Posted on 09/08/2005 3:40:23 PM PDT by RDTF
There was a good 20% of the city not flooded...and now 40% is dry ground. If a citizen is at his/her house or property, if they are not in the flood waters, and if they are well provisioned and can take care of themselves, then they have every right to protect their property from the criminals who are there in the city and should be left alone.
That does not make them a criminal.
The folks I saw were in very dry "Mansions" in the middle of large areas of land. How close into town they were I couldn't tell. They weren't floating in any water though. And they weren't threatening the guys coming to the door. They handcuffed them and everything. One guy said, "they were mad because our guns were bigger than their guns."
What law did they break? Remaining on their own land?? How is that a crime??
- plewis1250
The article says "in preparation for mass forced evacuations". It sounds like those aren't their own homes anymore, they just don't know it yet.
We now have the example we need whenever undecideds say gungrabbing "can't happen here."
This is obscene.
ping
If they threatened the police officers, NG...that would be one thing. But to force them to leave their property on dry ground, where thewy are well provisioned, and to confiscate their arms in the process...IMHO, is just plain wrong, illegal, unbconstitutional, and a crime itself and should not be tolerated.
Is physically removing property owners from their homes legal?
I don't believe so, and the judge on Fox news said yesterday, that forced removal under these circumstances is NOT. (no martial law declared, no eminent domain issue and no legal condemnation of properties) allows home owners to stay if they chose. The disarmament issue is even worse. I understand trying to disarm the thugs with stolen weapons, but law abiding citizens who chose to stay and protect their lives and property should be left alone. If they chose to stay behind and wallow in toxic sludge, they have a constitutional right to do so and with a 2nd amend. guarantee.
I should say that the ones I saw handcuffed were two women who might have been 125 pounds soaking wet.
I guess it wasn't enough to see what N.O. would be like without police. Now they want to see what it's like when only the bad guys have guns.
Is it temporary confiscation or permanent ?
They couldn't get out the people who needed to be gotten out, now they want to chase out the few who managed to survive on their own.
What in heck's name is really going on down there?
I don't understand why all these people have to leave as the situation is improving.
Are we just seeing the complete breakdown of government there?
That's crazy. If I were over there, they'd have to fight me for my guns. As far as I can tell from the news, guns are life for honest folks stuck in the disaster zone.
You have to hope that if they were able to hold onto their paperwork in the flood (yeah ok) they'll get them back.
Is this even legal? - Didn't Stan Kawolski say they use Napoleonic Law
And how would the officer at the door know this?
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.