New Orleans Police Captain: "We have authority by martial law to shoot looters"

Obviously the picture was taken far away from New Orleans. The complete lack of damage or debris should make it apparent. The "drunks with guns" line should also make it somewhat apparent that this is satire. Obviously they weren't shooting anyone nor where they planning to, nor where they making any apparent comment on race other than what you seem to be injecting into it.
What makes you think that photo was taken far away from New Orleans? Not all of the city was underwater, just some sections were and most of those were poor nightborhoods. That photo appeared in lots of articles about Katrina at the time.

Hello From Katrina



There signs were everywhere. Often spray painted directly on the walls of the house.

"Looters will be shot"
"You loot, we shoot"
"Drunks with Guns, you loot we shoot"
"Don't make me shoot you"

There were too many of them to take pictures of.

Aside from that, there other messages written on walls and such.

"People inside, don't shoot"

As well as many signs of thanks, often painted on the roof for the airborne rescue workers.
People with guns became such an issue that the police started going around, breaking into houses, and confiscating them.


Link to video.

There was so much gunfire at night that you could smell it in your nose and in your tastebuds.
 
What makes you think that photo was taken far away from New Orleans?

Now that I did a bit of searching, it seems it was taken in Harahan, a suburb of New Orleans.

People with guns became such an issue that the police started going around, breaking into houses, and confiscating them.

A few people with guns were an issue. Thankfully, the Federal government and many states now have laws that prevent authorities from performing such illegal mass confiscations. If an area is getting federal aide during a disaster, then the local authorities can't touch anyone's gun as long as it is legally possessed.:goodjob:
 
Some other photos of people enjoying their white male…err Asian-male privileges during another famous city-wide spate of lawlessness.





Of course these guys weren't joking or posing for some silly photo. They actually shot and killed and people. Strangely enough authorities didn't see a need for mass firearm confiscations of citizens during this incident.
 
Asians aren't black, Los Angeles isn't New Orleans, and the middle of a riot isn't the aftermath of a hurricane. Those seem like at least moderately significant distinctions.
 
I was expecting something a little more cleverer after 1 1/2 years of waiting for a response to my post. JollyRoger's interpretation is a lot better.

Obviously the picture was taken far away from New Orleans. The complete lack of damage or debris should make it apparent. The "drunks with guns" line should also make it somewhat apparent that this is satire. Obviously they weren't shooting anyone nor where they planning to, nor where they making any apparent comment on race other than what you seem to be injecting into it.

But yeah. The photo would definitely be reacted to differently if a poor black neighborhood in New Orleans had staged a similar photo.

This all makes complete sense.
 
Ordinary working class white men try and restore order to a city ravaged by a hurricaine and then looting = "the white privilege in this picture is overwhelming". How unbearable..

is it me or are lefties just..well,..obsessed with race? If there is only a white ever crowd it's automatically a bad thing such racists ;p


If you don't think that racism is still one of the biggest drivers of policy in the US even now, then you haven't been paying attention. :crazyeye:
 
He voted for Cameron, man, what do you expect?
 
Don't some white Americans say 'white trash smell worse than ' and similar classist comments?

What's being suggested is that the kind of posturing displayed in that picture is racially coded; when white men do it, they are identified as acting in the defence of law and order, but if black or Hispanic men did, they would be immediately identified as a threat to order. Whites are implicit allies of the American state, and thus licensed in certain circumstances to unilaterally devolve certain functions of the state onto themselves, while people of colour an implicit threat to it, and any such devolution would be seen as nigh-on insurrectionary.

It's basically the old "What if the Tea Party were black?" problem.

Asians aren't black, Los Angeles isn't New Orleans, and the middle of a riot isn't the aftermath of a hurricane. Those seem like at least moderately significant distinctions.

Asians aren't white, Los Angeles is full of gangs (many people would be scared by Asians with guns), and the aftermath of Katrina was a prolonged and spread-out riot, which would also mean a riot is worse for those involved due to it being shorter and more concentrated.
 
Asians aren't white, Los Angeles is full of gangs (many people would be scared by Asians with guns), and the aftermath of Katrina was a prolonged and spread-out riot, which would also mean a riot is worse for those involved due to it being shorter and more concentrated.

Race relations between Asians and whites ~= Race relations between blacks and whites

And anyway, your comment about the riots doesn't seem to follow. Do all riots have the same, fixed magnitude, where a riot that lasts 10 days is one-tenth as bad as a riot that lasts 1 day for each 1-day period of time?

Shorter does not imply more concentrated. ;)
 
Korea town was literally being attacked and burned by violent armed thieves. I support the owners of those shops and businesses banding together to protect their property especially since no actual shootings took place but the threat of deadly force did make the thieves go some where else.

In the end the National Guard showed up to help the LAPD and that's when everything went quiet and the thieves went home to count their loot.
 
The comparison misses a lot of pretty significant variables. Doesn't mean it's invalid, but unless we unpack some of the details, figure out what transfers and what doesn't, it doesn't tell us very much.
 
C'mon, Quackers, we know you're not that literal-minded. You know full well what he meant.

wait..Traitorfish is getting on my back for me being pedantic and nitpickery?

WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO TRAITORFISH?!
 
The comparison misses a lot of pretty significant variables. Doesn't mean it's invalid, but unless we unpack some of the details, figure out what transfers and what doesn't, it doesn't tell us very much.

Though, I wasn't trying to make a racial comment other than taking a jab at Crezth's earlier choice of words so I'm still not sure what you meant by Asians aren't black. I was talking about firearm confiscation.
 
Race relations between Asians and whites ~= Race relations between blacks and whites

And anyway, your comment about the riots doesn't seem to follow. Do all riots have the same, fixed magnitude, where a riot that lasts 10 days is one-tenth as bad as a riot that lasts 1 day for each 1-day period of time?

Shorter does not imply more concentrated. ;)

In LA things are a bit more racialy tense, and if guys have to get on top of a store with rifles to protect themselves during a riot, it would seem to be a pretty bad one.

I wasn't talking about the period of time but the location. More people in a smaller area when violence involved is typically worse than a bunch of people spread across the whole city (not total damage done but how damaged the areas affected are).
 
They weren't protecting themselves. They were protecting their stores which were located there to exploit the blacks who lived in the neighborhood. When the rioting started they became natural targets.
 
Top Bottom