As I pointed out on the previous threads, failure to suppress looting guarantees that large numbers of people will hunker down instead of evacuating in future emergencies. This is a Bad Thing for obvious reasons.
Obviously they disagree – otherwise, they wouldn’t have decided to put themselves in harm’s way to try and steal the DVD player. Who am I to set aside their own self-assessment?
Then maybe shooting them would be the best idea… 
I say that the police would be put to better use stopping the looting than involved in rescue operations.
I don’t see how Louisiana’s current deadly force laws that don’t allow for the shooting of looters in most scenarios is in any way, shape, or form backwards. I can see how some far, hard Leftwing Americans might find it disagreeable. But they are not the norm. It is they that are the backward ones. And FTR I didn’t call Michael Schiavo a murderer and am Pro-Choice.
I’m sure that this applies only to the NG and LE. Louisiana’s deadly force laws would probably still apply to civillians. You can’t shoot someone running down the street with your case of water. But you can shoot them if you’re in your house, and they come inside it to steal your case of water. I somehow don’t think that the majority of Americans, including more than a few Blue staters would object this in this type of disaster.
See: Ten Commandments, The Bible
Ultimately, you’re not just shooting looters because they’re stealing. If that were the case, then the shooting of thieves or the death penalty for theft in normal situations would be acceptable as well. I don’t think anyone here is advocating that.
However, in truly desperate situations where the infrastructure has completely broken down, I do believe a zero-tolerance approach to crime is appropriate. The authorities need to have complete control of the area. The area needs to be safe for search and rescue. Vital supplies should be available to be commandeered by the correct authorities. Looters get in the way of all of these things.
I just don’t see how you can allow people to run around looting stuff and have an environment condusive to search and rescue. Unchecked, the violence level of the crime involved will creep up as people get more brazen when they realise no-one is out to stop them. Stopping them early on is vital, and given the lack of resources available (no holding cells, limited detaining ability) a more aggressive stand is appropriate. If you can give warning, great. But I’m certainly not going to consider the safety of looters over the safety of those still needing rescue.
And I love the whole “oh, they’re insured against theft, people should just be allowed to steal” argument. First of all, this is probably false. As far as I know, small business are not often insured against theft. The premiums for this can be overwhelming. Secondly, while I will not go as far as advocating the killing of looters on primciple, they really do make me sick. I cannot help but see it as an oppurtunistic attempt to profit off of the misfortune of others.
Ooh, I’ll play. Perhaps people who think thieves ought to be shot also think no-one should be put to death when they haven’t done anything wrong?
The theft of food & water places people in serious risk of disease or death in NO right now. If someone was stealing my stock of potable water I’d shoot them without hesitation. The same goes for my vehicle, generator, and fuel.
I don’t think it’s a good idea for the police to shoot someone for taking televisions out of stores. Just make them drop it and move on.
Marc
You can tell all that by just looking? What is the look that determines that one won’t be missed? Is it the look of blackness?
Some posters have referred to a police officer being murdered. May I have a link to that information?
Somone else was talking about shooting on sight during martial law. Has martial law been declared in Louisiana? Or are they *always * under martial law in Louisiana?
Bush is talking zero tolerence towards NO looters.
http://www.wdsu.com/news/4923471/detail.html
Cheap shot, ILMVI. :rolleyes:
I hope there is a good system to tell the “finders”
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/photos_ts_afp/050830071810_shxwaoma_photo1
apart from the looters:
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/480/ladm10908301723
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/480/ladm10208301530
Is there possibly some easy outward sign we could use to tell them apart? The AP seems to have discovered one.
Well, in picture 1, the woman is clearly carrying bread. I agree with “finding food”.
In picture 2, the man is carrying beer. I am a bit more uncomfortable with classifying that as a survivial necessity.
I’m not. He goes into ‘finder’ category!
Ah, yes. “Thou shalt not steal.”
Thanks.
What penalty is imposed for violation? Hmm. See Deuteronomy 24:7, Exodus 21:16.
Are you still so sure we should base secular policy on the Bible?
So we are now able to categorize among food categories as to what is just and what is unjust? Where would you place a bag of Doritos? A Zagnut? A Twinkie?
Can we shoot people in the head for making poor nutritional choices when looting?
Oh come on. It’s the leftist media: you have no need to defend THEM. This is a fair shot. Take it and run. 
Besides, alcoholics can die from going without alcohol for too long. Not to mention that beer is what many Americans drank instead of water back in our early days. More seriously, picture 3 is what makes me a little more uncomfortable about the AP’s judgement in captioning these shots.
What are you? Some kind of racist?
Well just the sight of armed looters hinders rescue and relief efforts; ambulance and helicopter pilots don’t really feel like getting murdered for their supplies. The military should let out a warning and start shooting at armed people who don’t immediatly surrender. Confiscate every weapon they come across in the city. Sorry second amendmant.
I assume a literal “shoot on sight” is hyperbole.