Katrina and Haiti

Discussion in 'Survival & Sustenance Living Forum' started by superc, Feb 11, 2010.

  1. superc

    superc Member

    782
    9
    18
    I'm assuming those old enough to know of both while being here paid close attention to both. Haiti of course is still going on with stage 2 death well underway and stage 3 deaths just beginning to appear.

    San Francisco 1903 also comes to mind. It can happen in any town, at any time.

    I went to New Orleans with one of the 'private security' groups as a rent a cop contracted to DHS (plane tickets to Baton Rouge by email, raise your right hand, do you swear, abba dabba doo, here is an ID card confirming your appointment as, here's a Glock and some ammo, get in that car and follow the blue one in front, etc.). Was there for Rita too. An interesting experience. I'd have gone to Haiti too, but there are passport issues (don't have one). Lots of failures by FEMA observed, some not their fault, in New Orleans. Whatever. I'm writing this to tell you something I haven't seen mentioned here.

    No matter how bad the scenario, no matter how many weeks of Hell you go through, civilization and man's laws will return. Anything and everything you do to stay alive will be judged by those following the pre-and post-scenario standards. Doesn't matter diddly to those lawyers who weren't there how much you (and your family) wanted to live. The only thing they will ask the jury to consider is if your actions met the legal standards of a non-disaster scenario under the laws in effect the day before the disaster. This means all the talk of sniping, combat operations, home made explosives, switchblade knives, conversions to full auto, all of it, if actually done, will two or three weeks later probably land you in court or worse. I met a lot of people in New Orleans who did things they thought they had to do to ensure the safety of themselves or others, only to find themselves deep in legal trouble once the emergency was considered to be over and after action notes were compared and forensics teams were back in business.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2010
  2. CA357

    CA357 New Member Supporter

    19,847
    3
    0

  3. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    8,411
    3
    0
    Those not actually in peril or under the conditions of post Katrina or Haiti will always want to Monday Morning Quarterback what residents did to insure their survival.

    What they will never comprehend is that after events like these, people are isolated. With no communications, power, water, or police most of us would begin to make decisions for ourselves. At that time, what ever we do to protect our families should be completely thought out.

    I am soooooo tired of those who come in after the fact and say, "Well, you should have done X,Y or Z instead of A, B and C!" When societal structure crumbles and the human animals take over an individual has to make some pretty difficult decisions about how they will deal with the situation. There isn't time to form a committee to study how you should respond, there are no communications so going to the web and soliciting the opinions of your forum brothers is unavailable. You have to make decisions based upon your specific situation.

    For some who were unprepared for the cataclysm, that could involve lawlessness, for others, it could mean protecting themselves and their family from the lawless.

    Be prepared! Do what's right!
     
  4. skullcrusher

    skullcrusher New Member

    10,888
    1
    0
    I understand rule of law and all, but not sure why this paragraph was needed. You do understand that SHTF means just that. Not just a bird dropping or two because of one category III hurricane or damaging earthquake.

    Should people be prepared for natural disasters and such with food and water and shelter? YES

    Should people be prepared for a larger much more devistating disaster in terms of the above, but also prepared to defend self and family? HELZ YES

    With regards to the latter, the basic rule of law is out the window and all for themselves. I'm just sayin....
     
  5. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    I'm in central MS, and most of the peeps i've heard about getting in legal trouble for Katrina-related crap were small town officials & such who tried to profit from the government assistance.

    On a related note, i heard a funny rumor at the tire shop a couple of weeks ago: One guy from Purvis, MS where many of the FEMA trailers are stored was commenting on the auctions of some of those trailers & on why he didn't think there was a big rush to disperse those trailers. He felt it probably had something to do with the owner of the land most of them are stored on, a MS public official, allegedly. I have little trouble believing this but have not seen proof.

    Most of the people in this area stayed mostly inside the bounds of the law, with the exception of many of them carrying firearms openly and/or concealed. I haven't heard of any persecutions for that, myself.

    I was lucky enough to still be living in Memphis, TN at the time, though most of my family was here and too stubborn to leave.
     
  6. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Or they return to the level they were at before the disaster struck. The rule of law and/or civilization is a matter of degree.

    I will do what I must to stay alive and keep my family alive long enough to see the return of "normal" (whatever that is...it changes pretty quickly).

    Well, anyone who says I can't kill a bunch of thugs hell-bent on hurting my family isn't exactly civilized, are they?

    If they have the National Guard and local cops going around forcibly disarming citizens then I suppose a form of martial law has been declared and conventional civil law has been suspended, right? If it's worse and there are no LEOs out at all that people can rely on, then protecting one's self trumps the law during normal circumstances. IF I'm brought up on charges, I'm pretty sure I could find a lawyer who could defend me.

    People on this forum have their heads screwed on more-or-less pretty well, and any event that would cause them to consider the necessity of all you mention above would have to last a helluva lot longer than two or three weeks. If power isn't back on, food transportation running, and a cohesive plan in place inside of three weeks of an event then something is wrong. And some people will start to do some very bad things. (Some people will do very bad things within hours of an event -- just because they think they can.) And the folks here know how to deal with those people, and they're within their rights -- codified or not -- to do so.

    Were these people in trouble with the same cops who illegally said "no one will be allowed to be armed"?

    What things did people do that they believed were necessary that was indefensible even during that crisis?
     
  7. superc

    superc Member

    782
    9
    18
    In all of the cases I know of, people did things they would not normally have done, but they decided that since a disaster had struck the rules didn't apply anymore. Call it stupid stuff. Ranging from assuming the lack of police meant one could now go beat up that person they didn't like, to looting from a neighbor to rouge police self initiating the securing of valuables found in empty homes and stores (and telling no one they had or were taking the stuff) down to more serious street crimes against prey. Simply because they assumed civilization wasn't coming back.

    We all hate the arm chair lawyer. However we also all need to recognize he exists and is probably watching each disaster on CNN while salivating over potential legal fees he can collect.

    In the SF earthquake neighborhood militias (quite legal back then) shot supposed looters. Three weeks later some of them stood trial.

    Finding a lawyer to defend oneself is generally pretty easy if you have lots of money. The problem becomes how much money will be left afterwards?


    In NO we all know of the doctors who (still) face legal problems over their decision to put down the most ill patients rather than see them drown.

    No one says you shouldn't protect your family and yourself.