My problem was not when police entered houses in the flooded areas and in areas obviously hard hit. The problem I have is when people high n dry, with enough food and water to wait out the crisis were subjected to gun confiscation. The first video from ABC world news shows them hand cuffing people in wealthy high and dry areas, taking their guns and leaving them defenseless. The 58 year old lady also was dry, had food and water and a means of defense yet was subjected to what we can see on the video. I don’t see what is irrational about not wanting to leave your house and or wanting to defend it when you are not under water and have supplies enough to weather out the crisis. Call me irrational then, because if I hade food water and a gun and was not underwater, I would have been one of them who opted to stay with my house and belongings.

But then again debating weather or not police followed illegal orders is really moot because of the verdict in the lawsuit proves that guns were taken illegally and in order for that to have happened the illegal orders given by the New Orleans chief had to have been carried out.

I also have to disagree that there would be ample time for police groups to take legal avenues to quash illegal orders to perform illegal actions. It took years to win this lawsuit and that’s with two large organizations behind the plaintiffs. The thought of my well kept (some expensive) guns rusting away in a bin somewhere while lawyers are arguing, leaves the state time to entrench itself on its position. It also leaves us with no means to fight a corrupt government that took the guns in the first place (the original reason for the second amendment).

The very definition of a corrupt government is that they don’t follow the rule of law. I guess only time will tell if all this will play out the way you predicted or how I did. I just hope we don’t end up in another revolution. Thank you again for allowing myself and others a venue to voice their thoughts.

Keep up the good work!

~Brogan

I was long since familiar with your Katrina links. What you have to remember is that cops had been shot at, and were entering homes that were supposed to have been evacuated and might have been occupied by looters when they entered, so it’s no surprise that they did so with guns ready. The 58 year old lady gets my sympathy as much as yours, but when she appeared to act irrationally (in refusing to leave a danger zone) and then picked up a gun, I can’t blame the cops for grabbing her and forcibly disarming her. I’m older than she was, and I know how fast that revolver can start to speak.

The other links, I do not find persuasive. The “Police Abuse Investigation” guy was clearly intent on provoking a confrontation and did so (watch the surveillance video carefully and listen carefully, folks) and it appears to me that when the cop cuffed him, he threw himself at the glass window (maybe harder than he intended), giving himself a bump on the head that frankly earns no sympathy from me.

The “Shot Protester”lady who pretty much begged the cops to nail her with rubber bullets, doing the attention-hound thing in front of the cameras to get the 15 minutes Andy Warhol promised us all, was interfering with police officers in the lawful performance of their duties. She knew what they would have to do. She got the attention she wanted. End of story.

In the “Untold Story” link you posted, one of the complainers said, “They treated us as if we were in a third world country,” or words to that effect. After the Hurricane hit, it did indeed bombard the community back into the “third world,” and the rescuers acted accordingly. Unable to determine who was a looter, who was a nutcase, and who was a good guy, they had to assume the worst. I do not see any evidence there of cops going door to door solely to confiscate firearms.

Brogan, we both agree that the topic under discussion is whether American police would just go door to door and illegally confiscate firearms if a new Administration passed new legislation that criminalized the possession of them. We’ve each explained our positions here in depth.

There would be ample time for police groups to take legal avenues to quash illegal orders to perform illegal action. That time was not present in the unusual circumstances that surrounded Hurricane Katrina, and that among the other things I’ve explained is why I don’t think cops nationwide would carry out an illegal order from DC to confiscate ordinary people’s guns, absent the sort of unusual and rare circumstances that came together in New Orleans.

Finally, America’s police chiefs have seen what happened to the New Orleans chief who gave the order, and don’t want to be the next “bad example.”

Cordially,
Mas

I’ll be glad to. I guess you didn’t watch any of the videos that links I have posted. The first one was an ABC World News story aired September 8, 2005. They specifically report and show the police and National Guard entering high and dry wealthy areas, hand cuffing the residence and confiscating their guns. Here is the link again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo

Here is another story released December 15, 2005 by U.S. Newswire .A New Orleans woman is recovering from surgery this week from injuries resulting from when she was roughed-up by authorities who forced her to leave her home a week after Hurricane Katrina. Patricia Konie, 58, has filed a Federal lawsuit over the injuries and other violations of civil rights.

Konie was greeting a reporter and photographer from a San Francisco TV station and a journalist from the London Times when police unexpectedly entered her home. When she refused to leave as ordered, they confiscated a firearm used for defense and according to Konie, “slammed” her to the ground, both displacing and fracturing her left shoulder. “My client was severely injured in a needless removal from her home,” stated attorney Ashton O’Dwyer. “Patricia Konie had food, plenty of water, and a roof over her head. The police who illegally entered her home and imposed their will on a frail, middle-aged female”. Here’s the link to that:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1540993/posts

This incident among others was also caught on camera and is a part in NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation after Katrina and can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

Further accounts are listed in “The Great New Orleans Gun Grab” by Gordon Hutchinson and Todd Masson available at amazon.com

And then there is the lawsuit filed against P. Edwin Compass III and the city of New Orleans that was won by the NRA and ACLU who represented hundreds of citizens who had this happen to them. There are many more examples but I don’t want this to get too long.

“Let’s pick up with the last sentence of your response, above. The fact is that the responsibility is most certainly NOT lifted from the individual (for obeying an illegal order) in American law enforcement. Cops learn at the Academy in the beginning that “I only followed orders” is no excuse, and that they are forbidden from doing illegal things, period. This is hammered into them more by their unions, and more by the constant civil liability seminars that are part of continuing police education.” “Those two words — CIVIL LIABILITY — are key. Cops know that they are individually responsible for any bad acts, civilly as well as criminally.”

I understand that the responsibility is not lifted from the individual by stating “I’m just following orders”. However the training and reinforcement of how the command structure is set up emphasizes the following of orders and most, not all, most will not question orders given, using the “I’m just following orders” as a rational.

The United States military adjusted the Uniform Code of Military Justice after World War II. They included a rule nullifying this defense, essentially stating that American military personnel are allowed to refuse unlawful orders. This defense is still used often, however, reasoning that an unlawful order presents a dilemma from which there is no legal escape. One who refuses an unlawful order will still probably be jailed for refusing orders (and in some countries probably killed and then his superior officer will simply carry out the order for him or order another soldier to do it), and one who accepts one will probably be jailed for committing unlawful acts, in a Catch-22 dilemma.

All US military personnel are supposed to receive annual training in the Law of Armed Conflict, which delineates lawful and unlawful behaviors during armed conflicts, and is derived from the Geneva Conventions, a subset of international law. This training is designed to ensure that US military personnel are familiar with their military, ethical and legal obligations during wartime but proof of military personnel receiving this training is difficult to substantiate and is often not received.

You are also saying here is that police don’t do things they are not supposed to do because they will get prosecuted. That’s correct if, I say if, you are able to file a complaint. It has become a trend for police to cover badge numbers and wear swat style black hoods covering their faces also refusing to identify them selves when asked for that information (I personally witnessed this on numerous occasions here in NY).

If you don’t have a large powerful organization or expensive lawyer behind you and try to file a complaint against an officer the complaint is often met with intimidation and arrest. I’m not saying all police departments are guilty of this but it doesn’t take much to destroy the faith and trust of an ordinary citizen in the police. and as a result a many incidences are not reported or prosecuted. Here are some examples; I limited the links again due to space.

FOX news Police Complaint form lands you in Jail http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxF-UAxm25o

KCTV Police Abuse Investigation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vX3jPzh9eQ

Miami Police Shot Protester, then laugh about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G63FEamhpA0

It’s a different world when you are not a part of the police community. I have life long friends who are police officers that told me they will right or wrong defend fellow officer’s actions unwaveringly stating they know other officers will do it for them. I got your back you got mine.

My whole point to this is yes police and National Guard units as well as regular military are capable and do follow illegal orders and will do illegal things despite the oaths and training. To say otherwise is simply untrue and naive. No organization (civilian included) is squeaky clean no matter how they like to be portrayed.

So the chances that illegal gun confiscation orders will be carried out are very good. I’m not willing to put my faith that illegal orders will NOT be carried out “because they are illegal” (Just like the illegal wire tapping, torture and suspension of heabas corpus is not supposed to happen and yet is) and will plan accordingly.

For the record, I’m in no way a cop hater; I have many great friends who are in the military and are police officers and I was there at the towers during the attacks and am thankful for the job they do.

My nightly ritual was to bring coffee and doughnuts to the many cops (From many states not just NY) standing on just about every corner on my way home. They endured LONG, COLD nights making sure nothing else happened to the city and I will be eternally grateful to them.

Thanks for doing this blog and letting people convey their ideas and feeling on what can be touchy subjects. I wish there were more people out there like you.

Thanks again!
~Brogan

Let’s pick up with the last sentence of your response, above. The fact is that the responsibility is most certainly NOT lifted from the individual (for obeying an illegal order) in American law enforcement. Cops learn at the Academy in the beginning that “I only followed orders” is no excuse, and that they are forbidden from doing illegal things, period. This is hammered into them more by their unions, and more by the constant civil liability seminars that are part of continuing police education.

Those two words — CIVIL LIABILITY — are key. Cops know that they are individually responsible for any bad acts, civilly as well as criminally. Neither the Nazis nor the college kids in the experiment you cited, had that. The cops know they have recourse to their unions and the courts…the Nazis and the college kids didn’t have that, either.

I would ask you to elaborate on your statement that there is “overwhelming evidence that police and National Guard units will follow illegal orders”. As to Katrina, I don’t know of any cases where cops OR Guardsmen entered homes in safe zones for the sole purpose of confiscating weapons. Do you? If so, please amplify on that here.

Thanks,
Mas

I disagree that the American police are in another boat entirely. Police face the possibility of loosing their jobs, disciplinary actions and criticism of fellow officers if they refuse to follow orders. How many officers believe that it would make little or no difference if they disobeyed illegal orders, that even if they didn’t carry out those orders, the next guy will so they might as well and just do it to avoid any detriment to them selves?

In a sense it is a form of learned helplessness. OK not helplessness but a biased decision based on what’s better for ones self and not for some nameless guy they don’t know. Dammed if ya do and dammed if ya don’t so I’ll do the thing that causes me fewer hassles.

Katrina was NOT entirely different situation. You stated: “Amidst mass looting and widespread reports of violence, the police in New Orleans were dealing with an unusual emergency, an exigent circumstance. When people were evacuated from homes, the cops could not leave functional firearms behind, unguarded, when they KNEW those guns would be accessible to roving bands of looters. They had to be secured somewhere. With tempers running high, they could not be expected to allow agitated people boarding evacuations buses or entering temporary mass shelters to be armed with lethal weapons.”

That explains what the police did in the hardest hit areas that were underwater and an immediate threat of violence that needed to be controlled. OK, I see the necessity in that situation.

The problem is that it didn’t excuse the gun confiscation of those high and dry with lots of food and were there protecting their homes from looters. It was a blanket order to confiscate all weapons. There was no discrimination made between those in the situation you described and those who were legitimately protecting life and home. Guns were illegally taken; when needed most, leaving people unable to defend them selves. After they took the guns they left leaving them with out guns or police protection. The orders were illegal and carried out.

There is overwhelming evidence that police and National Guard units will follow illegal orders, either out right or under the guise of national security (or maybe even martial law), just following orders or numerous other excuses used to justify their actions. If the responsibility can be lifted from the individual there are no reasons not to follow orders Illegal or not.

For those unfamiliar with the term, Learned Helplessness is basically a belief, reasonable under the circumstances, that there is no recourse but to take the action in question. Those immature college students we discussed in the Milgram matter did not realize that they had other options. The death camp operators under the Nazis — and those prisoners who were complicit, i.e., the ones who pulled the gold fillings from the teeth of the dead — did so because in fact they had no other recourse. Either of the latter could expect to be summarily executed if they did not follow those orders.

American police are in another boat entirely. In the situation under discussion here — would American police obey an order from the Obama government to go house to house and confiscate firearms? — police labor groups and fraternal organizations know that they can file suits, request injunctions, and otherwise go to court to keep their members from being ordered to enforce illegal orders. Thus, the key ingredient of Learned Helplessness would not be present. Police have learned that, when ordered to perform illegal acts, they are NOT helpless.

Katrina was a different situation entirely. Amidst mass looting and widespread reports of violence, the police in New Orleans were dealing with an unusual emergency, an exigent circumstance. When people were evacuated from homes, the cops could not leave functional firearms behind, unguarded, when they KNEW those guns would be accessible to roving bands of looters. They had to be secured somewhere. With tempers running high, they could not be expected to allow agitated people boarding evacuations buses or entering temporary mass shelters to be armed with lethal weapons.

Neither of those situations would be present if the Obama-Pelosi group ramrodded legislation that criminalized private citizen ownership of firearms and resulted in an unconstitutional confiscation order, hence my earlier “apples and oranges” comment.

When ordered to confiscate guns during hurricane Katrina both National Guard units and police did so. Both claming “I’m just following orders”. The real life results of orders given during Katrina and were carried out mirror the results of both the Milgram experiment and what the Nazi soldiers did, in that orders that were known to be illegal and immoral and were still carried out using the same excuse.

How many cops and National Guard personal refused to follow those orders and or came forward to the press to expose the illegal activity? Not many, if any. Here are a few videos that show what happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ncq_Nu3dRSI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhvV2uz10eA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pejhz81fLsc

One also has the replications of the Milgram experiment as further strong evidence that the results would be the same. Charles Sheridan and Richard King hypothesized that some of Milgram’s subjects may have suspected that the victim was faking, so they repeated the experiment with a real victim: a puppy. They found that 20 out of the 26 participants complied to the end. The six who did not were all male (54% of males were obedient); all 13 of the women obeyed to the end, although many were highly disturbed and some openly wept.

Recent variations on Milgram’s experiment suggest an interpretation requiring neither obedience nor authority, but suggest that participants suffer learned helplessness, where they feel powerless to control the outcome, and so abdicate their personal responsibility.

The evidence overwhelmingly shows that illegal and or immoral orders will be carried out. You said “I think it’s a stretch to extrapolate from it your blanket conclusion, “The police will obey. The Milgram experience showed us that immature college students can be led into “the banality of evil” by authority figures. Apples to oranges.”

Sorry do dispute your feelings on this but I’m looking at what has happened in the experiments, in New Orleans and the Nazi death camps (never mind what’s going on in China and numerous doctorial countries even now) .

One can’t dispute something that has already happened, on multiple occasions, by both trained and untrained people from different backgrounds and origins, in very similar situations.

The Milgram experience showed us that immature college students can be led into “the banality of evil” by authority figures. Apples to oranges.

The police organizations that would stand up against a national confiscation order are politically powerful, and deeply experienced in both criminal and civil liability law. As I’ve noted earlier, I believe they would oppose it.

If the students used as lab rats in the Milgram Experiment had been cops attending night school programs, they would have had the experiment shut down within 48 hours.

Yours for cordial debate,
Mas

The police will obey.