NationStates Jolt Archive

Again you make assumptions. Many of the people who are down there have saved relatives, neighbors, strangers, etc. They have helped these people to survive until rescue workers can evacuate them. Part of that survival may include and likely will include finding and collecting whatever supplies are necessary to maintain life. That is all these people are doing. In fact, the only person here who I find is not thinking of anyone else is YOU.
Certainly there have been heros and just as certainly, there are also villains. Tell me that breaking into a jewelry store and stealing jewelry, watches, and other items is what is required for survival. Tell me that stealing ten pairs of jeans is what is required for survival. These people aren't trying to survive, they are trying to exploit everyone's misfortune.

I still don't understand why we should tolerate widespread theft after a natural disaster when it is completely wrong at any time.
This isn't about wrong or right, it's about survival.

Place yourself in this situation in New Orleans. You're floating on a roof. You've lost ALL of your possessions, save the clothes on you, and you're starting to get hungry and thirsty.

You see a grocery store RIGHT there. Maybe a couple of yards away. The food is bound to still be fresh, and the water/soda should be good. Now, ask yourself, which is more important to you? Your life? Or the law?

I guarentee you that most of the time, your life is more important.


However, aside from food, water, first aid kits, jewelry, and small electronics such as radios, looting say... a big TV shouldn't be allowed.

But shooting? Only if the person has a gun and is bound to shoot someone.

And no one said the issue for the people there is racism. Fass noted a discrepency in how things are being reported. Intentional or not, the discrepency exists, and is likely to affect the way people far from the scene are going to view the events taking place there. Talking about them is just as valid as anything else. Personally, I get a bit annoyed when people jump in and suggest that we are somehow making things worse by talking like this. So if that's coming across in my posts, maybe you can understand why.

Well said.

This isn't about wrong or right, it's about survival.

Place yourself in this situation in New Orleans. You're floating on a roof. You've lost ALL of your possessions, save the clothes on you, and you're starting to get hungry and thirsty.

You see a grocery store RIGHT there. Maybe a couple of yards away. The food is bound to still be fresh, and the water/soda should be good. Now, ask yourself, which is more important to you? Your life? Or the law?

I guarentee you that most of the time, your life is more important.


However, aside from food, water, first aid kits, jewelry, and small electronics such as radios, looting say... a big TV shouldn't be allowed.

But shooting? Only if the person has a gun and is bound to shoot someone.
That statement is absolutely nuts. I'll spot you the argument about food. It's a commodity that will spoil and it ought to be put to good use. But the idea that stealing small, non-perishable items is okay, but big, non-perishable items are off-limits is just silly.

If I owned a jewelry or electronics, or similar store, you can bet I'd be there with a shotgun to protect my property. No, that's not true. I would have left town when I was advised to evacuate.

Certainly there have been heros and just as certainly, there are also villains. Tell me that breaking into a jewelry store and stealing jewelry, watches, and other items is what is required for survival. Tell me that stealing ten pairs of jeans is what is required for survival. These people aren't trying to survive, they are trying to exploit everyone's misfortune.

I think its plain to see that Jocabia, myself and several others who are defending *looters* are defending their right to take food and neccesary items to survive. At no point have we said "hey its ok to take a t.v or a diamond necklace!"

That statement is absolutely nuts. I'll spot you the argument about food. It's a commodity that will spoil and it ought to be put to good use. But the idea that stealing small, non-perishable items is okay, but big, non-perishable items are off-limits is just silly.

A small battery operated radio might actually be a necessity. It could be used to, I don't know, find out where to go to be rescued???

I think its plain to see that Jocabia, myself and several others who are defending *looters* are defending their right to take food and neccesary items to survive. At no point have we said "hey its ok to take a t.v or a diamond necklace!"
Natural disasters don't render laws invalid. Stealing food is a little gray, not because people are hungry, but because it can spoil and then is completely useless. But, the police should prevent looting food, if only to discourage looting to become more widespread.

Okay, let's say I own a grocery store. I didn't evacuate because I'm stupid. I unlock my store and offer to sell food. But the A&P across the street is closed and people loot from it. The police don't stop them. Pretty soon, all the edible food is gone. The looters turn their attention to my store. They figure that the police didn't stop them from looting the A&P, so my Piggly-Wiggly ought to give them free food, too.

So what's right? My stock is my property. Why should looters be able to take it?

Certainly there have been heros and just as certainly, there are also villains. Tell me that breaking into a jewelry store and stealing jewelry, watches, and other items is what is required for survival. Tell me that stealing ten pairs of jeans is what is required for survival. These people aren't trying to survive, they are trying to exploit everyone's misfortune.

One, none of the pictures we're discussing show any 'looting' of anything except food. Two, none of us are supporting looting luxury items. Three, luxury looting is most certainly the small minority of the looting that is going on. Think about it, these people are stuck in the middle of lake that they will eventually be evacuated from (without luxuries) or die in. What are they going to do with televisions or ten pairs of jeans? They'll be gone by the time they return. They've lost EVERYTHING!

Natural disasters don't render laws invalid. Stealing food is a little gray, not because people are hungry, but because it can spoil and then is completely useless. But, the police should prevent looting food, if only to discourage looting to become more widespread.

Okay, let's say I own a grocery store. I didn't evacuate because I'm stupid. I unlock my store and offer to sell food. But the A&P across the street is closed and people loot from it. The police don't stop them. Pretty soon, all the edible food is gone. The looters turn their attention to my store. They figure that the police didn't stop them from looting the A&P, so my Piggly-Wiggly ought to give them free food, too.

So what's right? My stock is my property. Why should looters be able to take it?

The store owner's property is worthless in little or no time. And if that store owner attempts to sell those items in a crisis of this magnitude then he is a scumbag, plain and simple. These people are stealing food to survive. It's not like they're benefitting from this.

One, none of the pictures we're discussing show any 'looting' of anything except food. Two, none of us are supporting looting luxury items. Three, luxury looting is most certainly the small minority of the looting that is going on. Think about it, these people are stuck in the middle of lake that they will eventually be evacuated from (without luxuries) or die in. What are they going to do with televisions or ten pairs of jeans? They'll be gone by the time they return. They've lost EVERYTHING!
"They've lost everything" is about the most wrongly and overused phrase I've ever heard. Every time an apartment burns down, the reporter makes sure to tell us that the former occupants have lost "everything".

Well they haven't. They are alive and healthy. They have whatever education that they might have gained. They have whatever money might have been in their bank accounts. All they have lost is property, hopefully not to looters, and they can replace this with hard work and the government guaranteed loans that will be offered to them in the event that they didn't carry flood insurance.

Natural disasters don't render laws invalid. Stealing food is a little gray, not because people are hungry, but because it can spoil and then is completely useless. But, the police should prevent looting food, if only to discourage looting to become more widespread.

Okay, let's say I own a grocery store. I didn't evacuate because I'm stupid. I unlock my store and offer to sell food. But the A&P across the street is closed and people loot from it. The police don't stop them. Pretty soon, all the edible food is gone. The looters turn their attention to my store. They figure that the police didn't stop them from looting the A&P, so my Piggly-Wiggly ought to give them free food, too.

So what's right? My stock is my property. Why should looters be able to take it?

funny your signature contradicts your stance on this matter.....nonetheless....

Since your cash registers would most likely be underwater, I dont know how youd "Sell" the food. And if you would withold food from people in such horrible conditions.....then maybe you'd deserve to lose your store. What if it were you out there sitting on top of a house or in a tree? Hours or days have gone by and youve had no food or water? You finally decide to brave it and swim or float to a store you see way in the distance.......would you get some food or would you simply starve in the name of nobility?

On first glance...and the woman may just be tanned. Point is, they are most obviously of lighter skin than the fellow in the second photo.

She's creole.... And obviously so...

Well they haven't. They are alive and healthy. They have whatever education that they might have gained. They have whatever money might have been in their bank accounts. All they have lost is property, hopefully not to looters, and they can replace this with hard work and the government guaranteed loans that will be offered to them in the event that they didn't carry flood insurance.

Here. Give me everything you have. Every penny not in the bank. Destroy your house, burn every single possession except the clothing on your back. Go sit somewhere deserted and flooded; somewhere where you cannot buy any food or water and have no idea how long it will take before you are rescued.

Are you still against stealing some food to help wait it out?

The store owner's property is worthless in little or no time. And if that store owner attempts to sell those items in a crisis of this magnitude then he is a scumbag, plain and simple. These people are stealing food to survive. It's not like they're benefitting from this.
But natural disasters don't suspend property rights, either. If the store owner is charging a fair price, he should be allowed to continue to do so, completely unhampered by looters.

If I extend your argument, the manufacturers and suppliers of construction materials should donate everything that is needed to rebuild New Orleans, shouldn't they?

I bet the bums are having a field day diving for diamonds and other valuable trinkets lost in the flooding. :p

"They've lost everything" is about the most wrongly and overused phrase I've ever heard. Every time an apartment burns down, the reporter makes sure to tell us that the former occupants have lost "everything".

Well they haven't. They are alive and healthy. They have whatever education that they might have gained. They have whatever money might have been in their bank accounts. All they have lost is property, hopefully not to looters, and they can replace this with hard work and the government guaranteed loans that will be offered to them in the event that they didn't carry flood insurance.

Tell that to the people who have lost their family members....wives, husbands, children......not only that, but theyve lost their homes-where their kids took their first steps, where they sat around the Christmas tree, where memories were made. What about people who didnt have money in their bank account? What if they didnt have much of an education? What if their family and their home is ALL they had? Then yes....some people HAVE lost everything.

"They've lost everything" is about the most wrongly and overused phrase I've ever heard. Every time an apartment burns down, the reporter makes sure to tell us that the former occupants have lost "everything".

Well they haven't. They are alive and healthy. They have whatever education that they might have gained. They have whatever money might have been in their bank accounts. All they have lost is property, hopefully not to looters, and they can replace this with hard work and the government guaranteed loans that will be offered to them in the event that they didn't carry flood insurance.

If they don't steal food they won't be alive and healthy for very long and a lot of good that education or money will do them then. It doesn't who or what they lost their property to, anyone who lives in the part of New Orleans that we're talking about has not home, apt, furniture, baby pictures, family heirlooms, clothes, etc. left. They are all destroyed because they are in the middle of lake that's going to be there for a month or more. They'll be lucky to escape with their lives and right now they need to do whatever it takes to keep themselves 'alive and healthy' as you put it.

You've just established that being alive and healthy is more important than property so you agree with us.

As far as the 2 different reporting agencies go, yes that may be totally different viewpoints from totally different people, but if youre going to publish them and put them on a web based news source, then they should have noticed that the difference in reporting views could be perceived as racism. They pay editors and PR people a lot of money to catch things just like this. When people read the news, they focus on the news. They dont research who said what while theyre having their morning coffee.We are only disecting the facts because we are debating the issue and how it was presented to us with the photos.

Yahoo and many others gather information for repost from countless hundreds of totally disconnected media outlets. Almost ALL of the American media outlets (including the AP) consider the activities looting: and all report as such.

It was presented to you in all detail (including the damn sources of the report) for you to make up your minds independently... They post (not report) the information from the seperate agencies, even if they present conflicting views... That's called liberal reporting (incorporating as many different sources as possible, to convey an opinion).... You would rather the news, appearantly, report only one side of the issue.... (namely whatever side you support)... I preffer my news be liberal, rather than tell me how I'm supposed to interpret the issue; as opposed to telling me what issue I will support.... You a Dubya supporter?

I bet the bums are having a field day diving for diamonds and other valuable trinkets lost in the flooding. :p

There are no bums. Anyone who was homeless before the hurricane (unless they got to the roof of an abandoned building or somewhere like the Superdome) is dead. They're dead. They died.

But natural disasters don't suspend property rights, either. If the store owner is charging a fair price, he should be allowed to continue to do so, completely unhampered by looters.

If I extend your argument, the manufacturers and suppliers of construction materials should donate everything that is needed to rebuild New Orleans, shouldn't they?
:rolleyes:

1. A fair price in a disaster area? How do you define that exactly? If you go by supply and demand, a fair price would likely be more than anyone who could actually afford. Especially if their money is gone, and the lines are down so they can't use a bank or credit card. Fair price. Bah.

2. Insurance companies will pay for whatever rebuilding to be done. And the government will chip in your tax dollars to help. And people will donate time and money, and yes supplies.

3. The fact that you are sitting here looking down your nose at people taking food...yes, food...the ones that Peech and Jocabia are defending are not stealing television sets...is...well...we all know what it is. I think you've explained your position quite well. And disgusted most of us reading it.

No, I am not. We are in a state of rebellion in New Orleans. The US Constitution calls for the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in times of invasion and rebellion.

rebellion n. : Open, armed, and organized resistance to a constituted government.

Sounds more like anarchy normally found in a disaster area; as opposed to "Rebelion"... The government there is barely "organized" let alone the ravagings occuring by a multitude of independent looters.....

But natural disasters don't suspend property rights, either. If the store owner is charging a fair price, he should be allowed to continue to do so, completely unhampered by looters.

If I extend your argument, the manufacturers and suppliers of construction materials should donate everything that is needed to rebuild New Orleans, shouldn't they?

Not even close to make a reasonable case on your part. You come to me starving to death and I have a sandwich I can't possibly eat. I offer to sell it to him but he doesn't have any money so he dies. Yeah, that's the same as not building a house for free. These people can't just run to local ATM that's UNDERWATER. They don't have access to money. And you have no evidence that any of these store owners are actually available to sell their food. So you would have the police prevent starving people from eating food that will just rot otherwise? How very humanitarian of you.

no you cant shoot people for stealing stuff

stealing is not a death penalty offense


Under the auspicies of martial law it most certainly is. Looters are attacking infrastructure and can be shot dead for it in state of martial law. That's acceptable under martial law when a state of order needs to be established.

She's creole.... And obviously so...

I wouldn't say so. She looks EXACTLY like my sister, who is a scandanavian mixture and lives in Florida (thus is tan). I do mean EXACTLY. I saved the photo so I could show my family that my sister was looting in NO. (No, it's not actually her in case anyone is worried.)

funny your signature contradicts your stance on this matter.....nonetheless....

Since your cash registers would most likely be underwater, I dont know how youd "Sell" the food. And if you would withold food from people in such horrible conditions.....then maybe you'd deserve to lose your store. What if it were you out there sitting on top of a house or in a tree? Hours or days have gone by and youve had no food or water? You finally decide to brave it and swim or float to a store you see way in the distance.......would you get some food or would you simply starve in the name of nobility?
Okay, I do have some personal experience with natural disasters. I wasn't smart enough to leave Pensacola during Frederick and I managed to survive without looting. It's called preparation. We weren't flooded like New Orleans, but it was tough for a few weeks before the power was turned back on.

Back to the point, property belongs to the owner. Period. What the owner wants to do with it is his business alone. Anything else is wrong.

And the part about feeding the poor was a line I liked from Ten Years After song. The rest of it goes
I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you
It's a little cynical on my part, but I wonder what happens when we run out of rich people to tax?

It's a little cynical on my part, but I wonder what happens when we run out of rich people to tax?
How amusing...can I venture a guess? Maybe we'll keep on squeezing the middle class like we currently do? Or are you one of those people who actually think the rich pay the bulk of taxes?

Yahoo and many others gather information for repost from countless hundreds of totally disconnected media outlets. Almost ALL of the American media outlets (including the AP) consider the activities looting: and all report as such.

It was presented to you in all detail (including the damn sources of the report) for you to make up your minds independently... They post (not report) the information from the seperate agencies, even if they present conflicting views... That's called liberal reporting (incorporating as many different sources as possible, to convey an opinion).... You would rather the news, appearantly, report only one side of the issue.... (namely whatever side you support)... I preffer my news be liberal, rather than tell me how I'm supposed to interpret the issue; as opposed to telling me what issue I will support.... You a Dubya supporter?

It's poor taste in Journalism no matter how you slice it. Depicting one group as looters and one as "finders of food". It was obvious and it was crap.

Prefer has one f btw. And no I'm not a big "Dubya" fan

I will say this. If you lived in New Orleans, everything you have is probably gone. You're basically starting over from scratch. You need to get out of town and a place to stay, which means you need money. If I had to steal some IPods from a flooded out store to get the cash I needed, I would do it and not think twice and never feel guilty about it. I think that most of you who are feeling very superior and moral about the situation would do the same. And how anyone could compare this to the lights going out for a few days is beyond me. These people may not be able return to their homes for months. I'm going to give them a pass on this one.

Given that you're stranded in a flooded area.... and the only hope of rescue is by air or boat from the US Coast Guard, FEMA/MEMA or National Guard units.... "stealing" doesn't do a damn thing for you, because:

1. There's no one to buy it... everyone else is in the same boat you're in.
2. Even if you managed to find a flood victim to buy it off of you, the money won't get you anywhere, since you'll be forced to swim/walk (or get rescued by guardsmen etc).
3. The only way you'ld get any money out of it, is to drag it with you, while walking/swiming through several feet of flood waters (which just lowers the chance of your survival trying to flee the area)...

So, I can only attribute thefts, logically, to greed.... anything past basic necessities to sustain you while you await rescue, and/or flee by "foot"; is idiotic...

Yahoo and many others gather information for repost from countless hundreds of totally disconnected media outlets. Almost ALL of the American media outlets (including the AP) consider the activities looting: and all report as such.

It was presented to you in all detail (including the damn sources of the report) for you to make up your minds independently... They post (not report) the information from the seperate agencies, even if they present conflicting views... That's called liberal reporting (incorporating as many different sources as possible, to convey an opinion).... You would rather the news, appearantly, report only one side of the issue.... (namely whatever side you support)... I preffer my news be liberal, rather than tell me how I'm supposed to interpret the issue; as opposed to telling me what issue I will support.... You a Dubya supporter?

Yes, but the problem is I checked 574 different photos that yahoo put up regarding the crisis and not one referred to looting with a white person in the photo. There were at least fifteen or so 'looting' photos. Every one of them contained only minorities. Strange coincidence, don't you think? The two picture we find with white people in them, obviously engaged in the same activities as the other photos, refer to it as 'finding' or 'supplies'. Another strange coincidence, don't you think? And the worst one shows a woman wading through water with no sign of a store in the picture and she is presented as 'on her way to loot'. She just happens to be black. Another strange coincidence, don't you think?

Okay, I do have some personal experience with natural disasters. I wasn't smart enough to leave Pensacola during Frederick and I managed to survive without looting. It's called preparation. We weren't flooded like New Orleans, but it was tough for a few weeks before the power was turned back on.

Back to the point, property belongs to the owner. Period. What the owner wants to do with it is his business alone. Anything else is wrong.

And the part about feeding the poor was a line I liked from Ten Years After song. The rest of it goes
I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you
It's a little cynical on my part, but I wonder what happens when we run out of rich people to tax?

Sure you could prepare....Florida gets hit ALL the time with these things. Theyve had enormous amounts of damage over the years. N.O. hasnt, so I'm thinking they arent going to be as prepared as the Floridians.

And no, refusing food to people in a situation like this IS wrong. There may come a day you need food from someone. For your sake, lets hope they are more generous than you.

How amusing...can I venture a guess? Maybe we'll keep on squeezing the middle class like we currently do? Or are you one of those people who actually think the rich pay the bulk of taxes?
I think the top ten percent of wage-earners pay about half of the taxes in the US. That's easy enough to prove, so I'll leave it as a homework exercise.

Here's another perspective. One of the concerns of the government is the breakdown of civilization and complete lawlessness and violence - this supercedes the need to protect property.

It took one day to get to the looting stage. Now gunfire is heard in the streets, carjackings, robberies and looting occur in front of the police and fire personnel. They are peeling stickers off of new cars in a lot and selling them. Rapes and murders may be next. CNN reporters are reporting widescale looting of stores and gunfire - not grocery stores, but merchandise. Two policemen have been shot, one seriously wounded.

At some point order has to be restored, and unfortunately it will need to be done by force - and hopefully the least amount necessary. It's regrettable, but it works that way.

With 5,000 additional National Guard coming they may be able to sweep the streets without shooting - maybe. The major problem is that there are no judges, no jails, and no transportation to get the prisoners anywhere. This does not justify shooting per se, but indicates that people need to be kept from crossing the line into total lawlessness by unusual means.

The Guard is under the control of the Governor of LA - she can order the announcement of a shoot on sight order, then see what happens - wait a few hours before issuing the actual order to the troops. Shooting a few egregious and violent looters will probably stop the looting entirely. It is clear she doesn't want to do this, but may be forced to restore order as part of saving the city. Shooting is the last resort, but it may become necessary for the greater good.

I think the top ten percent of wage-earners pay about half of the taxes in the US. That's easy enough to prove, so I'll leave it as a homework exercise.
I've already done my homework...let me share the findings with you:

I don't know about where you live, but in the US, it is a very big mis-nomer that the middle class carries the highest tax burden. The reality is that taxes are too high for everyone, particularly given what kind of return we get on our investment. But, the top 10% of income earners are responsable for nearly 50% of total IRS revenues.
Ah...but that depends on your definition of middle class. Let me outline some stats for you:

An enormous percentage of taxes are payed by a minority of Americans:
o The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
o The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes
That sure sounds like the really rich are being taxed to death. However, when you look at the figures provided by the IRS, these figures don't hold up to even basic adding and subtracting. One chart shows the top 10%, 5% and 1% of taxpayers paying a whopping 146% of total taxes! (yes, overlapping exists, but no matter how you work the numbers, it just doesn't add up to even 50% of all taxes paid) Since this is patently impossible, the numbers must be viewed with suspicion. I investigated further, and looked at the raw data available at http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1545&from=4&sequence=0.

Let us just look at the top 5%, since they look to be the ones paying the most taxes.

There are 5.9 million families included in the top 5% tax bracket. They earn an average of $276,000 per family before taxes. Source: Congressional Budget Office, "Preliminary Estimates of Effective Tax Rates" (September 7, 1999) (all statistics to follow are also taken from this source, which can be viewed by visiting the site in the above quote)

These people are wealthy, no doubt about it. However, the 'filthy' rich aren't even factored in here. The top 1% earn in excess of $719,000 (on average). Let us now look at the more 'traditional middle class', the families that earn from $21, 000 to $132, 000 a year. I am basing this idea of the middle class by factoring out those living below the poverty line, and those making more than an average educated 2 income family could. Middle class, in this case meaning neither rich, nor poor.

There are 84.9 million families that belong to this middle class. They pay a combined 42% of federal taxes. Now, the middle class has a 55% share of the total family income. The top 5% has a 28% share.

Let's compare the numbers again: 5.9 million families who have a 28% share of the total family income, compared to 84.9 million families who have a 55% share of the total family income. What the heck does that all mean? You can't just multiply the total amount of income tax paid by these percentages and get an accurate amount. You need to break it down further.

You do that by multiplying the number of families (in millions) by the average income, getting a total and multiplying that by the federal tax rate (done each time for each separate tax bracket). This gives you a real dollar amount paid in each tax bracket.

Let's look at actual tax rates. The top 5% pay 19.6% of their income in taxes. That works out to about: $3.16 billion dollars a year.

The middle class pay various rates of income tax, depending on their tax bracket. In any case, it works out that the middle class pays $498.7 billion dollars a year.

Yes, the rich pay higher income taxes, but it is the middle class that pays the most income taxes in real dollars. The middle class therefore bears the brunt of taxation, because of sheer numbers.

These people haven't been oppressed by society.
When you say "these people", are you referring to black people? If you are, shame on you.

Here's a _good_ example of where zero-tolerance is appropriate. Police and National Guard troops should use the weapons they have to discourage looters and shoot the ones that refuse to stop.
So "your" law says that it is okay to murder looters? Your laws suck.

This dreadlocked goon seems to believe that any behavior the police don't immediately halt is somehow OK!
What does "dreadlocks" have to do with anything? It is this comment that prompted me to ask the racial question.

We should have learned this lesson in Baghdad. Immediately after Saddam was toppled the looting began. The coalition forces did little, and the violence continued to this day. Many think that if the liberating forces had taken out a few looting teams the history of the last few years might have been quite a bit different.
I guess that is what happens when your country didn't send enough forces to secure the peace in an orderly and timely fashion?

Getting back to New Orleans, perhaps people should focus on the devestation, loss of life, and inadequate facilities, then on shooting looters. I think your priorities are whacked.

I think the top ten percent of wage-earners pay about half of the taxes in the US. That's easy enough to prove, so I'll leave it as a homework exercise.

Well youve screwed up now....Sin will have a 12 page report on your desk by the morrow.

edit: lol- shes already done it I see. ;)

Well youve screwed up now....Sin will have a 12 page report on your desk by the morrow.
BAHHAHAHAHAHAAAA....you know me too damn well, Peech!

Okay, I do have some personal experience with natural disasters. I wasn't smart enough to leave Pensacola during Frederick and I managed to survive without looting. It's called preparation. We weren't flooded like New Orleans, but it was tough for a few weeks before the power was turned back on.

Back to the point, property belongs to the owner. Period. What the owner wants to do with it is his business alone. Anything else is wrong.

And the part about feeding the poor was a line I liked from Ten Years After song. The rest of it goes
I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you
It's a little cynical on my part, but I wonder what happens when we run out of rich people to tax?

Right to life trumps right to property in this case. Sorry. If I'm being chased and my life depends on breaking into a house or stealing a car, I will not be charged. We suspend certain rights when a life is under immediate threat. These lives are under immediate threat.

Life has a greater value than property. 'Anything else is wrong.'

Sure you could prepare....Florida gets hit ALL the time with these things. Theyve had enormous amounts of damage over the years. N.O. hasnt, so I'm thinking they arent going to be as prepared as the Floridians.

And no, refusing food to people in a situation like this IS wrong. There may come a day you need food from someone. For your sake, lets hope they are more generous than you.
Okay, you need to separate what I believe to be the rule of law from what I believe human kindness requires. I'm sure that you can see that the two are separable. Because I believe a store owner has the right to his property, that doesn't mean that I would personally deny the entire contents of my Piggly-Wiggly to anyone. After all, food is perishable, as you have said. But property is owned. Natural disasters don't trump property rights. It's the owners decision how to dispose of his property.

I wouldn't say so. She looks EXACTLY like my sister, who is a scandanavian mixture and lives in Florida (thus is tan). I do mean EXACTLY. I saved the photo so I could show my family that my sister was looting in NO. (No, it's not actually her in case anyone is worried.)

I would say so... She's definitely creole.... No doubt about it.

Okay, you need to separate what I believe to be the rule of law from what I believe human kindness requires. I'm sure that you can see that the two are separable. Because I believe a store owner has the right to his property, that doesn't mean that I would personally deny the entire contents of my Piggly-Wiggly to anyone. After all, food is perishable, as you have said. But property is owned. Natural disasters don't trump property rights. It's the owners decision how to dispose of his property.
I'm curious as to whether or not owners are actually present to make that decision or not...and must they be present, making it clear that people are free to take the goods or not?

Especially in the case of food...is consent really an issue?

I would say so... She's definitely creole.... No doubt about it.
Prove it.

Oh wait, you can't? It's a stranger in a photo?

Okay, let's say I own a grocery store. I didn't evacuate because I'm stupid. I unlock my store and offer to sell food. But the A&P across the street is closed and people loot from it. The police don't stop them. Pretty soon, all the edible food is gone. The looters turn their attention to my store. They figure that the police didn't stop them from looting the A&P, so my Piggly-Wiggly ought to give them free food, too.

So what's right? My stock is my property. Why should looters be able to take it?

and how do you intend people to pay for this food? got a credit card reader that runs on solar power and is linked ot the banks via satellite? cash only? how are people supposed to get cash? atms ain't working and most people's money on hand probably washed away. in any case, not only is it impracticable to try to sell food in such a situation, it is utterly fucking unconscionable.

if we were both in a natural disaster like this, and you decided to attempt to collect money from the victims for food, i'd be on the other side figuring out a way to restrain you (wouldn't want to go around killing people, that's just wrong). once i did that, i'd take all of the food in your store out and setup as efficient a system of free distribution as possible. and then i'd get some people organized so we could loot every other store in the area for food, med supplies, etc.

your property rights doesn't mean shit when the shit hits the fan. lives are more important than possessions. especially the lives of many vs. the possessions of a few.

BAHHAHAHAHAHAAAA....you know me too damn well, Peech!
I'll read it again later, but it looks like your mistake is that you assume that every taxpayer pays the rate in his bracket.

If you use the CBO data to read the percentages of taxes paid, the numbers for 1999 show that the top 10 percent pays 49 percent of taxes.

I'm not too interested in this argument, so if you want the last word, take it.

your property rights doesn't mean shit when the shit hits the fan. lives are more important than possessions. especially the lives of many vs. the possessions of a few.

No, that's not correct. There are a considerable number of people who aren't stealing food and water, but rather things like TV's and other valuable goods. They sure as hell don't need those to survive.

Rather than let anarchy prevail, the rule of law needs to be established; the aid workers should be bringing in supplies, but where they can't there should be a system. with the aid workers coming in and distributing the goods to be repaid for later out of relief funds.

The most important thing is the establishment of order. Otherwise, a lot more people are going to die and there isn't going to be an efficent way to distribute aid.

Natural disasters don't trump property rights.

yes they do. capitalist property rights are on shaky ethical ground under normal circumstances. in disaster situations, any property owner that tries to stop people from using their property to save lives is a monster who must be fought.

I'll read it again later, but it looks like your mistake is that you assume that every taxpayer pays the rate in his bracket.

If you use the CBO data to read the percentages of taxes paid, the numbers for 1999 show that the top 10 percent pays 49 percent of taxes.

I'm not too interested in this argument, so if you want the last word, take it.Yeah, I hate it when I make a statement, and challenge someone to prove me wrong, and then they do, and I have to actually do some work to back my initial statement up but I don't feel like it, so then make another statement I don't feel like actually backing up, and I cap it off with a remark that makes the other person look petty if they actually call me on my lack of evidence. That can just be so frustrating.

(back to your regularly scheduled program)

yes they do. capitalist property rights are on shaky ethical ground under normal circumstances. in disaster situations, any property owner that tries to stop people from using their property to save lives is a monster who must be fought.

Yes, like guns, stereos, TV's, clothing, and appliances. Too many people are taking advantage of the situation to profit off of it personally.

I could see exceptions for clean water and food, but this is more than crossing the line. There needs to be order to save lives and avert a total breakdown that will just make things worse.

Oh, and the police aren't arresting people taking food and water, just the criminals who are stealing other nonessentials.

There are a considerable number of people who aren't stealing food and water, but rather things like TV's and other valuable goods. They sure as hell don't need those to survive.

good for them. firstly, because that means they feel themselves to be fairly secure on the food and water end of things. secondly, because they have lost pretty much all that they own and any amount of economic stability they had. consider it a bit of decentralized redistribution of the wealth.

I'm curious as to whether or not owners are actually present to make that decision or not...and must they be present, making it clear that people are free to take the goods or not?

Especially in the case of food...is consent really an issue?
That's a good question. If we were discussing non-perishables that couldn't be damaged by flooding, I'd say absolutely -- the owner must be present to exercise his will. Taking the property would be theft and intolerable.

But since we are talking about perishable things, maybe the lack of the owner's presence does constitute consent to use the property. Maybe not, but it would be a shame to see the food in a Super Wal-Mart rot because the owner couldn't be contacted to unlock the doors. I don't know...

My main objection to looting is that if we permit a little looting, then we are powerless to prevent it from spreading from approved areas like food and water to more inappropriate items. I wouldn't want to see someone killed over a bag of doughnuts, but I hate to see predators take advantage of people that have already been victimized by nature.

good for them. firstly, because that means they feel themselves to be fairly secure on the food and water end of things. secondly, because they have lost pretty much all that they own and any amount of economic stability they had. consider it a bit of decentralized redistribution of the wealth.

No, that's wrong. It's stealing and no more meritous than robbing a home or mugging someone. They are breaking the law, and need to be crushed to allow the people who actually need supplies to get them. They're nothing but criminals, and the current situation in no way excuses their behavior. Many of them are taking those things rather than food or water.

The police aren't arresting anyone for taking food/water.

Again, I think the issue is the rapid spiral descent into evil lawlessness that is the concern.

The Times-Picayune blog reports:

" Late Tuesday, Gov. Blanco spokeswoman Denise Bottcher described a disturbing scene unfolding in uptown New Orleans, where looters were trying to break into Children's Hospital.

Bottcher said the director of the hospital fears for the safety of the staff and the 100 kids inside the hospital. The director said the hospital is locked, but that the looters were trying to break in and had gathered outside the facility.

The director has sought help from the police, but, due to rising flood waters, police have not been able to respond.

Bottcher said Blanco has been told of the situation and has informed the National Guard. However, Bottcher said, the National Guard has also been unable to respond."

It's not the stealing of groceries that concerns law enforcement. It's violent evil people who will end up threatening the rescue and rebuilding efforts. It doesn't matter what color their skin is - they'll know who to shoot by their actions. And it's just a few hardcore types - the rest will slink away when order is restored.

I could see exceptions for clean water and food, but this is more than crossing the line. There needs to be order to save lives and avert a total breakdown that will just make things worse.

i fail to see why 'order' and the redistribution of both essential and not-so-essential goods are mutually exclusive. hell, i'd suggest organized looting parties to clear out pretty much everything from everywhere and give it away through organized distribution centers. perhaps in conjuction with official relief efforts as far as is possible under the circumstances.

Note: Police are not arresting people who take food/water. They are taking the robbers who steal appliances, TV's, stereos, guns, etc.

We need to impose the rule of law by the means necessary. Otherwise, relief efforts are going to be complicated and many more people may be injured, sickened, or even dying or killed. Imposing law will save more lives than it will cost, and that is our priority. We can't help efectively without order.

Armed gangs are already roaming the streets, and it's only a matter of time before the true atrocities begin unless we get down there and impose law, by force if necessary.

The answer is: 'No'.


Why on earth you'd care more for property then life, especially at this point and time (most of the 'looting' took place in areas that are now under water and destroyed, in many cases the 'looting' took place when the store employees opened up the stores in areas that have no food or water) is beyond me.

I think the top ten percent of wage-earners pay about half of the taxes in the US. That's easy enough to prove, so I'll leave it as a homework exercise.
Yeah, and somehow, I just find it difficult to shed a tear for the poor (tongue in cheek), over burdened people at the top:

America -- The Land of Misery and Plutocracy (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1120/america5.html)

After the 1980s -- the Decade of Greed -- the top one percent of wealth-holders in America have now more property and financial assets than the bottom 92 percent of the U.S. population combined. On average they own seven million dollars per household.

From the same article:

The ever-growing social inequality in America is simply incompatible with any meaningful conception of democracy, because a democracy is incompatible with a society in which there are such disparities in wealth. As the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis noted years ago, "We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

The Growing Wealth Gap (http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/may99sklar.htm)

The top 1 percent of households have more wealth than the entire bottom 95 percent. Financial wealth is even more concentrated. The top 1 percent of households have nearly half of all financial wealth (net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing), says economist Edward Wolff of New York University. Wealth is further concentrated at the top of the top 1 percent. The richest 0.5 percent of households have 42 percent of the financial wealth.

Actually it looks like the pictures are credited to different people.

Perhaps Picture 1's captioner would view all such food-liberating people as surviving, and picture 2's captioner would view them all as looters?

Perhaps the colour of the subjects' skin is incidental. Unless you know both pictures are captioned by the same person you can't really pass judgement. You just don't know.

This is plausible.

Again, I think the issue is the rapid spiral descent into evil lawlessness that is the concern.

The Times-Picayune blog reports:

" Late Tuesday, Gov. Blanco spokeswoman Denise Bottcher described a disturbing scene unfolding in uptown New Orleans, where looters were trying to break into Children's Hospital.

Bottcher said the director of the hospital fears for the safety of the staff and the 100 kids inside the hospital. The director said the hospital is locked, but that the looters were trying to break in and had gathered outside the facility.

The director has sought help from the police, but, due to rising flood waters, police have not been able to respond.

Bottcher said Blanco has been told of the situation and has informed the National Guard. However, Bottcher said, the National Guard has also been unable to respond."

It's not the stealing of groceries that concerns law enforcement. It's violent evil people who will end up threatening the rescue and rebuilding efforts. It doesn't matter what color their skin is - they'll know who to shoot by their actions. And it's just a few hardcore types - the rest will slink away when order is restored.

Well flood waters will drop, I say send in some forces by helicopter. This is the type of looting that merits shooting on site (breaking into a children's hospital.. that's just sick). I have no problem with taking some groceries.. ok.. I would too.. because I gotta eat... and it would be waste if the food went to spoil.

I'm certainly not excusing people for being lawless, but these are desperate times for them. Certainly people will die from lack of potable water, and people are going hungry. Their city is underwater (25 feet deep in some places) and there are so many dead, they can't do anything but put a black mark on the doors of places they know contain them.

I'm not at all surprised that people have reverted to survival instincts and baser ones; but sitting in the comfort of our homes pointing at them and implying as others (not you) have that they are animals or that the color of their skin is making them act this way is what I find TRULY appalling.
I will second that emotion.

The answer is: 'No'.


Why on earth you'd care more for property then life, especially at this point and time (most of the 'looting' took place in areas that are now under water and destroyed, in many cases the 'looting' took place when the store employees opened up the stores in areas that have no food or water) is beyond me.

What I have suggested is that protection of property is secondary to preventing a rapid descent into violence. It's beyond looting now. No one in law enforcement cares about stealing food and water, no one suggests shooting all looters - obviously, it hasn't happened yet.

Martial law, if it is indeed declared, will be for the purpose of protecting public safety, not property. A very hard decision to make, and it won't be made likely.

"Louisiana Gov. Blanco just said live on FNC that she will ask President Bush to send federal troops to conduct law enforcement in New Orleans and environs. It’s hard to see Bush refusing. This step moves the city closer to actual martial law. The president Congress has the authority under Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus when “public Safety may require it.” Historically, suspension of Habeas Corpus has been considered an indicator of martial law, as Abraham Lincoln did in the Civil War. (See J. Stuart’s correcting comment – DS)

We’ll have to wait to see what enforcement authority the federal troops will have when they arrive. I am guessing that the units sent will be military police from either or both of the regular Army and the Army Reserve."

http://www.donaldsensing.com/index.php/2005/08/31/la-gov-to-ask-for-federal-troops/

i fail to see why 'order' and the redistribution of both essential and not-so-essential goods are mutually exclusive. hell, i'd suggest organized looting parties to clear out pretty much everything from everywhere and give it away through organized distribution centers. perhaps in conjuction with official relief efforts as far as is possible under the circumstances.

That's not going to happen. There are people who are stealing guns and forming armed bands to rob and loot other people who are equally destitute as them, and they do not in any way deserve the right to steal whatever they want just because they can. Otherwise, society breaks down and more people die.

Well flood waters will drop,
New Orleans is below sea level. The flood waters aren't going to drop.

Yeah, I hate it when I make a statement, and challenge someone to prove me wrong, and then they do, and I have to actually do some work to back my initial statement up but I don't feel like it, so then make another statement I don't feel like actually backing up, and I cap it off with a remark that makes the other person look petty if they actually call me on my lack of evidence. That can just be so frustrating.

(back to your regularly scheduled program)
I lied, it's too irritating to see someone make a bad argument then calls it good. Look at your own assumptions and the CBO figures. Table II, Share of Individual Income Taxes shows that the top quintile pays 79 percent of all individual income taxes. in 1999. The top 10 percent of wage-earners pays 63 percent of all individual income taxes. The same table, Share of Total Federal Taxes, shows that the top quintile pays 65 percent of federal taxes and the top 10 percent pays 49 percent of federal taxes.

Your calculations are wrong. I don't know how you broke down the quintiles to accomodate your assumption about middle class, so lets just look at the figure for the upper 5 percent. I get a figure of about $319 billion for total taxes paid -- $276,000 income * 0.196 tax rate * 5.9 million families. Yep. That's right.

Total taxes paid is $642 billion, so that makes the share by the upper 5 percent almost 50 percent. That matches what's in Table II.

Wow, it's nice to be right.


Okay, your turn.

Yeah, and somehow, I just find it difficult to shed a tear for the poor (tongue in cheek), over burdened people at the top:

America -- The Land of Misery and Plutocracy (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1120/america5.html)

After the 1980s -- the Decade of Greed -- the top one percent of wealth-holders in America have now more property and financial assets than the bottom 92 percent of the U.S. population combined. On average they own seven million dollars per household.

From the same article:

The ever-growing social inequality in America is simply incompatible with any meaningful conception of democracy, because a democracy is incompatible with a society in which there are such disparities in wealth. As the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis noted years ago, "We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

The Growing Wealth Gap (http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/may99sklar.htm)

The top 1 percent of households have more wealth than the entire bottom 95 percent. Financial wealth is even more concentrated. The top 1 percent of households have nearly half of all financial wealth (net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing), says economist Edward Wolff of New York University. Wealth is further concentrated at the top of the top 1 percent. The richest 0.5 percent of households have 42 percent of the financial wealth.
Phew. Good thing we aren’t and were never meant to be, a democracy.

What I have suggested is that protection of property is secondary to preventing a rapid descent into violence. It's beyond looting now. No one in law enforcement cares about stealing food and water, no one suggests shooting all looters - obviously, it hasn't happened yet.

Martial law, if it is indeed declared, will be for the purpose of protecting public safety, not property. A very hard decision to make, and it won't be made likely.

"Louisiana Gov. Blanco just said live on FNC that she will ask President Bush to send federal troops to conduct law enforcement in New Orleans and environs. It’s hard to see Bush refusing. This step moves the city closer to actual martial law. The president Congress has the authority under Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus when “public Safety may require it.” Historically, suspension of Habeas Corpus has been considered an indicator of martial law, as Abraham Lincoln did in the Civil War. (See J. Stuart’s correcting comment – DS)

We’ll have to wait to see what enforcement authority the federal troops will have when they arrive. I am guessing that the units sent will be military police from either or both of the regular Army and the Army Reserve."

http://www.donaldsensing.com/index.php/2005/08/31/la-gov-to-ask-for-federal-troops/
The direct answer is no, shooting looters on sight with the intent to kill now is not legal. I doubt it will ever be, even if you can do it, putting on the jackboots and killing unarmed looters isn't the brightest of PR ideas.

I would say so... She's definitely creole.... No doubt about it.

Maybe you can tell me her name too. Because you would say my sister is definitely Creole then too (in RL, often people swear my sister is hispanic). She looks white to me. There is a lot of other evidence other than that picture that suggests a problem.

I lied, it's too irritating to see someone make a bad argument then calls it good. Look at your own assumptions and the CBO figures. Table II, Share of Individual Income Taxes shows that the top quintile pays 79 percent of all individual income taxes. in 1999. The top 10 percent of wage-earners pays 63 percent of all individual income taxes. The same table, Share of Total Federal Taxes, shows that the top quintile pays 65 percent of federal taxes and the top 10 percent pays 49 percent of federal taxes.

Your calculations are wrong. I don't know how you broke down the quintiles to accomodate your assumption about middle class, so lets just look at the figure for the upper 5 percent. I get a figure of about $319 billion for total taxes paid -- $276,000 income * 0.196 tax rate * 5.9 million families. Yep. That's right.

Total taxes paid is $642 billion, so that makes the share by the upper 5 percent almost 50 percent. That matches what's in Table II.

Wow, it's nice to be right.


Okay, your turn.


Okay MY turn. I agree with you about it being irritating when people take a bad argument and call it good, like you just did.

You're looking at income tax rather than actual tax burden which is a much better measure as you said, the rich pay half the taxes, not half the income taxes.

Sin, remember that the incomes in each quintile is an average so you need to remove some of the people in the second quintile because they are making less than $21,000/yr.

The top quintile is a little weird. Given that the top 20% averages 132,000 and the top 10% averages $188,000, you can extract the second 10% (11%-20%) averages around 76,000/year. You can do the same and figure out that the top 5% is at 276,000 and the top 10% is 188,000, so the second 5% (6%-10%) averages at 100,000/year.

So basically you just want to extract the top 5% of families as upper class and consider everyone below that and above poor as middle class.

I figured it out to be about $857.6 Billion in taxes by the middle class and $517.8 Billion in taxes by the top 5%. The remaining $30+ Billion is paid by the lower class.

The total burden was around $1.4 Trillion in 1999. The middle class still carries the lion's share of the burden.

Wow, it's nice to not know what you're talking about.

Next.

I'll read it again later, but it looks like your mistake is that you assume that every taxpayer pays the rate in his bracket.

If you use the CBO data to read the percentages of taxes paid, the numbers for 1999 show that the top 10 percent pays 49 percent of taxes.

I'm not too interested in this argument, so if you want the last word, take it.

Yeah, the only problem is that around half of the top 10% are in the middle class.

Ok, save economics for another thread.

Here, looting is illegal and hopefully, those people will have whatever they have stolen confiscated and handed back to their original owners. Fat chance of that happening but that is how I feel. Those that steal should be tossed into prison for the maximum time allowed by law.

Property Rights aren't trumped due to a natural disaster. Sorry!

Ok, save economics for another thread.

Here, looting is illegal and hopefully, those people will have whatever they have stolen confiscated and handed back to their original owners. Fat chance of that happening but that is how I feel. Those that steal should be tossed into prison for the maximum time allowed by law.

Property Rights aren't trumped due to a natural disaster. Sorry!

Wrong. The law does not prosecute and will not prosecute violations of property rights when a life is immediately at risk. If I stole a car to get a way from a killer, I would not be prosecuted nor could I be. The right to life trumps property rights when danger is imminent.

"Thousands maybe dead" Mayor of New Orleans

Lets try to keep things in perspective here people.

Wrong. The law does not prosecute and will not prosecute violations of property rights when a life is immediately at risk. If I stole a car to get a way from a killer, I would not be prosecuted nor could I be. The right to life trumps property rights when danger is imminent.

So how does stealing a TV set fall into this? How is stealing a TV set not punishable when no life is immediately at risk.

BTW: Federal Officials have declared a Health Emergency for the entire Gulf Coast. That's imminent Danger. Stealing a TV set isn't!

The direct answer is no, shooting looters on sight with the intent to kill now is not legal. I doubt it will ever be, even if you can do it, putting on the jackboots and killing unarmed looters isn't the brightest of PR ideas.

You don't see the connection between martial law looming on the horizon, suspending habeas corpus, the National Guard in a law enforcement role, and public safety?

Obviously, shooting looters hasn't been authorized - but it may be. What's under discussion is whether lethal force should be authorized, under which conditions it should be authorized, and whether we're facing those conditions now.

Use your imagination - it's not about jackboots and PR.

New Orleans is below sea level. The flood waters aren't going to drop.

The flooding was from the lake, it has now reached equilibrium with the water level in the city. There is effectively no more flooding. The breaches will be repaired soon, and the pumps will begin drying the city. It will be 30+ days to get the water, then more time to get rid of the muck.

You don't see the connection between martial law looming on the horizon, suspending habeas corpus, the National Guard in a law enforcement role, and public safety?

Obviously, shooting looters hasn't been authorized - but it may be. What's under discussion is whether lethal force should be authorized, under which conditions it should be authorized, and whether we're facing those conditions now.

Use your imagination - it's not about jackboots and PR.
No, it won't. For one thing, the PR is horrid, for another, suspending habeas corpus is one thing, deciding to let some scared out of his ass part time 18 year old reservist have to become judge, jury and executioner within the time span of less then a few seconds is an entirely different, entirely unconstitutional, thing to do (may I remind you of the fifth amendment, which reads in part "no person shall be held to answer for a capital...crime, unless upon the presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or navel forces...when in actual service...", and the fourth amendment "the right of the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". Not even martial law extends to shooting suspected looters.)

So how does stealing a TV set fall into this? How is stealing a TV set not punishable when no life is immediately at risk.

BTW: Federal Officials have declared a Health Emergency for the entire Gulf Coast. That's imminent Danger. Stealing a TV set isn't!

Who's talking about about TVs? We were talking about food and water.

You know, earlier today I was arguing that the police and the National Guard have more important things to do than stop looting, and I stand by that as far as looting food and necessities and even bullshit goods that will be either left behind or destroyed when the evacuation is completed is concerned. But the fact that looters are going after firearms scares me, and I would have no problem with the police or National Guard shooting anyone who's going after a weapon. They're doing the best they can to secure the stores with weapons that haven't been looted yet, but the idea of all those guns out there in the hands of people who are definitely not using them for self-protection scares the shit out of me.

<snip>



The Guard is under control of the Governor. It's up to the President and her. And it's up to the 'scared reservist' who follows orders.

"The US Army’s Field Manual 3-19.15, “Civil Disturbance Operations,” 18 April 2005, is the basic procedures manual for using Army forces to enforce civil order either in or out of the United States. Here are some excerpts relevant to the possibility of using federal troops to enforce civil order in Lousisana, now that Gov. Blanco has said she will ask for them.

FEDERAL INTERVENTION AND AID
B-1. Under the Constitution of the United States and United States Code, the President is empowered to direct federal intervention in civil disturbances to—

· Respond to state requests for aid in restoring order.

· Enforce the laws of the United States.

· Protect the civil rights of citizens.

· Protect federal property and functions.

...

B-3. The Constitution of the United States and federal statutes authorize the President to direct the use of federal armed troops within the 50 states and territories and their political subdivisions. The President is also empowered to federalize the NG of any state to suppress rebellion and enforce federal laws.

B-4. Federal assistance is provided to a state when the state has used all of its resources, including its NG, to quell a disorder and finds the resources insufficient. Usually, active duty federal forces are used to augment the NG of the requesting state. However, the President may choose to federalize the NG of another state and use them alone or with other forces to restore order.

B-5. ... The President may employ armed federal troops to suppress … domestic violence … if … the civil authorities of a state cannot or will not provide adequate protection.

...

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS AND CONTRAINTS

B-27. The Constitution of the United States, laws, regulations, policies, and other legal issues limit the use of federal military personnel in domestic support operations. Any Army involvement in civil disturbance operations involves many legal issues requiring comprehensive legal reviews.

B-28. ... The Constitution of the United States allows the use of the federal military to execute or enforce the law when necessary to protect federal or civilian property and functions. However, significant restrictions exist on employing federal military forces within the United States.
...

POSSE COMITATUS
B-39. Generally, federal military forces may not give law enforcement assistance to civil authorities without conflicting with the Posse Comitatus Act. However, constitutional and statutory exceptions to this prohibition do exist. ...
...

B-41. The Posse Comitatus Act prescribes criminal penalties for the use of the US Army or Air Force to execute the laws of or to perform civilian law enforcement functions within the United States. DOD policy extends this prohibition to the US Navy and Marine Corps. Prohibiting the military from executing the laws means that military personnel may not participate directly in—

· An arrest; a search and seizure; a stop and frisk; or an interdiction of vessels, aircraft, or vehicles.

· A surveillance or pursuit.

· A civilian legal case or any other civilian law enforcement activity as informants, undercover agents, or investigators.
...

Constitutional Exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act

B-43. Under its inherent authority, the US government is responsible for preserving public order and carrying out governmental operations within its territorial limits, by force if necessary. Under the Constitution of the United States, exceptions allow the use of military force to execute or enforce the law. Some of the exceptions are to—

· Protect civilian property and functions.

· Ensure preservation of public order and carry out government operations, by force if necessary.

· Protect civil rights where local authorities do not or cannot protect them.

· Protect federal property and functions.

· Quell civil disturbances and labor strife that rises to the level of civil disorder.

B-44. The President may order the armed forces to support state civil authorities suffering from an insurrection or civil disturbance. He must act personally by first issuing a proclamation calling on insurgents to disperse and retire peacefully within a limited time. This occurred when federal forces were called in to counter the Los Angeles riots in 1992.

Protect Civilian Property and Functions

B-45. A sudden and unexpected civil disturbance, disaster, or calamity may seriously endanger life and property and disrupt normal governmental functions to such an extent that local authorities cannot control the situation. At such times, the federal government may use military force to prevent loss of life or wanton destruction of property and to restore government functions and public order. This exception has rarely been used.

Protect Federal Property and Functions

B-46. The federal government may use military force to protect federal property and federal government functions when local authorities cannot or decline to provide adequate protection.
...

Support to Civil Law Enforcement

B-49. It is DOD policy to cooperate with civilian law enforcement officials to the greatest practical extent. ... US military forces are never placed under the command of civilian law enforcement officers or nonfederalized NG. DOD policy concerning the provision of military support to LEAs [“law-enforcement agencies” – DS], including personnel and equipment, are contained in DOD Directive 5525.5.
...

ROLES OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AND FEDERAL FORCES
B-51. The preservation of law and order in the civilian community is the responsibility of state and local governments and law enforcement authorities. When a civil disturbance in a civilian community turns to widespread rioting that includes arson, looting, and acts of violence, the civil authorities may decide that they do not have the resources to quell the riot. They may then turn to the NG and federal forces to support the civil authorities in restoring law and order. Civil disturbances in any form are prejudicial to public law and order.

National Guard Forces

B-52. The NG (as a state organization) responds to the governor according to state law for civil disturbance operations. ... In extreme circumstances, the NG can be brought on federal service for civil disturbance operations when ordered to under the appropriate federal statute by the President. ... The following are examples of appropriate missions for the NG:

· Manning traffic control points.

· Providing building security.

· Providing area security and patrols.

· Providing security at custody facilities.

· Providing security and escort for emergency personnel and equipment.

· Protecting sensitive sites.

· Transporting law enforcement personnel.

· Providing show of force.

· Dispersing crowds.

· Employing riot control munitions.

· Providing very important person (VIP) protection and escort.

· Providing quick reaction and reserve force.
...

B-54. The commitment of federal troops to deal with domestic civil disturbances must be viewed as a drastic measure of last resort. Their role should never be greater than what is absolutely necessary under the circumstances. Commanders should take every measure to avoid the perception of an invading force. A JTF [joint task force – DS] designated to respond to a civil disturbance should project the image of a restrained and well-disciplined force whose sole purpose is to help restore law and order with minimal harm to the people and property and with due respect for all law-abiding citizens.

B-55. The role of federal Army forces is to assist civil authorities in restoring law and order when the magnitude of the disturbance exceeds the capabilities of local and state LEA, including the NG. Under the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and selected federal statutes, the President may order the employment of the federal armed forces to aid local and state civil authorities to protect the Constitutional rights of citizens. Federal military forces may also protect federal facilities and installations in any state, territory, or possession.

A couple of key points:

1. Before ordering federal troops into a stricken area, the president “must act personally by first issuing a proclamation calling on insurgents to disperse and retire peacefully within a limited time.” In the case of New Orleans, this will lilely be a pro forma proclamation, since mass media and communications have pretty much disappeared from reaching the people doing the rioting. The way the manual of worded – the president “must” issue the proclamation – makes me think this is a step required by federal law. So when (if) such a proclamation is issued, it will be a key indication that measures close to actual martial law are nearer to being imposed.

2. If federal forces are deployed to the area for enforcement of civil order, they will not be placed under command of state or local authorities. If such a deployment is ordered, I anticipate that the La. Guard will be ordered into federal service. The regular or Army Reserve forces (both always under federal control only) may be placed under the command of the La. Adjutant General, a Guard major general."

http://www.donaldsensing.com/index.php/2005/08/31/us-army-manual-on-domestic-intervention/

Who's talking about about TVs? We were talking about food and water.

As well as Jeans, T-shirts, TV sets, jewelary.

Food and water I can understand. Why do you think that they are evacuating New Orleans?

Ok, so, we shouldn't be allowed to shoot the looters who are robbing, AT GUNPOINT, what few civilians are left in the city? Please. Not only that, but they're shooting police officers. Unless you subdue them, they'll be a big problem to the relief effort.

*snip*
And? Doesn't really change the fact that the only person who can make the decision if the person warrants the death penalty for robbery is the reservist.

Which I still contend to be illegal. Again, the fifth amendment.

As well as Jeans, T-shirts, TV sets, jewelary.

Food and water I can understand. Why do you think that they are evacuating New Orleans?

You said property rights are not lifted in a natural disaster. If I can break into a grocery store and steal food and water then the statement was wrong. That was my point and you've agreed. I'm glad we're on the same page.

http://i.somethingawful.com/images/thatsracist.gif

:)

I'm sure you know I speak of food Dem, not XBoxes.

The thing is, the people decrying the looters are not talking about food. They are talking about XBoxes, TVs, jewelry, etc.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050901/ap_on_re_us/katrina_looting_hk1

check the latest story out. Yes, there are some looters that are going after food and supplies and some ofthe police have said that they wont arrest the people that are doing just that, but there are armed gangs moving through the city right now shooting at tons of people. It's gotten to the point where they tried to take over a children's hospital a nursing home etc. STILL think thatthey aren't violent. They should be shot down in the street like the rabid dogs that they are.

Thinking about it, I don't even see what the big deal about stealing TVs and jewelry is. People have lost everything but their lives. They're thisclose to going completely insane. They've got nothing to do, nothing to lose. When they evacuate, they aren't going to be taking what they stole. By the time they start the cleanup, the things will be useless anyway (fried TVs, rusted jewelry, rotted clothes and food.) Essentially all they're doing is moving the stuff around, which will make cleanup last maybe another week longer. If looting is the only purpose to their lives right now, I say let 'em do it.

N.O will never be the same again..in fact, it will cease to exist.

N.O will never be the same again..in fact, it will cease to exist.


I was planning to wait until I could legally drink there and then do the Mardi Gras thing. Guess that's not gonna be happening... :(

Yeah, the only problem is that around half of the top 10% are in the middle class.
Again, here is where the definition of middle class is subjective.

From another post
The total burden was around $1.4 Trillion in 1999. The middle class still carries the lion's share of the burden.

Looks like the top 5 percent pay 37 percent of the total federal taxes. If we contract the definition of middle class to be the second, third, and fourth quintiles, then the top wage earners are paying 65 percent of all federal taxes.
Since the lowest quintile pays next to nothing, that means that the redefined middle class is paying 35 percent of all federal taxes.

Didn't Samuel Clemens say that there are "Lies, Damned Lies, and statistics"?

You aren't telling me anything that I don't know already. Sinhue is the one being called to task for failing to do the right math.

Antre_Travarious']Well, I guess we just debase ourselves and start acting like the lowest animal that steals from each other.

Oh, wait, how many animals steal from each other.

Uhmmm you should've probably thought a little before you put this, because any animal that's strong enough to steal food from another animal will do it, unless they're in the same pack.

Have fun glorifying animals above humans though, don't let any facts get in your way or anything.

The thing is, the people decrying the looters are not talking about food. They are talking about XBoxes, TVs, jewelry, etc.

Yeah actually in one of the other 50 or so Katrina threads, they were. They were saying its not ok to take food for survival. That order was more important that survival. I'm talking about things to help keep these people alive. Food, medicines, blankets,a raft if they find one.

Did anyone other than me hear about the looter in the heart of New Orleans who shot a police guard through the head with a stolen rifle? And these guys aren't after the necessities- all the expensive stuff. They endanger the already-afflicted residents of New Orleans, and if violence is the means to stop violence, so be it.

Food and clothing are understandable. Unless you experiment in the world of nudism...and then, you'll just need food.

the Victims of Bush economy have a right to loot during times of emergency

Did anyone other than me hear about the looter in the heart of New Orleans who shot a police guard through the head with a stolen rifle? And these guys aren't after the necessities- all the expensive stuff. They endanger the already-afflicted residents of New Orleans, and if violence is the means to stop violence, so be it.

Food and clothing are understandable. Unless you experiment in the world of nudism...and then, you'll just need food.
On the streets of New Orleans martial law has been declared. There have been reports of looting including many people breaking into stores in search of food and drinkable water. Others took electronics, alcohol and guns. The Times Picayune reported the looting was so widespread that even police officers took part. One uniform officer was photographed carrying six DVDs outside a Wal-Mart. Another was seen carrying a 27-inch tv.

the Victims of Bush economy have a right to loot during times of emergency


spare us,please.

spare us,please.
Bush had to cut his 5 year vacation short by 2 days because of this disaster that he allowed to happen BOO HOO!!!

Bush had to cut his 5 year vacation short by 2 days because of this disaster that he allowed to happen BOO HOO!!!
Hey troll, you are not doing us Bush detractors any favors.

Oh, wait, how many animals steal from each other.
Uh... pretty much all of them, given the chance?

Antre_Travarious']

Oh, wait, how many animals steal from each other.
I retract this statement; I didn't really think it thru. Anyways, my original feelings have not changed. All the sniping at my statement actually reinforced my view that it is base and feral to steal food from someone, especially during crises.

Antre_Travarious']I retract this statement; I didn't really think it thru. Anyways, my original feelings have not changed. All the sniping at my statement actually reinforced my view that it is base and feral to steal food from someone, especially during crises.
They're stealing food from a store. Food that will be destroyed if they don't consume it. If you want to argue that some rich bastard's wealth is worth more than the lives of those in crisises, go ahead. Just don't expect us to not perceive you as the base and feral one.

Expect crimes using firearms to go up 500% in New Orleans. ALL of the gunshops in NO were looted clean and picked dry, aswell as the hunting section at walmart.

There have also been cases where druggies are attempting to break into Children's hospitals (With patients still in them) to steal the drugs to get a fix. Now THAT PISSES ME OFF more than anything else to pick on an injured child.

In the Superdome there were several reported rapes, and in the General area of NO there are robberies, gunman carjacking people who stop, guys wearing Bulletproof vests that say "POLICE" on them attempting to rob people, and New Orleans POLICE OFFICERS looting aswell.

Also, the poll should be made more friendly to those of us who don't own .223 caliber rifles. You should add a /7.62/5.45 on their just to be fair, you know :D

Man, can't wait for a disaster to hit, I'm gonna get sooooo much free stuff.

Apparently people on this board don't give a damn about property rights. Well, at least until THEIR stuff gets stolen.

/been robbed
//twice

Again, here is where the definition of middle class is subjective.

From another post

Looks like the top 5 percent pay 37 percent of the total federal taxes. If we contract the definition of middle class to be the second, third, and fourth quintiles, then the top wage earners are paying 65 percent of all federal taxes.
Since the lowest quintile pays next to nothing, that means that the redefined middle class is paying 35 percent of all federal taxes.

Didn't Samuel Clemens say that there are "Lies, Damned Lies, and statistics"?

You aren't telling me anything that I don't know already. Sinhue is the one being called to task for failing to do the right math.

NO ONE considers people making less than 100,000 to be in the upper class. Just because you concentrate a ton of wealth among a very few people does not up the definition of upper class. The top quintile includes families that make less than 76,000/year. The top 10% includes families that make less than $100,000/year. The second 5% averages at $100,000/year per family.

And you are the one who said that the top 5% pay HALF the taxes. That's why she brought it up. And you were clearly wrong. THe top 5% pay one third of the taxes. The upper class, while less people, still pay less taxes than the middle class, unless you just completely redefine middle class.

Man, can't wait for a disaster to hit, I'm gonna get sooooo much free stuff.

Apparently people on this board don't give a damn about property rights. Well, at least until THEIR stuff gets stolen.

/been robbed
//twice


I've been robbed way more than twice. And I still support the looting in NO. There's a difference between taking food and water for survival (or even taking electronics that you don't need and are going to be destroyed anyway) and breaking into someone's home while they sleep and picking through their stuff. One's life and death (or temporary loss of sanity due to the environment. Dead bodies floating around tend to cause some undue mental strain), the other's cold-hearted theft. It's all in the circumstances, baby.

the looters and those who wiped walmart clean of the gun sections are beginning to take "bases" wihin certian abandoned buildings. although many of the looted items aside from food werent needed, the people of new orleans intend to defend what they have. now is the perfec time to kill, loot or be killed. with the outstanding circumstances, chances are youll get away

These people were left to fucking die.

If they want a TV, they can have the fucking TV. If they want to wreck some shit, then more power to them.

As to those who would judge, shut the fuck up. You aren't there. You've never been through anything like it.

Taking food and water that you need to live is called "survival". The people who do this is are survivors, to be accorded a measure of dignity and undersanding.

Taking guns, sneakers, drugs, jewelery, electronics and the like is looting. The people who do this are savages, to be accorded a noose and a sign saying "looter".

Just don't expect us to not perceive you as the base and feral one.
Who is "us"? You and all the others around here who believe that anarchy and steealing others belongings are good things?

If you percieve as anything unlike you, I am happy.

Antre_Travarious']Who is "us"? You and all the others around here who believe that anarchy and steealing others belongings are good things?

If you percieve as anything unlike you, I am happy.

Who said anything about good?

Their government failed them. They're taking their just rewards.

Only a depraved mind percieves theft and anarchy as "just".

Antre_Travarious']Only a depraved mind percieves theft and anarchy as "just".

Only a sick monster would consider taking food and water as 'looting'.

It's a foul, disgusting thing to hold property rights above life.

The TVs? I imagine not as common as people make it out to be. Dragging a 60' plasma TV through waist deep water is no fun, I imagine.

These people were left to fucking die.

If they want a TV, they can have the fucking TV. If they want to wreck some shit, then more power to them.

As to those who would judge, shut the fuck up. You aren't there. You've never been through anything like it.
1) They were NOT left there to die. They were given ample warning to get the hell out of the city and were provided with shelter at the Superdome. The ones that are doing the looting are the same ones that were too stupid to leave in the first place.

2)I CAN judge all I want. Although I'm not from New Orleans, I AM however from Los Angeles. I've been through 2 fucking riots in this town. I still remember watching tanks driving down Sunset Blvd to help quell these oportunistic morons. They only difference here is that in Los Angeles our resident idiots don't wait for a natural disaster to start looting. Any old excuse will do. The Lakers lose...let's riot. The Lakers win...let's riot and loot some stores while we're at it. The mentality is despicable any which way you look at it.

The looters will find any sort of justification for their actions. People on this thread want to defend the looters because they are hungry? There are plenty of places for those legitmately starving to go and get food. There are shelters set up everywhere for them to go and get fed. FEMA has done an amazing job with the relief effort. These people aren't looking for food, they are lloking for high priced jewelry, electronic toys, guns, and drugs and they have hurt a lot of upstanding citizens and defenseless childrem in the process. Fuck 'em. I still stand by my previous statement. Shoot them, and when you do...shoot to kill. The people of New Orleans will be better off for it.

:sniper:

1) They were NOT left there to die. They were given ample warning to get the hell out of the city and were provided with shelter at the Superdome. The ones that are doing the looting are the same ones that were too stupid to leave in the first place.

2)I CAN judge all I want. Although I'm not from New Orleans, I AM however from Los Angeles. I've been through 2 fucking riots in this town. I still remember watching tanks driving down Sunset Blvd to help quell these oportunistic morons. They only difference here is that in Los Angeles our resident idiots don't wait for a natural disaster to start looting. Any old excuse will do. The Lakers lose...let's riot. The Lakers win...let's riot and loot some stores while we're at it. The mentality is despicable any which way you look at it.

The looters will find any sort of justification for their actions. People on this thread want to defend the looters because they are hungry? There are plenty of places for those legitmately starving to go and get food. There are shelters set up everywhere for them to go and get fed. FEMA has done an amazing job with the relief effort. These people aren't looking for food, they are lloking for high priced jewelry, electronic toys, guns, and drugs and they have hurt a lot of upstanding citizens and defenseless childrem in the process. Fuck 'em. I still stand by my previous statement. Shoot them, and when you do...shoot to kill. The people of New Orleans will be better off for it.

:sniper:


You're sick, you're misinformed, and I hope I never have the displeasure of meeting you or anyone like you.

You're sick, you're misinformed, and I hope I never have the displeasure of meeting you or anyone like you.

You'll need to do better than a one sentance personal attack my friend. I'm sick? Why exactly? Because I'm fed up with criminal behavior, especially when it affects children and the handicapped?Have you seen the news? Every gun store in New Orleans was looted. These criminals then attacked a Police supply truck that was trying to deliver food to those displaced by this tragedy. These criminals stormed a children's hospital and a retirement home looking for drugs. Are you saying that this kind of behavior is justified?

You say that I'm misinformed. Are you denying that these events occured? Are you denying that FEMA is doing a fantastic job of helping these people in the wake of this disaster?

Maybe I should clarify my earlier statement for you. My heart goes out to all of those who weren't able to get out of the city through no fault of their own. Certainly there were many elderly and handicapped with no frends or family to take care of them and help them evacuate. I feel sorry for them and I pray for them. Those handicapped and elderly who survived...somehow I don't think that any of them are responsible for the lootingthat is occuring in New Orleans right now.

The rest of them...the ones that decided that they didn't need to heed the ample warnings given to them to evacuate. Screw them. They are morons. For days leading up to this, all of the news stations were predicting total devistation to New Orleans. As terrible as this disaster is, the damage IS less than what was predicted. At this point, I can't tell what is worse, the children that died needlessly because their parents decided that they should stay in their homes and try to ride out one of the worst storms in US history or the criminals that are roaming the streets of New Orleans making an already horrible situation even worse. Nothing like a natural disaster to bring out the absolute worst in human nature.

food, drinks, diapers and other necessities i would overlook as a policeman, but when someone carries out tv's, stereos and vending machines (i thought i'd seen it all!!), it's time for me to start using my shotgun and rid us of this scum which is just as bad for us as the terrorists.

http://www.nola.com/newslogs/breakingtp/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/2005_08.html#075195

America is built upon the idea that any individual can safely own property - when that right is threatened it is the job of the federal government to pwn some noobs. I think the national guard should be allowed to shoot looters. (ok, maybe just wing them, but you get the point)

your thoughts?

Id say yes that looters should be removed from our society. Not just wing them, but remove em from the gene pool. Same with rioters (not peaceful protests, but riots).

Course, Im called a bit of an extremist in views by some here. heh

But when your first thought in a disaster is to benefit yourself is to screw fellow citizens, you are scum, and better off without.

You'll need to do better than a one sentance personal attack my friend.

No, I really don't. You see, it's really easy to spew stupid bullshit on the internet. I've done it myself, on this very thread. Of course it's wrong to steal nonessentials, even during a crisis.

But I'd like to see you try and shoot some person who was just grabbing some bread and water. Unarmed, just wants to survive. Yeah, put them right in the sights. And shoot. They're criminals, right?

Jesus, it makes me sick.

You have clearly never been poor. Getting the hell out of dodge is hardly that simple when you're living on subsistance wages. Especially when you have a fucking hurricane bearing down on you.

NO ONE considers people making less than 100,000 to be in the upper class. Just because you concentrate a ton of wealth among a very few people does not up the definition of upper class. The top quintile includes families that make less than 76,000/year. The top 10% includes families that make less than $100,000/year. The second 5% averages at $100,000/year per family.

And you are the one who said that the top 5% pay HALF the taxes. That's why she brought it up. And you were clearly wrong. THe top 5% pay one third of the taxes. The upper class, while less people, still pay less taxes than the middle class, unless you just completely redefine middle class.
Wake up, get some coffee, and re-read. Sinhue implied that I was one of those that thought the rich paid the most tax. I said the top ten percent paid almost half of all taxes. Sinhue responded with her erroneous calculations that were based on income taxes and her own definition of middle class. I corrected those calculations and showed that I was, indeeded, correct when considering income taxes alone.

You shifted gears to include payroll taxes, but kept her generous definition of middle class. I agreed with your calculations, but not necessarily with the definition of middle class.

Anyhow, the fact is that the top 5 percent of wage earners pay either 50 percent of all income tax or 37 percent of all federal tax. This is hardly a proportional amount in either case.

If we choose my definition of middle class, which excludes the top 10 percent of wage earners, the middle class certainly pays less in taxes than the top 10 percent. The top 10 percent has an average income of $136,000, I think. I don't think $136,000 is an unreasonable break point between middle and upper class. I think $276,000 is too high. We could settle on a number like $150,000, but the income vs population figures that Sinhue provided are not easily manipulated to do that sort of calculation.

Sorry guys, your argument is wrong. The facts don't support it. I notice that Sinhue has bailed out of this and I'm going to do the same.

I voted "eh"

Completely against.

Stealing omething valued few hundred $ cannot be worse than human life.

You can buy TV again, but you cannot give back human his life. Maybe that looter actually was owner, maybe he needed bread in order to survive, maybe it was guy running away with his own property trying to escape looters and maybe he was actually looter. Bullets do not distinguish. Courts do.

Shooting at gumans could only be accepted as last resort to save innocent lives.

That statement is absolutely nuts. I'll spot you the argument about food. It's a commodity that will spoil and it ought to be put to good use. But the idea that stealing small, non-perishable items is okay, but big, non-perishable items are off-limits is just silly.

If I owned a jewelry or electronics, or similar store, you can bet I'd be there with a shotgun to protect my property. No, that's not true. I would have left town when I was advised to evacuate.

Well, there is a difference in stealing bread and water to survive and stealing a TV..
BUt you dont see that i guess :confused:


No, that's not true. I would have left town when I was advised to evacuate.

No evacuations was organaized, what if you didnt own a car and was poor??

Some of the looting is of stores etc this is to have something yto eat, and the stores are not open anyways...
You like shooting ppl dont ya

So because a store is not " open" you can loot it ? looters need to be shot .
You not only have looting but cars of people trying to escape the city are being hijacked and armed looters are actualy going to inhabited areas to loot .
idiots like this only understand being hung from a pole .

I will never understand the constant desire for blood among many American citizens. Especially at a time like this.

They're stealing stuff. Whoopee. I bet those stores have insurance. But stuff it; let's use it as an excuse to murder people.

God forbid someone should steal a TV and put it to good use.

The sensible thing to do would be to let it rust under 30 feet of water and sewerage.

/o\Warning: Hidden Sarcasm Inside /o\

Regardless of whether the inventory was stolen or not, the standard practice after a catastrophe of this magnitude is to declare the entire store along with all the inventory a total loss. The insurance companies end up picking up the tab. You could view this as stealing from the insurance company but even that isnt accurate because stolen or not the merchandise wouldve been declared destroyed due to water damage. So, in reality, looting from stores in this situation is a lot more like scavenging for items that were discarded than it is like stealing.

I have no problem with looting food. I don't think anyone does. Taking batteries, flashlights, clothes, shoes and blankets and even tents(for shelter if nes) is fine. I don't think that taking diamonds or stealing your neighbors goods unless you need them to survive. Initally I was like ah well it'll all be covered by insurance but most companies don't cover natural disasters.

... but most companies don't cover natural disasters.
Exactly. Those looters are actually doing store/home owners a favour. If the inventory was left to rot in the water it would have been destroyed by a natural disaster and thus not compensated. If looters take it, it is stolen and thus covered by the insurance.

:p :p :p :p

I have no problem with looting food. I don't think anyone does. Taking batteries, flashlights, clothes, shoes and blankets and even tents(for shelter if nes) is fine. I don't think that taking diamonds or stealing your neighbors goods unless you need them to survive. Initally I was like ah well it'll all be covered by insurance but most companies don't cover natural disasters.

That's a fair point...

But stealing stuff from jewelry stores, etc. now makes a lot more sense if you are poor and everything you own has been destroyed...and no insurance will cover it.

Exactly. Those looters are actually doing store/home owners a favour. If the inventory was left to rot in the water it would have been destroyed by a natural disaster and thus not compensated. If looters take it, it is stolen and thus covered by the insurance.

:p :p :p :p


hahaha!
Yes but insurance companies aren't stupid. Given that there were no security measures applicable to prevent the stolen goods it may not be possible. Anyway..what good is it stealing electrical appliances which are water damaged and no where to plug them in?

That's a fair point...

But stealing stuff from jewelry stores, etc. now makes a lot more sense if you are poor and everything you own has been destroyed...and no insurance will cover it.


Ya I know, I'd probably do the same if I was in that situation, but they are someone elses goods. There are two sides to it. Those store owners have lost everything too.

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

Looting: The police are looting. This has been confirmed by several independent sources. Some of the looting might be "legitimate" in as much as that word has any meaning in this context. They have broken into ATMs and safes: confirmed. We have eyewitnesses to this. They have taken dozens of SUVs from dealerships ostensibly for official use. They have also looted gun stores and pawn shops for all the small arms, supposedly to prevent "criminals" from doing so. But who knows their true intentions. We have an inside source in the NOPD who says that command and control is in chaos. He reports that command lapses more than 24 hours between check-ins, and that most of the force are "like deer in the headlights." NOPD already had a reputation for corruption, but I am telling you now that the people we've been talking to say they are not recognizing the NOPD as a legitimate authority anymore, since cops have been seen looting in Walmarts and forcing people out of stores so they could back up SUVs and loot them. Don't shoot the messenger....

I think most people can excuse those in need, with no other choice, from helping themselves to food, water, diapers and other necessities of life when faced with a disaster. That’s a matter of survival.
But when you’re a fat lazy bitch, ransacking a Wal-Mart in full view of someone with a video camera, wearing your “Bad girls suck, Good girls swallow” T-shirt and stealing a cart load of jeans, tennis shoes, DVD’s, and bottle after bottle of A-1 Steak sauce, you are nothing more than a bug feeding on a rotting corpse. (I have seen all of these scenes repeatedly on CNN, MSNBC, etc.) You are mosquito sucking the blood out of the arm of society and need to be crushed. When you accept and permit lawlessness to exist you breed more lawlessness. Soon you have idiots shooting at helicopters that are trying to help the truly humble and helpless.
The situation in New Orleans has decayed to the point that law enforcement is forced to change its focus from saving lives to enforcing law because of the scum that is looting stores out of pure greed. They are not only looting stores but hospitals and private residences. Even holding people up at gunpoint. Helpless citizens that want to evacuate are afraid to leave their homes because of the scum running around. Innocent people will die because of the action of the small percentage of thugs that can’t behave in a civilized manner. They don’t care about the injured, the helpless, the dying. Why should I give a rat’s ass about their life?

Wake up, get some coffee, and re-read. Sinhue implied that I was one of those that thought the rich paid the most tax. I said the top ten percent paid almost half of all taxes. Sinhue responded with her erroneous calculations that were based on income taxes and her own definition of middle class. I corrected those calculations and showed that I was, indeeded, correct when considering income taxes alone.

You shifted gears to include payroll taxes, but kept her generous definition of middle class. I agreed with your calculations, but not necessarily with the definition of middle class.

I shifted gears to include the entire tax burden. Income taxes are a small part of the tax burden, less than half of it. Not the point. You're right. I did wake up, I don't drink coffee, but I did re-read and you are correct, you said the top 10% pay half the taxes, and it is a fairly accurate statement (49%). I stand corrected. However, I will again note that the top 10% includes middle class.

Anyhow, the fact is that the top 5 percent of wage earners pay either 50 percent of all income tax or 37 percent of all federal tax. This is hardly a proportional amount in either case.

It is a proportional amount when you look at the percent of money controlled by that top 5%. When you factor in that lower class people in general can't really afford a higher tax burden, excluding nearly 30% of the people from the tax burden, it's puts a great strain on everyone above that amount in proportion to the amount of money controlled by them. Have you ever looked up the amount of wealth controlled (controlled is a term the government uses to refer to all of the money they made in addition to their total assets. Net worth plus wage, I think.) by them? The lowest figure I've ever seen was 30% and some place it at more than half. When considering this, their tax burden is proportionate to the wealth they control, perhaps even on the low side.

If we choose my definition of middle class, which excludes the top 10 percent of wage earners, the middle class certainly pays less in taxes than the top 10 percent. The top 10 percent has an average income of $136,000, I think. I don't think $136,000 is an unreasonable break point between middle and upper class. I think $276,000 is too high. We could settle on a number like $150,000, but the income vs population figures that Sinhue provided are not easily manipulated to do that sort of calculation.

You are looking at the average wage. That means many in the group fall far below that number. I showed you the figures. The first 5% have an average income of 276,000. In order for the first 10% to have an average income of 188,000 the second 5% have to have an average income of %100,000. That means that in the second 5% you have many, many people who make less than 100,000/year. So it's clear that only the top 5% should be considered in the upper class, particularly if you agree on settling on 150,000.

Sorry guys, your argument is wrong. The facts don't support it. I notice that Sinhue has bailed out of this and I'm going to do the same.

I gave you the part where you were correct, but you need to look at the numbers better on the rest of it.

I dont know much I guess, but think it would have been better if the plan was to start guarding stores and preventing entry by looters- Such as electronic stores, pawn shops, Blockbuster, etc... Dont wait till someone already has the merchandise and then consider shooting them.

I'm thinking that with a few days warning, maybe some of the merchandise should have been moved out of town before hand? If I had a gun store or a store that carried guns, I might have considered loading them into a truck and moving them to storage a day before hand. Same with pharmacies and their narcotics drugs- wouldnt it have been wise to move these items to another store in the chain outside of the hurricane's path?
How about a jewelry store? You could fit the contents of the average jewelry store into the average vehicle and get it out of town.

Maybe there will be some consideration given in these areas in the future?

As for grocery stores-like Winn Dixie, etc...- I am sure they are happy to donate food-especially perishables-right to the people that need it there.
maybe instead of the "looting" atmosphere, it would have been better for the corporations of these stores to send representatives there righ tafter the storm and start actually handing out necessary items to the people there-maybe those in need could feel a little better about themselves-this might set a good example in the the area of helping your fellow man and make it a positive issue, rather than having film of windows being kicked in so hordes can flock in and grab items. If it changed from "looting" to "donating", the whole attitude could change. Maybe the good will would spread.

I think most people can excuse those in need, with no other choice, from helping themselves to food, water, diapers and other necessities of life when faced with a disaster. That’s a matter of survival.
But when you’re a fat lazy bitch, ransacking a Wal-Mart in full view of someone with a video camera, wearing your “Bad girls suck, Good girls swallow” T-shirt and stealing a cart load of jeans, tennis shoes, DVD’s, and bottle after bottle of A-1 Steak sauce, you are nothing more than a bug feeding on a rotting corpse. (I have seen all of these scenes repeatedly on CNN, MSNBC, etc.) You are mosquito sucking the blood out of the arm of society and need to be crushed. When you accept and permit lawlessness to exist you breed more lawlessness. Soon you have idiots shooting at helicopters that are trying to help the truly humble and helpless.
The situation in New Orleans has decayed to the point that law enforcement is forced to change its focus from saving lives to enforcing law because of the scum that is looting stores out of pure greed. They are not only looting stores but hospitals and private residences. Even holding people up at gunpoint. Helpless citizens that want to evacuate are afraid to leave their homes because of the scum running around. Innocent people will die because of the action of the small percentage of thugs that can’t behave in a civilized manner. They don’t care about the injured, the helpless, the dying. Why should I give a rat’s ass about their life?
I totally agree. If I were there, I'd take food for my family and necessities, but those verminous scavengers are reaping rewards from innocent citizens' circumstances. Killing them may be necessary.

But when you’re a fat lazy bitch, ransacking a Wal-Mart in full view of someone with a video camera, wearing your “Bad girls suck, Good girls swallow” T-shirt and stealing a cart load of jeans, tennis shoes, DVD’s, and bottle after bottle of A-1 Steak sauce, you are nothing more than a bug feeding on a rotting corpse. (I have seen all of these scenes repeatedly on CNN, MSNBC, etc.)


I've seen this woman you described a few times. How unfortunate that she was wearing that, of all shirts, at the time of the disaster. I hope she was able to grab a better shirt.
Imagine you national exposure finds you wearing that? :rolleyes:

I've seen this woman you described a few times. How unfortunate that she was wearing that, of all shirts, at the time of the disaster. I hope she was able to grab a better shirt.
Imagine you national exposure finds you wearing that? :rolleyes:

I’m sure her “ I’m with looters” T-shit was in the laundry.

Guard all the stores? 1 guard times how many stores and business in New Orleans = WAY more cops than they have the capability to guard.

The grocery stores are fair game at this point. We don’t need people who’ve evacuated to wade back in to the sewer/soup to hand them out.

These people had barely had enough time to grab their personal possessions and flee. Are you suggesting they rent a truck(s) and take there inventory with them?

What do we do when a natural disaster such as an earthquake or tornado strikes a major metropolitan area with no warning?

Is it to much to ask that human beings behave in a civilized manner any more? Do we have to keep catering to the lowest forms of humanity

People,

Thousands of people are probably dead so can we skip the economic talk for another thread and focus on the issues at hand like what is going on in LA, Mississippi, AND Alabama?

New Orleans will be rebuilt and will be incredible. I live in area that has been ravaged by hurricanes in the past and I am a native of New Orleans. So, I know about the spirit and significance of New Orleans and the challenges of rebuilding after a hurricane.

In New Orleans, the disaster is so significant that the entire population will be evacuated. Can you think of more perfect circumstances under which to undertake the construction of a state-of-the-art infrastructure? New Orleans could be the most technologically advanced and sturdy city in the country in five years. I'll be anxious to move back to New Orleans in that case.

Is it to much to ask that human beings behave in a civilized manner any more? Do we have to keep catering to the lowest forms of humanity


Its an absolute disgrace that some are taking advantage of the situation and acting like animals.

Keep in mind, there are likely many more people doing good things and helping others- its just not as interesting for the news to report on them yet.
We'll here those stories on "Primetime" next year on the anniversary of the tragedy.

I've been robbed way more than twice. And I still support the looting in NO. There's a difference between taking food and water for survival (or even taking electronics that you don't need and are going to be destroyed anyway) and breaking into someone's home while they sleep and picking through their stuff. One's life and death (or temporary loss of sanity due to the environment. Dead bodies floating around tend to cause some undue mental strain), the other's cold-hearted theft. It's all in the circumstances, baby.

And what about the people in Mississippi going into homes, stepping over dead bodies, and rifling through their jewelry and things. Those aren't "cold-hearted theft"?

Meanwhile, a cop in Mississippi was apparently heard to say that, should they find looters in an home, they should shoot the looter, tag the body as a looter, and then move on to look for more survivors.

New Orleans will be rebuilt and will be incredible. I live in area that has been ravaged by hurricanes in the past and I am a native of New Orleans. So, I know about the spirit and significance of New Orleans and the challenges of rebuilding after a hurricane.

In New Orleans, the disaster is so significant that the entire population will be evacuated. Can you think of more perfect circumstances under which to undertake the construction of a state-of-the-art infrastructure? New Orleans could be the most technologically advanced and sturdy city in the country in five years. I'll be anxious to move back to New Orleans in that case.

And here's a damned good example of that N'awlins spirit 'Big Easy' bites back: shrimp, warm beer, Hurricane drinks (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050831/lf_afp/usweatherfood_050831004814) - some bars and restaurants in the French Quarter are not only still open, but selling beer at a discount!
If that's any indication, the Big Easy will be letting les bon temps roulez for a good while yet. :) (Crosses fingers, and hopes it's so. They'll need it!)

These people were left to fucking die.

No they were not. They chose to stay after repeated calls by authorities to leave. They intended to ride out the storm....

If they want a TV, they can have the fucking TV. If they want to wreck some shit, then more power to them.



As to those who would judge, shut the fuck up. You aren't there. You've never been through anything like it.

I Went through Ivan buddy, so STFU. Did I go out and loot? No. Did I go out and steal, rape, rob and MURDER for things such as food and water? No. I stockpiled several weeks worth of food and water in my dorm room so I was OK.

The only thing I was not allowed to bring was my looter-shooter, which had to stay at home :( .


STFU boy.

No, I really don't. You see, it's really easy to spew stupid bullshit on the internet. I've done it myself, on this very thread. Of course it's wrong to steal nonessentials, even during a crisis.

But I'd like to see you try and shoot some person who was just grabbing some bread and water. Unarmed, just wants to survive. Yeah, put them right in the sights. And shoot. They're criminals, right?

Jesus, it makes me sick.

You have clearly never been poor. Getting the hell out of dodge is hardly that simple when you're living on subsistance wages. Especially when you have a fucking hurricane bearing down on you.

They could have showed up at the Super(Doom)dome and then gotten a BUSRIDE FOR FREE to San antonio.

The NG and police MUST start bringing law and order to NO. Start shooting looters-law and order comes first over their sorry pathetic lives.

And what about the people in Mississippi going into homes, stepping over dead bodies, and rifling through their jewelry and things. Those aren't "cold-hearted theft"?

Meanwhile, a cop in Mississippi was apparently heard to say that, should they find looters in an home, they should shoot the looter, tag the body as a looter, and then move on to look for more survivors.

Good. I hope they get a lot of them. This really pisses me off because I have a good buddy in LA outside of NO and undoubtedly his Gun collection is getting stolen as we speak.

So because a store is not " open" you can loot it ? looters need to be shot .
You not only have looting but cars of people trying to escape the city are being hijacked and armed looters are actualy going to inhabited areas to loot .
idiots like this only understand being hung from a pole .
On what grounds? What authority gives you the right to abridge the constitution?

Ya I know, I'd probably do the same if I was in that situation, but they are someone elses goods. There are two sides to it. Those store owners have lost everything too.

Yeah, well...family stores, I agree...but I think corporate stores like Walmart will somehow manage to bear the loss.

On what grounds? What authority gives you the right to abridge the constitution?
The Constitution is a set of rules and regulations for the government to adhere to. Not the citizens.
Our founders understood that citizens have a right and a duty to protect themselvs and their neighbors from those that would cause harm to them or their property.

So it appears I was right when I started this thread. A little permissiveness leads to widespread lawlessness. Now, rescue operations have been suspended because the victims are too violent to rescue and they are endangering the rescuers. I saw a story on CNN this morning that people in the Superdome were shooting at helicopters and that evacuation had to be suspended.

If this is what metropolitan areas have become, I'll stick with country life.

So because a store is not " open" you can loot it ? looters need to be shot .
You not only have looting but cars of people trying to escape the city are being hijacked and armed looters are actualy going to inhabited areas to loot .
idiots like this only understand being hung from a pole .

Looting of food stores that have been abandoned and where a rashon system is not in place is acceptabel, all other forms of looting i agree with should be shot, to steal from other people and shot at rescue choppers is just frikking strange, you didnt get my point :(

The Constitution is a set of rules and regulations for the government to adhere to. Not the citizens.
Our founders understood that citizens have a right and a duty to protect themselvs and their neighbors from those that would cause harm to them or their property.
Wrong :D.


English common law clearly provides that using deadly force to defend property is not legal. Seeing as how English Common Law was adopted as the basis of the Country's legal system...

English common law clearly provides that using deadly force to defend property is not legal. Seeing as how English Common Law was adopted as the basis of the Country's legal system...[/QUOTE]

Where have you ever seen that before? 1st of all, one of the qualities about English common law is that it isnt written down, it's just a bunch of traditions from over the centuries. 2nd of all, its pretty clear in that law that a man's home is his castle, and that one does have the right to defend that property. There are plenty of home invasion laws where you have the right to shoot a burglar and no charges can be pressed against you...I know Texas has them, but I wouldnt be surprised if Louisiana did too.

Yeah, well...family stores, I agree...but I think corporate stores like Walmart will somehow manage to bear the loss.


The ywont bear the loss so much as raising prices to make up for what insurance doesnt cover.
They have stockholders they are responsible to.

If someone tried to break into my house to steal my TV, or tried to hijack my car, I would splatter them.

"OMG is a tv worth a human life?!??!"

I dunno, ask the dumbass willing to risk his life to steal mine.

Wrong :D.


English common law clearly provides that using deadly force to defend property is not legal. Seeing as how English Common Law was adopted as the basis of the Country's legal system...



I’m one of those fruitcakes that actually carries a pocket copy of The Constitution with me.
I will give you that, where I reside. It would be Illegal to use deadly force. But I challenge you to find, in The Constitution anthing that can be interperted as prohibiting a citizen from doing it. Once again, the constitution is a document that outlines, grants and restricts the power of the federal government. Not the citizens.

Ill be happy to be corrected. Until then.....
WRONG.... :D ;)

I Went through Ivan buddy, so STFU. Did I go out and loot? No. Did I go out and steal, rape, rob and MURDER for things such as food and water? No. I stockpiled several weeks worth of food and water in my dorm room so I was OK.

The only thing I was not allowed to bring was my looter-shooter, which had to stay at home :( .


STFU boy.

Was your city flooded with 20 feet of water in places? Was it ancipated that said flood would last for months?

Is your house still standing? Have you lost everything?

No?

Then shut up. Boy.

Antre_Travarious']Hey troll, you are not doing us Bush detractors any favors.
I dont remember owing you any

Taking food and water that you need to live is called "survival". The people who do this is are survivors, to be accorded a measure of dignity and undersanding.

Taking guns, sneakers, drugs, jewelery, electronics and the like is looting. The people who do this are savages, to be accorded a noose and a sign saying "looter".
dont be rediculous---waste is more of a sin then looting and im sure these businesses have something called "insurance"

what no one seems to be talking about is the billions looted from America and the offshore accounts Bush-Halliburton created after looting trillions from Iraq--but of course desperate people stealing electronics is worse then an administration that starts wars for trillion dollar profits :rolleyes:

1) They were NOT left there to die. They were given ample warning to get the hell out of the city and were provided with shelter at the Superdome. The ones that are doing the looting are the same ones that were too stupid to leave in the first place.

2)I CAN judge all I want. Although I'm not from New Orleans, I AM however from Los Angeles. I've been through 2 fucking riots in this town. I still remember watching tanks driving down Sunset Blvd to help quell these oportunistic morons. They only difference here is that in Los Angeles our resident idiots don't wait for a natural disaster to start looting. Any old excuse will do. The Lakers lose...let's riot. The Lakers win...let's riot and loot some stores while we're at it. The mentality is despicable any which way you look at it.

The looters will find any sort of justification for their actions. People on this thread want to defend the looters because they are hungry? There are plenty of places for those legitmately starving to go and get food. There are shelters set up everywhere for them to go and get fed. FEMA has done an amazing job with the relief effort. These people aren't looking for food, they are lloking for high priced jewelry, electronic toys, guns, and drugs and they have hurt a lot of upstanding citizens and defenseless childrem in the process. Fuck 'em. I still stand by my previous statement. Shoot them, and when you do...shoot to kill. The people of New Orleans will be better off for it.

:sniper:
alot of victims of Bushs economy were simply too poor to move--does that mean they deserve to starve to death?

I say more power to the Looters and shoot the shooters

food, drinks, diapers and other necessities i would overlook as a policeman, but when someone carries out tv's, stereos and vending machines (i thought i'd seen it all!!), it's time for me to start using my shotgun and rid us of this scum which is just as bad for us as the terrorists.
Im sure they would do that but many cops were too buzy looting as well

Id say yes that looters should be removed from our society. Not just wing them, but remove em from the gene pool. Same with rioters (not peaceful protests, but riots).

Course, Im called a bit of an extremist in views by some here. heh

But when your first thought in a disaster is to benefit yourself is to screw fellow citizens, you are scum, and better off without.
so I assume you want to remove oil executives from the gene pool as well for looting the nation or is it just poor people that you like to oppress?

And what about the people in Mississippi going into homes, stepping over dead bodies, and rifling through their jewelry and things. Those aren't "cold-hearted theft"?

Meanwhile, a cop in Mississippi was apparently heard to say that, should they find looters in an home, they should shoot the looter, tag the body as a looter, and then move on to look for more survivors.
sounds kinda like how things musta been in the south after the civil war

I Went through Ivan buddy, so STFU. Did I go out and loot? No. Did I go out and steal, rape, rob and MURDER for things such as food and water? No. I stockpiled several weeks worth of food and water in my dorm room so I was OK.

The only thing I was not allowed to bring was my looter-shooter, which had to stay at home :( .


STFU boy.
was your house levelled? did you lose all your worldly possessions?

or did you just close your window and go back on the computer

They could have showed up at the Super(Doom)dome and then gotten a BUSRIDE FOR FREE to San antonio.

The NG and police MUST start bringing law and order to NO. Start shooting looters-law and order comes first over their sorry pathetic lives.
typical neocon---putting property above human life

There's a difference between looting and surviving. Surviving is breaking into stores to get food and medical supplies. That's is more than justified, in my eyes, in this situation. However, breaking into WalMart to pick up some new jewelry and a TV isn't surviving. That's looting and is criminal. Not only is it criminal, but it's stupid. To steal a TV when there's a.) no power, and b.) no way to get said TV out of the city before it's completely flooded, is a massive waste of time and effort.

There's a difference between looting and surviving. Surviving is breaking into stores to get food and medical supplies. That's is more than justified, in my eyes, in this situation. However, breaking into WalMart to pick up some new jewelry and a TV isn't surviving. That's looting and is criminal. Not only is it criminal, but it's stupid. To steal a TV when there's a.) no power, and b.) no way to get said TV out of the city before it's completely flooded, is a massive waste of time and effort.
I agree --but its sick to focus more on looting then on saving lives which should be the FIRST priority. Really in a catastrophe on such a scale, looting is kind of a moot point

The looters are finally getting a chance to get good clothing and food. Let'em have it. Most of it will be thrown out now anyway. Most of the looters are homeless and poor.

The looters are finally getting a chance to get good clothing and food. Let'em have it. Most of it will be thrown out now anyway. Most of the looters are homeless and poor.
I totally agree and most of this stuff would prly have been wasted anyway. Its funny how upset some people get when poor people loot to survive but when billionaires destroy peoples lives waging wars based on looting and greed they dont say a thing

I agree --but its sick to focus more on looting then on saving lives which should be the FIRST priority. Really in a catastrophe on such a scale, looting is kind of a moot point

It's not the fact they're looting, but also the fact that they are shooting at Police officers, many of whom are now trapped on the roof of the Hyatt in NO.

They shot the Ferry Pilot who operated the ferry

They've shot releif helicopters that are coming to save them.

They are taking over hospitals and STEALING drugs that would save lives, only so they can get a fix.

They are shooting at the National guard who are attempting to aid them

Burn that city to the ground. :mad:

I agree --but its sick to focus more on looting then on saving lives which should be the FIRST priority. Really in a catastrophe on such a scale, looting is kind of a moot point

Have any of you people that are defending the looters actually WATCHED the footage from New Orleans in the last few days? There hasn't been any food to steal since Monday. The grocery stores, convenience stores etc were all cleaned out the day after the storm hit and with relatively few incidents of violence. Since then, the violence has escalated as roving gangs move about the city stealing whatever valuables they can. Murder is rampant, rape is out of control. Casmir, you say that saving lives should be a priority. I agree. At this point taking out the looters IS going to save lives. They have already terrorized tens of thousands of human beings down there. They are shooting at rescue choppers, hindering the effort to save lives. Just tonight, I watched a report on the news about how the fires that they were setting were stopping many of the rescuers from reaching the Superdome to help evacuate the thousands of people who just want to get out of the city. These lawless poeple need to be stopped immediately or the death toll is going to rise even more.

1) They were NOT left there to die. They were given ample warning to get the hell out of the city and were provided with shelter at the Superdome. The ones that are doing the looting are the same ones that were too stupid to leave in the first place.

2)I CAN judge all I want. Although I'm not from New Orleans, I AM however from Los Angeles. I've been through 2 fucking riots in this town. I still remember watching tanks driving down Sunset Blvd to help quell these oportunistic morons. They only difference here is that in Los Angeles our resident idiots don't wait for a natural disaster to start looting. Any old excuse will do. The Lakers lose...let's riot. The Lakers win...let's riot and loot some stores while we're at it. The mentality is despicable any which way you look at it.

The looters will find any sort of justification for their actions. People on this thread want to defend the looters because they are hungry? There are plenty of places for those legitmately starving to go and get food. There are shelters set up everywhere for them to go and get fed. FEMA has done an amazing job with the relief effort. These people aren't looking for food, they are lloking for high priced jewelry, electronic toys, guns, and drugs and they have hurt a lot of upstanding citizens and defenseless childrem in the process. Fuck 'em. I still stand by my previous statement. Shoot them, and when you do...shoot to kill. The people of New Orleans will be better off for it.

:sniper:
Good Post!

Burn that city to the ground. :mad:
So there are some idiots running around creating chaos and your solution would be to burn the city down? Screw the majority of the people who are innocent in all of this?

Your rationale is totally skewed to say the least. :(

It's not the fact they're looting, but also the fact that they are shooting at Police officers, many of whom are now trapped on the roof of the Hyatt in NO.

How about the fact that you and other people are refusing to separate the two? Not everyone who's looting is committing violent crimes. And believe it or not, some people are doing neither.

There are shelters set up everywhere for them to go and get fed. FEMA has done an amazing job with the relief effort.


The National Guard just made it in this afternoon to distribute food and water, 4 days after the food supply was cut off. I can understand why you would think that the response would be quick and efficient, this being America and all. But I suppose that doesn't mean what it used to. FEMA has blown it on this and even the president is admitting it now. So you are dead wrong on this.

It's not the fact they're looting, but also the fact that they are shooting at Police officers, many of whom are now trapped on the roof of the Hyatt in NO.

They shot the Ferry Pilot who operated the ferry

They've shot releif helicopters that are coming to save them.

They are taking over hospitals and STEALING drugs that would save lives, only so they can get a fix.

They are shooting at the National guard who are attempting to aid them

Burn that city to the ground. :mad:
yeah well those particular psychos need to get wasted I agree with that much--but they also dont represent the majority of the "looters" that our dishonest neocon media obsesses on

Have any of you people that are defending the looters actually WATCHED the footage from New Orleans in the last few days? There hasn't been any food to steal since Monday. The grocery stores, convenience stores etc were all cleaned out the day after the storm hit and with relatively few incidents of violence. Since then, the violence has escalated as roving gangs move about the city stealing whatever valuables they can. Murder is rampant, rape is out of control. Casmir, you say that saving lives should be a priority. I agree. At this point taking out the looters IS going to save lives. They have already terrorized tens of thousands of human beings down there. They are shooting at rescue choppers, hindering the effort to save lives. Just tonight, I watched a report on the news about how the fires that they were setting were stopping many of the rescuers from reaching the Superdome to help evacuate the thousands of people who just want to get out of the city. These lawless poeple need to be stopped immediately or the death toll is going to rise even more.
While on day 5 of people being trapped with water up to their necks Bush remained oblivious on vacation eating cake while Condosleazy Rice was spending thousands of dollars in NYC buying shoes in Ferrgamo and watching the play Spam-a-lot. Afterall its only POOR people dying

How about the fact that you and other people are refusing to separate the two? Not everyone who's looting is committing violent crimes. And believe it or not, some people are doing neither.

How can we? They were told to leave and they didn't. Gangs are RUNNING THE CITY. They are taking over buildings, shooting at police, and doing everything that you would expect in a 3rd world turdhole.

But hey....if we could get some Artillery on the edge of NO..... ;) ....We could do selective-strikes and nuke the insurgents back to where they belong.

"Fire for effect, grid nine"

:D

:gundge:

How can we? They were told to leave and they didn't. Gangs are RUNNING THE CITY. They are taking over buildings, shooting at police, and doing everything that you would expect in a 3rd world turdhole.

But hey....if we could get some Artillery on the edge of NO..... ;) ....We could do selective-strikes and nuke the insurgents back to where they belong.

"Fire for effect, grid nine"

:D

:gundge:
many were too poor to leave the city on their own. Where was our precious Fatherland Security to help with the evacuation? This hurricane didnt hit without plenty of warning