Who the fuck said they did? I know they don’t have the right to steal. Stay on topic. We were talking about the best way to deal with looters, and I was talking about the best way to use the police and National Guard forces (and so on) that are down there. Awful as the looting is, I think it’s better to focus on saving people whenever possible instead of defending the propery and getting into potentially large firefights with armed gangs. That will kill people and, in my opinion, accomplish little else. Shit, with the diseases that may start spreading, these looters may die anyway. When these gangs are threatening people’s lives, that’s another issue and I already said so.
Please learn to respond to what people say instead of making assumptions like these.
The result of the new statutory system is to allow defense of property to justify a homicide, but only if the property is inside a dwelling, business, or motor vehicle. If the incident occurs outside of those areas a permittee can use reasonable force to defend his or her property, but not necessarily deadly force. [143] A permittee would not be wise to use his or her concealed handgun to defend [p.349] property outside of the three protected areas because use of a firearm could violate the limit of “reasonable force.” [144] Use of a handgun could be deadly force, even if the permittee does not intend to kill the attacker.
The present system could produce results that do not hinge on the value of the property. A man can kill to defend his decrepit car even though it is only worth a few hundred dollars, but a merchant walking to the bank with several thousand dollars cannot use deadly force to defend that money. [145] If the distinction which allows defense of property is not based on value, it becomes difficult to discern upon what it is based. Perhaps the legislature is focusing on the right of an individual to be secure while on private property. One unlawfully intruding upon that private property forfeits the right to be protected against homicide. Conversely, a person in his own home gains the right to kill to prevent unlawful entry.
Be careful not choke on all that straw. Just because I say that it is not morally justified to take a human life to defend property does not mean I therefore think it’s not justifiable to stop rape or murder. Were not talking about rape and murder. We’re talking about fucking DVD players.
But that is just not true, some looters are doing a lot more than just taking “DVD players”.
As the Army & Navy roll in to help with repair & rescue the Guard needs to secure the city. There are confirmed reports on CNN, USA today, and the local http://www.nola.com/ please see and read.
Looting hurts rescue efforts
So the looters are already endanger lives directly and indirectly.
*New Orleans’ homeland security chief, Terry Ebbert, said looters were breaking into stores all over town and stealing guns. He said there are gangs of armed men moving around the city. At one point, officers stranded on the roof of a hotel were fired at by criminals on the street.
The Times-Picayune newspaper reported that the gun section at a new Wal-Mart had been cleaned out by looters.
Authorities said an officer was shot in the head and a looter was wounded in a shootout. The officer and looter were expected to survive. *
This kind of behavior OK with you? Any ideas off the top of your head on how to stop it?
Stop what? One looter shoots a cop so yiu see that as an excuse to start massacring people who had nothing to do with it. Sorry but that doesn’t wash with me. I have this pesky sense of right and wrong.
The fact they are threatening hospitals, rescue centers, nursing homes, emergency vehicle has required the city to pull 1500 police (rescue workers) off of the rescue efforts to control lawlessness. If 1500 police are trying to stop looting and protect the invalids and emergency vehicles than they are not rescuing people.
You are making a fallacious argument based on an appeal to emotion. A children’s hospital was not in fact raided; apparently such an attempt was made, but it was turned away without using deadly force. A cop was in fact shot; no others have been so far, fortunately. The rest of the things mentioned so far exist only as rumor and yourn imagination; if and when such violence occurs, some use of deadly force may be necessary, but let’s leave it up to the actual professionals as to whether and when it should be used, shall we? How do you account for the fact that not a single law enforcement official that I know of has asked officially, or even lobbied for, the indiscriminate shooting of looters?
The looting occurring in New Orleans and other areas at the moment is an extremely short-term phenomenon that will have ended entirely within a few days, whether or not deadly force is used to any degree. Why? 1) by that time nearly everyone will have been evacuated from the city; 2) by that time there will be a heavy enough presence of law enforcement, including armed National Guardsmen to effectively guard the city.
