A simple question in light of Hurricane Katrina, and a subject that has been touched on by several posters in the Casual Conversation thread about Katrina.

Most news broadcasts have portrayed looting on a wide scale in New Orleans. They have also shown mostly poor-looking, mostly minority individuals in the process of looting.

One man, interviewed by an AP reporter had this to say about the looting:


Another said:

Link

Questions:

In the aftermath of a natural disaster, is looting a crime of such contempt that a home or business owner may have more moral authority to take the law into his or her own hands?

Should law enforcement or business owners turn a blind eye at the looting of food and water and simply attempt to stop the robbery of luxury consumer items?

In your opinion, what is the impetus that would cause a presumably law abiding citizen to become a looter? I ask this because surely not all of those portrayed on news footage are typical criminals.

In the aftermath of a natural disaster, is looting a crime of such contempt that a home or business owner may have more moral authority to take the law into his or her own hands?

I think, in any circumstances, you have the moral authority to use whatever force is required to defend your property. It is not your fault if someone else decides your property is worth their life..that's their decision, not yours.

Should law enforcement or business owners turn a blind eye at the looting of food and water and simply attempt to stop the robbery of luxury consumer items?

Yes, I think they should. Stealing out of necessity is considerably different, to me, than stealing for profit. When food and water is simply not available, and getting it is a matter of life and death...I think most people would do whatever was necessary to get it. However, in the videos I saw, it wasn't food and water that was being taken. Which made the taking even more puzzling...what good will that stolen stereo do you without electricity, without any place to take it back to, in a town you are going to be forced to evacuate?

In your opinion, what is the impetus that would cause a presumably law abiding citizen to become a looter? I ask this because surely not all of those portrayed on news footage are typical criminals.

First, I would disagree with your assumption...I don't think there's any reason to assume these were law abiding citizens. Even if they hadn't stolen before, their actions indicate to me it was more fear of repurcussions than anything else that was holding them back...and that that fear was gone in the current situation. However, whether law-abiding or not, I think your provided quote sums it up quite well....



That seems to portray the attitude I saw in the videotapes. The people in those scenes seemed very much like it was an attempt to get back at society. Even when confronted directly by police, many people still refused to relinquish their loot. That indicates a sense of entitlement. Which also is why I have the general sentiment I do towards such people...they felt that their own personal gain from this situation was more important that everything else that was going on around them...that they were entitled to profit from the catastrophe. They are taking from others in times of great tragedy, and, frankly, neither deserve nor will get any compassion from me. In answer to your headline question, yes, they are scum. I wonder if they ever showed the same initiative in trying to better themselves? I doubt it. It's not that I don't feel compassion for the environment they may have grown up in...but this is clearly not the solution to that problem.

Take another look at the broadcasts, and you'll find that it's mostly poor-looking, minority individuals who had no way to get out of town. If the fat cats who got out of town were stuck there, they'd be looting too.

Here's what I think we should consider: make it a federal crime to loot in a national disaster area. Mandatory time in federal prison for the offense.

We need to do something to prevent this from happening again. Not just the looting, but leaving those poor-looking, minority individuals in the lurch when disaster strikes.

I have to take a bit of issue with this line of thought. Fat cats? Are you referring to people who had cars? Or people who heeded the voluntary evacuation orders?

I don't have any issue with strict penalties for looting during national disasters, and there are probably many partial solutions using city transit and other vehicles to get more people out that weren't exhausted. But there are likely not enough in the surrounding areas to get everyone out, who either doesn't wish to leave, doesn't leave in time, or doesn't own private transportation.
I'm unsure how you can insinuate that the people looting, are simply doing so because they couldn't get (or didn't want to) out of the city. It almost sounds as if you are excusing the looting on the basis of economic class. Poverty is not an excuse for crime.
For anyone (and you can find this sentiment on the news and the 'net) to take the tragedy, destruction, and death that have befallen an area and to use it as an excuse for immoral, illegal, and anti-social behavior is simply self-serving.

I think we can find common ground in the lack of means to get everyone who wanted to leave NOLA, that opportunity. But on what basis can you claim that wealthier people would also loot if left behind?

Gee I didn't know I was a 'fat cat' I will have to inform my wife that we are rich.


I would not have a problem if these people were looting only food, medicine, or clothing. But DVD's, computers, and tvs???

If I was home and looters attempted to loot my home... which would be taking from my family(and those of you who know me here how I feel about my family), well I would rather not say.

The looting is reaching ridiculous levels in New Orleans.

The governor has ordered 1,500 police officers to stop searching for survivors and bring law and order back to the street. Armed looters are roaming the streets. There are reports of multiple police officers being shot or shot at, and at least once police officer was killed by a looter.

I saw a clip on MSNBC of even uniformed police officers looting a Wal Mart. Truly shocking.

I can understand to a degree when you must find food. I don't really consider stealing from a grocery store at this point looting. But people stealing jewelry, TVs, cars, etc. are all scum.

Now they will certainly cause more people to die as the police are forced to divert their efforts to curtail this idiotic behavior.

Yes, I am. I'm talking about the haves and the have-nots. Those with wheels and those without. Those with a place to go, and those with none. I'm talking about all the people who could've helped others out, and didn't. So, yes, I am.



No such thing. You referred to poor-looking, minority individuals doing the looting. What I said is that those are the people who got stuck in the city. If Rockefeller was stuck there, he'd be looting too. And so would all of those folks who drove out of town and left so many others behind.






Because they're people too.

For me, the difference between business and home is significant. When protecting your home there is so much more than just possessions you are protecting. I can never deny someone using any force available to protect their family....their family And when someone is breaking into your home, you have no idea what they are after. Now if you see them running out your home with a T.V. it's not worth a human life.

Hobbes

If you shoot someone for property that is your choice, not theirs.

A person who values property over life, deserves all that he gets when he runs into someone who values property over life. If you live by the gun, I'm fine with you dying by the gun, whether you are property owner or property thief.

Should law enforcement or business owners turn a blind eye at the looting of food and water and simply attempt to stop the robbery of luxury consumer items?

Just the opposite. Food is a necessity to life, not a DVD player. Food should be, seized, protected, and rationed out to the people in need. I mean what is so important about a T.V. that any resources should be devoted to protecting it??



When opportunity knocks... They see free, they see opportunity, they follow a crowd. It really isn't much more difficult to that, I believe.
Hobbes


Well isn't the fear of repercussion the reason why we all are law abiding citizens?? That's why we have... repercussions.

That's humanity for you. When no one is looking, the poor man will steal your T.V. ... and the rich man will steal your pension. Unfortunately for us, the poor man get more news coverage.

So, let me see if I've got this straight. Just because you think somebody didn't help you out, you have the right to go take whatever you want from somebody else?

If so, please send me your address. I can tell you that I personally have not received help numerous times, and I'm glad to know you have no problem with me taking all your stuff. I'll be calling the moving center shortly. If you'll make a list (a short list, mind you) of stuff you consider a personal valuable, I'll try to see if they can leave it behind.

And, unlike these others on TV, I'll even have the courtesy to not wait and do this during a catastrophe, when my taking your stuff will put other lives directly in danger. Hey...does that mean I'm entitled to take even more stuff?

That's your take on it, not mine.

Isn't this the American way. Isn't this the rich majority way. Maybe it just is the human way. We're built on a country that took... and took... and was entitled to all.

People calling these people scum are the same people who mourn over T.V. sets and DVD players. We are taught in a capitalist system to exploit and to capitalize on tragedy.

I agree with lyrical reckoner, they're just being human. The people lootig stores are probably the same people floating their grandmama on a air mattress.

As I looked at Fox and MSNBC I realized that not only did all the looters seem to be poor minorities, but everyone stuck walking through the flood seemed to be poor minorities.

I saw a similar clip on last night's Rita Cosby MSNBC program. She kept
running a clip of individuals inside of a walmart store. Some of the people
had shopping carts full of stuff (none of which was food). She told the viewing
audience, "This is not people shopping. It's people looting," as if we couldn't
tell the difference.

A senator from Louisiana was being interview on the MSNBC show and she
called it "obnoxious," and it is that and much more. It is a huge slap in the face
to all of us. It is adding insult to injury, as if to say, "I don't give a hoot
about the tragedy. It is my lucky day!"



That is another side effect of this criminal behavior. That is why such societal
vermin should be dealt with harshly.



Is that an admission of some sort? Would you be looting if you had the chance?



You speak as if you were there when it all went down. Let's keep with the
point at hand. There is no justification for the stealing that has been occurring
at Walmart and other such places. It is a disgusting and disrespectful way
to react to such a tragic event.

Should law enforcement or business owners turn a blind eye at the looting of
food and water and simply attempt to stop the robbery of luxury consumer items?


The problem is that in a situation such as Hurricane Katrina the objective has
to be on finding and aiding survivors. Catching thieves who turn the tragedy
into their own personal opportunity has to be behind saving lives.

In your opinion, what is the impetus that would cause a presumably law
abiding citizen to become a looter? I ask this because surely not all of those
portrayed on news footage are typical criminals.

The opportunity to do so without punishment. And, a criminal mind. Anyone
who does such a thing, especially in time of dire straits, is a criminal.

I strongly disagree. There are three groups of people I see there...people in need, those trying to help them, and those taking advantage of the sytem for personal gain. Clearly, none of the looters were out there helping other people, they were too busy looting. Taking advantage of others in their hour of need is not being human, its an act of someone missing that human element of compassion. Look at the looks on their faces...they're gleeful. Gleeful, in the midst of all this tragedy. This people are most decidely not just being human. Stealing guns and then shooting at rescue workers and police is just being human? Causing enough of a problem that 1500 rescue workers are forced to stop trying to save people so that they can deal with the disruption you're causing for your personal benefit is just being human? I say it is not. I say it is being an animal.

Let me try a little poll here to demonstrate my point. Let's all try to be honest...how many here would also be looting? I can state categorically that I myself would not. I feel quite confidant (am I wrong?) that the vast majority of those here also would not. So, are we not human, or are they?



So, we should be trying to keep them from items necessary for survival, but let them take all the useless luxury goods they want? I do think I get the more generic point you are trying to make...but necessities are not available, through any means, in these areas. There is no means to ration them out..that's the whole problem. So, looting is the only way to get them...that's why some of these people are doing it.

Needless to say...plasma TV's do not constitute necessities.



Ahhh, so we're not taught in a moral society that we should respect the rights of others, not take items that do not belong to us, and to seek to help others in their time of need? Well, this is wonderful, I guess we can call of the rescue and restoration effort, then...since clearly that doesn't exploit and capitalize.



I noticed this as well, as apparently so have the networks, since recently I have seen a few more white people. At first, this bothered me, especially with the looters...until I realized that the vast majority of people living there would be poor minorities. So, this is just representative of the population and what they are experiencing. I don't see a race card being played here...does anyone else?



Ah, yes, but that's ok because they're just being human, and doing as they were taught...so we should all understand. Too bad about those who then perished, I'm sure, in the afterlife, they'll be glad to know those looters got that plasma TV.

Again, though, I want to clarify my stance. In times such as this, I don't consider taking something you need to survive looting. That could be food, water, air mattresses, blankets, even clothing...especially since it is all likely to be ruined anyway. However, I would love for somebody here to explain to me what the need for a TV is in a city with no electricity, where you couldn't turn the TV on and even if you did, nothing would be being broadcast...and where you're going to have to leave the TV behind anyway.

I believe theres a certain psychosis that sets in when the looters are just regular folks. Somehow those TV's look good and theyre free, some people do have electricity, the cops had taken tvs and movies (for the kids they said) and people were chiding them about it. Its just stupid but none of us know what its like until we are in the position. Im pretty logical and dont give a crap about stuff like that so I can say with no doubt that I would not be looting but I dont have a strong reaction to these types. Walmart can afford to lose a few stores worth of merchandise, probably lost anyway, and when theyre empty its done.

What IS scary is the roving bands of thugs who are terrorizing people and trying to break into hospitals, like the Childrens Hospital that was still housing 100 kids and they were trying to break in through the locked doors. I think the cops should just shoot them on site and noone would ever be the wiser. I might actually loot a gun to protect myself and use it if necessary.

In the aftermath of a natural disaster, is looting a crime of such contempt that a home or business owner may have more moral authority to take the law into his or her own hands?

I think we need to distinguish between the types of looters. Were I stranded in a flooded city with no food or water and there were wrecked grocery stores that had both, would I resort to looting? Yes, I would. There are open shops and no working ATMs. On the other hand, there's no refrigeration, no cooking facilities, and no clean water. Is there anyone here who is claiming that they would die of dehydration or allow their family to starve instead of looting? That's not "noble" or "moral", it's stupid.

Now, those who are looting television sets or computers or golf clubs should be held in contempt and, sure, if there's a shopkeeper or homeowner on hand to defend their property, they should have every right to do so. But we should not be encouraging vigilantism. No one should be roaming the streets with a shotgun looking to gun down anyone they think might have been looting. Those people should be held in equal contempt.

Should law enforcement or business owners turn a blind eye at the looting of food and water and simply attempt to stop the robbery of luxury consumer items?

No, they should focus on rescue operations and ignore all looting until no one's life is at threat. Then they should turn to those looting luxury items. Seriously, folks, which is more important here? Human lives or some merchandise? It's not like there's a single shop-owner that isn't going to write off their entire inventory to flood damage anyway. Sure, the looting of luxury items is despicable, but this all just sounds like a recipe for the wholesale slaughter of anyone seen carrying anything anywhere.

In your opinion, what is the impetus that would cause a presumably law abiding citizen to become a looter?

For those stealing food and drink, it is desperation and survival. For those stealing luxury items - well, they are not "presumably law-abiding". But who, in this sort of situation, is going to try to tell the difference between some guy in a flooded street who is attempting to salvage his VCR and some guy in a flooded street who might have lifted a VCR from an electronics shop two blocks away? The attitude of "shoot first, ask questions later" seems frighteningly widespread in any of the coverage I've seen of the looting. You have a bag of groceries in your hand? You're a looter. BLAM!

I find all of this very troubling.

I always felt that natural disasters tend to put things into perspective. HUman lives are important, material possessions are not.

1) Why is looting so contemptible? Supposing it was likely that the goods would be destroyed anyway?

2) Law enforcement should be focussed on saving people. Not possessions.

3) People are opportunistic - and if they see a chance for personal gain, then they take it. During times of disaster, social conventions and norms are weakened to the extent that people feel they can get away with a lot more. Police are less likely to catch you (and you can justify the decision to loot to yourself - if I don't take it, it'll only be destroyed anyway, so there is no sense in waste etc).

In the aftermath of a natural disaster, is looting a crime of such contempt that a home or business owner may have more moral authority to take the law into his or her own hands?

* * * * * * * my answer:

I don't believe that anyone has the moral authority to take the law into his or her own hands. If we allow that in some circumstances, it opens doors we probably shouldn't be opening. However, as someone else mentioned above, if you are stealing from someone, you'd better realize that that person just may be the type who will shoot you for it, and be prepared to pay with your life.

* * * * * * *

Should law enforcement or business owners turn a blind eye at the looting of food and water and simply attempt to stop the robbery of luxury consumer items?

* * * * * * * my answer:

I don't know that they should be turning a blind eye. I think their efforts should be to get as many people as possible to aid facilities where they can GET food and water so they don't have to steal it.

As for looters who go after anything other than food, water, or medical supplies during a natural disaster -- they should be apprehended and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

* * * * * * *

In your opinion, what is the impetus that would cause a presumably law abiding citizen to become a looter? I ask this because surely not all of those portrayed on news footage are typical criminals.

* * * * * * * my answer:

I think others in this thread have given my answer -- namely, that a person who is attempting to keep himself/herself and possibly a family safe and alive after a natural disaster will resort to whatever measures are necessary. I've heard it said that if protecting life is paramount, then stealing food or water to avoid dying of thirst or starvation is not wrong.

The people who are helping themselves to DVD players, stereos, and other non-necessary equipment during this tragedy are people with weak moral underpinnings, at the very least. There are also a certain percentage of out-and-out criminals in this group.

About a dozen years ago, Kansas City (where I live) had major flooding. FEMA came in and started handing out relief funds without doing a whole lot of research into the living situations of people receiving the funds. They soon learned that a lot of amoral Kansas Citians collected money when the only damage they had was maybe a damp-walled basement. Many people collected money even though they lived miles from the river. Perhaps people who would defraud a system set up to help the genuinely disenfranchised aren't "typical criminals," but they certainly aren't "deserving poor," either.

1. In the aftermath of a natural disaster, is looting a crime of such contempt that a home or business owner may have more moral authority to take the law into his or her own hands?

Yes, absolutely. Those who has been in the aftermath of a natural disaster can tell you first hand that looting inevitably follows. I've never seen anything on the scale of Louisiana, but this happened in Miami after hurricane Andrew (while I was staying there with my in-laws), and it happened after a tornado hit our neighborhood when I was in highschool. The scale of looting seems to match the scale of the disaster. The neighborhood looting from the tornado was conducted by a few vandals who probably lived nearby, the Miami looting was conducted by hundreds of thugs and opportunists. The best defense in both cases was a good offense. In Miami it was unbelieveable...Gang members would jump out of trucks (usually armed) and say, "stand back, I'm entering your house". A few examples (Miami is a very well armed part of the United States) and several dead looters later, everyone was nice and polite after only a couple of days. With the exception of food and water, I don't see any excuse for the pillage. If these people are (ostensibly) looting for survival the same thing could be said for the people that are getting looted, couldn't it?

Should law enforcement or business owners turn a blind eye at the looting of food and water and simply attempt to stop the robbery of luxury consumer items?

Yes, they should turn a blind eye to robbery of the food and water (with the exception of what they themselves need). They certainly can't intend to sell those waterlogged cans and bags of food after the emergency passes. I don't think it would be productive to persue every person running around with a television in his/her hands, but those actively involved and caught in the process of looting...breaking in and terrorizing, should be stopped by any means necessary to obtain some semblance of order.

In your opinion, what is the impetus that would cause a presumably law abiding citizen to become a looter? I ask this because surely not all of those portrayed on news footage are typical criminals.
I don't know. Maybe if the kids needed medicine, or something. Some of the looters are scrounging for food and water, but the ones taking shoes and televisions are simply opportunists. It happens with all natural disasters. If they start actually enforcing martial law they will get things under control and save lives.

Because looting leads to this....



Looting, especially mass looting, leads to mass lawlessness...which leads to other people taking strides to defend themselves, which leads to more lawlessness, etc. Then, stopping the looting does become a matter of life and death, and law enforcement and rescue personnel have to be taken off of their rescue duties and put onto looting enforcement to ensure the safety of those whom they had thought were out of harm's way.





I can't really argue against this point, especially after seeing police, (yes, the fricking police!) looting the WalMart on television. I have also heard that it was police that initially started some of the looting taking TV's etc supposedly to give the kids in the shelters something to watch. So, please don't construe my initial statement about feeling that people have the right to use whatever means are necessary to defend their property to mean that I support vigilantism...I don't (I don't own a weapon myself, if that helps people understand my position). I do fully support people in dire need taking supplies they need to survive, and that it is hard to tell what is needed and what is not. However, I also find statements such as that above very troubling...in that it essentially condones mass theft and general lawlessness. We should strive to be better than that, especially in times such as these. Mass looting only makes a terrible situation that much worse, and those that are doing it are preventing the already overburdened response teams from helping those in very dire need. I just really don't understand simply writing off such activity...it is, and I can't think of a better term, animalistic. Shouldn't we put ourselves a little better than that? If not, as I said above, we don't we simply call of the rescue attempts and just let everybody fend for themselves. That is where the 'just human nature' argument leads to, and I don't think anyone would support that.

In the aftermath of a natural disaster, is looting a crime of such contempt that a home or business owner may have more moral authority to take the law into his or her own hands?

In any situation, at any time, robbery and looting are crimes. The fact that the cities are devastated doesn't change that.

Should law enforcement or business owners turn a blind eye at the looting of food and water and simply attempt to stop the robbery of luxury consumer items?

No, it should be the other way round!. Food and water are far more necessary than wet electronics and jewellery at the moment. Survivors need to drink and eat to survive. The luxury consumer items are only material.

In your opinion, what is the impetus that would cause a presumably law abiding citizen to become a looter? I ask this because surely not all of those portrayed on news footage are typical criminals.

1. Despair
2. Boredom
3. The crowd's effect - since everybody else is doing it, why shouldn't I?

I think the best explanation I have ever heard about looting at these times was explained, in all places, in a song by the group Sublime- a great story about the Rodney King riots.

"The first place we hit was the liquor store, I finally got all that booze I couldn't afford before, it is not about the "F'd" up situation we live in, or how we are poor, it is about rage and finally busting 187 on a ____ cop, hey, were do you think I got this PA you are listening to today?"-

I think for many poor folks, outside looking in, when the cat is out, the mice finally get a TV LOL

That being said, I think it is perfectly acceptable to shoot a looter that is not looting foodstuffs personally.

In the aftermath of a natural disaster, is looting a crime of such contempt that a home or business owner may have more moral authority to take the law into his or her own hands?

I’ll agree that looting is the lowest of low crimes. But I have a problem with shooting people for stealing a TV. Keep in mind that a lot of the people looting the Walmart were stealing guns. There are going to be a lot of angry, armed looters running around. Do we really want a wild west shootout scenario while you protect the electronics department? Not worth it to me.

As for private homes, there’s a special level of hell reserved for the looters who break into someone’s home and steal their personal possessions at a time like this.


I’ve never seen a more complete circle jerk in my life as the disaster response in New Orleans. An entire week will go by before aid arrives?! Where’s the National Guard? Where’s FEMA? The Red Cross? Anybody? Especially with the level of lawlessness right now, that’s absolutely amazing. Granted, my closest experience to this kind of thing was with the Northridge quake and its aftermath, but the emergency response was nearly immediate. And, while we didn’t have flood waters, we did have a plethora of other issues to contend with, including broken gas and water mains, downed power lines, collapsed freeways, impassible streets, etc.

Should law enforcement or business owners turn a blind eye at the looting of food and water and simply attempt to stop the robbery of luxury consumer items?

I have to sympathize with those who have no food or water. I was tempted to steal water from a 7-11 in 1994 (the owner refused to sell us any). New Orleans right now is a steaming, stinking, 90 degree hellhole, and basic human needs must be met. The National Guard needs to get in there NOW and round up the violent looters first, then get the rest of the citizens to a safe place outside the city. For crying out loud, there was an article that mentioned a man was carjacked by a looter with a machete!

And considering the looters hit the mother lode of guns in Walmart, the situation has become more dangerous by far.

In your opinion, what is the impetus that would cause a presumably law abiding citizen to become a looter? I ask this because surely not all of those portrayed on news footage are typical criminals.

I can’t speculate on this. It’s totally beyond my ken. I know during the King riots, a lot of the people were just doing it for fun and to get their faces on TV…which got a lot of them arrested after things settled down. Some people just don’t believe stealing is wrong. Some people may feel that the city, the businesses, or society in general “owes” them something. There are as many reasons (not that they are good ones) as there are people.

Edited to correct the name of the LA riots - it was the King verdict, not OJ that caused the rioting in LA. D'oh!

It's not about the "stuff." It's about the complete disregard of ethics.
For someone to have the desire to steal material posessions, when
the world around him is falling apart and people are dying, that is one
messed up mind. It's not about the "stuff."




The "people" you are talking about are criminals. It's not in the psyche
of a non-criminal to find (useless) gain through such horrible human loss and suffering.



I also endured the Northridge quake and it doesn't even begin to compare
with the destruction happening in the south. Especially, New Orleans,
with some 20+ feet of water. How can we expect relief efforts when there is
no access???

What I can't figure out, is why these people are fit enough to loot, but not fit enough to evacuate.

They are justifying the theft of everything they steal under the guise of survival, but they did not have to be there and should not be there. They were ordered to evacuate and just like the laws they are ignoring now, ignored that order. Unless they are incapacitated and couldn't leave, they are criminals anyhow. Their refusal to leave added to the damage and relief effort while putting other lives at risk (search and rescue teams, good samaritans, etc) .

So yeah...if they're fit enough to carry an armload of their bounty, they are guilty of the lowest of crimes. Shoot them. We can't lock them up and we can't create law and order without enforcing the law. So, it's clearly a last resort.

Uh, let's see...by air?

I realize the Northridge quake doesn't compare; and I did qualify my comments. The lack of the most basic aid in New Orleans this many days after the event speaks volumes.

Lawlessness is the problem. I don't think it can be solved by more lawlessness (i.e., shooting looters).

What seems to be so sorely needed in New Orleans isn't just food, water, and sanitation: it's order. People need to be told what to do, where to go. They need medical attention, and I'd hate to see it delivered under battlefield conditions.

I just heard a report that snipers are shooting at people going in and out of a hospital in NO. People in hospitals are being shot at (assuming the truth of the report). This is outrageous!

The government needs to bring order to the situation ASAP. But shooting looters would only add to the disorder. And innocent people -- folks just moving their own possessions from one place to a safe place -- could be mistaken for looters and shot! That is as outrageous as snipers shooting at people in hospitals.

I sure as heck don't want anyone who thinks that shooting looters is a good idea -- I don't want anyone like that near me when disaster strikes.

Please appreciate that many of these people couldn't leave. It takes money to move a family out of town. Hotels and Motels don't let you stay for free. Restaurants don't feed you for free. Gas isn't free. Etc.

Suppose, you've got a family to care for. You've got $124.45 in your bank account, and you're just $500 away from your credit limit. Where would you go?

Sure, looking back, you can say people were idiots to stay in New Orleans.

Please understand this: many people have very few options. Of course, that's no excuse for looting jewelry, but it seems obvious from the footage that the vast majority of these people are just stuck, and they're not doing the looting.

They're not criminals.

How, precisely do you suggest delivering those supplies to the needy and obtaining order without the use of force, when even the hospitals are under siege by these robbers with axes, guns and metal pipes?

No, innocent people are being killed and terrorized NOW. There is nothing wrong with combating violence with the use of force. In fact, it's entirly reasonable under these circumstances and certainly doesn't entail the capricious shooting of passers-by.

I completely disagree with you Mrs. P, are we supposed to treat this as the insurgency of New Orleans or something? These are American citizens for crying out loud.

You have people facing death, mass chaos and complete failure of government and you expect them to remain calm? I'm pretty sure this is the situation you'd find anywhere in America under these circumstances.

The government needs to suck it up and do their jobs and they absolutely should not be using lethal force - there are numerous other options.

This whole thing has lead to this:


So one little shot at a helicopter and we call off all rescue operations? What kind of banana republic is Bush running here?

The meltdown continues. Now this somehow relates to Bush. The sheer scope of the anti-bush vitriol is one of the saddest parts of this tragedy. No sooner was the storm over than the anti-bush talking points were born. It is like blaming Clinton for Oklahoma City or the school shootings. It is not even about defending Bush anymore, it is the defense of common sense. Are we going to live in a nation where every disaster is the President’s fault? The same arguments being used against Bush now could be used against Clinton for 9/11. Those assertions are unfair to Clinton and Bush.

New Orleans is becoming an example of how quickly our civil society can deteriorate into anarchy . It is also a grim reminder that our nation's peace is secured by an army of police officers and the increasing number of prisons being built all across the country. The number of murders each year is chilling enough, I am not sure why anyone is suprised by looting.

CJ, I think you are underestimating the degree of the problem in New Orleans...



Yes, from what I have heard, this is an insurgency. Gangs rule the streets, to the point where police have had to retreat from situations because they were outnumbered and outgunned. The hospital workers have had to retreat to the upper floors...not because of flooding, but because of the looters.



First, I'm assuming it was probably more than 'one little shot' (yes, an assumption, on my part). Second, I find your statement that aid workers should be expected to conduct relief operations in the face of gunfire hard to relate to. Would you continue working if someone opened fire at your job? I doubt it. So, I think your ire is misplaced. It is not the aid workers fault they were being shot it...it is the shooter's fault that they were shooting. Yes, the shooters. No one elses. What could possibly be gained by shooting at a rescue helicopter? Nothing. These acts are not being done out of desperation. What circumstances are these people in that they need plasma TV's to survive?

As for the level of force necessary to restore order, despite what some may think, I am not one who usually advocates the application of excessive force in such circumstances. But, this insurgency is seriously affecting relief efforts, causing other people to die unnecessarily, and making the situation for the non-looters that much more tenuous. At exactly what point should this be escalated to where the lives of the non-looters are placed above those of the looters? When scores more people are drowned because of it? When the looters are breaking into the hospitals, disrupting care there? When hundreds more face death? Thousands? When the entire situation is placed is serious risk of degenerating into complete chaos? When?

Well I'm glad you condone shooting American citizens - did I wake up in Iraq or something today?


Rescue workers frequently work in very dangerous conditions - have you already forgotten the conditions they were working in during 9/11? There is absolutely zero excuse to call off all helicopter rescues because one helicopter got shot. I suppose all the people stranded on their rooftops with no food or water should just die because one little helicopter got shot.

This occurred to me today as well.

First, you have to chuckle at opporunistic wealth redistribution. Welfare for those with real initiative.

But, you know what this is a sign of?

If the EDITED TO REMOVE ATTEMPT AT BYPASSING PROFANITY FILTER hits the fan in the US, you'd better be packing heat, because it's all going to fall apart. There's isn't enough civility left in our society to protect us, we would turn into one of those lawless societies with warlords and gangs of armed thugs, like all those 3rd-world countries we love to look down our noses at.

America is an amazing place, with a robust economy, a culture of innovation and hard-work, and a lot of resources. We also have huge national debt (gov't and private), no personal savings, and an education system that leaves many of our children behind the rest of the world. I sure hope our strengths can overcome our weaknesses, because New Orleans is a sign that right now we have a lot to worry about if any local government falls apart.

AFTER ALL, THESE PEOPLE COULD BE OUT LOOKING FOR SURVIVORS!!

As for droop224's comment that no property is worth a life, I submit to you, property is life! Some guy works 40+ hours a week selling those TVs, those VCRs, to put food on the table and a roof over his family's head. That measily, unimportant property represents the time and hard-work many people have traded in exchange for the means to live and prosper. For anyone to just steal it is to steal their livelihood. You can be darn sure, if it was my store, and those were my TVs, I'd shoot every last person who tried to walk out with one. If the cops need one for the kids, they better ask first.

It is perhaps a good argument for why guns should not be so readily available. Perhaps Wal-Mart should be required to keep them in a safe, not behind glass display cases.

It is also, perhaps, an argument for why guns should not be allowed only in the hands of criminals. (Via gun laws that restrict legal ownership.) What if more people carried? Would people be taking pot shots at rescuers, at hospitals, if they thought there was a good chance someone would shoot back? Alas, that's for a different debate.

To answer the debate questions:

In the aftermath of a natural disaster, is looting a crime of such contempt that a home or business owner may have more moral authority to take the law into his or her own hands?

Yes, it is a crime. Ideally, the police should deal with it, but given more important tasks to do, a person has the right to defend themself and their property.

Should law enforcement or business owners turn a blind eye at the looting of food and water and simply attempt to stop the robbery of luxury consumer items?

Saving lives is more important than anything else. Law enforcement should use force as necessary to protect lives. The looting, while deplorable, is of a lower priority. So I seem to contradict myself, perhaps. Property is life, but clearly of less priority than being alive.

In your opinion, what is the impetus that would cause a presumably law abiding citizen to become a looter? I ask this because surely not all of those portrayed on news footage are typical criminals.

Disregard for human decency (laws aside, stealing is plain wrong), the willingness to do wrong when they feel they won't be caught, and greed.

Lastly, lets face it, WE ALL AGREE that looting for necessities is morally acceptable (food, water, medicine). What's at issue is looting of TVs, electronics, things which are clearly either being taken for luxury or resale.

I'm not sure of your point here. I've already shared my experience in Miami. Yes, it could happen anywhere. And YES, this is exactly the type of situation of choas and mass violence that requires the use of force. The use of force stops the violence...it certainly did in my experience, and quickly, too. Do you remember the Miami post-Andrew looting? It didn't make the news for a reason, because the well-armed population didn't let it get that far out of control. Martial law has been declared in New Orleans. They need only enforce it to restore order.

CJ, I think you may not have seen some of these stories. They sound pretty bad for the rescue people. It's not one isolated incident. It sounds like people are banding together and shooting at rescue workers in an effort to somehow expedite their own rescue.

New Orleans doctors plead for help



In any case, they haven't "called off all helicopter rescues" but they had stopped flying over the Superdome until they could get the shooters under control. And ground rescues continue.

I can agree with the fact that some people may not have had the wherewithal to leave, but it's my understanding that they were ordered to evacuate. Were no provisions made for people who couldn't afford to do that?

I am honestly curious. I can't imagine there being NO place for these people to have gone, since they were evacuated, to me that implies that the authority that ordered the evacuations must have made some provisions for people to stay someplace. Probably not a motel, but someplace communal.

Exactly the kind we should expect. Hospital evacuations have also been halted because "someone said" that an emergency vehicle was shot at and there are "reports" that helicopters have been shot at. As mentioned, the evacuation of the Superdome was halted because of a "report" that a single helicopter had been shot at. No wonder we're faring so badly in a real war zone like Iraq.

The level of hyperbole in covering "the New Orleans insurgency" has been ridiculous. There has been non-stop twenty-four hour coverage of the aftermath of Katrina and there are two things that I have not yet seen: an act of violence or a National Guardsman. "Chaos and mass violence"? Where? A few people looting groceries and footwear maybe? Yet every seven seconds Wolf Blitzer is mentioning "out of control violence" - we have people here describing widespread looting of luxury items - marauding gangs of armed desperadoes - policemen being slaughtered en masse - hospitals under seige. It's balderdash.

Of course there's a bit of violence. We are talking about people without food and water, without electricity, without basic healthcare, without law enforcement of any kind. We are talking about a rescue operation in chaos, with no leadership, no coordination, no clear plan, no communication to those in desperate, desperate need. People are dying in the streets of New Orleans - and it's not because of insurgents. Some people may be complacent about all this. They may be willing to sit in hundred degree heat with no water saying, "I trust the Bush administration - they'll be here any minute to airlift me to Kennebunkport. C'mon - it's only been five days." Others are in a state of panic - and rightly so. They have been virtually abandoned since the start of this thing. And we're expecting a heavily armed populace with their lives at stake to line up for a bus as though they were heading to the mall? Okay... I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

I suspect this is playing out exactly the way the Bush administration wants it to. Exaggerate the violence a hundredfold. Blame the victims. Claim that your priority is rescue, but make it "quelling civil unrest". President Bush has been told to promise "no mercy" and "zero tolerance" for looting - even for those seeking food or medical supplies. And the more poor minorities who die over the next several days, the better for this administration. That's the kind of banana republic that is being run here.

Just so we know what the Republican Party's priorities are, Ken Mehlman sent an urgent email message to everyone on their mailing list this morning. At this time of national emergency, when most people are focused on relief efforts and fundraising and are wondering how Congress is going to respond to this disaster when they reconvene tomorrow, Mehlman addresses one issue:
I'm sure he's only thinking of the surviving family members of those who couldn't afford to evacuate.

If you read my post above, you'll find that "someone" was said Dr. Norman McSwain, chief of trauma surgery at Charity Hospital, and Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Cheri Ben-Iesan. And the Coast Guard Commander said that this was happening at every hospital they were trying to evacuate.

yahoo news

The victims of this storm have all my sympathy and prayers, but those stealing TVs and cases of beer should be ashamed of themselves.
Would a policeman being shot in the head qualify as "a bit of violence" Wertz? Seems more like a bit of the ultraviolence to me.

Frankly I'm sickened by both sides of the aisle politicizing this issue - Democrats are blaming a natural disaster and the response solely on the President, and Republicans are making hay because we haven't built any refineries in 30 years. The whole thing is ridiculous. Everybody calm down, pray for the victims and donate to the rescue effort.

Most of the responses in this thread absolutely disgust me. Like you can't even begin to believe.

Now that that's out of the way...

In the aftermath of a natural disaster, is looting a crime of such contempt that a home or business owner may have more moral authority to take the law into his or her own hands?

I'd like to take this opportunity to ask where exactly you intended this debate to lead by first writing a paragraph that relates to the blatantly racist coverage the victims of Hurricane Katrina are receiving, to the apparently race-neutral questions. What does being a poor minority have to do with whether law enforcement should turn a blind eye to looting of food? Most of the well off (and white) residents of New Orleans had the means to flee and did so. So naturally, you are left with the citizens who could not. Yes, they are mostly poor, and yes, they are mostly black. Which, coincidentally, makes it a hell of a lot easier for people to feel unsympathetic for them and to lead to them thinking of them as animals instead of people, and worthy of killing for stealing a TV. I have the nagging suspicion that if images of these looters showed people who looked like your parents, your siblings, your children, your cousins, you (and by "you" I mean anyone in this thread who has responded that lethal force for the looting situations is justifiable) would not be so eager to impose a capital punishment on mostly misdemeanor crimes. Then again, according to the media the white people are not "looting," they are "finding" things. Makes it a lot easier to justify not killing them, while justifying killing the people of color who are stealing, doesn't it?

Are people who are looting electronics and other expensive (but useless) goods dumb? Yes.

Is stealing a TV worthy of death? NO IT IS NOT. We are not the Taliban or North Korea or some other equally restrictive equivalent. This is freaking America the last time I checked. If a cop could not justifiably use lethal force on someone who walked out of a Wal-Mart with a boombox without paying for it before, why is it okay to do so now?

Should law enforcement or business owners turn a blind eye at the looting of food and water and simply attempt to stop the robbery of luxury consumer items?

See, here's the thing that gets me. Who am I, who are you, who is anyone to decide what people "need" and what they "don't need" in a state of emergency like the one Katrina has caused? People generically state "but food and water... but food and water." Really now? What about diapers? What about tampons? What about batteries? Hell, what about radios/boomboxes? If the cell phone service isn't working down there, and people can't use TVs, what better way to know what's going on and where to go for help? Radios are "electronics" but can be battery operated... but I guess since they don't absolutely, positively need to know what the hell's going on, it's okay to kill them if they take it.

Hey, we can go even further with this. People don't need to take more bottles of water than they need for their family. Else, they're hoarding, right? People don't need to take pastries, bread, and other perishables from the stores. They should just stick to the things that can give them maximum sustenance. How are you going to determine what a "luxury consumer item" is? And more importantly, why in the hell does it even matter if they take a TV? It's not like people are going to be going back to their stores and doing inventory any time soon, and in any case they're going to write it all off to their insurance as lost.

From this Yahoo! (whom I am VERY upset with right now) article:



... the hell? The utmost priority, the best possible use of the National Guard right now is not collecting dead bodies and decreasing the avenues for the spread of disease, it's not getting food and water to survivors, it's not getting survivors stranded on building roofs to relative safety, it's not focusing on getting care to the elderly and the very young... it's stopping the looting.

Glad to know the President has his priorities straight. Know what that message says to me, loud and clear?

"Let the n*ggers starve and die, just make sure they don't take any of our stuff."

Law enforcement should not be ignoring the looters of food/water and "focusing" on those stealing electronics. It should be ignoring the looting altogether. Why the hell anyone would think it more productive to use law enforcers on the looting of perishable and, for all intents and purposes, "lost" things anyway than oh, say, preventing mass rape and murder is way beyond me.

Can stealing food from these stores really be called "looting" anyway? There is literally no other place to get food. They can't go home and whip up a grilled cheese sandwich and cup of tomato soup.

In your opinion, what is the impetus that would cause a presumably law abiding citizen to become a looter? I ask this because surely not all of those portrayed on news footage are typical criminals.

Um, well. I guess survival would be the number one impetus, IMHO. It's kind of hard to live without food and clean water. Baby stuff, personal feminine products, and yes, clothes (I don't think walking around in sewage-soaked clothing for days on end is healthy), etc. I include under "survival" as well. For the feared plasma screen TV bandit, I'm assuming the overwhelming majority of those looters are simply crime of opportunities with a good dash of mob mentality thrown in for good measure. To be honest, if I were in that situation I would be stealing with no moral qualms what-so-freaking-ever. I would take bottled water, food like beanie weenies/tuna cans (anything that can't get easily wet or perished), a radio and batteries, try to get a change of clothing, and whatever weapon I could get my hands on (to protect myself against rape/assault). I'd probably try to find other single women so we could move together.

And then, the National Guard would come down and kill me for stealing Tampax, with what seems like a majority of Americans' approval.

I've truly seen it all now. In one post Wertz goes from discounting news stories as vague and ambiguous 'reports' to excusing violence and looting. It's not their fault after all, it's Bush and his banana republic. Strangely no blame placed on the Democratic mayor in any of this. Why bother when there is such a tempting target like Bush. Not only is Dr Evil's plan to cause Hurricane Katrina coming together, it apparently exceeding his wildest expectations, after all, it's playing out exactly the way the Bush administration wants it to.

One 'little' shot fired at one 'little' helicopter, I've never seen such brilliant framing.

Wertz, you must truly not watch a minute of news, if you can with a straight face, that you have viewed no looting and no National Guardsmen.


What's been ridiculous is the hyperbole in blaming Bush for Katrina and it's aftermath. Ironically, no blame from our friends on the left reserved for any member of congress or the mayor. I can't tell from reading people's posts if Bush is the singlemost diabolical, controlling ruler in the world, or the most incompetent, uninformed boob. He can't be both, no matter how politically convenient.

Regarding the above post, I won't even bother responding to obvious excusal of looting and violence by playing the tired, overused race card. But I guess it goes along the same lines as before, instead of blaming Bush, we'll widen it and simply blame whitey.

In the aftermath of a natural disaster, is looting a crime of such contempt that a home or business owner may have more moral authority to take the law into his or her own hands?

Looting falls below rape, pedophilia, murder, etc....But it is most certainly a heinous act when one would use a disaster or other catastrophe to prey on other. Unfortunately, some of New Orleans finest citizens are resorting to crimes that make looting pale by comparison, such as armed robbery of hospitals, shooting at relief workers and roaming the streets terrorizing those already terrorized.

Should law enforcement or business owners turn a blind eye at the looting of food and water and simply attempt to stop the robbery of luxury consumer items?

Absolutely. If someone is walking (or floating) down the street carrying items, they very well could be his or hers. Leave these people alone. People coming out of supermarkets with grocery items, diapers or water? Leave these people alone. My family isn't going to starve if I'm in that situation either.
Armed thugs breaking into my home or small business? You may just hear the the hammer fall before you do.
Those looting have shown no trepidation to ratchet up from looting to rape and arson. I'll not be giving them the chance.

In your opinion, what is the impetus that would cause a presumably law abiding citizen to become a looter? I ask this because surely not all of those portrayed on news footage are typical criminals.
Several posters have offered up plausible theories; desperation, mob mentality, retribution on society, etc....
When I define a looter, I don't include those trying to feed their families. My definition is squarely placed on those stealing consumer electronics, carjacking and other non-essentials for survival. What causes people to loot? I think the mob mentality has a lot to do with it, there is comfort in numbers. But I think these people would be the type to steal your wallet when you weren't looking anyway. That a business has insurance is no excuse for crime.

Simple question... who shot first? I don't know, but if a person's life is actually threatened I support him killing that threat.



I submit this is the true decay of our society and all societies for eons. "Property is life"???? Property is inanimate. I agree that property derived from hours of hard work and the theft of it is tragic. But that property is not worth a life, because it is NOT life.

I believe your attitude toward killing people for property is very common. On the comedy movie called "Friday" There was this funny part at the end. The Bully, "Debo", lays knocked out unconscious. This skinny crack-head comes by and sees an opportunity to capitalize and takes debo's shoes. Then, he reaches into Debo's pocket and pulls out a knife. He put's the knife back in the pocket and says the infamous line. "You can keep that because I steal, I don't kill"

Well... many people are just the opposite as we see... they'll kill, but they sure as hell won't steal... KUDOS to them!!!!

I understand you would kill people to protect T.V.s I saw one person with spray paint on his business saying.. "looters will be shot" I have no problem with that. But if you are prepared to deal death, be prepared to be dealt death. If a business owner starts shooting people, then someone retaliates and shoots him... The business owner got what he deserved. Obviously he is not the only one who puts property over human life.

By the way.. do businesses have to carry insurance??

Okay DTOM, that was nothing but a strawman. My post went into a lot more detail than just playing a generic "race card." I did, in no way shape or form excuse the looting with the excuse "it's okay because they are black." I pointed to obvious, undeniable racist biased media coverage of the looters, but I did not excuse "looting and violence" because "well, they're black, so it's okay." I'm especially curious as to where exactly in my post I excused "violence," at all, especially excusing violence perpetrated by black people simply because they are black. Because, funny thing, I went back through my post and all I found was this in reference to the violence:



So me saying that police should be focusing on preventing violent crime and ignoring the looting (perpetrated by people of ALL COLORS, I never once said that "only the looting committed by black people should be ignored) = me excusing looting by playing the race card and "blaming whitey."

NO.

The ONLY critique of racism I had was in the media coverage (which you ADMITTED TO IN YOUR INITAL THREAD POST!). But when I do it, all of a sudden I'm playing the race card?

How exactly does that work out, when you doing it is okay but me doing it is "playing the race card" and "blaming whitey?"

No, you pointed to ONE instance of AP captioning two photos. Is that all the evidence that you usually need to confirm a point? Could it possibly be that most remaining residents left in New Orleans are black? Could that possibly be a reason that we see a preponderance of black faces looting? How is that biased racist media coverage? On what planet does that law of statistics hold water?


Wrong. "Let the n*ggers starve and die, just make sure they don't take any of our stuff." Real classy wording.....



This reads as an excuse to me:
Yes, they are mostly poor, and yes, they are mostly black. Which, coincidentally, makes it a hell of a lot easier for people to feel unsympathetic for them and to lead to them thinking of them as animals instead of people, and worthy of killing for stealing a TV.

What's your point in writing the above? We (read whitey) see blacks looting and automatically think of them as animals, because they're black? We feel contempt for those that would steal non-essentials from fellow citizens during a time of disaster, and only condemn them because they're black?

Convince me of how much time a news reporter should spend on finding a white face looting when they arguably make up a small minority of the urban residents of New Orleans in the first place.....One instance of racially insensitive or racist captioning should not color the entire media coverage.

Race shouldn't even enter into this debate until or unless there are actual instances of racism. I was curt with you, probably becuase I had read your blog. I apologize for not addressing the remainder of your post.

Unfortunately, it is being perpetrated by the left wing blogs and circulated along with the various thoeries about Bush causing Katrina.

New Orleans is a city that is 67 percent black. That is a fact.

That means most of the looters, snipers and rioters are probably black. So are the majority of those whom are hungry, thirsty, injured, sick, dying and dead.

So, what's the point here? Black people are stealing. Black people drowned. Black people are dead. It is also predominantly Black people who are rescuing others and saving lives. So are White people, Latino people, Asian people and anybody else with a heart left in a hellhole of a city.

To be certain, there are a lot of white people and other races equally miserable by what occurred, but a predominantly black city is going to be predominantly the ones catching the hell.

Jack Shafer in SLATE wrote:

I can't say I saw everything that the TV newscasters pumped out about Katrina, but I viewed enough repeated segments to say with 90 percent confidence that broadcasters covering the New Orleans end of the disaster demurred from mentioning two topics that must have occurred to every sentient viewer: race and class.

Nearly every rescued person, temporary resident of the Superdome, looter, or loiterer on the high ground of the freeway I saw on TV was African-American. And from the look of it, they weren't wealthy residents of the Garden District. This storm appears to have hurt blacks more directly than whites, but the broadcasters scarcely mentioned that fact.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2124688/

I disagree with a lot of Shafer's article. Race matters but if Katrina had hit the whitest suburb in America it would still be a human tragedy, not a racial one.

I disagree with your original phrasing Dontreadonme, Most news broadcasts have portrayed looting on a wide scale in New Orleans. They have also shown mostly poor-looking, mostly minority individuals in the process of looting. It belabors the obvious. Before the hurricane hit those that could get out of town did so. What's the odds they were predominantly white? Not everyone has the luxury of a private vehicle, the cash to pay for gas and a motel room or a place to run to.

Katrina has brought a city to its knees, exposed the impotence of the federal and state government and proven that given the opportunity the strong (and armed) will prey upon the weak.

The race of the predators is totally irrelevant. There are those who are looting out of need. Others who are motivated by greed. It is up to the good people left who outnumber the bad, with the aid of law enfocement to take the city back from the criminal element that is terrorizing them all.

And that transcends race.