You’ve been evacuated from your home during a flood. How would you feel if people had broken into your home and stolen things, when you were helpless to protect your property?
As I noted earlier, it’s vital to make it clear to people that looting WILL be suppressed firmly. Otherwise, people will disregard evacuation orders for precisely that reason.
Bahh…it’s not hurting anything. They’re all just stealing garbage. It’s no different than if they were taking it out of dumpsters. I just can’t get all 3orked up about it and I think it’s ridiculous to say that authorities should pull resources away from rescue efforts in order to mow down people stealing Gameboys.
I agree. People should understand that evacuating is an ORDER, not a suggestion.
They don’t have the resources, dude. People are dying in the water right now. You’re just going to have to find some other place to store your righteous indignation for a while.
So I can rob you blind and then say, “ah, it’s all garbage anyway”? It’s my moral prerogative to decide whether or not something has value to you? I’ll be right over.
I would have been pissed.
But I’m only talking about the looting in stores, not personal households.
What difference does it make, morally or ethically?
Realistically, such an order can’t be generally enforced if significant numbers of people insist on staying… which would be the inevitable result of allowing looting to run its course.
There’s a case for turning a blind eye to scavenging survival items (particularly food that will become worthless anyway). Beyond that, it’s necessary to take a hard line.
I’m not deciding it’s garbage, the flooding turned it all into garbage. And I’m only talking about stores, not personal households.
It’s not garbage yet, unless you’ve seen insurance adjusters with checklists wading through downtown.
People who would steal non-vital items are criminals. IMHO, they are showing their true light, and the sooner the police get them, the better. If these people steal electronics and jewelry now, I would suspect they would have no moral qualms about robbing you in some dark alley.
It’s like robbing a corpse. It may not hurt anyone, but it’s wrong and indecent.
That is not what you initially said (or why single out Wal-Mart?) and this statement is no more true.
Some (large) percentage of stock that would be inundated will be unsaleable. However, there is a level above which the waters will not rise and stock that is not inundated (and some portion of stock that will be soaked) will still be saleable–but only if it remains in the shop long enough to be handled by the owners.
On the other hand, for everyone who seems to be advocating a “shoot first and let God sort 'em out” approach to stopping the looting, I would note two things:
- After the Johnstown flood and after the Chicago fire, the newswires were filled, for days, with stories of the struggles between looters and law-abiding folks and law enforcement agencies. After the situations had stabilized, investigations determined that the amount of looting (and the violence associated with it) had been grossly overreported. Now, this is not to claim that the situations then and now are identical, but before I start advocating that the Coast Guard be sent through the streets shooting everyone who holds a bag in their hands, I would like to see a clear statement from a responsible law enforcement agency that the situation is as bad as some are proclaiming.
- DtC does have a point regarding some of the looted items, in that they were effectively lost already, either to floods or to looting. (Against that, I would note that an insurance company is more likely to write a check for inventoried water-soakd stock than for claims of unidentified loss.)
Are you really asserting with a straight face that looters who find that no one bothers to prevent them from doing the former will refrain out of conscience from doing the latter? :rolleyes:
The stores would have to throw everything away anyway. So nothing is lost that wasn’t already lost. None of it is salable merchandise. Like I said, it’s like taking stuff out a dumpster.
Cite?
When did I assert that?
But now that you ask, I think a lot of people would do just that. I would.
As I said, that is not a decision for the looter to make, nor is it a decision for you to make. Do you suppose for one second a looter breaks into a store on top of a hill, looks around and thinks, “this stuff will be OK, I better leave it”?
You WOULD be looting the stores right now?
I keep pointing out that these people have to leave eventually. The waters are rising and authorities say they don’t want anyone in New Orleans for at least a month. It might as well be sooner rather than later.
If these people are the king, gentle, victims of society like some people seem to suggest then why don’t they have enough sense try to get out of the city where they might have a chance to get supplies and help? I am sure that at least a few can snag a ride on a rescue helicopter.
They don’t have any intention of leaving. Think about it. Why would you loot more stuff than you have ever had in your life and then leave it behind. That indicates an immediate and future problem right there.
Cite for what? You don’t think the stores are going to write this shit off as a total loss? You think all that food still has any salable value. How are any of these stores going to recover any value from water damaged merchandise, especially if they can claim it as a total loss on their insurance?