What should he say? “Hey, it’s not big deal. Let 'em loot!” Surely you are not implying that “zero tolerance” = shoot on sight. Are you?
I can’t see that “shoot on sight” is a reasonable policy. The arguments for that policy being put forward in this thread look like after-the-fact justifications for decisions made on emotional reactions-- it’s hard to have sympathy for looters. We still live in society of laws, even in disaster areas. There is certainly a case to be made for granting more authority to the police in such situations, and we should indeed have a policy already in existence for ratching up that authority. Actions such as curfews, “no go” areas, etc. have their place, but we have to put ultimate value on human life.
Setting up the cops to be judge, jury and executioner has no place in a society still run by the rule of law. This is a huge natural disaster, yes, but we’re not in the world of Mad Max yet, by a long shot.
If you’re armed and shooting or threatening people, then by all means in these circumstances taking you out is justified. But shooting people for looting is nuts. Nobody’s life is worth less than merchandise, I don’t care if they do “look like they wouldn’t be missed.”
I’ve made a few assumptions based on what I’ve read and seen in the news; If I’m wrong, please correct me.
Every part of the city is flooded to one extent or another.
The only way out is by rescue.
Since rescue resources are already strained, they are not going to allow space for TV’s or DVD players or the like.
If my assumtions are correct, then why not ignore the (non-violent) looters of these items. These items are history no matter where they end up. Even stored out of the water, 2 to 3 months of close proximity to foetid water in that heat will ruin them, surely.
As for the jewelry, someone here said that it could not be retailed after flood contamination. If that is true, shop owners will be claiming it on their insurance no matter what. Looting it is victimless crime, not worth diverting rescue efforts.
As for the armed looters, I would feel better about diverting a large portion of the rescue effort to stopping them if I thought they could be stopped quickly so that the rescue effort could continue unimpeded. To save the most lives, I say ignore them and get people the hell out there. Yes, what they are doing is horribly wrong, but any response we make that involves diverting manpower from the rescue effort results in a proportionally greater loss of life.
Also, according to the news stories I’ve seen, these people are mostly hijacking supplies of food and water. Just a thought, perhaps, but do you suppose maybe, just maybe, that this means that they don’t have any? It doesn’t make what they are doing right; but so many people expressing moral outrage against people whose only moral option, at this point, may be to quietly starve, is what I find most disquieting.
Looting that involves stealing supplies or vehicles, or threatening rescue workers impedes the rescue efforts, sure, but explain to me how stealing jewelry does.
Once again, not saying it’s right, just saying it’s not worth diverting police attention toward in this circumstance.
By having people waving guns around and generally giving an atmosphere of lawlessness thus scaring away rescue workers. These aren’t (for the most part) combat medics going in to help out.
And how do we know they only have jewelry in those bags? Maybe they’re hoarding medical supplies, generaters, flashlights, etc. You know, useful stuff that rescue workers should be allowed to “loot”.
Er, “hijacking supplies of food and water” sounds like you’re talking about people holding up the relief crews to take it all rather than accepting their fair share. I presume that isn’t what you mean (if you’re trying to make a case against, rather than for, a shoot-on-sight policy).
Why are we conflating people carrying guns with “looters”? A looter doesn’t need a gun. Looters go into a store and carry stuff out because there is nobody there minding the store. Shooting, threatening, confronting, rioting… these are not looting. Deadly force is appropriate to prevent some crimes, looting is not one of them.
Honestly I thought waving guns and frightening rescue workers was covered under “threatening rescue workers” YMMV.
I admit that I am supposing that this jewelry stealing is unarmed(or at least not actively gun-waving) looters helping themselves to items in abandoned stores, rather than violently taking it from people in the midst of an area where a rescue operation is being staged.
And CarnalK, you specifically brought up my opinion on jewely looters. So that’s what I assumed we were discussing.