It’s all part of the breakdown of civilization. By the way, it was very refreshing to see someone use the word “pore” correctly in your photo archiving thread.
[one more hijack] I saw the mayor of New Orleans quoted as saying “There is incredible evidence that thousands may be dead,” and I thought, well that’s a relief! [/hijack]
I work for State government here in Iowa. For the record, our assistance efforts are being affected by the perceived lack of saftey in the disaster areas due to looting and other acts that are beginning to be reported on. Until this situation is addressed, outside efforts will be slow in coming.
I’m not sure what the solution is, but the looting needs to be dealt with as soon as possible.
After all that dude’s been through, I can’t fault him too much for saying incredible when he meant credible.
Accurate details are in short supply. One story reported the hijacking of a van ear-marked for somewhere else. Food and water stolen, possibly medical supplies as well. I assumed that everything was taken. My point is that if it was ear-marked for someone else, then the only way the hijackers could get any was at gun point. Desperation makes people do desperate things.
People may be taking more than they themselves need because they have others they need to take care of until they can be rescued. These people probably aren’t getting any news they can trust, and don’t know how long they need to last.
Don’t get me wrong, I know there are plenty of scum out there who are hoarding food and indulging in pointless violence. I just think the majority of these looters and hijackers of food and water are scared and without good options.
The first thing these people did was steal guns…
In light of what I’ve read today, I will still not say “shoot looters on sight,” but I will say it’s obvious that large numbers of reinforcements need to be there, and soon. It sounds like these gangs are posing a serious problem to rescuers.
Let me get this straight: the National Guard can’t perform their duties because they are being shot at? That doesn’t bode well for Operation Iraqi Freedom, does it!
Historically you are dead wrong. The use of force to stop looting is pretty well established. As I said in an earlier post, a literal shoot on sight is hyperbole. A demand for immediate surrender and corresponding use of force with non-compliance is quite reasonable in this situation.
Yes, my point was how silly it is to think military/cops on the scene can distinguish people stealing spoiled jewelry from any other kind of looter.
Wow, something like 126 posts, and all on whether or not looters should be shot and killed on site. How come nobody’s just thought about wounding a looter? If someone is walking out with your TV, you tell them to drop it, and they don’t, instead of killing them, why not just shoot them in the leg, or shoulder, or somewhere that isn’t lethal, yet, you get the point across that that they aren’t going to be steeling from you? Probably make them think twice about robbing someone else too for fear of the same thing.
Of course, if they have a weapon that could complicate things and you may to have to do something to keep them from retaliating, up to and including using deadly force, but still, people need to know that there are consequences for their actions, and if killing them seems over the top to some, then I ask again, why not try to just wound them?
When you are trudging through an overflowing sewer, I have a feeling most wounds are fatal.
From what I hear, there are more problems than just looting. People have been assaulted and women raped by criminal thugs.
I say shoot-to-kill orders are perfectly reasonable.
Can we kill them for doing this?
Some highlights from the link:
“Police warned a CNN crew to stay off the streets because of escalating danger, and cautioned others about attempted shootings and rapes by groups of young men.”
““They have quite a few people running around here with guns,” he said. “You got these young teenage boys running around up here raping these girls.””
The more you excuse it and the longer you allow it, the worse it will get.
Why is it that the only two choices here seem to be “do nothing” or “shoot all looters”? The best solution is to establish an overwhelming military presence in NO by utilizing the entire Louisiana National Guard, who are specifially trained to deal with these situations. Too bad most of them are in Iraq, bogged down in Operation Fuckup.
Well, just a little bit ago, I heard on the radio that the cops are being told to go stop the rioting in Super Dome, and troops from the Oregon National Guard are being flown in to help restore order.
How many Cindy Sheehans out there would willingly sacrifice their child to secure the SuperDome?
I hope I’m not the only person who is bewildered by this comment. Would you like to clarify, Stephe96?
You’re not the only one. I saw that comment and thought 
Christ all-frickin’ mighty. The degree of hysteria and reactionary nonsense displayed in this and numerous other Katrina-related threads over the past couple of days is beyond belief.
And so pure hearsay, in the minds of some, becomes fact. Hey, maybe the cops described things perfectly accurately. But how the hell would you know? Some people here seem awfully eager to billboard this third-hand information as factual. I don’t get the shrillness of the calls for use of deadly force from people who have neither the facts to determine when it might be approriate nor the authority to authorize its use. Who, exactly, are you preaching to, and why?
Anyway, I seriously doubt anyone actually attempting to deal with this problem, rather than jawboning pointlessly about it on a message board, is either excusing or allowing looting and violence in New Orleans. There is simply insufficient manpower present in the city right now to deal with it effectively. A few widely scattered, poorly provisioned cops or Guardsmen attempting to enforce order among desparate mobs that outnumber them 200 to 1 is a recipe for dead cops, dead Guardsmen and dead civilians caught in the violence, without noticable effect.
It’s looking more and more as though a number of governmental agencies have screwed the pooch in rather spectacular fashion in this regard, but supposedly large numbers of troops are (finally!) being mobilized as fast as possible and their mere presence will have most of the desired effect. No doubt there will be a few complete idiots who try to take them on once they are deployed, so don’t worry: all those here who are baying for the execution of the “savages” will surely get their measure of blood.
Who is proposing that we should “do nothing?” Bringing social order will almost assuredly require the presence of military force.
Why is it that one cannot object to shooting to kill people who are stealing food, jeans or electronic equipment without being subject to myriad asinine questions along the lines of “Is it okay to shoot snipers?”
I ask anyone to cite any post in which an argument for “do nothing” has been put forward, or anyone who has suggested that violent crime should not be prevented by force, or even that looting is a good thing.
Probably a lot of them, as things go, it is a far more just cause on our own soil with our own people in danger.