state seizure of onsite consumables to supplement goods being brought in. The original owners would, of course, be compensated for their loss. Indeed, assuming they had the proper insurance, this could result in a net profit for them.

Key words...state seizure. Thats a no go. Scruffy got me on this.