Does the US president have this authority?

Lestat · #1 09-01-2005, 06:47 PM

I know the commander in chief can order his military in harms way. But can he order US citizens to their death? I'm referring to his zero tolerance policy on looting in New Orleans. He implied that even if your family is struggling to survive and/or near death, that his orders are to stay put. Help is on its way.

I take this to mean that ANY looting is forbidden and that if US aide doesn't arrive in time, then the thing to do is to let your family die. Am I misunderstanding the president on this?

Edge34 · #2 09-01-2005, 07:04 PM

Taken so ridiculously far out of context, I can see how you would come to this conclusion.

If you'd paid any attention at all to the acts of looting that are going on, there's expensive Nikes, TVs, and of course GUNS being stolen. As disturbing as the things that are happening are, you're damn right there is a no-tolerance policy going on. Now, the cops aren't going to shoot people without imminent danger, but this stuff can't be allowed to happen. There needs to be civility.

The Red Cross and the National Guard are doing everything in their power to bring food and water to the people who have been caught in the storm, and the shelters are open. I don't really see the need for any looting if people take the steps they're told they need to take.

BCPVP · #3 09-01-2005, 07:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I take this to mean that ANY looting is forbidden

[/ QUOTE ]
ANY looting is forbidden as it is. What's your point?

#4 09-01-2005, 07:06 PM

I guarentee cops that are struggling for provisions themselves are going to shoot people who are looting for food and water.

But come on... stealing riffles so you can rumage through stores looking for jewelry and expensive sundrys... they need to be shot.

Lestat · #5 09-01-2005, 07:19 PM

I don't really see the need for any looting if people take the steps they're told they need to take. 

So easily said from someone with a roof over his head, probably a drink in his hand and a few steps away from some food. I'm talking about if your 3 yr. old daughter hadn't eaten in 3 days! Or you elderly mother was succumbing to heat exhaustion. Is it ok for you to loot the local 7-11 for essentials? Or are you gonna watch your mother and daughter die in front of you waiting for supplies from the appropriate sources?

I am not talking about Nikes, TV's, etc. Of course THAT'S wrong! Show a little common sense.

Lestat · #6 09-01-2005, 07:22 PM

My point is: Should ALL looting be forbidden? Again, for those of you who can't distinguish a difference:

I am not talking about TV's or guns, I am talking about essentials to prevent someone in your family from possibly dying.

Lestat · #7 09-01-2005, 07:24 PM

But come on... stealing riffles so you can rumage through stores looking for jewelry and expensive sundrys... they need to be shot. 

I agree with that. But shouldn't a distinction be made between someone walking out of a store with a TV and someone holding food or water?

Edge34 · #8 09-01-2005, 07:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
 I don't really see the need for any looting if people take the steps they're told they need to take. 

So easily said from someone with a roof over his head, probably a drink in his hand and a few steps away from some food. I'm talking about if your 3 yr. old daughter hadn't eaten in 3 days! Or you elderly mother was succumbing to heat exhaustion. Is it ok for you to loot the local 7-11 for essentials? Or are you gonna watch your mother and daughter die in front of you waiting for supplies from the appropriate sources?

I am not talking about Nikes, TV's, etc. Of course THAT'S wrong! Show a little common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then clearly you're the one not thinking. Note also that you ignored the part of my post where I said of course they're not going to shoot you for taking some food. But come on, this needs to be a civil area, and not one where lawlessness takes over. In this case, you know what, there's shelters and Red Cross people for a reason. If someone A) didn't leave before the storm, and B) didn't go to the shelters, and C) hasn't gone SINCE then, then no, I really don't think looting is necessary.

If we allow people to determine which stores they "can" and "cannot" loot, things only get worse. Go to the officials if you need help.

BCPVP · #9 09-01-2005, 07:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My point is: Should ALL looting be forbidden? Again, for those of you who can't distinguish a difference:

I am not talking about TV's or guns, I am talking about essentials to prevent someone in your family from possibly dying.

[/ QUOTE ]
Looting of survival-related items should not be stopped. The people should try to hold out as long as they can, but if they're running out of essentials they should first seek out help and if none's available then it's okay.

Although I have to question the judgement of people not stocking up when they know they're in the path of a hurricane.

Edge34 · #10 09-01-2005, 07:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My point is: Should ALL looting be forbidden? Again, for those of you who can't distinguish a difference:

I am not talking about TV's or guns, I am talking about essentials to prevent someone in your family from possibly dying.

[/ QUOTE ]

And for those of you who refuse to fricking LISTEN:

There's SHELTERS and RED CROSS and NATIONAL FREAKING GUARD. YOU DON'T NEED TO LOOT IF YOU TAKE CARE OF THINGS THE WAY YOU'RE FREAKING TOLD.