What should happen to the New Orleans looters?

[SheetWise]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have some really warped ideas about law enforcement officers. There are some really bad cops, I agree, but come on ...

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
And I'm not even taking into account the logistics of trying to enforce such a policy over such a vast area with limited personnel.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the primary reason to shoot.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Would you shoot someone coming out a store with a basket of canned goods, camping gear, and water (technically looting)?
************************************************** *
No.......
Would I shoot people stealing TVs and microwave ovens...Yes!

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent the offense

[/ QUOTE ]

The police might shoot anyone committing a crime, even a traffic crime, if they fail to obey the police's orders. Usually the police need to feel there is some physical threat, but they may reasonably feel threatened by a lot of things.

A homeowner might shoot someone if they are trespassing and are either an immediate physical threat or they fail to leave when ordered.

In neither case is there a right to shoot first, no matter what. That seems to be the way you want to treat looters since you seem opposed to arresting them. I suppose if a looter sees the police, puts their hands in the air and gets on their knees, you would have the police walk up and shoot them in the head. But, still, I doubt you are being fully serious.

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]
ok fair enough,

now as I see it you don't have a problem with people breaking into a store a taking some items even those not really required to survive - instead of saying you don't have a problem perhaps I should say you don't think lethal force is justified.

But what about the new reports of a few gangs roaming with weapons breaking into the homes of survivors and holding them up, or cruising around in vehicles looking for say jewelry, electronics or car dealerships and taking what they want? Given that the standard means of arrest and detainment are not feasible - would lethal force be warranted for these select few?

[/ QUOTE ]

Another good question. I have a feeling that if I answer this question, you'll somehow catch me contradicting myself, but I guess I'll bite and take the risk.

I think lethal force is justified in these (and similar) situations. I just disagree with open firing on a crowd of disorganized citizens caught up in the excitement of getting something for nothing.

I will agree that it is indeed difficult to clearly define and enforce one and not the other in a situation like this. However, if it gets to the point where people are being terrorized and murdered (as I'm sure it soon will) then the level of enforcement most certainly needs to rise. To what extent, I don't know, and am gald I don't have to make that decision.

[Non_Comformist]

[ QUOTE ]

Another good question. I have a feeling that if I answer this question, you'll somehow catch me contradicting myself

[/ QUOTE ]

nope not at all. I don't play stupid games like that.

[TransientR]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh Please!

Spare us the macho BS...

The majority of these people are robbing from well-insured stores who already have written-off the store and the merchandise, and the looters know this and so do the police.

Is it wrong except in the case of foodstuffs..yes. Is it worth diverting police resources and shooting at people who may well start shooting back? No...

Why, when a police officer could be helping people, would s/he start shooting at people looting a Walmart, especially since if they got shot in return fire, there is no medical care available?

Looters breaking into a private residence is different, and from what I saw of those looters, not many would be doing that.

Anyway, the military will be in there soon enough and that will quell the sneaker ardor of the looters [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Frank

[vulturesrow]

You are trying to conflate two completely different situations in order to make your point.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
Martial law and shooting looters after huricanes use to be SOP(standard operating procedures). As a teenager I would watch the news coverage of hurricane damage and the policy of shooting looters was common place.

I'm not sure why the current state govenors are not doing so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, because it is not worth killing a human being over a goddamn sack of potatoes or a Sanyo television? Douche.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
The majority of these people are robbing from well-insured stores who already have written-off the store and the merchandise, and the looters know this and so do the police.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, this is not true. As time goes on, you will find that most people don't have flood insurance. These are real losses.

Second, are you saying it's OK to steal from insurance companies? If they did have insurance, the contents are now the property of the insurer -- they have salvage rights.