How come the cops and rescue personnel weren't fired upon when the cops arrived at the San Diego stadium to help?
2007-10-27 08:07:20 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
In New Orleans the Police were worried about their lives.
2007-10-27 08:07:50 · update #1
I'd answer this question but then I'd have to get a new account.And that's a lot of trouble. So let's just say "because"
2007-10-27 08:19:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There were no riots in the New Orleans stadium.
There were people who were evacuated there but given no relief, and many of them died of starvation.
In any city there is a risk of looting, and gang activity when the police are called away to some crisis, like in New Orleans there was a mandatory evacuation order, but a lot of the population either did not have cars or gas money, so a lot of police obeyed the evacuation order & took their families to safetly, leaving people behind with no help for days.
They were told to stock up enough food for several days because help would not be immediate, but most people have their refrigerator and food storage on the same floor that got flooded out.
The alleged shooting was peanuts compared to the news stories about it, or the shooting at refugees trying to get to dry land, over bridges to communities where the police blocked their neighbors from getting to safety, because their police had the job of protecting the community from the arrival of neighbors who were hurting.
In California apparently there is a community spirit of helping neighbors, that was lacking in New Orleans, until a week after the suffering started.
2007-10-27 10:27:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its probably because New Orleans was a bit more serious. It pretty much completely leveled the whole city. The fires are being contained, so the people in San Diego are probably a bit more calm than those in New Orleans. Plus, I'm pretty sure there were more people in the Super Dome.
2007-10-27 08:15:01 · answer #3 · answered by luca t 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
People need a certain amount of things to be above the animals. These are shelter, food and water. In New Orleans, there was very little of any of that, so people had to do what they could to survive. In San Diego, there were protocols put in place from lessons learned from Katrina. It is also easier to move the people evacuating out and food and water in when the roads are not under water and people are in no immediate threat of dying. Bush fires predominantly burn bush, but floods don't care, they flood whatever is in their path and there is nought anybody can do to prevent it. At least with a fire, you can protect to a degree.
2007-10-27 09:34:48 · answer #4 · answered by bubnkez 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because in New Orleans you had a total lack of control from the two leaders - the mayor and the governor. And the state and local government as a whole, being the first responders did a bad job of getting people there, monitoring the scene, and taking action when there were problems. None of this has happened in California which is prepared for disasters and their executives - mayors and the governor presented a unified response that helped citizens.
2007-10-27 09:38:53 · answer #5 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The whole evacuation process was handled better in California than in New Orleans. There was plenty of help, food, water, places to stay and support for the evacuees. Also the homes were covered by insurance for fire but in New Orleans, most didn't have flood insurance so they knew that they were not going to get reimbursed for their losses. While some said that the population had more wealthy, there were poor people who were also evacuated. I think it has a lot to do with treating people with compassion and dignity and a population used to dealing with law enforcement that is not corrupt.
2007-10-27 08:18:20 · answer #6 · answered by Diane M 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Superdome. It has such an brilliant surroundings even as solar existence Stadium's in simple terms yet another football stadium with just about no historic past even as the Superdome is filled to burst with historic past and exhilaration, as considered in the course of the playoffs on Bourbon highway.
2016-10-23 02:05:01 · answer #7 · answered by benjamine 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
San Diego and New Orleans are only two instances, in order to get a better picture one would have to compare several happenings, and yes I have found for my satisfaction the things for my reasoning
2007-10-27 08:32:52 · answer #8 · answered by Ibredd 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The fires in San Diego were a very minor disaster by any measure when compared to New Orleans. No comparison whatsoever.
2007-10-27 08:15:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I would go with the differences in the quality of life that the two groups of people were accustomed to. I'm not implying that the people in New Orleans were low class...but they certainly presented themselves that way. You would think in a time of crisis that people would come together...the people in New Orleans certainly proved otherwise by looting and destroying other's property.
2007-10-27 08:18:14 · answer #10 · answered by Gage's Mommy :-) 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Maybe because they arrived later than they should have in New Orleans, so the people thought sod em. But in San Diego they arrived right on time to save all the rich people. classism
2007-10-27 08:14:06 · answer #11 · answered by YA RLY 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋