1

Second, it makes no difference whether the item is a loaf of bread or a big-screen TV, when we take property that does not belong to us we committing theft. Our need for an item – even if it is essential for our survival -- has no bearing on either the criminality or the morality of the action. Before you disagree, ask yourself this question: if a person in Detroit needed food or medicine as much as someone in New Orleans, would we look the other way while they broke into Wal-Mart and took what they needed?

Joe, you a great writer, editor, and blogger. But the above passage indicates that you are in dire need of someone to edit your own material.

If someone is stuck in post-hurricane chaos and has no food or water, it is not wrong for them to loot food and water if that is their only way to obtain it.

Your analogy with the hungry person in Detroit is very, very weak. There are many alternatives to shoplifting or burglarizing a Wal-Mart: charity, getting a job, begging, going to an emergency room, borrowing money, and so on.

How could it possibly be wrong for someone who needs water and food and cannot get it, to take it from an unattended store? It would be wrong not to take it!

2

Matthew How could it possibly be wrong for someone who needs water and food and cannot get it, to take it from an unattended store? It would be wrong not to take it!

Just I'm clear on what you are saying, do you believe that the person does not have a moral obligation to make a good faith effort to repay the owner for what they took in their time of need?

3

As the rest of us in the world watch what is unfolding in New Orleans, it grieves me to say my friends and I aren't thinking about whether the US military and law enforcement care about shooting looters. It's merely a resigned when they will start shooting.(God forgive me, I desperately pray we are wrong, there are options)
I saw this on another blog.
It's a soldiers prayer.

Please God, do not let me have been used to serve someone's hatred.

Please God, do not let me have been led by fear into someone else's folly;

Please God, do not let me have been naive in my trust:

Please God, do not let me have harmed the innocent;

Please God, do not let me have killed the innocent:

Please God, do not let me have trusted blindly;

Please God, let me know the answers to these desperate requests.

4

"Before you disagree, ask yourself this question: if a person in Detroit needed food or medicine as much as someone in New Orleans, would we look the other way while they broke into Wal-Mart and took what they needed?"

Actually I think in most civilized parts of this country a person who is dying and who manages to crawl into a Wal-Mart and get a hold of some medicine that they need to survive is usually not charged with a crime.

They are taken to a hospital.

Noonan and Barber are out of their minds.

5

The person should make a good faith effort to repay the owner if he is in a position to do so.

But what if he isn't? What if he is looting food and water for 40 people stuck in a retirement home, and the store being looted is a big chain that has insurance to cover most of its losses?

What if he has lost everything he owns and has no prospect of paying anyone for anything for the forseeable future?

What if he doesn't even know where he is and has no way of finding out whose store it is? (Although I guess this last one falls under the category of good-faith efforts.)

What if a person is at wits' end and the last thing on his mind is whether or not he's going to pay some store owner $20 or $30 for something he needs to literally live another day or two? I guess when he is no longer at wits' end, he could reconsider what has happened and think about making amends. But, what if it's a store with good insurance to cover its losses: should a desperate man really lose any sleep about whether to ask the management to forgive his indebtedness? This just seems so silly.

6

if a person in Detroit needed food or medicine as much as someone in New Orleans, would we look the other way while they broke into Wal-Mart and took what they needed?

If it were a matter of life and death the answer would surely, surely be "yes."

And from all reports it indeed looks like a matter of life and death for many.

7

God sees the heart - whether the justice system does is another issue.

News tonight: High school kid steals a school bus and picks up stragglers and ends up somewhere safe. No one else there to help: car thief or hero

Folks report looters came and distributed food at the convention center - the only food from any source they had seen

People steal a boat - and use it to move people out of a flooded area.

People are also stealing for themselves; and shooting at search and rescue folk - forcing police to switch from search and rescue to crowd and looting control.

This is not about capitalism anymore. It is about a highly developed area turned into the a underdeveloped country overnight. There are heroes stealing and devils stealing.

8

Matthew But what if he isn't? What if he is looting food and water for 40 people stuck in a retirement home, and the store being looted is a big chain that has insurance to cover most of its losses?

Then he still has the moral obligation to contact the owner – even if it is a big, well-insured corporation – and offer to pay for what was taken. While I'm sure the company will forgive the debt, that is a decision that they alone can make.

What if he has lost everything he owns and has no prospect of paying anyone for anything for the forseeable future?

Sadly, many people in the country face that situation every day. Why do we make exceptions for some citizens but not for others?

But, what if it's a store with good insurance to cover its losses: should a desperate man really lose any sleep about whether to ask the management to forgive his indebtedness?

Absolutely. And the store owner has an ethical obligation not to file a claim for the amount that was returned by honest citizens.

I’m a little concerned about the way you imply that if someone takes from the "well-insured" that they are left off the hook. It reminds me of an exchange between Jerry Seinfeld and Cosmo Kramer:

"It's a write-off for them."
"How is it a write-off?"
"They just write it off."
"Write it off what?"
"Jerry, all these big companies, they write off everything."
"You don't even know what a write-off is."
"Do you?"
"No, I don't."
"But they do. And they're the ones writing it off."

Insurance is not just “written off” by insurance companies; it is passed along to consumers in higher premiums. When a person steals an item and it has to be replaced by insurance, everyone ends up paying the price.

This just seems so silly.

I agree. I'm baffled that you think ethical obligations should be relaxed merely because someone has suffered through a natural disaster. As a Christian I believe it is my duty to help bear that person’s burden. But that does not mean that they can simply ignore basic morality.

Mumon If it were a matter of life and death the answer would surely, surely be "yes."

What if instead of breaking into a store they broke into your home and took what they needed. Would you still say that they were justified? (If so, please provide your address so that I can point the desperate cases your way.)

9

jchfleetguy News tonight: High school kid steals a school bus and picks up stragglers and ends up somewhere safe. No one else there to help: car thief or hero

I saw that too. Great story. Was the kid a car (or bus) thief? No. He didn’t steal the bus at all. He commandeered a government vehicle and used it to help his fellow citizens.

Folks report looters came and distributed food at the convention center - the only food from any source they had seen.

The people who acquired food to distribute to others should be praised for their actions. And the recipients of the food should feel morally obligated to help pay for what they consumed.

People steal a boat - and use it to move people out of a flooded area.

Did they steal it or temporarily use it for a necessary purpose?

10

I'm baffled that you think ethical obligations should be relaxed merely because someone has suffered through a natural disaster. As a Christian I believe it is my duty to help bear that person’s burden. But that does not mean that they can simply ignore basic morality.

I'm not saying ethical obligations should be relaxed. I'm saying ethical obligations have been changed.

I'm saying someone who needs to loot to survive or to help others survive also has an ethical obligation to do so. You are counseling people to act unethically if you are telling people who can't afford food and water to not take it.

You are reminding me of the genuine moonbats at the Ayn Rand asylum who actually published an editorial condemning the U.S. government for sending aid to the tsunami victims. They later backpedaled and said they didn't really mean it quite the way it sounded.

Perhaps you should sleep on this one and see what you think in the morning.

11

Joe,

I see it took you nine minutes to figure out that the kid was just "commandeering" the school bus.

Should he offer to pay the school district for all the gas he used up? :)

12

Matthew I'm saying someone who needs to loot to survive or to help others survive also has an ethical obligation to do so.

Of course they have an obligation to do what is necessary – within moral limits -- to survive and to help others do the same. I think I made that point clear in the post.

You are counseling people to act unethically if you are telling people who can't afford food and water to not take it.

Anyone who is so truly impoverished that they can’t afford a few days food and water is already a ward of the state (or should be). The government should pay for them. In fact, I don’t have a problem with anyone needing assistance asking churches or charities to pay for what they owe. I think Christians are ethically obligated to pay for what was consumed by those who are truly in such dire straits. That is our duty.

The primary point of the post is that natural disasters do not give us license to steal, kill, or resort to the “law of the jungle.” We should act, as best we can, like good citizens even in demanding situations. Some people may not be willing or able to bear their moral burdens. That is forgivable. But let’s not start making excuses for such behavior. It does nothing but lend to the if-you-“need”-it-take-it attitude that results in citizens – including NOPD officers – filling their shopping baskets up at Wal-Mart and walking away with tons of “free” stuff.

Should he offer to pay the school district for all the gas he used up? :)

Oh, I figure the people on board had already paid enough in taxes to cover a few gallons of diesel fuel. ; )

13

Joe:

If you were back in the military and were sent in evacuate New Orleans and restore order...would you shoot?

If you were there with an NGO attempting to help with evacuation, and carrying a firearm...would you shoot?

14

Some Scriptures would help:

"Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; but if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house" (Proverbs 6:30-31).

Many, if not most, of these looters may have lost everything they own already.

Exodus 22 clearly points out that thieves should not be killed unless they are breaking and entering under cover of darkness. Otherwise, their lives must be spared, and they must make restitution. Areas afflicted by hurricanes routinely have curfews.

One of the thieves on the cross next to Jesus said to the other thief that they deserved death. They did, theologically, but not according to the letter of the Mosaic Law when it addressed theft. Barabbas, who was described as a robber, more than likely deserved death, because he probably killed those he robbed.

15

Bene
If you were back in the military and were sent in evacuate New Orleans and restore order...would you shoot?

Yes, I would. When I joined the Marines (and every time I reenlisted) I swore an oath to defend my country against all enemies “foreign and domestic.” To be honest, I’d have more qualms firing on a reluctant draftee from an enemy nation than I would have on people who are raping and pillaging their own neighbors.

If you were there with an NGO attempting to help with evacuation, and carrying a firearm...would you shoot?

I would abide by the laws of self-defense, shooting anyone who directly threatened my life or the lives of those who I was sent to evacuate. But as a NGO I would lack the Biblically-warranted authority to restore order. That is the job of the government, not of an NGO.

(For what it's worth, I don't like the idea of ever having to take anyone's life. While it might be necessary, it is a duty I'd certainly prefer to avoid.)

16

Then there are going to be a lot of people shot, aren't there?

17

Come on.

Capital punishment is for capital offenses. Breaking into a Circuit City and making off with a television is no more a capital offense in post-Katrina New Orleans than it is in any other city at any other time.

I saw a picture of a guy who had stolen about five bags of tennis shoes from Foot Locker. Would the National Guard have shot him? For years, we conservatives have said that it's crazy to shoot someone over a pair of tennis shoes. Now we're saying it's fine?

I'm a single dad, with four children. Were I in the same situation, with a Winn Dixie across the street with twenty aisles of food that is spoiling anyway, I would be there, snapping up all the bread, granola bars, juice, canned goods, aspirin, bottled water, and beef jerky I could wrap my arms around. And I'm about the biggest law and order guy around. Be ironic indeed if that got me killed someday by some NG "following orders". Amusing even, since it's only hypothetical.

If a thug were trying to assault my girlfriend or my child, well, that's a different question. But some sneakers, or a TV? Absolutely no. Not even a close call.

18

Uh oh.

I just now saw that I'm on the same side of the fence as Larry Lord. Which probably means that either I'm really, really wrong, or that Larry is.

Either way, I think it's safe to say that Joe Carter is in for a long day.

19

OK, Joe, here's a question for you:

You are on a jury that has just convicted a man of stealing a television. The District Attorney asks you to sentence him to the maximum prescribed by law, a year in jail. Would you raise your hand and say, "Can't we just electrocute him?"

20

This isn't just about theft for necessities. As I read this morning's articles - there have been rapes, shots fired at police, shots fired at rescue helicopters... Attempts to alleviate the situation are being hampered by these gangs. I feel incredible compassion for NO, and I know we will be donating to relief efforts, but I have no sympathy for people who use this situation as an excuse to act like thugs and animals. Now they are complaining that it's government's fault that the city is in chaos, that not enough has been done - as if we (or our government) were omnipotent angels instead of humans who have to work things out and need time to do it.

Entitlement mentality strikes again. I've just been through a hurricane cause I lived in a hurricane area and I didn't evacuate. I deserve instant flawless aid and unlimited material compensation... I'm just waiting to see who people will sue. (another form of looting)

And I would say I wanted to see how long it would take for President Bush to get blamed for a natural disaster - but it happened already.

21

Kevin W--When in doubt, it is safest to assume that his Lordship is wrong;)

The situation in NO is one in which order has completely broken down. There are no jails or courts and law enforcement personnel are outnumbered and in many cases, outgunned. It is going to take swift and decisive action to restore order, and unfortunately that will require shooting looters and rioters (and no I wouldn't want to fire those shots, but God forgive me, I probably would). Many in here are right when they say that NO is not like Detroit or Washington DC, but it is because of this that extraordinary measures must be taken.

22

Kevin--When order is restored, I would not want to execute said criminal, but until then...

23

God owns everything; we hold it in trust only. For items necessary for survival, I think God dissolves the trust and transfers ownership directly to those who need the items for survival. If people have the ability to compensate the original owner later, that's fine and well. Anwyay, helping one's self to necessities isn't looting unless they are taken from someone else who also needs them.

Shooting looters (takers of items not necessary for survival) should be a last resort, but in some instances it may restore an order that will save future lives. In such case, the shootings are more akin to the "just war" model than the "punishment" model.

24

This is an extreme situation. I agree with Joe's point that people who take necessities during a time of crisis have a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to return or pay for the items taken. And as Christians, we should help those who are unable to make reimbursement on their own.

Now, is it licit to shoot looters, even those taking food and other necessities? I will say yes and let me explain.

With regards to necessities, grocery stores and other locations that contain necessities represent emergency rations in-place until further gov't assistance can arrive. The rationing and proper distribution of those items is a critical component of survival. The gov't has a duty to prevent looting of those locations and to secure them to provide distribution centers. If a gov't official shows up and says to stop and no one stops, then (since there are no jails, courts, etc.) the only viable alternative is to use force. Considering the number of people running around with stolen weapons and being outnumbered, non-lethal methods probably aren't going to work too well.

Now, what about the looting of non-necessities? Allowing them to being stoled contributes to a culture of lawlessness in the devestated area. Things like shooting at helicopters and boats start to occur. Hospital supplies are stolen. The gov't has a duty to maintain civil order. Again, with no courts or jails, the use of force is acceptable.

On a side note, I believe responsibility for this should be spread around. I don't have a lot of sympathy for those who stayed behind (except for the old and the children forced to stay by their idiot parents). New Orleans started running free buses out of the city to free shelters a couple of days before Katrina hit. Those buses were virtually empty. So, anyone still there, has themselves to blame. I am extremely sympathetic to those who left as required and have now lost everything.

Second, local, state, and Federal agencies have been pathetic. It's nice to see how they react to a real disaster. Anyone with half a brain would have realized in about 12 hours that NO was descending into anarchy. They should have declared martial law once that became evident. The whole Super Dome shelter idea is/was a fiasco. And it seems like no one is in overall authority. The list here, could go on and on.

25

No sympathy for those who stayed behind? Well, that's certainly one viewpoint, but not a Christian one. Yes, people who could have left and stayed behind against advice bear primary responsibility for their own fate. However, the act of mercy is out of love, not as a matter of being deserved. From a Christian standpoint, all humans deserve not to be saved. However, God's steadfast love remains. I think we should show similar love to those who are now victims. That they may have contributed to the greatest degree to their own fate is irrelevant to the question of compassion. The fact that we reap what we sow does not absolve others of the duty to Christian charity toward us.

26

Yes, there is a difference between looting for necessity and looting for greed. I’d be reluctant to shoot due simply to the doubt as to what each looter was up to. Even in the case of the plunderers, it would be far preferable to arrest, or simply stop them.
But the situation in New Orleans right now does not appear to be simply people trying to get what they need. The reports I’ve heard, which are admittedly chaotic and very hard to verify, make it sound like in the breakdown of law and order, some people have used the chaos to prey upon the weak and the defenseless, and are consequently causing more death and misery either directly, or through hampering the efforts of rescuers to do their jobs.
It’s not simply a matter of enforcing extreme punishments on relatively small crimes. The lawlessness is costing lives, and I have no problem with severe punishments to restore civilization until law and order can be restored.

27

Joel, I did not say I have no sympathy (exact words were "I don't have a lot of sympathy") or that we should leave them to die. However, they do bear a large amount of the responsibility for their situation. How much better would the situation be if everyone had left as requested, and we were only trying to rescue the much smaller number left behind by accident? (My understanding was that helicopters detailed to try and plug the dyke were diverted to rescue efforts) How many may have died already because rescue resources are stretched to the breaking point and can't get to everyone? Yes, we have a Christian duty to help as many as we can, but that shouldn't deter us from pointing out that their own actions are the primary reason for problems.

The mayor of NO was virtually begging for people to leave before Katrina struck.

28

You all sound like a bunch of pharisees. Trying to find loopholes in the law that will allow you to break the law while still technically keeping it.

You are also assuming that there is no other way for these people to get what they need. In fact, private individuals, corporations and charities are already in action.
A family in Ascension Parish and Baton Rouge Louisiana provides the following info:
• Baton Rouge churches are opening their doors and becoming refugee shelters, providing food and shelter;
• Baton Rouge Catholic schools are going to take in kids from New Orleans so they won't miss a year or more of school;
• Houston and Texas public schools are apparently considering doing this too;
• Sam's Club, where a relative works, is undertaking a huge effort to help their own employees from New Orleans--letting them sleep on the floors, giving them money, diapers, food, clothing
• The Superdome Crowd--probably largely populated by residents of New Orleans' welfare housing--is being relocated to the Astrodome in Houston
• As one writes, "Everyone also seems to be forgetting walmart as well. The "horrible" "evil" corporation has donated a million dollars and is giving out 400,000 meals a day for free, 1000's of bottles of water, portable showers, the list goes on. Its a shame capitalists are such "evil people" to the media, but are the first to jump in line to help in disasters.

We need to stop splitting hairs and move to action to help in any way we can. These people knew the storm was coming, they were told to evacuate, and they chose to stay. I have seen people with much less than these people had accomplish much more. Look at the number of illegal aliens we have come over from Mexico. If they can make that journey without anything but the clothes on their back into a country that is largely unwilling to take them, these people could have gotten up and moved away to where there are many people that would have gladly helped them out in their time of need. There is no excuse for the lawless action of these people.

29

Joe:

He didn’t steal the bus at all. He commandeered a government vehicle and used it to help his fellow citizens.

You raise an important point here, that being the citizen's empowerment as an officer of the state in certain circumstances. It also comes into play with what is termed "citizen's arrest," and the concept of using deadly force embraces the same principle: In an emergency, and with no civil authorities available, a citizen of the United States may assume and act with civil authority.

30

The situation is more analogous to war. Not shooting looters on sight has led to a breakdown of law and order worthy of a "failed state."

I would make an exception for people taking the necessities of life--water, food, a change of clothing, because there truly seems to be no alternative, not even begging. Yes, they should pay back if and when they can.

But with that exception, looters had been shot (or seized and held, if possible) from the start, there might not have been a loss of control and many more lives would have been saved.

Kudos to Joe, however, for raising the question. It certainly deserves thought.

31

Having watched a bit of the apparently wall-to-wall video coverage (I'm not a big fan of television), I personally have witnessed or heard reported what I believe to be three categories of "lawlessness". Each, I believe, requires a different response.

Basic survival tactics: As others have mentioned here, if I were on-site and lacked basic necessities (food, potable water, medically necessary drugs), and a Wal-Mart store stood abandoned and dark across the street, I would take what I needed. Yes, I would attempt to repay Wal-Mart (or whoever owned the store). My criterion would be my imminent or very likely demise. In my opinion, people seen carting out loads of Fritos and beer are not exactly to this point. For the Fritos lovers, those who have been captured on video doing this will, hopefully, be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law. But capital punishment? No.

Theft: I am amazed by the unvarnished greed of people. Why bother stealing a large-screen TV? Is idiocy truly a bottomless well? Assuming you even have a dwelling to take it to, what in heaven's name are you going to plug it in to? Hopefully, those who have been captured on video doing this will be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law. But capital punishment? No.

Anarchy: For those armed individuals or gangs who attempt to loot hospitals and nursing homes, withering fire from a maximally fortified position seems about right to me. If it is true that evacuation helicopters have been shot at, then they should be accompanied by helicopter gunships, or contain armed personnel able to return fire. I realize that these misguided anarchists might have been different (e.g., dedicated social workers, community activists for children, or environmental volunteers building bird habitat) if the government had just given them more money to increase their self-esteem, or not been exposed to Twinkies and Big Macs when they were children, and that they are all victims of George Bush and his cavalier profiteering from a Texas baseball team. Nevertheless, they are actively and criminally inhibiting the rescue of non-violent citizens who need and deserve care. There are, unfortunately, insufficient anger management resources to provide one-on-one or even group counseling. So, in this case, a bullet will have to do.

32

If Jesus could heal on the sabbath, people can certainly take necessities in a similar fashion.

Plague ignores the fact that aid hasn't made it everywhere. Obviously if the are other alternatives to appropriating food, water and other necessities, that is different. However, communications haven't been exactly ideal and transportation in some areas to get to where help is available hasn't been cemented.

33

"Then there are going to be a lot of people shot, aren't there?"

Well, only if there are a lot of looters.

34

Joe,
I gave an answer similar to yours in another forum earlier today.
Faced with two options, both of which are sinful, necessity dictates choosing the lesser evil and depending upon God's grace (and acting later to correct the effects of your decision). I believe this is the definition of a dilemma.

35

Not that this is an answer, but history is interesting in this regard.

PBS featured an in-depth look at the Johnstown Flood that hit Pennsylvania in 1889. The comparisons with New Orleans are apt.

One thing the film made exceedingly clear was that looters in Johnstown were not tolerated. People found robbing the dead were usually shot on sight, while those who stole from wrecked retail establishments and homes were arrested, with most of them eventually hanged or shot.

The one thing that came out of that film was that looting was subject to capital punishment, and that punishment was meted out swiftly and surely.

36

A couple more comments:

"They [some NOPD officers who surrendered their badges] indicated that they had lost everything and didn't feel that it was worth them going back to take fire from looters and losing their lives," Col. Henry Whitehorn [Chief, LA State Police] said.

"Tourist Debbie Durso of Washington, Mich., said she asked a police officer for assistance and his response was, "'Go to hell — it's every man for himself."'

Years, decades, of corruption are revealed in the rotten infrastructure and pathetic planning in and by the city of New Orleans.

"They don't have a clue what's going on down there," New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin (search) told WWL-AM Thursday night. "Excuse my French everybody in America, but I am pissed."

"'I need reinforcements, I need troops, man. I need 500 buses,' Nagin said in a television interview Friday morning. 'Get every dog-gone Greyhound bus line in the country and get that [expletive] moving to New Orleans ... This is a major, major, major deal. I can't emphasize that enough.'"

Katrina smacked NO on 8/28. Here's what "Mayor" Nagin had to say then:
"FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 27, 2005
Mayor Nagin Urges Citizens to Prepare For Hurricane Katrina
(New Orleans, LA)

In response to the potential threat of Hurricane Katrina, Mayor C. Ray Nagin is urging all citizens to begin preparations now for the coming storm. Mayor Nagin will hold the next press briefing at 5 p.m. today in the Mayor’s Press Room, second floor of City Hall.

'Although the track could change, forecasters believe Hurricane Katrina will affect New Orleans,' said Mayor Nagin. 'We may call for a voluntary evacuation later this afternoon or tomorrow morning to coincide with the instatement of contraflow. This will give people more options to leave the area. However, citizens need to begin preparing now so they will be ready to leave when necessary. Do everything to prepare for a regular hurricane, but treat this one differently because it is headed our way. This is not a test.' [...] Citizens are advised to:
• Fill their cars with gas. Tolls have been suspended on roadways.
• Remove potential debris from their yards (including lawn furniture, potted plants, loose tree branches, etc.)
• Board windows and glass doors
• Make sure that nearby catch basins are clear of leaves or trash
• Stock up on bottled water, batteries, and non-perishable food items
• Check on family, friends and neighbors, especially the elderly, to make sure everyone has an evacuation plan
• Make provisions for pets. Shelters and many hotels do not accept pets."

"Mayor" Nagin, why you squallin' now???

37

There is one thing I haven't seen addressed (concerning the type of people that stayed).

How many were homeless to start with? (How many homeless are mentally impaired or ill - and not able to make an informed choice about leaving or staying?)

And as far as shooting people for stealing food in order to live - we are here, in our "safe" homes, in front of our computers - would Jesus condemn them? Or would He look at us and tell us, "Let him who is without sin fire the first shot."

38

Kevin W Capital punishment is for capital offenses.

I agree completely. But we are not talking about capital punishment. If I put a gun to my head and pull the trigger it’s a case of suicide, not “capital punishment.” If I shoot a enemy in battle, I do so because we are at war, not because of “capital punishment.”
Punishment is when an action is required to compensate for a crime. I’m not saying that looters need to be shot in order to “punish” them. I’m saying it is a necessary step to restore order.

Joel For items necessary for survival, I think God dissolves the trust and transfers ownership directly to those who need the items for survival.

There are certain items such as food and water that are always necessities. Are you saying that God transfers ownership to us directly so that we can always take what we need to survive?

If Jesus could heal on the sabbath, people can certainly take necessities in a similar fashion.

So we can violate the commandment not to steal if we are only taking “necessities?” I’m not sure that view can be squared with the Bible, Joel.

Ellen And as far as shooting people for stealing food in order to live - we are here, in our "safe" homes, in front of our computers - would Jesus condemn them?

I must have missed that comment. Who is advocating shooting people who are taking food?

39

Second, it makes no difference whether the item is a loaf of bread or a big-screen TV, when we take property that does not belong to us we committing theft. Our need for an item – even if it is essential for our survival -- has no bearing on either the criminality or the morality of the action. Before you disagree, ask yourself this question: if a person in Detroit needed food or medicine as much as someone in New Orleans, would we look the other way while they broke into Wal-Mart and took what they needed?

Aye but Detroit is not suffering from a total breakdown of civilization (although it may have looked like it until we were reminded what that really looks like now). The goods being looted will, if not used, become garabage. The food will not be of any use to anyone two months from now when the water is finally gone. Yes a reasonable line can be drawn at TV's (although even there, some of those people are literally in the dark...is it wrong of them to take a TV & generator to get some information?...the people in the Superdome were probably going crazy with boredom & tension...in such extreme cases non-necessities like books, games, TV/radios, even liquor may legitimately be needed). Order, though, is necessary to establish because in a 'anything goes' environment people will soon start killing each other and the weak will be victimized. I wouldn't shoot looters but I think it is justified to shoot looters who refuse to coorporate with the establishment of order.

BTW, I read that the police department there has been told to siphoen gas out of abandoned cars since there's no fuel for their own vehicles. Isn't this taking someone else's property as well? Should the police be required to write down the plate numbers of vehicles they take gas from and then send the registered owners a check for $3.45/gal once everything is back to normal? BTW, there was also a report a few nights ago that the police were told they were 'on their own' in regards to finding food, sleeping areas and their other personal needs. In other words, for the time being they too would have to take whatever food they could find.

Just I'm clear on what you are saying, do you believe that the person does not have a moral obligation to make a good faith effort to repay the owner for what they took in their time of need?

I'm really not sure about this. The food sitting in many of the stores there is now technically garabage. It probably cannot even legally be sold even if all the water was drained away magically in an instant. While it's all well and good to say this I think honestly I and most people would feel no moral compulsion to track down the store owner three months later and give him $50. If I was hungry and stole food out of a dumpster in back of his store do I really have an obligation to pay him for it? Granted the difference is that the store owner didn't want to throw the food out but I didn't force that choice upon him, nature did. Just to be clear about the nature of what has happened, here is a good article on what happens to a home/building when it is submerged in water:
http://www.slate.com/id/2125351/?nav=navoa

This isn't a matter of just waiting until the water is drained. Much of the city will need to be demolished. Many of these stores that you see still standing on the news are, sadly, as destroyed as if they had been burned to the ground.

I think Joe and I agree for the most part here. Garabage can be taken when civilization is gone to preserve and save life...or even to make life somewhat liveable. I recall reports about workers at the WTC taking cigeareets from the wreckage of the newspaper shops as they dug out the bodies & rubble. I don't think their act was immoral or unethical. Force, however, can be used to restore and preserve order in extreme situations and that means a person shouldn't be shoot for looting a loaf of bread or even a TV but may be shot for refusing to obey an order to stop.

I also think we need to be honest when we judge the actions of people here. Quite frankly if I was there I too would break open the pharmacy and try to get some insulin for my mother & if I also helped myself to a candy bar or some chips I won't feel guilty about it.

You are reminding me of the genuine moonbats at the Ayn Rand asylum who actually published an editorial condemning the U.S. government for sending aid to the tsunami victims. They later backpedaled and said they didn't really mean it quite the way it sounded.

Actually I recall Rand had an essay once on 'lifeboat ethics'....what is ethical in an extreme scenero such as private property when you're trapped in a lifeboat. Her conclusion was, surprisingly, that life was the greater good and as such other ethical obligations change in such extreme sceneros but return to normal when the emergancy passes. This is quite reasonable since one has to look carefully at ethical obligations. You have an obligation, for example, to follow traffic laws because they protect the lives of others. That obligation, though, may disappear when the city is destroyed and you're trying to get a sick person to safety. The underlying obligation, though, remains the same; to respect the lives and happiness of your fellow human beigns.

40

So we can violate the commandment not to steal if we are only taking “necessities?” I’m not sure that view can be squared with the Bible, Joel.

Indeed, how to judge necessities is another matter. Fritos may seem like a non-necessity to us but consider that in such a situation they are a pretty good food stuff. They don't easily spoil. They don't require cooking or preparation which is pretty hard when you're cut off from civilization and standing in two-three feet of water.

As you know the commandments are subject to quite a few rounds of intrepretation. Thou shall not steal requires one first to establish that the item belongs to someone else and they have rightful title to it. Garabage, technically, belongs to the gov't (it's really compicated but that's what the courts have ruled) or no one. Hence is it theft?

41

Joe makes a good point when he mentions martial law and draws the line between "the lawful and the anarchists."

I'm not sure about all the legal details of martial law, but if it really is the replacement of the current government with a special more strict "rule by 'I say so'", then perhaps we should look at the situation along the axis of the lawful and the anarchists.

Martial law replaces some rights, does it replace property rights? Could it be assumed that anything inside of the New Orleans martial law zone no longer belongs to its owner, all property belongs to "the lawful", and any agent of the lawful (i.e, a high school student driving a bus) may use that property in the communal goal of restoring order?

42

When reading accounts of the situation I couldn't help but to compare it to what the Iraqis have experienced since the fall of Baghdad and the breakdown of civil order there. And keep in mind that I'm for the Iraq war, this is not an anti-military screed.

But I thought the way we conducted post-war was poorly planned and executed, but now I guess it makes sense. We apparently aren't capable of even handling the problem when it occurs on our own soil, much less in another country. What is the outcome going to be if there are civilian "casualties" as the result of military intervention in this situation at home? The other thing is that we are going to solve the situation apparently by flooding the area with troops. If that is the solution to the problem, then why didn't we do that in Iraq?

43

Joe,

If a family is trapped in a snowstorm in the dead of winter near my family's mountain cabin, they damn well better break into our cabin and take what they need. Otherwise, they are 1) committing suicide, which is immoral; 2) committing idolatry by placing property as a higher value than human life, which is also idolatry. Appropriating necessities for SURVIVAL is entirely the equivalent of Jesus healing on the Sabbath. To hell with the Ten Commandments if they mean denying the mercy offered by Christ in enactment of "love of God and love of neighbor." What good does obeying the law do if in the result is to trample on everything Christ taught about compassion and love? Those advocating for the immorality of taking food for survival are Pharisees at their worst. (The Pharisees did have good qualities, after all.) Again, property is owned by God, not by us. We are merely the trustees. Once there is a moral imperative for our property to be used by another for their very survival, God effectively terminates us as trustees and transfers the property to new trustees.

Taking food anytime for survival? Yes, if it is similar to my "cabin in the snowstorm" example. If the matter is of extreme urgency under catastrophic situations, then yes, absolutely. Hallelujah, amen.

44

Intersting comments everyone. It's been a bad week here in the good ol' U S of A. One observation if I may. It seems that most here are assuming all of these looters are ordinary good people turned bad because of a bad situation. I would think that though that might be the case for some, that there was a large criminal element present in New Orleans before the flooding; some probably even wanted by the law. I suspect many of these folk would be the lovely individuals trying to capitalize on the disaster, or harm those weaker among them. Criminals are opportunists by nature. (aside from those desperate for food and the like, of course). I'm with Joe, they've got to be stopped for the good of the larger citizenry. Strangely, I have a pretty good amount of faith that the boots on the ground will be pretty discerning about using deadly force. I certainly hope I'm not wrong.

45

Joe, your definition of "theft" is not quite right. Theft is always wrong. However, this week, taking food and water from a New Orleans 7-11 is not theft. From the Catholic Encyclopedia: Theft is the secret taking of another's property against the reasonable will of that other. Observe the word "reasonable". It's important.

If I had a store full of food and water in New Orleans, I'd want those people to have it. Anything else would be unreasonable. Go ahead, help yourself. I'm not there to collect your money, and the cash register isn't working anyway. Now, you do still owe me for it, but you know what? It's a small debt, and a big hassle to pay me back, so don't bother. Pay it forward instead.

If, on the other hand, my store is full of big-screen TVs, well, it's reasonable for me to want to keep those.

Theft is always wrong. The people who are taking goods for survival are not stealing. The people looting the TV sets are.

46

OK, just so I understand you:

If a guy steals a TV set in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, he should go to jail.

If a guy steals bread and peanut butter in New Orleans, Louisiana, he should be shot and killed.

Is that it?

47

Kevin,

Let me reword those just a bit:

If a guy steals a TV set in Baton Rouge he is adding a criminal element to an otherwise normal situation and should be apprehended and sent to jail.

If a guy steals bread and peanut butter in New Orleans he should be treated (just as I said) as a desperate, but otherwise law-abiding citizen who is attempting to survive.

If a guy steals a Sony Trinitron or a 12 gauge shotgun in New Orleans he is aiding and abetting a state of anarchy and should be shot if he refuses to submit to the proper authorities.

By the way, why would you be confused about me thinking that a person who takes bread and peanut butter shoudl be "shot and killed." What part of my post left you with that impression?

48

Joe made frequent reference to OT law.

Joe, if you're going to revert to pre-grace regs, perhaps you should include those addressing treatment of refugees and the poor as well. Also, since you're apparently comfortable adapting OT regs to current situations, you might also adapt the concept of jubilee year debt forgiveness to this situation.

However, Joe also wrote: "Justice requires that we give both groups what they deserve."

Well, that explains it. Yes, justice requires that we give (and get) what they (we) deserve. But Christians are called not to give justice, but compassion and forgiveness. I know, love doesn't make the trains run on time, but that's not the point, is it.

49

Wow:

I know that is a stupid way to open a comment, and this comment is going to be tangential (at best). So, skip it if you're an on-topic kinda guy. I quote from LGF, quoting from Democratic Underground (go check out the original if you aren't bothered by getting your mind dirty):

demgurl
(1000 posts)

Fri Sep-02-05 01:01 PM
Original message
I did not stop to help a * supporter today. I had no idea how deeply my hate for that man ran. My lack of an interaction, with a * supporter is still haunting me a couple of hours later. I was on my [way?] home and was on the ramp getting off the highway. I saw a mini-van on the side of the road. There was a lady standing next to the van and in her arms she held her child. I can only assume her mini-van had broken down. I don’t know, perhaps with so many gad [sic] stations being out of gas, she had also run out. I slowed down and started to pull over to offer her a ride. At the very last second I noticed a “W” sticker on the back of her vehicle and I sped up and drove off [...]

The left in this country (the world, actually) never ceases to astonish me. The hate is absolutely incredible. Yet they never stop accusing others of hate. Freud, the poor addled old coke addict, had a good word for it: projection.

Moreover, she probably got her education (and indoctrination) in a school where self-esteem was more important than English.

50

George 2 Joe made frequent reference to OT law.

Um, I did? Where? In my mention of the Ten Commandments? Did I miss the passage in the NT where it says that they were repealled?

Joe, if you're going to revert to pre-grace regs, perhaps you should include those addressing treatment of refugees and the poor as well.

Pre-grace regs? I’m not sure if I understand what you are saying. Now that we are under grace are we allowed to steal?

Well, that explains it. Yes, justice requires that we give (and get) what they (we) deserve. But Christians are called not to give justice, but compassion and forgiveness. I know, love doesn't make the trains run on time, but that's not the point, is it.

No, actually it isn’t. Justice is a function of the state, not of individual Christians. We are called to be compassionate and forgive but the State is mandated to protect and provide order.

51

Joe writes: Did I miss the passage in the NT where it says that they were repealled?

I guess you did: Start with Rom 6.14 and conclude with 10.4: "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."

You write: "I’m not sure if I understand what you are saying. Now that we are under grace are we allowed to steal?" What I was saying: OT regs directed compassion for refugees and poor. If you insist on applying OT law, you should apply all of it, not just what you like. As for being allowed to steal: you are no more allowed to steal (or commandeer) than, say, Jesus' disciples would be allowed to break the Sabbath.

You write that "We are called to be compassionate and forgive but the State is mandated to protect and provide order." True. And we as citizens of the US are empowered to help decide how that shall be done. I'm sure that in other discussions you would agree that we have a right to apply our Christian ethics to our government. If not, why would OT ethics be more acceptable?

52

Joe,

I have been saying for a while on my blog that we need to get tougher with these looters. Perhaps the best thing we could do would be to give a few dozen or hundred of these guys, once captured, a very public firing squad without a trial. If we broadcast that sort of thing into LA, NYC and other areas, it might be enough to dissuade other, like-minded people from engaging in things like race riots in the future.

53

blestwithsons writes: And I would say I wanted to see how long it would take for President Bush to get blamed for a natural disaster – but it happened already.

Yes. And some on the Christian Right are saying that New Orleans is just getting what it deserves because of a Gay/Lesbian celebration that was to take place this weekend. What's your point?

blestwithsons writes: Entitlement mentality strikes again. I've just been through a hurricane cause I lived in a hurricane area and I didn't evacuate. I deserve instant flawless aid and unlimited material compensation…

No mention that no one tried to help those without money or cars get out of the city. Where were the Christian churches then?

I have no idea how you can be so heartless in the face of human suffering. That's not how I read the New Testament.

54

MikeT writes:

I have been saying for a while on my blog that we need to get tougher with these looters. Perhaps the best thing we could do would be to give a few dozen or hundred of these guys, once captured, a very public firing squad without a trial. If we broadcast that sort of thing into LA, NYC and other areas, it might be enough to dissuade other, like-minded people from engaging in things like race riots in the future.

It's a shame that the wonderful technology of the web provides such a visible forum for people like you, Mike. I'm sure you are willing to be judge, jury, and videographer as well for the public executioin of one hundred human beings. Seems like you'd be happy with Sharia law, perhaps the Taliban would appeal to you, or Saudi Arabia. So put on your spurs and six guns and ride your horse somewhere else.

55

People taking food, even Fritos (who am I to judge?) I have no problem with. People taking clothing within reason, diapers, or other necessities, ditto. How could one deny them? Let questions of restitution until a later time and individual consciences. These actions are not a breakdown in the social order. The cabin in the snow turns into a great blessing.

People looting for profit, or committing violent acts against others must be stopped. They threaten the social order. If order unravels and anarchy (a nightmarish, terror-filled state) prevails, many more innocents will die, either directly or indirectly from the actions of the lawless. The math is simple. Put your finger not in the dike, little Dutch boy, but around the trigger, if you want to stay chaos.

And Joe, though I already have ones of my own, the first stop I make in that Wal-mart is the sporting goods dept. for a 9mm auto and a short-barreled crowd-control 12ga., with plenty of ammo I can carry on my person. If I'm going to keep the barbarians from the gate, I might have to use violence. I have no problem putting a couple of rounds into a group of men beating or raping someone. Of course, I'll be returning the firearms to Sam later.

Practical law enforcement (the professionals we contract with to keep us safe) has temporarily vanished. Citizens must choose on what side of the law they will stand.

Shooting those committing violence against innocents: justified.
Shotting those impeding rescue operations (firing at choppers, etc.), after a warning to drop weapons: justified.
Shooting those lawless gangs invading hospitals to get to the drug lockers, chasing frightened patients and doctors up to upper floors: justified.

One body hung over the door of the Wal-mart will stop the looting in the immediate area damn quickly.

56

Just out of curiosity, I just counted the number of times the word "TV" appears on this page. I got fifteen, give or take a couple, which strikes me as remarkable. Why should using deadly force to protect TV sets be such a high priority for "the state" (whether that means the local police, the military, or whoever happens to own those TV sets and has a weapon), given that other folks are simply dropping dead on the streets?

Sure, stealing is wrong. Granted. But who could possibly think that keeping people from stealing TVs is the best use of limited humanitarian resources at the moment? Wouldn't it make more sense to let the #$%& Sony Trinitrons (to quote Joe) go with the coat, as it were, and try to save as many lives as possible?

If it makes you feel good, sure, criticize the looters for being criminals, animals, anarchists, enemies of civilization, and whatever else. Say they ought to be strung up or put in front of a firing squad. But let's do that later, OK? Honestly, right now, I'd rather have my tax dollars spent on figuring out a way to get food and water to people who need it, than on trying to defend the contents of some Circuit City.

57

"The Christian tradition has dealt with the question of “Whether it is lawful to steal through stress of need?” In the situation of extreme need, such as that of Jean Valjean of Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables, Thomas Aquinas writes, “If the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another’s property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery.”

This judgment is made based on a view of property rights that is not absolute, but rather limited by the Christian concept of stewardship. Aquinas states, “Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need.” The prerogative of individual prudence of how to manage and distrubute one’s own goods can be trumped by the extreme and urgent need of another person."

http://www.acton.org/blog/index.html?/archives/450-Lootin-in-Louisiana.html

http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/SS/SS066.html#SSQ66A7THEP1

http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/09/disaster_ethics.html

58

I'll confess to skipping over many of the comments here, and I sincerely hope I don't offend by repeating any of you fine folks, or bringing up too many points that have already been fleshed out.

Joe, I'm behind you on this one. Haley Barbour said that looters are, in his estimation, of the same cloth as grave robbers, and as such should be dealt with "ruthlessly." Can't say I can add much to that analogy--too often in such a tragedy as this, it's true.

It was customary near the beginning of the 20th century to shoot looters dead. Looting wasn't much of a problem then.

To those who would make exceptions for "necessities," why couldn't someone rob a bank in order to stop forclosure on their home? Why does anyone pay for medical care? It's because the law of God commands that we don't take what is not lawfully ours. This culture of relativism has so permeated even the church that the simplest of commandments gets twisted to fit someone's needs.

I do believe that businesses containing necessities should be opened by the proper authorities, those with the means to distribute the needed materials within.

I also think that one who thinks of his own desires for material posessions so much that he is willing to capitalize on such a catastrophe as this is not fit to be a part of a civilized society.

But I sincerely believe that the most profound argument in favor of shooting looters is the fact that lives are almost certainly lost when decent, law abiding citizens stay in harm's way for fear of losing their posessions not to the storm, but to their fellow man. In that light, every looter undeniably has blood on his hands, as he is a part of the "looting culture" that is a significant concern to every evacuee. Spilling the blood of a few dozen looters would be a miniscule price for society to pay to restore order in the wake of this disaster (and those disasters yet to come).

59

Scott Renner makes a great point. When it comes to survival, if I owned a grocery store in NO and people broke in for food & water in this unexpected situation it would be more wrong for me to deny that life-sustaining material. If I was there on the scene - I had better open the doors and tell everyone where the building is so they go get the food. If I wasn't there and they broke in, how could I be upset about my loss of property when they were faced with loss of life? Keep in mind that many people in NO had no contact with the outside world, they didn't know if the aid was coming in and when.
That's food and water. Take it - no problem.

For electronics, etc. In a situation as deteriorated as this, the question is moot. Who cares? the police got bigger fish to fry. They aren't going to be able to carry those TV's out when they are evacuated anyway. It's wrong, but not worth the authorities time to pursue. Maybe a bean bag gun used in riot control would be an appropriate "spanking" for them. Quick and easy and wouldn't distract police from other urgent needs for too long.

The real problem were not 'looters'. That word causes confusion in the debate. The real problem were those shooting at the aid workers and doctors and firefighters. The people who overturned a bus. The people who possibly started fires. They may have also been among those looting, but the looting's not the issue. If I was in the Guard or police and encountered people like this, I would not think twice about shooting them. The reason: they caused other deaths because they slowed down the response to the people in need. ALL the anger should be directed at those people alone, not at the government and all the people on the scene putting their own lives in danger to help.

60

Sweet Jeez Louise (pardon the French), I just got Insta-lanched!

"What Role Did President Bush Play in the New Orleans Nightmare?"

61

Getting back to the point of Christian response vs. private property - which is sometimes at odds. Ultimately, we don't own what we have. God owns it. I agree that from the food looter's perspect, the ultimate perfect action would be to 'borrow' the food and pay the owner back later.
But let's ask the reverse question too. Would it be immoral for the owner to withhold the food in this case? I'd say yes. I also think God would be more upset with the stingy owner than with a desperate food looter, even if he didn't intend to pay back.
I dare say that also applies to starving people around the world and anyone in America or Europe or anyplace where we are better off who doesn't lift a finger to help the desolate. God, who creates human life, also gave us enough resources to go around. Starving people in the world is not a resource problem, it's a sin problem.

62

Joe Carter:

What if instead of breaking into a store they broke into your home and took what they needed. Would you still say that they were justified? (If so, please provide your address so that I can point the desperate cases your way.)

I'd have to ask my wife first, but I would hope that our response would be that of the Hassidic Rabbi, who, on encountering a burglar taking some expensive item from his home back in the old country, told the crook, "Make sure you get a good price for that! It cost me 20 ducats!"

63

"One body hung over the door of the Wal-mart will stop the looting in the immediate area damn quickly."

I'm sorry, I was looking for this place where evangelical Christians hang out but I seem to have stumbled into a Deathwish 3 fan site.

I do admire the Jimmy Page soundtrack but Bronson's a bit wooden, you must admit.

64

uh oh - I am in trouble. Larry's right. And Mumon

Watched "Les Miserables" last night. Wasn't the response of the Bishop's to the theft of his silverware correct. Or am I just an idealist?

65

I get a snark from Larry?

I must be doing something right.

Pacifism and Christianity are not inextricably intertwined in every circumstance.

66

If the crime is looting, then shooting the looters isn't (Christian) justice, since the punishment must fit the crime. Trying to justify shooting someone for stealing is causing all sorts of "what-if" scenarios that, IMHO, cause the actual problem to be obscured.

I think the crime of the looters is more serious, of which looting is only a symptom -- the crime of treason. And if their actions are treasonous, then shooting is certainly warranted.

YMMV.

67

NBR,

How is the government going to restore law and order when there are violent looters running around the city? The government can bring to bear a great deal of manpower if it calls up a few thousand more reservists and National Guard. Remember, they can tap NG units from around the country if necessary.

There is a good reason for doing it though. If they go through and shoot several hundred looters systematically, that might be enough of "an example" to begin drastically reducing the violent crime which is right now out of control. Showing that you're deadly serious in a time of crisis can make these hoodlums think twice about whether law and order really is gone. In fact, knowing that the police and the military don't have to go through the traditional, politically correct channels to deal with them now might be enough to get these people to stop.

68

The local paper ran an article about a lady who was visiting and got trapped down in New Orleans. According to her story, right after the storm went through and the hotel began to flood, thugs started going from room to room breaking down doors. She heard screams and gunshots. She managed to make it to the Superdome where things were just as bad. She said she spent most of her time running with the crowd from one set of gunshots and screaming to another. However, when the NG finally arrived, with guns pointed, her reaction was "She felt like a prisoner." Now call me nuts, but I would be happy to see anyone who was there to restore order.

However, I think the story shows that the anarchy started immediately and wasn't immediately due to the desparate situation.

Can a city gov't get anymore stupid when they have 200+ school buses to haul people out, yet, they let them sit and get flooded?

Also, can the race baiters please just go away.

69

I think the crime of the looters is more serious, of which looting is only a symptom -- the crime of treason. And if their actions are treasonous, then shooting is certainly warranted.

I have no idea what wrf is talking about here. The US Constitution gives a very restricted definition of treason...the only crime it bothers to actually define and even sets a high standard of proof for it.

70

Incidentally, not only were looters shot after the 1900 hurricane that destroyed Galveston, the largest city in Texas, but photographers were shot as well.

71

"On the other hand, for a police officer or National Guardsman to shoot unarmed looters in defense of property looks more like an extra-judicial execution. "

I don't think shooting looters on sight is entirely a "defense of property" so much as a defense of law and order and a defense against chaos. Does that change the argument? Perhaps, but the concept of shooting looters has always been about more than protecting one person's property from thieves and more about maintaining order during a time in which order saves lives and society.

Kalroy

72

Kalroy, I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Judge Roy Bean. When asked why he hung folks for stealing horses, he replied, "We don't hang people for stealing a horse, we hang them so other horses don't get stolen."

73

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/08/katrina.web.scams.ap/index.html

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Internet sites purporting to be charities related to Hurricane Katrina have been popping up faster than the FBI can look at them, and many appear to be fraudulent, the head of the FBI's cyber division said Thursday."

Of course, the quickest way to end this unlawful chaotic process is simply to blow the brains out of the first couple scammers we catch and put videos of the executions on the Internet.

Right?

74

Larry: Of course, the quickest way to end this unlawful chaotic process is simply to blow the brains out of the first couple scammers we catch and put videos of the executions on the Internet.

I know it's off-topic, but just for the heck of it I'll say "Yes, right." Just so I can lead into a thought I had about the death penalty recently.

Remember that I have taken a position against the death penalty in the U.S. today, but if we have to have it, maybe we shouldn't be all discreet and sweet about it. Instead of lethal injection or even semi-private electrocutions, maybe we should go back to hangings in the public square or the guillotine (sp?). If we argue that the death penalty acts as a deterrent, wouldn't it be a more effective deterrent if we did it out in the open? Publicize to sex offenders who kill what will happen to them if they are caught. Let them see it up close.
Plus, it will force all of us to come face to face with the death penalty and whether we want to continue to support it, instead of nice safe clean lethal injections.

75

http://www.nola.com/newslogs/breakingtp/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/2005_09.html#078200

"Three Texas truck drivers under contract with the federal government to bring in storm relief supplies for Plaquemines Parish have been arrested for allegedly looting toys, dolls, women’s lingerie and other merchandise from a Belle Chasse Family Dollar store, authorities said. Booked late Wednesday night with one count each of looting were Gerald W. Thomas, 47, of Tyler, Texas; Thomas Sherman, 39, also of Tyler; and Lasharon Lemons, 36, of Dallas, said Major John Marie with the Plaquemines Parish Sheriff’s Office."

What a waste of police resources to book these chaos-producing thieves!

They should be strapped to the hoods of their trucks and then the trucks ignited for all to see. That'll stop the shenanigans.

76

Some friends told me about this site, and now i'm glad they told me about it. black girls on their mission: http://www.32red.com , thins that excited you at 14

77

Some friends told me about this site, and now i'm glad they told me about it. black girls on their mission: http://www.32red.com , thins that excited you at 14

78

manifolds Austin alongside deliciously.recordings repentance thoroughfares avenue Angus sweepers labyrinth secret blackjack pizza secret blackjack pizza http://www.realantiques.net/blackjack-pizza.html http://www.realantiques.net/blackjack-pizza.html remonstration