Private property that isn’t yours is private property that isn’t yours. What difference does it make if it’s a homeowner or a store-owner? Besides, it’s not the looters that the cops are “letting” loot that worries me. It’s the looters who cleaned out the gun department at the local Wal-Mart, or the ones who stormed the children’s hospital and raided the drugs. You really think the cops are “letting” that kind of thing happen?
And which argument would this be? Let me just be clear – your point is that Search and Rescue should be priority #1? Is this correct?
I totally agree. In fact, I would go so far as to make this blanket statement:
– Immediately following any natural disaster, whether it be tsunami, flood, hurricane, earthquake, tornado, or otherwise… search and rescue should be priority #1.
Now could you point out for me who is arguing against that? I don’t recall seeing anybody in this thread saying that looters should be the authorities’ #1 priority, although I may have skimmed over a post or two.
I didn’t say that they currently had the resources to handle both. I said that some people have argued that both are important. There is a difference between importance and feasability. Unfortunately, in a disaster like this, authorities usually have limited resources to work with right after the storm, until more help can be mobilized. When more help comes, there are some issues that will need attention besides S&R.
Well, that’s where I have to disagree. I don’t find the looting morally negligible at all. Perhaps its longer term effects are not as immediately visible as people who are trapped in houses, but that doesn’t automatically equate to negligible. And it doesn’t mean that the looters are not shitheads of the worst caliber (as the OP asserts).
::: shrug :::
It was no more contrived or anecdotal an example than your save-the-baby-or-the-frozen-turkey scenario. In one of the articles the OP linked, jewelry was among the first items mentioned that were looted. I have yet to read about a rescuer who was faced with saving a baby or a frozen turkey, but if you have a link…
Please point out where I said that people should be killed for it.
So why don’t I feel that it’s morally negligible? I see the looting as a subset of a larger issue, which is the lack of any order among the able-bodied survivors (i.e. the ones that aren’t awaiting rescue). I feel that’s important – even IF it is not yet managable with current resources – because it’s all too likely to escalate into violence.
Someone on CNN just said that many of the looters are now armed – I think a lot of the arms looted from a gun store. What do you think this will lead to? What will the armed looters do when the stores have been rifled clean? I suspect they will start going for houses. What about when their food runs out, or they decide to hoard it for themselves and are able to because they have guns? Whose food will they take? Perhaps that of the unarmed residents? Leave it unattended too long and the strong will be preying on the weak.
And meanwhile, these people who are healthy enough to loot stores and “get back at society” are certainly healthy enough to pitch in with search and rescue attempts, if they had a little more concern for their fellow man. Sure, it’s not their job help with recovery attempts, but if they are just playing the “what can I take from somebody else when nobody can stop me” game, while others are in more desperate need, then they are worthless shitheads, as suggested by the thread title.
I wonder how many of those lives might be saved if, instead of looting, the able-bodied citizens pitched in with rescue efforts? or cooperated with authorities, perhaps helping to fairly distribute food (yes, salvaged from stores – I do believe that authorities can commandeer it in a crisis like this?) and helping with evacuation efforts, either getting out of the city themselves, or helping those less able to do so more quickly.
And now I also wonder what will be the effect on the death toll with the current situation – armed looters stealing and operating on the principle “every man for himself”.
The way I see it, the looters are doing nothing to help the situation. And very likely they are going to be hindering the recovery work, perhaps even helping to add to the death toll.
If the looting persists, perhaps.
We have not SEEN any footage of so-called armed looters to my knowledge.
Of course, you can’t have it both ways: city authorities allowing looting are doing much of the hindering in recovery efforts all by themselves.
Nobody can do much recovery until flood waters recede.
Any chance they’ll be prosecuted or at least fired for this? When the disaster is over, of course.
All we saw were two overweight women in uniforms standing by two shopping carts. If they were looting, they weren’t in the process of taking them out of the store or putting the carts in their vehicles.
Fantastic logic DtC, I always value the opinion of a person who prefers looters to picky eaters. However, Mayor Ray Nagin doesn’t agree with you and has ordered 1500 police officers to stop search and rescue missions and begin putting down the mobs of looters who are getting more violent and spreading further towards the outside of the city.
yep
Well, I was including the saving of human lives in that – not just recovery of property. But I think citizens will be of most help by either (1) assisting with search and rescue, if authorities will allow them to, or (2) evacuating and getting out of the city so that authorities can do their jobs without hindrance.
I can only dream. Can you imagine the money that society would save with a few well-placed bullets? The savings in the judicial and social services sector alone would be mind-boggling.
That’s one of the more unpleasant posts I’ve seen on the SDMB.
:dubious:
Can you imagine the hell you’d unleashed firing on desperate homeless people, some of whom are recent armed? Can you imagine what a stray bullet hitting some six year old kid would do?
You’re talking about killing over SALVAGED STUFF in a drowned city.
Yeesh.
Care to wager on the comparative racial percentage of the looters, Matt?
People getting defensive about the cutline of a photograph are making excuses and trying to avoid the truth of the images playing before them.
Also, there is a difference between “finding bread” and “finding a television”. That said, looting is looting and those engaging in it should be punished, regardless of color.
Looters breaking into electronics stores are not “deperate and homeless”. They are people that are choosing to engage in illegal activity at a time when society has broken down in the face of natural disaster. Are they seeking shelter and remaining orderly and cooperative? No. They are showing contempt for the society that most likely has supported them for their entire lives while they prey on it.
And if they bring their six year old kid along, they are putting them in more danger than just a stray bullet. How about the diseases in the water? Or drowning? Or teaching them that stealing is fun and setting the stage for the next generation of inmates?
Next logical step: Genocide!
Absolutely. And I would be calling for the same treatment for them.
Civilized countries do not murder people without trial for stealing electronics. Get some fucking perspective, man.
Dammit! That was supposed to be a secret!
Dio, if you go back to just about any riot or lootfest you can name, the majority of the participants have been minorities. That’s just how it is. We can talk all day about why that is, but to try and deny the fact is wishful thinking.
First of all, cite?
Secondly, if the majority of looters rioters “have always been minorities” what do you think that proves?
There’s more than a few coded messages in this stereotypical sermon of yours, and even more lies. I don’t see how you can acknowledge living conditions like diseases in the water, the threat of drowning, society breaking down (not to mention looting being de facto encouraged by lack of law enforcement) and then type that looters are not “desperate and homeless.”
It’s attitude like youre that set the stage for the next generation of generalizing bigots.