You guys don't get it.
It doesn't matter who "owns" the bridge, or if he had the "authority" or if the bridge could hold people, trains, planes or elephants.
The chief took control of a checkpoint to protect what he had to protect.
Don't matter who owns the stinking bridge. At that time, at that place, he had a bigger gun.
The bridge was his, and he closed it.
Nuff said.
Tell you what. Take a gun and try to close the Ben Franklin Bridge in Philly. Take a few of your closest friends. You'll have the biggest gun.
And see what happens.
Is the bridge private property?
If not, if belongs to the people of Louisiana and the guy had no right shutting it down, I don't care what he thinks the people might do to his town.
Until they did it, they were innocents...we do still believe that don't we...innocent until proven guilty?
True. He seized it by conquest under color of authority.
I hope the Fraternal Brotherhood has a legal defense benefit for him.
"You guys don't get it. "
Oh, we get it, all right. This guy didn't want the riff-raff from NO in his town. So, he took it upon himself to close a public roadway in the midst of a disaster, preventing people from escaping the disaster.
I think we have it just about right. Either the citizens of the USA have freedom of movement on the public roadways or they do not. He far exceeded his authority. The wonder of it is that it was allowed to continue.
The chief has alot of explaining to do, because here's why: The bridge in question was an evacuation route. I don't care if 12 people were trying to cross, or 120,000 people were trying to cross, he had no authority to close that evac route.
Nope he took control of it because pandering to his fears was more important then people's lives.
The bridge was his, and he closed it.
Nope. Because might does not make right in this country.
What is the penalty for blocking the fire exit on a burning building? What ever it is he should get it.