Five years later, no accountability for post-Katrina gun grab

[Hoopla Phil]

In the days after Katrina hammered New Orleans and adjacent St. Tammany Parrish, an order was issued that only police would be allowed to have guns. Law enforcement personnel from various other states, as far away as New York and California, along with National Guard troops came in to help restore order. In the process, many citizens’ firearms were seized, sometimes at gunpoint, and invariably with the use of intimidation.

Attorneys Stephen Halbrook in Virginia and Dan Holliday in Baton Rouge were retained to mount the legal battle, coordinating with NRA’s Legislative Counsel Christopher Conte, all of whom performed brilliantly. Faced with that kind of legal muscle and the fury of two national gun rights organizations, one might think the city would have said “Oops,” and offered a mea culpa. Instead, the city denied for months that any guns had been confiscated, even though by then, investigators hired by SAF and NRA, along with Simone’s news crew, had documented the seizures. And there was that incriminating ABC News video.

After the city acknowledged it had the guns, former Mayor Ray Nagin’s administration continued to make it difficult for people to reclaim their firearms. The court eventually did order the city’s attorney to pay some of SAF and NRA’s legal costs out of his own pocket.

Yet there remains that one “loose end” in the Katrina case: Who issued the confiscation order?

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/five-years-later-no-accountability-for-post-katrina-gun-grab

IMO there should have been a Federal investigation on this.

[oneshooter]

1. Didn't Ray Nagan say that only the Police will be armed? n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

2. Yes I recall seeing video of him saying that in a press conference.

Can't seem to find it on you tube though.

You'll also note that it took a contempt of court motion to finally get the police to admit they had the guns - over 1000 guns.

[one-eyed fat man]

7. A point to remember.

During the run up to the settlement there was testimony from some New Orleans cops that they kept the "nice guns" they confiscated for their personal collections and pitched junk into the river or turned it in.

There were no Perazzis or collector grade Colts rusting in the city's storage container when it was "found"! You can bet they had more 90 year old Iver Johnson "Owlhead" or H&R revolvers than Smith & Wesson.

[Hoopla Phil]

3. Found a video of the police chief saying just that.

Right at the beginning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaCaTkVbkw8

[oneshooter]

5. The really bad part is that both are Democrats, that don't help at all. n/t

[spin]

4. Some might point out that the police were one group some citizens needed protection from...

Police Are Charged in Post-Katrina Shootings
Published: July 13, 2010

NEW ORLEANS — Four current and two former New Orleans police officers have been charged in connection with the killing of unarmed civilians on the Danziger Bridge in the chaotic days after Hurricane Katrina, federal law enforcement officials announced here on Tuesday.

Four of the men — former Officer Robert Faulcon, Sgt. Kenneth Bowen, Sgt. Robert Gisevius and Officer Anthony Villavaso — were charged with federal civil rights violations in the killing of 17-year-old James Brissette and the wounding of four others, all members of the same family, when the officers came across a group on the bridge in eastern New Orleans and opened fire.

In addition, Mr. Faulcon, who was arrested Tuesday morning by F.B.I. agents in Fresno, Tex., was charged with shooting Ronald Madison, a 40-year-old man with severe mental disabilities, in the back, killing him, as he tried to flee.

All four of the men could face the death penalty.

The Danziger case is the most high-profile of at least eight incidents involving New Orleans police officers that are being actively investigated by federal law enforcement officials. The case became a flash point, in the city and throughout the nation, a symbol of the violence, disorder and official ineptitude in the storm’s wake.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/us/14justice.html

[Callisto32]

6. This is an example of what I believe to be the most insidious function of government.

Regular posters know that I have no love for the state, in general. This is one of the main reasons why. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the government spends so much time shielding people from liability. This goes for both registered corporations, and people that work in government. I think it should be a pretty basic "nation of laws not of men" idea that people should be held liable for the damage they cause.

I have a visceral reaction to such stories that, to my shame, make me sound like an officer of the state, sometimes. I think "if you weren't doing bad stuff, you wouldn't need to be shielded from liability." It shames me to think this way because I think it sounds too much like "if you don't have anything to hide, why not let us search your vehicle/house/tent et cetera." Frankly, though, I think that the first question makes more sense to ask, because the police have a method to search if they have a good reason, but we have no recourse when the government says "we will not hold this person accountable."