Looting in New Orleans

[PUGalicious]

Come on, you know we are dealing with unusual and extraordinary times.

Stop taking comments that are being made currently (while our citizens just suffering the worst imaginable circumstances), as the way most of us think on a daily basis.

We are all thoroughly disgusted and sickened by what is going on - you know all of us are reacting to the horrors that we are seeing day and night. These victimes just survived a CAT 5 hurricane, lost everything and now are getting shot and raped....

It's not a time to debate the NRA or due process - it's time to help these people and if some of us are really pissed off at people who are preventing these poor people from getting help because the emergency personnel are being shot at - so be it.

Your arguments are valid but take it in the way it is delivered, out of anger and frustration towards these evil people.

You know we aren't advocating walking downtown OKC and shooting people - come on - get real.

With all due respect, Karried, the problem is when the anger and frustration builds to animus and a mob mentality where rational, sane thought is suspended and replaced with a blood-thirsty lust to kick some ass.

Many of the comments here are representative of a mob mentality less concerned with fairness and more concerned with "getting the bad guys," whether or not we know they are really bad.

No where did I say not to restore order. No where did I say not to take care (or take out) the shooters. No where did I say to let the rapists run wild. If you recall, the thread started with "shoot the looters." The most severe of punishments is not the answer to common theives or people simply trying to survive.

My hope is that cooler heads will prevail. That's my ultimate point. A mob mentality is dangerous. Stress often brings to the surface the way people really feel. It's some of those issues that I have challenged.

[PUGalicious]

Hey, I didn't say totear up the bill of rights.

The view you have promoted suggests otherwise.

You are right. Shoot em. I mean, shoot em is the most severe isn't it?

Only if you can say with 100% certainty they are guilty of the crime accused and can stand before God to justify your decision to shoot to kill.

Need I say more? I'm glad you feel the same way too.

I doubt we feel the same way. I support lethal force only to stop an imminent lethal threat, not as a way to simply restore order.

Go tell the looters and snipers that.

Not all the looters are shooters or snipers or rapists. That's the point you seem to consistently and conveniently choose to ignore.

Then you haven't relaxed in your whole life time because all this has been going on all around the world for a very long time. Not just New Orleans.

You are correct there. As a Christian, I cannot ignore the suffering of others. It often saddens me that the only time we as Americans care is if it's happening in our own backyard.

Your right. Shoot em

That's the Saddam Hussein way of quelling "disorder." Is that the standard we're living by now?

[Didaskalos]

I actually believe strongly in due process. However, "civilized" society no longer exists in New Orleans. People are being hurt down there by bands of misfits wreaking havoc on people who are just trying to live. I don't believe every criminal sould be shot. I've never said that, so don't direct your preaching at me.

My feelings on this are that if someone is caught in the act of shooting at innocents or raping people, they should be shot. That's not a simple accusation. It's being caught. There is absolutely no excuse for their behavior. If they want to hinder the relief, then get them out of the way. The poor police have enough to deal with already.

Granted but your ... "but, but, but - what about Due process" was a stab at my earlier postings regarding Due Process (all of which had to due to looting - not rape or murder). It is others on this thread and presumably you as well based on the 'but, but, but' reply that have made that association.

Never once have I suggested that a person currently murdering or raping be allowed to do so under protection of our law. It is an absurd correlation and shows the digression of a reasonable conversation of the topic.

[Dungeon Master]

Granted but your ... "but, but, but - what about Due process" was a stab at my earlier postings regarding Due Process (all of which had to due to looting - not rape or murder). It is others on this thread and presumably you as well based on the 'but, but, but' reply that have made that association.

Never once have I suggested that a person currently murdering or raping be allowed to do so under protection of our law. It is an absurd correlation and shows the digression of a reasonable conversation of the topic.

But, But, But, I strongly agree with Sweetdaisy.
Get them out of the way. Shoot em.

If I saw one of those thugs raping you or shooting at you, would you want me to shoot them or just let them carry on with their business with you?
(this is where we all wisper - shoot them)

That's what I thought.

[PUGalicious]

But, But, But, I strongly agree with Sweetdaisy.
Get them out of the way. Shoot em.

If I saw one of those thugs raping you or shooting at you, would you want me to shoot them or just let them carry on with their business with you?
(this is where we all wisper - shoot them)

That's what I thought.

You continue to miss the fundamental point by repeatedly raising straw man arguments. Your attempts to try to "trap" the other side with absurdity shows how weak your defense of the "shoot first" position is.

[Dungeon Master]

You continue to miss the fundamental point by repeatedly raising straw man arguments. Your attempts to try to "trap" the other side with absurdity shows how weak your defense of the "shoot first" position is.

And you continue to avoid answering the question.

[Didaskalos]

We are all thoroughly disgusted and sickened by what is going on - you know all of us are reacting to the horrors that we are seeing day and night. These victimes just survived a CAT 5 hurricane, lost everything and now are getting shot and raped....

Exactly, we are ALL thoroughly disgusted and sickened. No one is desiring that the victimised pay any more price. I just hope we don't make victims out of the innocent in the process. That is my point. I will not shed a tear for the murderist or rapist that gets killed but I am certain they are not the only one's who might be shot in a 'restore order at all costs' response. I, for one, am concerned about those.

A sniper ( read that again, a freakin sniper) prevented a hospital from being evacuated after doctors carried patients up nine floors of stairs... they had to turn around and go back in - patients later died.

And I would never suggest that this kind of threat should not be dealt with using deadly force.

Stop taking comments that are being made currently (while our citizens just suffering the worst imaginable circumstances), as the way most of us think on a daily basis.

Stop taking comments about the significance of due process as condoning all acts of violence.

Your arguments are valid but take it in the way it is delivered, out of anger and frustration towards these evil people.

It is not the anger at the evil people that is being challenged. It is the attitude previously expressed that if you are there, you are automatically a lawbreaker and deserve to be shot if you try to get some food or water. That was where the debate regarding a reasonable response and due process began. As it was expressed previously, it seems more than just mere frustration at the "evil people".

we are venting and reacting with feelings of helplessness and rage toward people who are preventing help getting to these sick disadvantaged people.

Because my (our) response is different than yours, we desire that those in need of help not receive it because I (we) are more concerned for the protection of the evil doers? We all desire the best for those in New Orleans but the topic of this thread began with "shoot the looters" and the question was raised about those who might be taking what they need for survival. It was stated that those should be shot. I still believe that is an unreasonable response as many might not be selfishly trying to gain (and my challenge had nothting to do with those shooting and raping others). I also hope and pray for the innocent caught in the crossfires. It just seems to me in the day and age, concern for the collateral damage is put aside in a rush to stamp out evil through violence.

[Didaskalos]

But, But, But, I strongly agree with Sweetdaisy.
Get them out of the way. Shoot em.

If I saw one of those thugs raping you or shooting at you, would you want me to shoot them or just let them carry on with their business with you?
(this is where we all wisper - shoot them)

That's what I thought.

Did you read my reply that you are responding to? Okay, to paint this as clearly as possible. If I were an officer in New Orleans and I saw someone shooting at others, I would shoot that person because they represent an immediate and imminent threat". I have never suggested otherwise.

Also, to clearly state, if you saw someone stealing from me, I would request that you not shoot them. I can get more stuff.

I actually believe in the idea that life is more important than property. If life is in danger, life must also be protected.

You can keep ascribing ideas to me things I have not said but it doesn't make them true.

[Didaskalos]

And you continue to avoid answering the question.

I will happily answer if you would ask it directly.

Here, I will start. If looter is in a store, do you shoot him exiting the store before you determine why he is there or what he was looting? If it is determined he stole property for selfish gain (lets say a TV), should he be shot (with a gun using bullets intended to kill him)?

[Didaskalos]

That's what I thought.

I am sorry, I am slow today. You thought I was saying we should let people continue on with raping people and do nothing?

[PUGalicious]

And you continue to avoid answering the question.

I've answered it more than once in this and other threads. You have chosen to ignore the answer.

[mranderson]

I will happily answer if you would ask it directly.

Here, I will start. If looter is in a store, do you shoot him exiting the store before you determine why he is there or what he was looting? If it is determined he stole property for selfish gain (lets say a TV), should he be shot (with a gun using bullets intended to kill him)?

It may fall under fleeing felon and/or shoplifter apprehention law. That is simple. Unless you are in immediate danger for your life, then they must physcially leave the building with the items unpaid before you can take action.

[sweetdaisy]

Granted but your ... "but, but, but - what about Due process" was a stab at my earlier postings regarding Due Process (all of which had to due to looting - not rape or murder). It is others on this thread and presumably you as well based on the 'but, but, but' reply that have made that association.

Yes, I made a joke. I'm SOOOOOO sorry! This is a very serious issue and sometimes people need to poke fun in order to relieve the stress of the situation. It bothers me immensely that there is nothing I can do to help those people except pray. And me making a wise crack is my way of blowing off some steam. While you choose to condemn other people for blowing off steam. Maybe that's your way fo dealing with the tragedy...who knows. If you were as open minded as what you'd like to belive you are, then you'd understand that.

Never once have I suggested that a person currently murdering or raping be allowed to do so under protection of our law. It is an absurd correlation and shows the digression of a reasonable conversation of the topic.

And, you've repeatedly commented about due process. Part of due process is protection for all accused of crimes. Therefore, a person who is currently murdering or raping should be subject to due process as well. Certainly, your earlier posts were in regards to the looting (and speeding, I might also add). But now the crimes are more violent, does that mean your argument about due process is no longer applicable? You say it's an absurd correlation, but now I'm just confused? How is it absurd? And I don't mean these as flippant questions...I really want to understand where you are coming from on this.

[Faith]

I think it is pretty much agreed that if in order for immediate survival or protection of the innocent that we would take all possible measures, (including shooting) in order to survive. And of course this doesn't mean that I agee with shooting to kill the young guy walking down the street stealing a TV.

As far as due process goes, in my opinion, the definition doesn't mean to sit and watch a criminal murder or rape someone. If that was happening then I believe you have every right to do what you can to stop the crime even if you have to use lethal force. But if you just suspected a person of the crime then that is where the cirminal or wrongly accused is entitled to the due process of the law.

[PUGalicious]

And, you've repeatedly commented about due process. Part of due process is protection for all accused of crimes. Therefore, a person who is currently murdering or raping should be subject to due process as well.

And you (as well as others) continue to repeatedly ignore the caveat to due process: if a violent crime is in progress, whatever force is necessary to stop that violent crime is justifiable defense of life and health of someone. None of us promoting "due process" has said otherwise. The absurdity is in the repeated attempts to try to put words in my mouth and Didaskalos' mouth.

So there is no confusion, let me be clear (and I'm sure I represent what Didaskalos has been trying to say). If there is an immediate and imminent threat to the life or health of another person, immediate life-saving intervention (up to and including lethal force) is a fully justifiably response, trumping the right to due process. Short of that, due process is there to protect the wrongly accused from unwarranted punishment (including death) or a defense for the alleged crimes (like taking water and food and clothes for survival). That is as clear as I can be.

Our rush to restore order shouldn't leave a trail of innocent victims of vigilante "justice." That's the whole point. I have not, nor will I, defend the actions of a rapist or a sniper. To suggest otherwise is dishonest and foolish.

[sweetdaisy]

Scribe, at no point have I tried to put words into your mouth. Do not accuse me of doing something I haven't done. I wouldn't want to get shot.

[PUGalicious]

Scribe, at no point have I tried to put words into your mouth. Do not accuse me of doing something I haven't done.

You may be correct that you haven't put words in my mouth directly, but your comments put words into my and Didaskalos' proverbial mouths (i.e. the position we're defending) when you said:

"And, you've repeatedly commented about due process. Part of due process is protection for all accused of crimes. Therefore, a person who is currently murdering or raping should be subject to due process as well."

You are unfairly and inaccurately extrapolating our position. That may be your conclusion, but it's a false conclusion.

I wouldn't want to get shot

I'm not the one holding the gun. With due process, you would get a fair hearing before a final judgment was made, allowing you to defend against others' allegations. With the "shoot first, then ask questions," you are first condemned — and then shot — and then "allowed" to defend yourself.

[Didaskalos]

Yes, I made a joke. I'm SOOOOOO sorry! This is a very serious issue and sometimes people need to poke fun in order to relieve the stress of the situation. It bothers me immensely that there is nothing I can do to help those people except pray. And me making a wise crack is my way of blowing off some steam. While you choose to condemn other people for blowing off steam. Maybe that's your way fo dealing with the tragedy...who knows. If you were as open minded as what you'd like to belive you are, then you'd understand that.

Your "joke" is what made the tie between due process regarding theft and due process regarding rape in a state of disorder. I never made that assertion and yet the thread continued on with it as if it was fact.

And, you've repeatedly commented about due process. Part of due process is protection for all accused of crimes.

That is not necessarily true. A police office is often put in a situation where he must decide to use lethal force. That officer then must defend his action through an invetigation. If a judge and jury believe he has acted wrong, he should be punished. If he is found to have acted justly, due process has been followed.

Therefore, a person who is currently murdering or raping should be subject to due process as well.

Murdering and raping are current actions and must be responded to in the current. Once again, if an officer sees someone in the act of murdering, he will likely use lethal force and this is well within the law. Rape is more tricky. Under normal circumstances, that rapist is afforded due process. As has been clearly pointed out, these are not normal circumstances. I will have to trust the judgement of those keeping the order.

Certainly, your earlier posts were in regards to the looting (and speeding, I might also add).

Exactly, my only discussion of due process was in relation to looting. And yes, I am crazy enough to think speeders should be afforded due process.

But now the crimes are more violent, does that mean your argument about due process is no longer applicable?

It is applicable under normal circumstances. Since these are not "normal", those keeping the peace will have to make judgements and face the potential of investigation (that is part of the due process).

You say it's an absurd correlation, but now I'm just confused? How is it absurd? And I don't mean these as flippant questions...I really want to understand where you are coming from on this.

Hopefully I have helped you understand where I am coming from. I have never made light of rapists or murders and I find dismissing our protections under the Bill of Rights (even in dire circumstances) and interesting response.

The very premise of Due process is that someone cannot lose their life without being afforded a process to know without question that they are guilty and the appropriate punishment is death. I still believe life trumps property.

Please explain to me how I am not being open-minded? Because I think the "shoot first" position is reactionary at best, I am now closed minded?

[mranderson]

This is a website related to the looting one of my collegues gave me.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/interdictor/

[Dungeon Master]

Scribe and Didaskalos and others,

I see that this is clearly a two sided venture. (Which is good and healthy)

Myself (and maybe others on this thread) will not just stand there but yet take the step to protect our fellow HELPLESS Americans in the time of need. I don't even know who you are but that doesn't matter. I don't want to see any harm come to you. So I will use my own discision to "shoot em" if your being shot at or raped or any other means that your life is in danger. And for the thugs that did get to you, I hope you get to see their faces (if your still alive) in the court room (if they got caught) and hope that the justice you search for is found (if the court room descides in your favor).
Too many "ifs" for me.

You do your thing and I will do mine.
Hope you sleep better knowing some of us will protect you in dire need.
I'm done with this thread.

[PUGalicious]

Dungeon Master, should you read this, I'll leave you with these parting comments.

It's inaccurate, unfair and straighout insulting to infer that because we believe in due process that it means we do not believe in helping or protecting our fellow, helpless Americans in the time of need, simply because we want to make sure that order does not come at the cost of innocent life. I would willingly give my life to save another if that's what it mean to help protect or save the life of someone in need or helpless.

You're welcome to "protect" others, but I personally won't sleep better with the knowledge of you or others with itchy trigger fingers "protecting" me. I prefer a society where constitutional protections and freedoms trump wild west mob philosophy.

Thank you for this most enlightening discussion.

[ibda12u]

Someone may have mentioned this earlier, but a report said some of the police officers were asked why are they not stopping the looters and arresting them, and the officers said, "We don't have any jails, they are all flooded." Where do you put hundreds of looters who are awaiting due process, while not violating their rights? That's just a question to ponder, not a position.

[Didaskalos]

Scribe and Didaskalos and others,

You do your thing and I will do mine.

Never suggested you couldn't. If you choose to shoot em' and are charged with a crime, I imagine due process will be a good friend.

Hope you sleep better knowing some of us will protect you in dire need.

Not likely based on the tone of the thread. Of course, if I undertood correctly, you are in the military and might be called to defend us in an actual defense mode so your sentiment is greatly appreciated as is the sacrifice and service of all those in uniform. For those who take on an individual milita role, it concerns me greatly.

I'm done with this thread.

That is truly unfortunate but thanks for the debate (which I also think is good and healthy).

Bye the bye, it is unfortunate you get the impression I would not defend you in need. How you got that out of this discussion amazes me but so be it. Just to be clear, I would easily lay down my life to protect another.

[Karried]

I don't know how this thread turned into advocating killing people for taking food and water or even stereos for that matter. I think we all know that none of here would ever condone that.

Speaking for myself, I defend those who have to do what they have to do to survive during this time but I won't support or defend murderers and rapists who are impeding the government's ability to help those in dire need.

[Didaskalos]

Someone may have mentioned this earlier, but a report said some of the police officers were asked why are they not stopping the looters and arresting them, and the officers said, "We don't have any jails, they are all flooded." Where do you put hundreds of looters who are awaiting due process, while not violating their rights? That's just a question to ponder, not a position.

I don't pretend to have the answer to the problem but certainly don't think killing them because of a lack of space is very reasonable.

I might draw an analogy. In New Orleans, there are lots of crimes committed during Marti Gras. The police simply don't have the manpower or space to jail every offender that needs to be dragged off to jail (where they might be under normal circumstances). If the police started shooting publicly intoxicated (and potentially dangerous) people because there was not enough room, we would be outraged. I think letting the horror of a devastating event change the basic tenets of 'the punishment should fit the crime' makes the situation even more unfortunate. Bad stuff happens when order is lost (I am not naive in that regard) but that doesn't make it any less unfortunate.

I am not playing Monday morning quarterback and will not criticize the actions of the people there trying to maintain control (I do not envy their position) but I contend that an honest discussion of how we as citizens respond to a situation that is out of control is an important one.