NationStates Jolt Archive

Seven New Orleans police officers were indicted by a grand jury December 28 on charges of murder and attempted murder for shooting six unarmed refugees as they attempted to cross a bridge to dry ground following Hurricane Katrina.

The cops are also accused in three separate lawsuits of killing two and wounding four citizens in the unprovoked attack on the eastside Danziger Bridge on September 4, 2005, six days after Katrina devastated the city. One of those killed was a 40-year-old mentally disabled man; the other was a high school senior who had been separated from his family. Wounded were the mentally handicapped man’s older brother, and four members of another family.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/nola-j05.shtml

Let the punishment fit the crime. Kneecap the bastards and let them receive punishment beatings twice daily.

Other articles:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/28/katrina.cops/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061228/ap_on_re_us/katrina_bridge_shooting
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-bridge29dec29,1,1458195.story?coll=la-news-a_section
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6309742,00.html

that’s some nice sense of justice you got there look what’s that over the hills could it be the other side of the argument?

According to police, the officers went to the bridge that day believing they were answering a call of two fellow officers down. One officer fired at Madison only after Madison turned toward them and reached into his waistband, they say.

According to a police report, several officers responded to a radio call that two fellow officers had been hurt. When they arrived, they saw seven people running, and four people began firing at police, the report said. The officers returned fire, killing Madison, 40, and James Brissette, 19.

You do realize those reports are pretty much contradictory right?

Not to mention the fact that he was shot more in the back than in the front.

that’s some nice sense of justice you got there look what’s that over the hills could it be the other side of the argument?

The caveat of them being found guilty is assumed. However, I don't think it's likely that they will since it's probable that much of the evidence was supposed to have been gathered by the NOPD.

You do realize those reports are pretty much contradictory right?

Not to mention the fact that he was shot more in the back than in the front.

not enough to convict evidence someone if you ask me

The caveat of them being found guilty is assumed. However, I don't think it's likely that they will since it's probable that much of the evidence was supposed to have been gathered by the NOPD.

frightened of the police eh? (out of interest why did you cite a political party website as your main source?)

frightened of the police eh? (out of interest why did you cite a political party website as your main source?)

And I'm scared of, the police
I'm scared of violence
I'm scared of handcuffs
And truncheons
I'm just too scared

To answer your question; it seemed like a good idea at the time.

I'm scared of, the police
I'm scared of violence I'm scared of handcuffs

you mustn’t be too fun in the bedroom :p

To answer your question; it seemed like a good idea at the time.

I'd be careful with that logic all ideas are bad ideas if you ask me

The World Socialist web-site? Yeah, that's reliable.

Edit: by my previous comment, I was attempting to convey sarcasm rather than testify to the veracity and dependable nature of that particular web-site. It should be inferred that it is, in fact, not reliable because it has an overt and thinly-veiled bias to a particular extreme political viewpoint. As such, most of its contents border on propaganda.

The World Socialist web-site? Yeah, that's reliable.

actually its the 4th international they just like to pretend there the worlds socialists (when really its Nordic democratic socialism:p)

Edit: by my previous comment, I was attempting to convey sarcasm rather than testify to the veracity and dependable nature of that particular web-site.

just stop.

As such, most of its contents border on propaganda.

this is can agree upon though all political party sites are filled with propaganda that’s why .gov stands for grim or violent

this is can agree upon though all political party sites are filled with propaganda that’s why .gov stands for grim or violent

Actually, if the suffix ".gov" is appended to the name of a particular web-site, that means that it is in some way associated with the US government. For example, the official web-site of the White House is http://www.whitehouse.gov.

Actually, if the suffix ".gov" is appended to the name of a particular web-site, that means that it is in some way associated with the US government. For example, the official web-site of the White House is http://www.whitehouse.gov.

See that? That was a clue, passing right over your head. Try and catch it next time dear.

Actually, if the suffix ".gov" is appended to the name of a particular web-site, that means that it is in some way associated with the US government. For example, the official web-site of the White House is http://www.whitehouse.gov.
Get a sense of humour. Please.

Actually, if the suffix ".gov" is appended to the name of a particular web-site, that means that it is in some way associated with the US government. For example, the official web-site of the White House is http://www.whitehouse.gov.

Exactly a political entity that would sooner have you a non-drinking jogger fruitcake who only buys American

actually .gov is every goverment (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Homepage/fs/en)

actually .gov is every goverment (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Homepage/fs/en)

Although I loath citing Wikipedia, as it is notoriously unreliable, I am afraid that I lack the resources to further research the topic. I hope that the following link will suffice. As you'll see, if the name of a web-site terminates in ".gov," it means that it is associated with the US government. That is not so if it ends with ".gov.ro," for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.gov