After Katrina, New Orleans Cops Were Told They Could Shoot Looters

[cory777]

Source: ProPublica

In the chaotic days after Hurricane Katrina, an order circulated among New Orleans police authorizing officers to shoot looters, according to present and former members of the department.

It's not clear how broadly the order was communicated. Some officers who heard it say they refused to carry it out. Others say they understood it as a fundamental change in the standards on deadly force, which allow police to fire only to protect themselves or others from what appears to be an imminent physical threat.

The accounts of orders to "shoot looters," "take back the city," or "do what you have to do" are fragmentary. It remains unclear who originated them or whether they were heard by any of the officers involved in shooting 11 civilians in the days after Katrina. Thus far, no officers implicated in shootings have used the order as an explanation for their actions. Only one of the people shot by police – Henry Glover – was allegedly stealing goods at the time he was shot.

Still, current and former officers said the police orders – taken together with tough talk from top public officials broadcast over the airwaves -- contributed to an atmosphere of confusion about how much force could be used to combat looting.

Read more: http://www.propublica.org/nola/story/nopd-order-to-shoot-looters-hurricane-katrina

---

Breaking Uncensored News http://activistnews.blogspot.com

[Rage for Order]

1. Having spent over 25 years living on the Gulf Coast...

This was common knowledge during every major hurricane. The citizens know that if you loot there is a chance you can be shot by law enforcement, National Guard troops, or the property owners of the place you are looting. Curfews accompanied every major storm, and martial law was always a possibility.

[TheWraith]

3. Except that absent a declaration of martial law, that is ILLEGAL.

For that matter, even under martial law, it's illegal for the property owners to shoot looters. Period. The use of deadly force to resist a crime is only legal when the crime would result in death or severe bodily harm--murder, rape, assault. Discharging a firearm at someone is considered use of deadly force, whether they're killed or not, or even if the firearm contains a less-than-lethal load like rubber buckshot.

Also, there has never been a hurricane severe enough to have martial law declared as a result. Not even Katrina.

[localroger]

4. Nope -- Castle Doctrine.

In Louisiana if the looter is in the process of robbing you and doesn't immediately comply with your order to skedaddle, you can varmintize him. In Texas, you don't even have to order him to leave -- you can shoot him in the back as he's running away and if he has your stereo in his hands when his cold body is found, it's perfectly OK on your part. The situation for cops is a little more complicated since it's not their castle being invaded.

Also -- while martial law may not have been technically declared after Katrina, when National Guardsmen with M-16's are keeping you from returning to your home at gunpoint and doing other police functions, it's kind of hard to tell the difference.

[TheWraith]

6. That's not the case.

In most states the "castle doctrine" does not allow a person to defend property, only people--i.e., there needs to be an actual or reasonably presumed threat to the inhabitants before deadly force is legal. And in no state is it legal to use deadly force on someone who is retreating. Texas laws are a bit different, but not that far--you're allowed to defend an uninhabited vehicle outside your home, but only at night, and must disengage if the thief retreats.

Here's Texas' "castle doctrine" law.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378F.htm

[localroger]

8. A little background

Explaining it. Basically Texas' stand-your-ground laws says you must feel threatened, but goes on to define simply being in your house as a threat. People have in fact been exonerated after shooting intruders in the back. The Raw Story article explains why (and I personally agree) this is not exactly a Good Thing, but it is in fact the situation.

I am more directly familiar with Louisiana's stand-your-ground law, which is also more directly applicable to post-Katrina NOLA; you might remember the case of Japanese student Yoshiro Hattori who was shot by homeowner Rodney Pears for walking up his driveway while wearing a Hallowe'en mask. He was acquitted in criminal court although he did later lose the civil case and lost his home as a result.

[TheWraith]

9. A few bad jury decisions do not change the underlying law.

The fact is that it is NOT legal to shoot someone who is running away, even if moments earlier that person was engaged in an attempted murder/rape/assault. It's also not legal to shoot someone for looting. Yes, in most states someone breaking into an occupied business or home is treated as being a hostile assailant, because you do not know their intentions. Someone who might be just a burglar or a looter could be a rapist or serial murderer. There's no way for the homeowner to know that ahead of time, and you can't necessarily wait until you know if they're coming for your stereo or yourself/wife/kids. So the law makes allowances for people who defend their homes and businesses. It's one of the reasons that "hot" burglaries, where the people are at home at the time of the crime, are rare in the US, compared to places like the UK. Burglary may not be a smart way to make a living, but burglars aren't necessarily stupid.

Now as that applies to the law:

1. The key word is occupied. If a store or home is not occupied, it is not legal to use lethal force in it's defense, even if you are the property owner.

2. Responding to a break in does not count. You can't come up to your store, see someone looting it, then pull out a shotgun and kill them.

Looting by definition usually refers to businesses that have been closed due to a natural disaster or civil unrest. Since they're not occupied, any attack on them is strictly a property crime, and lethal force is not legal to use.

[kpete]

2. After Katrina, New Orleans Cops Were Told They Could Shoot Looters

Source: ProPublica

After Katrina, New Orleans Cops Were Told They Could Shoot Looters
This story was reported by Sabrina Shankman and Tom Jennings of Frontline, Brendan McCarthy and Laura Maggi of The New Orleans Times-Picayune and A.C. Thompson of ProPublica

August 24, 2010 7:00 pm EDT


In the chaotic days after Hurricane Katrina, an order circulated among New Orleans police authorizing officers to shoot looters, according to present and former members of the department.

It's not clear how broadly the order was communicated. Some officers who heard it say they refused to carry it out. Others say they understood it as a fundamental change in the standards on deadly force, which allow police to fire only to protect themselves or others from what appears to be an imminent physical threat.

The accounts of orders to "shoot looters," "take back the city," or "do what you have to do" are fragmentary. It remains unclear who originated them or whether they were heard by any of the officers involved in shooting 11 civilians in the days after Katrina. Thus far, no officers implicated in shootings have used the order as an explanation for their actions. Only one of the people shot by police – Henry Glover – was allegedly stealing goods at the time he was shot.

"We have authority by martial law to shoot looters," Captain James Scott told a few dozen officers in a portion of the tape viewed by reporters. Scott, then the commander of the 1st district, is now captain of the special operations division.

Read more: http://www.propublica.org/nola/story/nopd-order-to-shoot-looters-hurricane-katrina

[Old Troop]

5. That's a pretty standard reaction

[Mnemosyne]

7. KnR for Truth! Finally an iota. n/t

[pitohui]

10. sure they were

they think this is gonna get em free of a lot of lawsuits/jail time if they say so

on the other hand i remember the shock when riley resigned so suddenly maybe he DID authorize something so stupid...

in that case he's as guilty as the actual killers