What should happen to the New Orleans looters? - Page 7

Non_Comformist · #61 08-31-2005, 07:36 PM

it really pisses me off how many god damned pussies there are.

Bottom line if I were given the choice between killing you are letting you steal my property. Your mother is digging a hole everytime and I really don't give a [censored] what you think about it.

SheetWise · #62 08-31-2005, 08:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How is this shoot-on-sight policy not a gross violation of the 8th amendment?

[/ QUOTE ]

First, I don't consider being shot in the commission of a crime to be cruel or unusual punishment. I believe the law in Louisiana allows the property owner to shoot a trespasser.

Quick search --

[ QUOTE ]
A. Nonlethal Injury Inflicted on Attacker

For a nonlethal injury, justification exists if one acts for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against his person or a forcible offense or trespass against his property. [117] The force used in retaliation must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent the offense. [118] Therefore, one is allowed to defend property lawfully in one's possession, but killing the attacker may not be allowed under the heightened standard that applies to a homicide. [119] For example, if Robber X tries to grab A's purse on the street, A would be justified in using pepper spray on him to prevent the theft. Without some additional threat to her life, rather than just to her property, she would not be justified in killing X with her concealed handgun.

B. Lethal Injury Inflicted on Attacker

If the attacker is killed, then the justifiable homicide statutes control. [120] As the discussion below indicates, one's ability to justifiably defend property is circumscribed when a death results, [p.346] but not if the incident occurs in a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle. [121]

[/ QUOTE ]

Link

There seems to be gray area regarding killing a looter, but it appears to be fine to shoot -- if you kill, it should be on your proprerty.

Second, the Constitution makes exceptions for time of war and time of public danger.

John Ho · #63 08-31-2005, 08:04 PM

Who cares if they take food, clothes, shoes, and other necessities?

You gonna kill a guy for stealing diapers and food when there is no clerk at the store to ask for payment?

SpearsBritney · #64 08-31-2005, 08:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They have their life to lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, what kind of life? And for how much longer? Secondly, you're missing the point. There would be many willing to take the chance, meaning MANY deaths, including police. And for what? To salvage a few TV's? Also, we're not talking about carreer criminals here. These are families, who for the most part, are just trying to stay alive.

SheetWise · #65 08-31-2005, 08:07 PM

Did he leave an IOU? Name and address?

SheetWise · #66 08-31-2005, 08:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And for what? To salvage a few TV's? Also, we're not talking about carreer criminals here. These are families, who for the most part, are just trying to stay alive.

[/ QUOTE ]

They need a TV to stay alive?

Most people with common sense know the difference between looting and surviving. We trust the police to selectively enforce our laws every day.

BCPVP · #67 08-31-2005, 08:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
First, I don't consider being shot in the commission of a crime to be cruel or unusual punishment.

[/ QUOTE ]
You wouldn't consider shooting people for jay-walking cruel or unusual punishment?

[ QUOTE ]
There seems to be gray area regarding killing a looter, but it appears to be fine to shoot -- if you kill, it should be on your proprerty.

[/ QUOTE ]
But you're arguing that the police should be doing the shooting. It's not their property that's being stolen. It's someone else's. Even so, I don't believe that lethal force is warranted unless you are threatened by the looters.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, the Constitution makes exceptions for time of war and time of public danger.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) There is no war on American soil.
2) There is no danger warranting lethal force to the public from the act of looting. There may be danger from violent looters, but you can't shoot all looters because some may be violent. You would be creating a danger to the public by enacting a shoot-on-sight policy.

Non_Comformist · #68 08-31-2005, 08:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You never answered my post. How is this shoot-on-sight policy not a gross violation of the 8th amendment?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously martial law would have to be first declared. Then there would be no such obstacle.

Non_Comformist · #69 08-31-2005, 08:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Who cares if they take food, clothes, shoes, and other necessities?

You gonna kill a guy for stealing diapers and food when there is no clerk at the store to ask for payment?

[/ QUOTE ]

So some guy is taking my food and diapers right without gaining my permission? Then yes a double tap seems appropriate.

SpearsBritney · #70 08-31-2005, 08:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They need a TV to stay alive?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think too many officers would be stopping armed and angry mobs to see whether or not their products were considered to be "survival-related" before filling them with holes.

I'd also have to believe that what ever thay can get their hands on, and possibly trade, is being considered as a correct strategy for survival in the given situation.

Go get a [censored] video game if you want to kill people that badly.

Edit: In case you're gonna quibble about me using "TVs" as an analogy for goods, and say something stupid like "They can't tell the difference between a TV and a loaf of bread?", just pretend I said MP3 Players or some other indistinguishable item from 100 yards when firing on an angry mob.