NationStates Jolt Archive

I just found this interesting. I was watching the news (forgot which one, I think it was KTLA 5) and they were showing Floridans with guns protecting themselves from looters following the aftermath of the latest hurricanes.

They even showed some man walking away with looted goods and they tried to interview him. The man just said that he was looting and it was a free for all, though I think I god his words messed up.

Anyway, yeah. I was just interested that Floridans took the law into their own hands, in a most courageous and legitimate manner, and put signs up all over houses saying "Looters will be shot." Hell, they even showed some little girl (somewhere around 4-7) with an assault rifle. And in her own words "These are real bullets."

I must say, I think this is probably the best argument for the second amendment. People in danger protecting themselves when the government is unable to protect them.

I just found this interesting. I was watching the news (forgot which one, I think it was KTLA 5) and they were showing Floridans with guns protecting themselves from looters following the aftermath of the latest hurricanes.

They even showed some man walking away with looted goods and they tried to interview him. The man just said that he was looting and it was a free for all, though I think I god his words messed up.

Anyway, yeah. I was just interested that Floridans took the law into their own hands, in a most courageous and legitimate manner, and put signs up all over houses saying "Looters will be shot." Hell, they even showed some little girl (somewhere around 4-7) with an assault rifle. And in her own words "These are real bullets."

I must say, I think this is probably the best argument for the second amendment. People in danger protecting themselves when the government is unable to protect them.




Wait wait wait.....some obvious looter was walking off with stolen goods, and they interviewed him without trying to stop him? :headbang:

I just found this interesting. I was watching the news (forgot which one, I think it was KTLA 5) and they were showing Floridans with guns protecting themselves from looters following the aftermath of the latest hurricanes.

They even showed some man walking away with looted goods and they tried to interview him. The man just said that he was looting and it was a free for all, though I think I god his words messed up.

Anyway, yeah. I was just interested that Floridans took the law into their own hands, in a most courageous and legitimate manner, and put signs up all over houses saying "Looters will be shot." Hell, they even showed some little girl (somewhere around 4-7) with an assault rifle. And in her own words "These are real bullets."

I must say, I think this is probably the best argument for the second amendment. People in danger protecting themselves when the government is unable to protect them.
*sigh*

I fail to see how human life, even that of a criminal, is worth less than property. Before this gets into a constitutional crapfest, the second amendment does not provide for the use of lethal force to protect property. Using the much vaunted doctrine of original intent shows us exactly the opposite, as lethal force can not be used to defend property (eg, use it as a defense against murder) under English common law.

*sigh*

I fail to see how human life, even that of a criminal, is worth less than property.
These people are sitting amongst what's left of their lives and people are taking advantage of that and robbing them of all they have and thus causing more pain for them than they already suffered.

They're simply warning criminals to not loot their house and their families, because they are armed. I think it's a fair warning.

*sigh*

I fail to see how human life, even that of a criminal, is worth less than property.



You're assuming they would shoot to kill. Personally, I would aim for the legs, or fire a few shots into the air to scare the criminal off.

i say more funding for police, and a greater sense of community would be better...

Wait wait wait.....some obvious looter was walking off with stolen goods, and they interviewed him without trying to stop him? :headbang:
Yeah well what did you expect the man with the $40 wig to do? Rip the goods from his hands?

These people are sitting amongst what's left of their lives and people are taking advantage of that and robbing them of all they have and thus causing more pain for them than they already suffered.

They're simply warning criminals to not loot their house and their families, because they are armed. I think it's a fair warning.
Doesn't change the fact that shooting to kill to defend property shouldn't be illegal. God knows what the hell florida's statues on this say. I know for sure that the intent of the second amendment wasn't to provide for people to use lethal force to defend property.

i say more funding for police, and a greater sense of community would be better...
:rolleyes:

You're assuming they would shoot to kill. Personally, I would aim for the legs, or fire a few shots into the air to scare the criminal off.
Whereas I would shoot to kill. If you're trying to steal what's left of my assets, after nature has pretty much wiped my place off the map, I think I'd be doing the world a favour to get rid of the likes of such a one. *Shrugs*

US laws requires that lethal force only be used when in defense of life or limb of yourself or another. Shooting someone in the legs is still lethal force.

Shooting looters is not advised.

Saving your Zenith only to get a prison sentence is stupid.

Doesn't change the fact that shooting to kill to defend property shouldn't be illegal. God knows what the hell florida's statues on this say. I know for sure that the intent of the second amendment wasn't to provide for people to use lethal force to defend property.
They never said they were going to shoot to kill.

They are not bound by the policy that the police are bound to.

It is up to the civilian individual. The civilian should damn well know that killing a man that isn't trying to kill you is going to get you into a hell lot of problems. So warning shots or accurate shots to the leg would be sufficient.

They never said they were going to shoot to kill.

They are not bound by the policy that the police are bound to.

It is up to the civilian individual. The civilian should damn well know that killing a man that isn't trying to kill you is going to get you into a hell lot of problems. So warning shots or accurate shots to the leg would be sufficient.
The police have more leeway here then a civilian would. Shooting to kill to defend property (or "accidentally" shooting someone who is looting) wasn't legal under common law back when the second amendment was established, nor is it legal in most states (can't speak for them all, as I said, I'm not familiar with Florida self defense law) today.

The police have more leeway here then a civilian would. Shooting to kill to defend property (or "accidentally" shooting someone who is looting) wasn't legal under common law back when the second amendment was established, nor is it legal in most states (can't speak for them all, as I said, I'm not familiar with Florida self defense law) today.
Yes but didn't I just say that civilians don't have to shoot to kill?

Yes but didn't I just say that civilians don't have to shoot to kill?
What do you think the logical extension of your policy is?

What do you think the logical extension of your policy is?
My policy?

My policy?
Someone doesn't stop looting after warning shots. Someone doesn't stop looting after being shot in the hip. Or being shot in the hip causes his pelvis to shatter, causing him to bleed to death due to the messed up state of things because of the hurricane.

Someone doesn't stop looting after warning shots. Someone doesn't stop looting after being shot in the hip. Or being shot in the hip causes his pelvis to shatter, causing him to bleed to death due to the messed up state of things because of the hurricane.
If someone doesn't stop after warning shots than what kind of an idiot is he?

And the rest is all probability issues that are already dealt with in the legal system. Accidental murder and the like.

If someone doesn't stop after warning shots than what kind of an idiot is he?

And the rest is all probability issues that are already dealt with in the legal system. Accidental murder and the like.
It isn't accidental if you shoot him...and 'your honor, he was being an idiot' isn't a legal defense to murder.

It isn't accidental if you shoot him...and 'your honor, he was being an idiot' isn't a legal defense to murder.
Well just remember a civilian defending himself and his property and his family is legal. Killing isn't under most circumstances, unless it was self-defense. It's all under the legal system.

Well just remember a civilian defending himself and his property and his family is legal. Killing isn't under most circumstances, unless it was self-defense. It's all under the legal system.
Killing to defend property is not legal (again, in general). Trust me, I've taken a harder look at self defense law then you most likely have.

Killing to defend property is not legal (again, in general). Trust me, I've taken a harder look at self defense law then you most likely have.
Never said they were shooting to kill.

*runs around in a circle*

Never said they were shooting to kill.

*runs around in a circle*
I think we're done here...

I think we're done here...
Yeah I've tried to end it a couple posts up.

Never said they were shooting to kill.

*runs around in a circle*Pay attention children...

Shooting is lethal force...period. Aim at the legs, feet, whatever...still lethal force.

And lethal force is only a defense when in defense of life or limb...


Now stop running in circles and sit down.

Instead of wasting a shit load of taxpayer dollars. We should give up the state. It is not worth the money.

Actually, I've heard that shooting below the knees is considered non-lethal, not sure if the source was reputable, but I'm in Florida so I guess that helps....

Am I the only one who feels that the fact that there were looters AFTER a major natural disaster just happened, and people struggling to get there lives back, disgusting?

I know that where I live (Canada), that my community would be SUPPORTING me! We wouldn't have looters, as we have a sense of community.

[QUOTE=CSW]I fail to see how human life, even that of a criminal, is worth less than property. QUOTE]
You haven't seen my property. You touch my Pradas, I'll kill ya! :sniper:

If its not ok to shoot at the looters, what should these people do to protect what's left of their property? Just sit down and say "go ahead and take all my stuff"?!? What's with this "I refuse to defend myself so please take advantage of me" attitude? Some of you talk about a "sense of community". Well what makes you so sure that all the looters are coming from within that community? Philosophies and police funding are irrelevant and worthless when the looter is there with an armload of your stuff. What can these people do about it that isn't wrong in your eyes?

Killing someone over objects is in no way exscusable in my opinion. How can you compare HUMAN LIFE to that of inanimate objects!?

If you're religious in any way you probably have a religion that teaches human life is sacred no? So how can you say that killing another person is even allowable?

And yes shooting at someone with the intention to only disable them is okay with me. But that would only be under an extreme case in my eyes.

Am I the only one who feels that the fact that there were looters AFTER a major natural disaster just happened, and people struggling to get there lives back, disgusting?

I know that where I live (Canada), that my community would be SUPPORTING me! We wouldn't have looters, as we have a sense of community.
Well you wouldn't know the worst of your community until it's every man for himself. Don't think every Canadian is an angel, I'm pretty sure a good amount would try to seize their opportunity just like anyone else would.

Well you wouldn't know the worst of your community until it's every man for himself. Don't think every Canadian is an angel, I'm pretty sure a good amount would try to seize their opportunity just like anyone else would.

I have never heard of anything like that happening. Maybe if a riot broke out I can understand. But those are fed by anger and resentment. This would usually evoke sympathy out of me.

Back when Montreal experienced a few hard weeks from a blizzard, people were stuck frozen in there homes but we weren't looting businesses, we were sending aid and volunteers from all over.

Maybe it's just me, but looters seems so wrong to me.

I have never heard of anything like that happening. Maybe if a riot broke out I can understand. But those are fed by anger and resentment. This would usually evoke sympathy out of me.

Back when Montreal experienced a few hard weeks from a blizzard, people were stuck frozen in there homes but we weren't looting businesses, we were sending aid and volunteers from all over.

Maybe it's just me, but looters seems so wrong to me.
Ah, blizzards are kinda different from hurricanes. Mainly, houses haven;t been ripped to shreds and possesions exposed to everyone. ;)

Killing someone over objects is in no way exscusable in my opinion. How can you compare HUMAN LIFE to that of inanimate objects!?

If you're religious in any way you probably have a religion that teaches human life is sacred no? So how can you say that killing another person is even allowable?

And yes shooting at someone with the intention to only disable them is okay with me. But that would only be under an extreme case in my eyes.
Like I said, what would you have them do? What I hear you saying here is that criminal behaviour is far more justified than standing up for yourself.

Maybe it's just me, but looters seems so wrong to me.
Its not just you. Looters seem wrong to everyone but themselves.

Like I said, what would you have them do? What I hear you saying here is that criminal behaviour is far more justified than standing up for yourself.

Yeah it sucks, but I don't see how someone can go to sleep saying to themselves "Oh well he was going to steal my jewlery, so I had to kill him. I sacrificed sacred life for money."

Ah, blizzards are kinda different from hurricanes. Mainly, houses haven;t been ripped to shreds and possesions exposed to everyone. ;)

You know a lot about blizzards there, Mr. SoCal? :p

Looting is only natural for people (for example many anticapitalists) who believe that "property is theft." They see things as "belonging to the public," no matter who 'owns' it, and therefore up for the taking. Oh, for the "greater good" of course, wink wink.

Ah, blizzards are kinda different from hurricanes. Mainly, houses haven;t been ripped to shreds and possesions exposed to everyone. ;)
Yes but it's not exactly difficult for one to get into a store when the electricity it off (no alarm), and no one is outside (too cold).

You know a lot about blizzards there, Mr. SoCal? :p
Four seasons here:
Rainy
Muddy
Windy
Dry


Fall? Summer? Spring? Winter? All rumors about the outside world to us. :D

Four seasons here:
Rainy
Muddy
Windy
Dry


Fall? Summer? Spring? Winter? All rumors about the outside world to us. :D

yes, we in Canada experience something similiar only it's

Cold
Not-So Cold
Very Cold
:D

Yeah it sucks, but I don't see how someone can go to sleep saying to themselves "Oh well he was going to steal my jewlery, so I had to kill him. I sacrificed sacred life for money."
Once someone has reduced themselves to the level of victimizing innocent people when they are most vulnerable, I don't believe their lives are "sacred" anymore. It wasn't the person defending their property that sacrificed the life. It was the looter who sacrificed his/her own life in the pursuit of evil.

Four seasons here:
Rainy
Muddy
Windy
Dry


Fall? Summer? Spring? Winter? All rumors about the outside world to us. :D

That's not bad. We have like 87 seasons in New England.

Yes but it's not exactly difficult for one to get into a store when the electricity it off (no alarm), and no one is outside (too cold).
If no one is out there, then who is breaking into the store?

If no one is out there, then who is breaking into the store?
The other people of course...

We're Canadians, we don't care if it's cold... We'd just rather be inside is all :)

Except for these apparent looters I hear so much about...

The other people of course...

We're Canadians, we don't care if it's cold... We'd just rather be inside is all :)

Except for these apparent looters I hear so much about...
:confused:
You just said that NO ONE is outside because its "too cold".
:confused:

Heh... I remember people saying how barbaric it was that Iraqis were looting after America ripped into them with their military... how horrible people said it was that priceless art collections were stolen and sold to the highest bidder outside of Iraq... civilized people wouldn't do such things. They're all common criminals.

And now Americans are looting from each other.
How barbaric. Common criminals and hoodlums. Civilized people would do no such thing.
I love America, if only for the fact that they make me laugh with their backwards ways of thinking.

Heh... I remember people saying how barbaric it was that Iraqis were looting after America ripped into them with their military... how horrible people said it was that priceless art collections were stolen and sold to the highest bidder outside of Iraq... civilized people wouldn't do such things. They're all common criminals.

And now Americans are looting from each other.
How barbaric. Common criminals and hoodlums. Civilized people would do no such thing.
I love America, if only for the fact that they make me laugh with their backwards ways of thinking....

...I think you missed the entire point of the thread.

We're threatening to SHOOT looters for crying out loud. Does that imply ANYTHING to you?

I got that. That's been beaten to death. What am I going to say? Either I'm for or against shooting and why? That's all been said. I'd shoot at someone who tried to break in and steal things that I valued. Not to kill, but to scare away.
Happy?
My last post still stands. Hypocrites make me laugh, and I drew an instant connection between the two stories of looting. :D

I think Florida needs a new motto. "If you come a'lootin, we'll be a'shootin" ;)

Heh... I remember people saying how barbaric it was that Iraqis were looting after America ripped into them with their military... how horrible people said it was that priceless art collections were stolen and sold to the highest bidder outside of Iraq... civilized people wouldn't do such things. They're all common criminals.
I don't remember anyone saying that. All I remember hearing about it was criticism about how the US military should have prevented the looting by shooting and killing the looters. There's your parallel to this thread.

Anyway, yeah. I was just interested that Floridans took the law into their own hands, in a most courageous and legitimate manner, and put signs up all over houses saying "Looters will be shot." Hell, they even showed some little girl (somewhere around 4-7) with an assault rifle. And in her own words "These are real bullets."


Even as i'm atheist, i must cry "God save us from United States!" :mad:
This is barbarism at its fullest: to shoot people for stealing?! Or to threaten shooting!

Have you ever heard about value of human life? Are roots of slavery so deep in your subconciousness that you threaten to injure or kill people as you wish for stealing some valuables?!

There seems only one plausible action course: police afterwards should have investigated and arrested the ones who put such signs up, and gave some harsh sentences for them. But I guess in USA, it doesn't happen.


Only in America, you fight drugs, but don't fight physical violence.

I'm not sure which is worse; the fact that the citizens of this great and amazing nation started a mindless looting rampage in the first place, or the fact that you're using something this utterly disgusting to promote the use of lethal weapons to defend televisions.

Still people go on and on about how horrible it is to exterminate the vermin that are looters, and still no one can even begin to answer my question.

Once the looter is on your property, how do you turn the looter away empty handed without any use or threat of force?

The police are not around. Its just you and the piece of trash that wants to rob you. What do you do?

If you're willing to just let your property be looted and stolen, then you didn't deserve to have it in the first place.

Don't forget that the police enforce the law through the threat of and use of deadly force, which is exactly what the citizens are doing for themselves since the police don't seem to be around.

The fact that people are discouraged from defending themselves is the reason why the crime rate is so out of control. If people started shooting thieves dead on the spot, and not being punished for it, there would be almost NO looting going on because most people don't want to risk death to steal a TV. They loot because they believe that there's nothing the property owner can legally do about it. They also know that the police are not going to look for individual looters, no matter how much stuff they've stolen. They believe that they can steal all they want safely without fear of repercussion. Make it known that it is legal and condoned to shoot them, and they will get scared and cry off. All but the stupidest ones that is, and humanity can certainly benefit from their removal from the gene pool.

Have you people not heard of contents insurance? I was under the impression that everybody insured their homes and the contents of their homes so that they wouldn't have to sit in their porch with a shotgun picking off anybody who gets too close. TVs can be replaced, but blood can't be washed from your hands.

Still people go on and on about how horrible it is to exterminate the vermin that are looters, and still no one can even begin to answer my question.

They are people not vermin. Human beings, which may have broken law, but this fact does not make them less humans. When you exceed speed limits, your life does not cost less, and you do not become lower person than others. It should be dealt with the hand of law.


Once the looter is on your property, how do you turn the looter away empty handed without any use or threat of force?

The police are not around. Its just you and the piece of trash that wants to rob you. What do you do?

If you're willing to just let your property be looted and stolen, then you didn't deserve to have it in the first place.

Call police. If not possible, gather eyewitness, remember looter's appearance, call police afterwards. Police will perform investigation, and quite possibly find and sentence the looter. That's what people in civilized countries would do.

Have you people not heard of contents insurance? I was under the impression that everybody insured their homes and the contents of their homes so that they wouldn't have to sit in their porch with a shotgun picking off anybody who gets too close. TVs can be replaced, but blood can't be washed from your hands.
Insurance doesn't cover everything, and not everyone can afford it anyway.

They are people not vermin. Human beings, which may have broken law, but this fact does not make them less humans. When you exceed speed limits, your life does not cost less, and you do not become lower person than others. It should be dealt with the hand of law.



Call police. If not possible, gather eyewitness, remember looter's appearance, call police afterwards. Police will perform investigation, and quite possibly find and sentence the looter. That's what people in civilized countries would do.
Please read my edit.
As I pointed out, the police are utterly useless in this situation.

If you tresspass on my property and try to steal from me, you will be dealt with.

If you break into my business and try to steal from me, you will be dealt with.

The minute you begin acting like an animal, you will be treated as such.

How many times have you seen a news story where a burglar was shot by a homeowner while breaking in, the burglar then sues the homeowner and wins?

What had happened to this country? A man, who was breaking the law to begin with, is ultimately rewarded for doing so. Go figure. :headbang:

The fact that people are discouraged from defending themselves is the reason why the crime rate is so out of control. If people started shooting thieves dead on the spot, and not being punished for it, there would be almost NO looting going on because most people don't want to risk death to steal a TV. They loot because they believe that there's nothing the property owner can legally do about it. They also know that the police are not going to look for individual looters, no matter how much stuff they've stolen. They believe that they can steal all they want safely without fear of repercussion. Make it known that it is legal and condoned to shoot them, and they will get scared and cry off. All but the stupidest ones that is, and humanity can certainly benefit from their removal from the gene pool.

If people started shooting thieves dead, then maybe you should start shooting people who give you too little change in shop, or who express opinions you do not like. Why not, if you do not like, then start shooting. :rolleyes:

Is that really American attitude to life or you are just extremist. If it is general opinion, I will adjust my views at USA culture. I cannot say that it is wrong, since apparently there are different value systems: here people generally value human life more than property; and you have that vice versa. And this is quite fundamental values from which other stems of. Then there is no discussion, I just hope that you are single one with such opinions.


And imagine the following scenarios, looter comes and tries to take your property (TV, cash, and other valuables).
a) He goes unstopped and in worst case is uncaught, unpunished and you get nothing back.
b) You shoot him and probably (intentionally or accidentally) heavily injure or kill him.

In one case you lost property, in other you took life.
Your choice is still the same?

I just want to make it clear: I am not a gun nut, I am what they call "way out left" I'm an anarchist.
But there seems to be a point, how do you stop a looter without force?
remember his face? The looter would of course hide his face (unless he's stupid) The point is: it's impossible to stop him without violence.
BUT if you use a gun to shoot him, the next time a looter comes, he'll probably have a gun himself....

see where I'm going?

Other solution: send in the military?

Yeah, perfect, so we're even more controlled by the government, one nation of consumer-producers who make the rich even richer.

Come on people, you can't possibly want more police on the streets, soldiers on the streets? You HAVE to be crazy, that's choosing safety over freedom.

people, learn your history!

Insurance doesn't cover everything, and not everyone can afford it anyway.

You can insure anything you want, whether it's your TV, your collection of gold sovereigns, or even your limbs.

And frankly, if you can afford a house and the stuff inside it is valuable enough to commit murder over, then you can afford insurance. Sell your frickin' gun to afford it if you want.

As I pointed out, the police are utterly useless in this situation.

I did not find why they are useless. What stops them to start investigation, afterwards, when order returns?

If people started shooting thieves dead, then maybe you should start shooting people who give you too little change in shop, or who express opinions you do not like. Why not, if you do not like, then start shooting. :rolleyes:
Because that's asinine. No one is taking anything from me by having a difference of opinion. If I get short-changed in a shop, I don't end up with nothing. I bought something, which is why I was getting change in the first place.

Is that really American attitude to life or you are just extremist. If it is general opinion, I will adjust my views at USA culture. I cannot say that it is wrong, since apparently there are different value systems: here people generally value human life more than property; and you have that vice versa. And this is quite fundamental values from which other stems of. Then there is no discussion, I just hope that you are single one with such opinions.
(laughing) If you would care to open your eyes to reality, I think you'll find that there are people who agree with this position in every country on this planet. Like some of the people in Iraq, for example. Not to mention all the people who agree in this very thread.

Yeah, I'm the one single person in the world who believes in standing up for himself and protecting his own rights. :rolleyes: (laughing some more)

And imagine the following scenarios, looter comes and tries to take your property (TV, cash, and other valuables).
a) He goes unstopped and in worst case is uncaught, unpunished and you get nothing back.
b) You shoot him and probably (intentionally or accidentally) heavily injure or kill him.

In one case you lost property, in other you took life.
Your choice is still the same?
Wrong. In one case my rights were viloated, and in the other some vermin gave up his own life.

Oh, and yes, humans can be vermin just like any other species. One example of human vermin are the people who do everything in their power to make sure that all humans are pathetic, defenseless creatures with no means of defending their rights, and who's hard-earned property is free for the taking for anyone who wants it.

If you tresspass on my property and try to steal from me, you will be dealt with.

If you break into my business and try to steal from me, you will be dealt with.

The minute you begin acting like an animal, you will be treated as such.

How many times have you seen a news story where a burglar was shot by a homeowner while breaking in, the burglar then sues the homeowner and wins?

What had happened to this country? A man, who was breaking the law to begin with, is ultimately rewarded for doing so. Go figure. :headbang:


never... i have heard of the guy who heard someone breaking into his house, threatened him with a (licensed) gun, and then shot him in the legs when he didnt go away being charged with attempted murder (the burglar was charged with B&E, theft and a few other charges) the case was State of Victoria vs (name of person i have forgotten), the state won, homeowner went to jail as did the burglar. He defense of he was robbing me was responded to with "Next time call the police, do NOT take the law into your own hands".

You can insure anything you want, whether it's your TV, your collection of gold sovereigns, or even your limbs.

And frankly, if you can afford a house and the stuff inside it is valuable enough to commit murder over, then you can afford insurance. Sell your frickin' gun to afford it if you want.
If you're making a big house payment, and spent the rest of your money on stuff to put in the house, you might not have a lot left to make those insurance payments. Regardless, there are some things that cannot be replaced, like your limbs. (Fake limbs are not a replacement, just a substitute.) I have my stuff insured, but there are some things here that are more dear to me than any amount of money. (Like my limbs.) Also, I don't have a gun. I can't afford one. ;) I do have a sword, though, but I doubt I'll ever use it as a home defense weapon.

I just love this logic though: If you can afford to spend all your money, then you can afford to spend more money than you have. (laughing) That's classic.

I did not find why they are useless. What stops them to start investigation, afterwards, when order returns?
Sometimes sheer laziness on the part of the police. Usually because they are overwhelmed with so many calls that they just don't have the time or the manpower to deal with it all. Seriously, when something gets stolen from you in this country, unless its a car with a tracking device on it, there's almost no chance of you ever getting it back or the theif being brought to justice. That's a reality that the American pople face, which is why they acknowledge the need to protect themselves.

Doesn't matter if we are talking about a houseful of luxuries, or just a few hard-earned essentials, what they are looting is the remains of people's lives.
Anyone sick enough to do that belongs in a body bag, and people who help them get there are just choosing the lesser of two evils - I could live with the knowledge that I killed someone, when the alternative would be to let them carry on kicking their victims whilst they are already down...

never... i have heard of the guy who heard someone breaking into his house, threatened him with a (licensed) gun, and then shot him in the legs when he didnt go away being charged with attempted murder (the burglar was charged with B&E, theft and a few other charges) the case was State of Victoria vs (name of person i have forgotten), the state won, homeowner went to jail as did the burglar. He defense of he was robbing me was responded to with "Next time call the police, do NOT take the law into your own hands".

Well, that works for me. Victim and villain are equal. :rolleyes:

Tell you what, the next time someone breaks into your house make sure you ask him what his intentions are and then let him clean you out. Maybe, if you ask him nicely, he'll leave his driver's license or some other form of photo ID and you can give that to the police if and when they arrive.

Because that's asinine. No one is taking anything from me by having a difference of opinion. If I get short-changed in a shop, I don't end up with nothing. I bought something, which is why I was getting change in the first place.

It's not hat looter takes everything. I am extrapolating your statements. If you see killing as feasible way of solving problems, then why it should not go further. You have already stepped over the line: killing.

(laughing) If you would care to open your eyes to reality, I think you'll find that there are people who agree with this position in every country on this planet. Like some of the people in Iraq, for example. Not to mention all the people who agree in this very thread.

Yeah, I know. I know that people kill and have killed other people, I know that armed robbery takes place all over the world, and I know that there exists many people that are able and sometimes willing to kill other people. That is indeed reality.

What I cannot understand, that such public threats of shooting looters go unpunished. I do not understand how can you support that. Open violence.


Wrong. In one case my rights were viloated, and in the other some vermin gave up his own life.

In both cases your rights of property were violated, as you were robbed. Only in one case you killed person. The only way how one can give up his own life is suicide.


Oh, and yes, humans can be vermin just like any other species. One example of human vermin are the people who do everything in their power to make sure that all humans are pathetic, defenseless creatures with no means of defending their rights, and who's hard-earned property is free for the taking for anyone who wants it.

I see where you are going :) , but that what you describe is right in uncivilized society. Maybe in primitive tribes. Not in modern society. Why you take out police out of picture, because police defends citizen rights and property and punishes accordingly. Not you. And not killing people.

Well then please answer following question: Which is more important (or valuable) for you: your property or other person's life?

Then our discussion will be succesfully closed.

FLORIDA CASTLE DOCTRINE BILL

On March 23, 2005 The Florida Senate passed SB-436, "Castle Doctrine" by a vote of YEAS 39 -- NAYS 0

On April 5, 2005 The Florida House passed SB-436, "Castle Doctrine" by a vote of YEAS 94 NAYS 20

On April 26, 2005 Governor Jeb Bush SIGNED SB-436, "Castle Doctrine" into law (Chapter No. 2005-27) It takes effect on October 1, 2005.

For those who want detailed information on why this bill is important, the following information is provided.

A great deal of erroneous information has been written, published and spoken about Florida's new "Castle Doctrine" bill.

Claims that the new law will turn Florida into the Wild West are not only an insult to intelligent people but give a patently false portrait of what the bill actually does.

The Florida "Castle Doctrine" bill does basically three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.

http://diodon349.com/Conservative_Corner/florida_castle_doctrine_signed_into_law.htm

kinda ties in so a link to an NS post i just made:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9500421#post9500421

I see where you are going :) , but that what you describe is right in uncivilized society. Maybe in primitive tribes. Not in modern society. Why you take out police out of picture, because police defends citizen rights and property and punishes accordingly. Not you. And not killing people.

Let me tell you a little story about the police and their defending of citizens rights. My wife was sexually assaulted while walking across a well lit parking lot of the local supermarket at 9:30 in the evening. She was able to fight him off, but not without sustaining a severe concussion, two broken ribs and a fractured wrist. When the police finally arrived 45 minutes later, the first question they asked was "What were you doing in the parking lot at this hour?" and shortly followed with "What did you do to antagonize him?". :eek:

Are you @!#*&%? kidding me? The police blamed her for being in the parking lot at 9:30 in the evening! Although she filed a report, the police told her flat out that even if they did catch the guy (read: we're not getting off our donut-eating asses to help you) he would be released on bail shortly after being arrested and most likely never show up to court.

And you want me to rely on the police? Uh-huh.

so i guess my main question is why does the US have such a third world police force (corrupt, lazy, inefficient from what i have heard (reading between lines on occasion))

It's not hat looter takes everything. I am extrapolating your statements. If you see killing as feasible way of solving problems, then why it should not go further. You have already stepped over the line: killing.
No, what you're doing is trying to throw an asinine spin on my statements. Trying to compare situations that aren't even similar.

What I cannot understand, that such public threats of shooting looters go unpunished. I do not understand how can you support that. Open violence.
You can't understand why people are not punished for standing up for themselves. You can't understand why everyone in the world doesn't just bend over and say "Go ahead and rape me. I'm far to weak and pathetic to even consider trying to defend myself." Like I said, that attitude is the reason why crime is such a problem in this world.

In both cases your rights of property were violated, as you were robbed. Only in one case you killed person. The only way how one can give up his own life is suicide.
Wrong again. When you choose to violate someone else's rights, you forfeit your own.

I see where you are going :) , but that what you describe is right in uncivilized society. Maybe in primitive tribes. Not in modern society. Why you take out police out of picture, because police defends citizen rights and property and punishes accordingly. Not you. And not killing people.
Kid, how long is it going to take you to understand that THE POLICE ENFORCE THE LAW THROUGH THE THREAT OF AND USE OF DEADLY FORCE?
You see those things in the holsters on their hips? Those are guns. You know what they do with those guns? They shoot people with them. :eek: You know what tends to happen to people who get shot, don't you? They have a tendency to die. :eek: Imagine that. The police will kill in order to defend property.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9039940/
If a civillian kills the looter, or a police officer kills the looter, the result is exactly the same. The only difference is that one guy was wearing a badge.

Well then please answer following question: Which is more important (or valuable) for you: your property or other person's life?
:rolleyes: Gee, that's a tough one. Let's see... I can choose to keep all my property intact and rid the world of one despicable degenerate worthless thief, or I can choose to bend over and allow myself to be raped of any and all that the vermin wishes to unjustifiably take from me. Hmm......

Your attitude is deeply disturbing, and extremely dangerous to society.

so i guess my main question is why does the US have such a third world police force (corrupt, lazy, inefficient from what i have heard (reading between lines on occasion)


Too many liberal lawyers? Penalties for crimes not severe enough? Who knows?

Why arrest them if they're just going to be back on the street in a day?

but most of the (first) world has more liberal laws, most have lesser maximum punishment (no death penalty) and bail is never an issue anywhere else... i just dont get why its such a problem in the USA.

Furthermore regarding your position about the police shooting someone is the same as a civilian doing it, you are right... every time that happens here (once every couple of years) there is a full inquiry (sometimes a royal commission (err... supreme court equiry i guess might be close)) to determine if it was justified.

Furthermore regarding your position about the police shooting someone is the same as a civilian doing it, you are right... every time that happens here (once every couple of years) there is a full inquiry (sometimes a royal commission (err... supreme court equiry i guess might be close)) to determine if it was justified.
How can it be justified to take a human life? ;)

Okay, I live in Al. and we were devestated by Hurricane Ivan last year and just about got it again with Dennis but poor Fl. has had what 5 hurricanes in two years with 3 major ones? These people are under tremendous emotional and physical distress right now and I have NO pity for a good for nothing, scumbag, ME ME Me all for me looter!!! :sniper: :mp5: I personally dont have a weapon but good for them they have lost almost everything and need to ((yes there is an actual physical and mental need at this point)) to hang on to what little they have left. So you goody goodies need to think about their suffering ((it is tremendous)) and put yourself in their place. You have no idea of what you are talking about here. You have not gone throught waiting for food in long lines, no power for weeks ((that is no exaggeration)) stinking, children upset crying all the time, no sense of security , fear etc. Now someone needed to take that gun away from that kid yes but dont judge these people. I have been in this situation although we didnt lose our apartment, but been without power for one week, lost all of our food, ate MREs yuck!, it is an emotionall y draining event. so if these bastards are warned then proceed at your own risk. IN these incidents by the way curfews are in effect and marshall law is there.

Ok

Im british and i live in England, in a fairly large town full of chav's theives and vandals.

If my house had been completely destroyed by a natural disaster and people then started to try and loot my property or what little i had left, i would shoot/throw knife/throw crowbar/throw something heavy intending to knockout/kill them.

Human life is one thing, But assholes that kick you while your down and steal your posessions after you have lost everything dont deserve mercy or consideration. As soon as someone in my opinion does something like that, they are no longer human and can be dealt with like the rodents they are

How can it be justified to take a human life? ;)

If I feel you are endangering my life and it's either you or me, you will lose.

If I feel you are endangering my wife's life and it's either you or her, you will lose.

If I feel you are endangering my child's life and it's either you or her, you will lose.

I can justify lots of things.

If I feel you are endangering my life and it's either you or me, you will lose.

If I feel you are endangering my wife's life and it's either you or her, you will lose.

If I feel you are endangering my child's life and it's either you or her, you will lose.

I can justify lots of things.
I know you can, and so can I. I was asking Armacor.

How can it be justified to take a human life? ;)

Here is the question you should be asking: How can it be justified stealing the last scrap of food from a starving man?

Here is the question you should be asking: How can it be justified stealing the last scrap of food from a starving man?
Read the other posts by the person that the question is directed at.

Yeah, we don't get it too bad where I'm at... thugh It does get interesting. My house has never been looted... though one of my 'friends' spray painted swastikas all over her ply wood to ward off robbers... (note: a lot of stupid people live around me, nuff said o.o)

Y'know you may all have the entirely wrong end of the stick here.

From what I saw ppl had been robbing from department stores etc, and while you may still advocate shooting those. I wouldn't. It's not as if that stuff belongs personally to anyone- and it would probably be written off for those companies insurance claims anyway.

(I'm talking about multi-nationals here not local stores)

And so what if they need to steal some warm clothes or whatever(and they decide that they want Nike ;) ) surely you wouldn't begrude them that.

And that plasma TV would look so nice next to that plant pot.

So to summarise, steal from THE MAN as much as you want.

Come near me and I'll blow your balls off.

How can it be justified to take a human life? ;)


well the one that was accepted as needed but unfortunant was the maniac who was charging a police officer with an axe, and was shot (dead) at a range or around 12-15 feet... Because of that the police here now carry non leathal (sp) weapons (tazers, stunguns, etc) to deal with those situations now...

So to recap, in the above situation, before any form of ranged non leathal device was employed by the police, against a suspect who was wielding an axe and had threatened the police, and was charging them, not stopping after warnings it is justified (but still unfortunant/wrong) to shoot them, because of this the proceedures for the police have been modified.

Oh yead - the guy was a mentally disabled person it came out afterwards... another reason to change the rules...

well the one that was accepted as needed but unfortunant was the maniac who was charging a police officer with an axe, and was shot (dead) at a range or around 12-15 feet... Because of that the police here now carry non leathal (sp) weapons (tazers, stunguns, etc) to deal with those situations now...
I'm hoping someone will invent a stun weapon as effective as the ones they use in sci-fi programs like Star Trek. That would effectlively end the whole lethal force debate once and for all.

Jesus, It's insane seeing people think that the penalty for looting is death.

The "Looters will be shot on sight" warning signs serve one major purpose.

They WARN the looters not to loot and to remind them that there is someone armed and ready to take them on should they steal a man's possesions.

Last I checked, the signs did not say "Looters will be killed on sight"

Everyone likes to think shooting = killing for some odd reason.

well the arguement here was that unless they are posing an immediate threat to you (the police officer) or the general public, who should have been moved clear ASAP you dont need longer than a 4 meter range, you should try talking them down... Something that happens alot but isnt reported cause it isnt news...

Part of the problem (for the above case) has been the lack of funding for mental health facilities... Too many people are being released into community care, well before they should be due to more urgent cases needing the beds...

well the arguement here was that unless they are posing an immediate threat to you (the police officer) or the general public, who should have been moved clear ASAP you dont need longer than a 4 meter range, you should try talking them down... Something that happens alot but isnt reported cause it isnt news...
Really? Have any good conversation starters for looters?

"Hey man, I really like the food where it is..."
"We kinda need that water..."
"That T.V. costed me a bit of money..."


I like to use
"I got a gun. Run."

why arnt there cops around then? why no SES workers? why no FEMA etc..

why arnt there cops around then? why no SES workers? why no FEMA etc..
There's just not enough of them to go around. Even if they put forth maximum effort, they simply don't have the resources to be everywhere at once.

why arnt there cops around then? why no SES workers? why no FEMA etc..
1. Not enough cops
2. They're too busy helping people in trouble
3. Too busy dealing with OTHER looting investigations
4. Too busy dealing with the damages from the hurricane

That's not enough?

Even as i'm atheist, i must cry "God save us from United States!" :mad:
This is barbarism at its fullest: to shoot people for stealing?! Or to threaten shooting!

Have you ever heard about value of human life? Are roots of slavery so deep in your subconciousness that you threaten to injure or kill people as you wish for stealing some valuables?!

There seems only one plausible action course: police afterwards should have investigated and arrested the ones who put such signs up, and gave some harsh sentences for them. But I guess in USA, it doesn't happen.


Only in America, you fight drugs, but don't fight physical violence.


i can only hope you are being sarcastic....how about the cops investigate and lock up the looter/scumbag vulture?
oh,thats right..if the freakin cops were around to begin with there would be no looters ..or signs WARNING looters.

and it is not some valuables as you so cavalierly put it,but what is left of there destroyed/turned upside down life.

i know it is a waste of breath to try to make you understand how convoluted your logic is,that is if you actually buy that drivel.
1.you propose that the victim of a natural disaster(who is allready traumatized and destitute)and now is yet again a victim of a criminal(that you place higher value on apparently,who is capitalizing on someones misery and helplessness..the worst kinda scum..kicking someone when they are down type coward.who incidentally would probably rape a vulnerable women or girl because they are oppurtunists with no moral code at all or they wouldnt be fuckin looting a helpless person)
you now want to punish them further by making them crimminals by trying to defend what is left of there life?

you,i hate to say are part of the reason crimminals do what they do..why dont you go down to some local jail and hug a crimminal..better yet..give them all your possessions!
that attitude leaves me utterly speechless.

p.s.florida recently passed a law saying you could shoot to defend your life...and private property.
and i dont feel sorry for any scumbag oppurtunist that gets plinked...serves them right.there are safety nets for the less fortunate,robbing from someone that earned what they have is simply unacceptable to me.

:sniper:

Everyone likes to think shooting = killing for some odd reason.I pointed out way back that shooting is use of deadly force, no matter where you aim for, and use of deadly force in defense of property is illegal in most instances.

I pointed out way back that shooting is use of deadly force, no matter where you aim for, and use of deadly force in defense of property is illegal in most instances.
Do you STALK me, sir? :eek:

Do you STALK me, sir? :eek:Don't you hate it when the same rebutals to the same arguements come up again and again.... :p

Don't you hate it when the same rebutals to the same arguements come up again and again.... :p
I just found it pretty funny that I thought you were gone for good and I would be safe to poke my head back into the argument.

What do I do? A post or two and you come right back. :D

1. Not enough cops
2. They're too busy helping people in trouble
3. Too busy dealing with OTHER looting investigations
4. Too busy dealing with the damages from the hurricane

That's not enough?


difference is that in australia is doesnt happen... and if there was a chance it would there are enough cops put in the area to discourage and prevent it.

difference is that in australia is doesnt happen... and if there was a chance it would there are enough cops put in the area to discourage and prevent it.
Yeah...you keep telling yourself that.

well i live with people who work for the SES (state emergency services) and CFA (country fire brigade) they said that... I am inclined to believe them...

:rolleyes: Gee, that's a tough one. Let's see... I can choose to keep all my property intact and rid the world of one despicable degenerate worthless thief, or I can choose to bend over and allow myself to be raped of any and all that the vermin wishes to unjustifiably take from me. Hmm......

Your attitude is deeply disturbing, and extremely dangerous to society.

Yeah, right, and your attitude is lethally dangerous for humans. Maybe we live in different societies. But enough of personal bickering. I've got your anwer and there is nothing that I can say anymore and will abstain from this discussion.

I will add just comment about police. Maybe this problem is larger in USA, as country is very large, but here I am often surprised how often police can find these criminals. Especcially in morally terrible crimes, where people are very responsive and eager to help. It takes some time and bureacraucy but at the end there happens eyewitnesses who have seen person of respective description going in some direction, so police can find more eyewitnesses. Eventually the robber will have gone near some random surveillance camera, went into car (which can be found), went in a shop and paid with credit card, and/or bunch of other small things. Eventually, police does its job quite successfully.

Yeah, right, and your attitude is lethally dangerous for humans.
NO, kid, you're wrong yet again. The lethally dangerous attitude is the attitude that's its a good idea to try to steal from someone who is prepared to DEFEND themselves and their property by force of arms. Note that I said defend, not attack. These homeowners are not going out looking to kill people, as you keep trying to imply. They are only going to shoot at people who are vile and stupid enough to transgress upon them.

It goes a little something like this: If you see a bear trap on the ground, and you know its there, don't step in it, and you won't lose your foot. What could be simpler? Don't do something stupid, and you don't get hurt. Its really not that hard to understand. I can't put into words how mind-blowingly ASININE it is that you keep trying to portray the criminals as innocent victims here.

I will add just comment about police. Maybe this problem is larger in USA, as country is very large, but here I am often surprised how often police can find these criminals. Especcially in morally terrible crimes, where people are very responsive and eager to help. It takes some time and bureacraucy but at the end there happens eyewitnesses who have seen person of respective description going in some direction, so police can find more eyewitnesses. Eventually the robber will have gone near some random surveillance camera, went into car (which can be found), went in a shop and paid with credit card, and/or bunch of other small things. Eventually, police does its job quite successfully.
It must be just awsome to live in a country where the police are perfect and always catch the bad guy. That's great how the entire nation full of people are so eager to help the police, and have all the information they need. Such a great sense of community they have, where everyone bands together to help make sure justice is served.
Excuse me, I have to step away. The eyewatering stench of pure bullshit is stinging my nostrils.
If the things you say were true, it would not be possible for any criminals to exist. The fact that they do exist proves you wrong.

first link:
This is an official summary from the victorian police about crime last financial year.
http://www.police.vic.gov.au/files/documents/610_Highlights-2004-05.pdf

second link:
Executive summary about crime in victoria over the last financial year, including catagory breakdown:
http://www.police.vic.gov.au/files/documents/616_Executive-Summary-2004-05.pdf

regarding the above the definition of assult was modifed, contributing to the increase., for those who dont want to open it there were a TOTAL of 123.8 weapons/explosives crimes per 100,000 people (total pop ~3.5Million) in the year. There were a total of 4 homicides per 100,000 people in the year as well.

third link:
This one details actual numbers of crimes, those committed and prosescuted:
http://www.police.vic.gov.au/files/documents/614_Summary-2004-05.pdf
as you can see, regarding crimes against people 78.5 were prosecuted successfully, with robbery being the only one below 74%, regarding weapon crimes 98.5% were prosecuted successfully.

Hurting people to defend property is wrong!
What if they are trying to loot your child's insulin?
I mean, it is a disaster. What guarantee do you have that you can get any more before it is life threatening for your child?

first link:
This is an official summary from the victorian police about crime last financial year.
http://www.police.vic.gov.au/files/documents/610_Highlights-2004-05.pdf

second link:
Executive summary about crime in victoria over the last financial year, including catagory breakdown:
http://www.police.vic.gov.au/files/documents/616_Executive-Summary-2004-05.pdf

regarding the above the definition of assult was modifed, contributing to the increase., for those who dont want to open it there were a TOTAL of 123.8 weapons/explosives crimes per 100,000 people (total pop ~3.5Million) in the year. There were a total of 4 homicides per 100,000 people in the year as well.

third link:
This one details actual numbers of crimes, those committed and prosescuted:
http://www.police.vic.gov.au/files/documents/614_Summary-2004-05.pdf
as you can see, regarding crimes against people 78.5 were prosecuted successfully, with robbery being the only one below 74%, regarding weapon crimes 98.5% were prosecuted successfully.
Ok...... what's your point?

most crimes ARE successfully prosecuted here... and there arnt very many of the biggies that seem to worry the US so much (Murder, rape, GBH) I would say that the rates (without any data to back it up i know) are probably similar in Europe... the problem that I, other australians and i assume the europeans have is that with our less good position on gun control etc why we have less crime of that nature, and it is prosecuted better... basically why do the US police suck so much...

most crimes ARE successfully prosecuted here... and there arnt very many of the biggies that seem to worry the US so much (Murder, rape, GBH) I would say that the rates (without any data to back it up i know) are probably similar in Europe... the problem that I, other australians and i assume the europeans have is that with our less good position on gun control etc why we have less crime of that nature, and it is prosecuted better... basically why do the US police suck so much...

While there is always corruption or incompetance, that doesn't mean the majority.

A large protion of it is that the police aren't allowed to do their job in many places or are actively discouraged from doing so. quite a few major cities have laws preventing police from arresting people based on their immigration status. The result: 3/4(well over a 1000) of California's outstanding murder warrants are for illegal immigrants.

A large protion of it is that the police aren't allowed to do their job in many places or are actively discouraged from doing so. quite a few major cities have laws preventing police from arresting people based on their immigration status. The result: 3/4(well over a 1000) of California's outstanding murder warrants are for illegal immigrants.

So... you cant arrest someone because of racial profiling... that doesnt stop them being arrested for murder. You can still track and capture them, if they are guilty of other crimes (illigal immigrant, B&E, GBH, anything else really...) you can charge them with that as well

So... you cant arrest someone because of racial profiling... that doesnt stop them being arrested for murder. You can still track and capture them, if they are guilty of other crimes (illigal immigrant, B&E, GBH, anything else really...) you can charge them with that as well

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. I just specifically said that many PD's were NOT allowed to arrest people based on being illegal immigrants. They're not even allowed to report them to INS after being arrested for other things in many cases. Thus allowing people breaking the law to run around free.

but they can arrest them for murder, right?

most crimes ARE successfully prosecuted here... and there arnt very many of the biggies that seem to worry the US so much (Murder, rape, GBH) I would say that the rates (without any data to back it up i know) are probably similar in Europe... the problem that I, other australians and i assume the europeans have is that with our less good position on gun control etc why we have less crime of that nature, and it is prosecuted better... basically why do the US police suck so much...
MOST crimes are successfully prosecuted. Not ALL crimes. I think you'll find that the same goes for police in the US. So, applying this to the topic of the conversation, it sounds like you're saying that civillians should not be allowed to defend themselves because the police MIGHT be able to catch the criminal. Of course, if you actually put a little thought into it, you'd realise that even if the thief does get caught, whatever he stole from you is gone forever, and you will not be compensated for it. You're better off stopping him from taking it in the first place.

if my house got broken into and all my stuff stolen there is a high chance that the police will catch the purpetrator (something like 90% in my area) And all my stuff is insured. (I am a student, i earn something like $200USD a week, i consider insurance a necessity) Now in my case a gun would make no difference at all as my house is unoccupied for significant periods of time (evening and day) but i trust the cops to do their job, and i dont know anyone in the area who doesnt.

By the way i am not an anti gun person per say... i was in the military cadets, i know how to safely handle and fire weapons, and have been trained with military grade weapons, i just dont think they are a requirement for anyone living in a city. I consider the current gun laws here to be pretty good (no handguns, no self loading shotguns, no full auto guns, semi autos to be limited to 5 rounds is a basic overview i think)

if my house got broken into and all my stuff stolen there is a high chance that the police will catch the purpetrator (something like 90% in my area) And all my stuff is insured. (I am a student, i earn something like $200USD a week, i consider insurance a necessity) Now in my case a gun would make no difference at all as my house is unoccupied for significant periods of time (evening and day) but i trust the cops to do their job, and i dont know anyone in the area who doesnt.

By the way i am not an anti gun person per say... i was in the military cadets, i know how to safely handle and fire weapons, and have been trained with military grade weapons, i just dont think they are a requirement for anyone living in a city. I consider the current gun laws here to be pretty good (no handguns, no self loading shotguns, no full auto guns, semi autos to be limited to 5 rounds is a basic overview i think)

If that's what your country wants, that's fine. A huge issue I have is that politicians pass laws that only effect those who actually follow them. Then more laws are passed that nickel & dime the rights away from the citizens. Ex. Chicago passed a handgun registration law stating it would help reduce crime w/ traceability and that law abiding owners would have no worries. A few years later, the registration system was stopped, thereby noone could register any new ones and when the time came for reregistering the old ones happened, you had to get rid of it or become a criminal. Defacto ban.

Net result on crime: Zero, it continued to increase for years.

but they can arrest them for murder, right?

IF they're a suspect. However, they are already breaking the law by being there.

i agree it would have been pretty pointless for a single council or state govt to emplace a ban on weapon types, but as it was a nationwide ban, involving a 6month (or year long, i dont really remember) buyback scheme paying full market value it has been very effective. (They destroyed something like 5 Million guns i think...) It has to have been good to remove all those potential weapons (most were not secured safely or were considered too dangerous/unneeded for the general public) from access by criminals... Now the rule requires a proper gun safe for all guns, no more just on the top shelf where a criminal who has broken in could access it, and a monitors (by the cops i think) alarm system, so that if there is a breakin they dont get the guns out (response time is arranged to be faster than it can be to get into the safe...) They are now modifying those laws to include swords and other long bladed weapons...

IF they're a suspect. However, they are already breaking the law by being there.


because they are an illigal (sp) immigrant, right? I assume (as i dont have a copy of these laws to view) that this law relates to probable cause or racial profiling, right? (ie just because they are Hispanic in appearance they might be an illigal immigrant, lets check is wrong, but that person just jumped a border fence, lets arrest them for border violations is fine.

if my house got broken into and all my stuff stolen there is a high chance that the police will catch the purpetrator (something like 90% in my area) And all my stuff is insured. (I am a student, i earn something like $200USD a week, i consider insurance a necessity) Now in my case a gun would make no difference at all as my house is unoccupied for significant periods of time (evening and day) but i trust the cops to do their job, and i dont know anyone in the area who doesnt.
That's awsome. Too bad it doesn't compare in the slightest to the situation that this thread is about.

really? i find it insane that there arnt enough cops around to do their job properly, that is to protect the general public from these sorts of incidents. Part of that is that i dont think it is necessary for citizens to be armed for self protection because i believe the cops will be there when i need them (as they have in the past) When i am told that i have no basis to justify my claim (RBtL) i provide this as my reasoning... here most crimes are solved, no civilian is armed in public or for self defense, and to be so is a crime in and of itself, and we dont have 1/10 of the issues present in the USA.

I think it is therefore very relevent to the current topic... If your goods are insured there is less worry about replacing that stolen by looters (and they should be insured for the hurricane anyway) The rebuttal to the arguement that people cant afford insurance is that i can and do and i earn $200 US a week... If i can then others can as well...

I just found this interesting. I was watching the news (forgot which one, I think it was KTLA 5) and they were showing Floridans with guns protecting themselves from looters following the aftermath of the latest hurricanes.

They even showed some man walking away with looted goods and they tried to interview him. The man just said that he was looting and it was a free for all, though I think I god his words messed up.

Anyway, yeah. I was just interested that Floridans took the law into their own hands, in a most courageous and legitimate manner, and put signs up all over houses saying "Looters will be shot." Hell, they even showed some little girl (somewhere around 4-7) with an assault rifle. And in her own words "These are real bullets."

I must say, I think this is probably the best argument for the second amendment. People in danger protecting themselves when the government is unable to protect them.

I'm moving to Florida..I've always wanted a career in looting :D

really? i find it insane that there arnt enough cops around to do their job properly, that is to protect the general public from these sorts of incidents. Part of that is that i dont think it is necessary for citizens to be armed for self protection because i believe the cops will be there when i need them (as they have in the past) When i am told that i have no basis to justify my claim (RBtL) i provide this as my reasoning... here most crimes are solved, no civilian is armed in public or for self defense, and to be so is a crime in and of itself, and we dont have 1/10 of the issues present in the USA.

I think it is therefore very relevent to the current topic... If your goods are insured there is less worry about replacing that stolen by looters (and they should be insured for the hurricane anyway) The rebuttal to the arguement that people cant afford insurance is that i can and do and i earn $200 US a week... If i can then others can as well...

definately a cultural thing. AUS, being an island nation, smuggling is easier to control.

The US population is more condensed and much higher. I'm not sure how the gang culture over there is but here it is quite violent. Education is discouraged, guns are seen as status symbols by the bangers. I won't, but I could throw out dozens of cases where, even after giving over the money/valuables, the victim was shot anyway. I live in a rural area. For me, owning a firearm isn't exclusively about home defense. It also includes animal control. Fully auto-weapons are heavily regulated here, and have been since the 1930's. Attempts at similar laws as AUS have been enacted in some places w/ no discernable effect on crime. The city w/ the most strict gun laws has had the highest murder rates in the country for years. To continue a point I made earlier, the gun-banner groups have openly stated that they want no civilian ownership of firearms for any reason, this includes IANSA which pushed for the AUS laws recently.
The slippery-slope arguement holds true in your country as well. You mentioned knives and swords. Do you think restricting these will reduce crime? The UK has had proposals for kitchen knives under the title "assault knives".

Did you know that in the US, "assualt weapons" (the scary black guns), used to be reffered to as "Sporters". The gun banners managed to redefine them to associate them w/ fully-auto weapons and to this day misrepresents/blatanly lies about the capabilities of firearms.

really? i find it insane that there arnt enough cops around to do their job properly, that is to protect the general public from these sorts of incidents.
:rolleyes: SO DO I!
I don't know how you think reality works, kid, but it sure seems like you are unable to grasp the concept that thinking there should be more cops around won't make them magically appear. Therefore, people who are capable of grasping the concept of reality are able to understand that since there aren't enough cops around, people need to look out for themselves.

Part of that is that i dont think it is necessary for citizens to be armed for self protection because i believe the cops will be there when i need them (as they have in the past) When i am told that i have no basis to justify my claim (RBtL) i provide this as my reasoning... here most crimes are solved, no civilian is armed in public or for self defense, and to be so is a crime in and of itself, and we dont have 1/10 of the issues present in the USA.
Oh yeah, the cops are magical superheroes who will instantaneously appear to stop you from getting robbed, raped, murdered, etc. No worries, mate, if someone tries to rob you, a magic police superhero will suddenly materialize out of thin air to protect you.
What is with you kids and this asinine notion that people should be weak, pathetic, helpless creatures with absolutely no means whatsoever of protecting themselves?

I think it is therefore very relevent to the current topic...
No, having your fully intact house broken into while you are at work or school or whatever, and having the ruins of your demolished house looted while you are standing there are two COMPLETELY different situations.

If your goods are insured there is less worry about replacing that stolen by looters (and they should be insured for the hurricane anyway) The rebuttal to the arguement that people cant afford insurance is that i can and do and i earn $200 US a week... If i can then others can as well...
(laughing hard)
If you made $200 a week in the US, there is absolutely no way in hell you could even come close to affording a house, let alone possessions to fill it and insurance. You would barely be able to scrape by in a tiny one room apartment, and insurance would be a luxury you couldn't afford. If you tried to maintain ownership and operation of a motor vehicle in addition to your living expenses, you would be flat broke all the time. Your paychecks would be spent as soon as you got them. You would be dirt poor, with little to lose, and even more motivation to protect what little you have as best you can. The police tend not to give much of a shit about people who are that poor. After all, if your income is that low, you're probably paying little or nothing in taxes. If you're not paying taxes, then you're not paying for police, and that makes you minimum priority for them. That's why the cops always respond quicker and with more force when a rich person calls them. You may not like it, you may think its asinine, but its reality. An unwillingness to face and deal with reality is about a million times as asinine as any problem with law enforcement in the US.

what i think should be done is spending more money on law enforcement for training new cops and more patrols of the current ones...

Im at uni, i live in a share house, i did the same when i was working in the US (summer (for australia) job in the ski fields at lake tahao) i didnt have insurance there cause i didnt have anything worth stealing but i managed to save around $1000 in 8 weeks on minimum wage in the US... it is doable...

Finally the one time when i have had an incident, when a friend and i got jumped by some drunks (who we probably could have taken care of) there were 20-30 cops there within 1 minute, this was just off the CBD to be fair, now if they had had guns, or even knives, on them the situation would have probably been very different, 50 cops and 1 or two dead people... As it was no-one was killed or injured, and the drunks got to sleep it off in a cell and then were released without charge... Better for all IMO...

because they are an illigal (sp) immigrant, right? I assume (as i dont have a copy of these laws to view) that this law relates to probable cause or racial profiling, right? (ie just because they are Hispanic in appearance they might be an illigal immigrant, lets check is wrong, but that person just jumped a border fence, lets arrest them for border violations is fine.

Oh just for accuracy sake the latin poulation in Fla. isnt Mexican it is almost entirely Cuban...so they really for the most part wouldnt be profiled as illegal.. no borders to jump over...they all get caught by the Coast Guard. :D Yes there are differences between Cubans and Mexicans ,even the spanish is different.

well whatever they are... i dont know where in the US you people are, without you putting it in your profile...

again i dont know whether these laws are present in florida... but if they are i assume there are no issues with the coast guard apprehending those "boat people"? But once they arrive you have no probable cause/proof they are illegals...

Well kiddies, I have to say (being the only person so far to post who has been IN a hurricane affected area) the posts here are all quite amusing. The complete lack of comprehension of the events and enviroment succeeding a hurricane which most posters exhibit I find fascinating.

Ahh, where to begin...

Well, first of all - lets start on;
assault rifle-toting 4 year olds. Child endangerment; plain - simple.
Assault-rifle toting adult; On your property - If the national guard or the police see you it will be an unplesant experience. Off your property - you would be lucky if you were not shot on sight by police or national guard. Vigilantes are not tolerated any more than criminals.

However, self-defence is not vigilantism.

Now, the other side. 'More law enforecement' Bwahahaha! Try calling 911 when every phone pole and power line is down for a ten mile radius. There are no street lights. No burgular alarms. In many cases no streets (driveable, at least). If you are lucky you have locks on your doors, but most likely your windows, front door and garage door are blown in and useless. The only light you have is a flashlight - if your batteries still work. Cell phones? Don't make me laugh! It is pitch black (no moonlight through the clouds). Many people are disoriented and in shock.

Many people leave home. A very tempting target for bandits. (Unsecured, vacant home with no way for neighbors to call police) Problem is - bandits can't tell which homes are vacant and which are not - and some don't care. Now you have a problem where a person with no ethical grounds may end up confronting a family in their home.

Shoot to kill. Period. Maybe they are just after 'stuff' maybe they are after worse. Point is - they are a threat and there is nobody around to call for help. bang. Threaten my family - your life is void. I catch you in my neighbors home - even unattended. Bang. The intruder has shown a lack of morals. If they go into another home and hurt someone when I had the power to stop them it is on my conscience. Theft and looting can escalate. Nip it in the bud. Trespassers are presumed hostile and legitimate targets.

There is no way any police force could cover a ten-mile radius. Even with the national guard it is tough. Streets are blocked by debris. Confusion reigns as families relocate looking for a structurally sound shelter. Strict curfews are enforced (imagine trying to drive at night with no working traffic lights - scary) Guardsman patrol the streets around your house with M-16s. Sometimes they are there, often they are not. (neighborhood rotation)
Cars you've never seen cruise the street - many with out of town plates. Some are 'sight seeing' (tacky) others look more dubious...

The good news is that looting and crime was very well under control in my town. There were FAR more acts of compassion than crime.

Post what you want, but be aware that someone who has been there is watching. I've started kindly - but I will not hesitate to ridicule you if you post ridiculous and ignorant comments.

Feel free to ask any questions you please. I have had vast and varied experience with nearly all aspects of the recovery process - which is still ongoing more than a year past the storm. I myself am hopeful to move back into my house soon. Our restoration will be complete in about two weeks. I am one of the lucky ones...

Oh, and regarding the 'easy out' of insurance. LOL! I'd take ten more Hurricane Charleys before I'd want to go through the claims process even once. I am NOT kidding - it was that bad. No, it was worse.

well whatever they are... i dont know where in the US you people are, without you putting it in your profile...

again i dont know whether these laws are present in florida... but if they are i assume there are no issues with the coast guard apprehending those "boat people"? But once they arrive you have no probable cause/proof they are illegals...

Cubans (and other 'boat people') who make it to a FL shore are most often granted assylum.

The illegal immigration problem in Florida is laughable compared to states like California, Texas and New Mexico. They get more in a day than FL gets in a year.

Cubans (and other 'boat people') who make it to a FL shore are most often granted assylum.

The illegal immigration problem in Florida is laughable compared to states like California, Texas and New Mexico. They get more in a day than FL gets in a year.
Don't forget Arizona.
Or Poland.

*sigh*

I fail to see how human life, even that of a criminal, is worth less than property. Before this gets into a constitutional crapfest, the second amendment does not provide for the use of lethal force to protect property. Using the much vaunted doctrine of original intent shows us exactly the opposite, as lethal force can not be used to defend property (eg, use it as a defense against murder) under English common law.

Plant a gun on their body, problem solved.