Is That Legal?

Well, because nobody actually listens to them outside of the blogosphere, probably. Well, nobody with guns, I hope.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Why?

It's all about the image of machismo on the right since McGovern. And what's more macho than pulling your six-shooter and killing a thief . . . Duke Wayne-style?

That claimed need for machismo has tamed the MSM. If, say, the NYT runs a story about how outrageous the commentary has been -- shoot to kill -- the right's own media machine trashes the NYT as a liberal rag that endorses anarchy, which is only one-step up from communism Then we'd hear, "and you want to know why the Democrats lost America?"

What's really remarkable is that in the "wild west" -- where men were men and Custer bravely killed "those heathen savages" before being the last man standing at LBH -- horse thievin' and cattle rustlin' were capital offenses.

But at least you got a trial first before they hanged you. (For a good example of why that's important, check out "Hang 'Em High" with Clint Eastwood.)

In post-modern America, it's shoot-to-kill.

It's just an extension of Cheney's f-bomb in the Senate. "It felt good."

And, really, what feels better than killing an unarmed desperado thievin' food and water for his family in the midst of a natural disaster?

Les I be misconstrued, let me say first that not only should people who are taking food, water, medical supplies, emergency provisions, etc., be left alone to do so, the police and National Guard should themselves be encouraged to help people do it. People are suffering and starving.

That said, what we also have is people helping themselves to jewelry, electronics and consumer products, which is itself wrong; but more importantly, we have desperate people helping themselves to liquor and firearms, which are going to make for a deadly combination. In fact, it already is; there are plenty of reports of carjackings and exchanges of gunfire, "looters" attacking hospitals and retirement homes, and right now MSNBC is reporting gunfire directed at helicopters which are evacuating the Superdome.

And following all this are going to be the inevitable spikes in murder and sexual assault. So, given all that, Eric, from up on that lofty pedestal, what do you suggest be done? What, if not the serious threat of bodily harm, can be used to deter these people? Civil law is nonexistent at the moment, so what's your solution?

Well said, Phil. Most people have had zero contact with unbridled lawlessness, and have no idea what we're dealing with in New Orleans. Hence, Eric's naive legalisms.

The explanation is that they thought the problem through, rather than getting all weepy right away.

Get out the way, sonny. The grownups have work to do.

Via Pointoflawblog:

Glenn Reynolds suggests shooting looters. Eric Muller proudly looks down his nose at the idea. How uncivilized! But the irony is that it's Muller whose position is uncivilized.

There are lots of snarky remarks about looting coverage (Prawfsblawg, unlike Wonkette, at least noted that one can't expect consistency across different news organizations), but in reality, as a look at blogs from people actually in New Orleans show, the looting is far worse than the media is reporting until recently. This isn't an issue of salvaging spoiling food and water (though, even here, allowing looting means the strong get food and the weak starve); they're attacking rescuers and doctors and hospitals. "At flood-swamped Charity Hospital, looters with handguns forced doctors to give up stores of narcotics." Others looters are stealing generators from unarmed citizens. This is the anarchy that Muller is defending; he can bring to bear a lot of sarcasm on the matter, but that's hardly a useful policy suggestion. If someone wishes to argue that shooting violent looters is inefficacious, that's one thing, but simply to argue that doing so will lead to loss of life seems to me to ignore the opportunity costs of permitting looting.

I fully acknowledge that shooting looters is an inappropriately disproportionate response if one views looting as mere larceny. But one doesn't shoot looters to protect property, one does so to protect order. Somebody is going to suffer unjustly when society breaks down. I don't understand why Muller thinks it preferable for the law-abiding citizens to be the cost-bearers. History has shown repeatedly that the way to stop an anarchic riot is an early display of substantial force.

Of course, with the New Orleans police having close to third-world levels of corruption in good weather, there isn't exactly law enforcement that I would trust on the ground in the city until the National Guard gets sent in, so the whole question may be moot.

Looting in this situation isn't just a property crime. It's an attack on the law and order that makes cities possible. Nobody will bring supplies into a city if they'll just be stolen at gunpoint, and if supplies don't come in that means the people have to leave. Well, either leave or become minions of Lord Humungus. Mass refugee situations are more than just an inconvienience; they're also an opportunity to cull the sick and the lame.

It's pretty easy to sit in Tennessee and declaim about the virtues of shooting looters. But I haven't seen Glenn Reynolds volunteer to take a shotgun down to NO to impose order. It's pretty easy for him to say this stuff knowing he will probably never confront a situation like this, living as he does as a tenured prof. and enjoying the kind of wealth that would let him escape such situations. Of course, the people who are there at mgno.com aren't going around settin' things a'right. They are holed up - as they should be - with weapons - as they should have - in their office building, reporting on the scene unfolding. They aren't out there patroling the street.

Would I shoot looters for looting random stores? No. Would I shoot looters who attacked me or my family? Yes. Would I shoot looters who attacked my property? Maybe. But this isn't a policy statement.

And all this nonsense about how "shooting" people will restore order is nonsense. Communications and flood control will restore order. Shooting people alone will do little, especially in an area where the police are corrupt (and so a standing order to shoot looters will have little overall deterrent value) and communication is impossible (so that word of a standing order to shoot looters is impossible.)

Finally, as far as I know, Louisiana's Constitution does not have a martial law provision. So where does the legal authority to shoot people come from?

Who called in the Charles Bronson Brigade?

If looting gets so out of hand that it becomes like Somalia with rival warlords, then innocent life is no longer protected. So the shooting now prevents more loss of life later.

Obviously lawful punishment is preferrable to shooting, but when there is not adequate law enforcement in effect, well there just isn't any "controlling legal authority" to say what is legal or not. In the end when law returns the legal authority will come from trial by jury. If someone can convince one of the 12 jurors that a shooting was essential, then it is just between the shooter and God.

Although it is widely misused, the Bible does permit capital punishment, and when there is no other government then each person takes on that role.

The thing is that to shoot a looter is murder and no less unless the shooting is done in self defense (in which case the looting is beside the point, isn't it). The solution is not to shoot looters, but to arrest them. The means to arrest them should have been ready to move into place days before the disaster. The state and federal governments have failed to prepare for what was foreseeable.

Rather than shooting looters, the only humane response is ask them politely to stop. If that fails, the peace officer should be allowed to utter sternly, "Say, put that down!" Last resort: "I mean it!!"

Better yet, just shoot to wound the looters (not the ones just trying to feed themselves and family members) and then let the health care professionals that they looted from or carjacked ambulances from provide their care...

I know what will stop looters as they pry into hospitals, attack unarmed people for their goods, etc.

Warm thoughts.
Happy smiles.
Citations to various sections of Louisiana's penal code.

Maybe, and this is crazy talk, maybe if that doesn't work some frowns and finger waving. I know, I know that's harsh but if they insist on continuting to haul the HDTV down the street, me might have to scowl a little at them.

Yeah, that will stop this. Good intentions, positive reinforcement and some occasional sour expressions.

The reason why these people can be suggesting this is simple - protecting the concept of law is more important than following individual laws. Laws don't exist in a vacuum, they exist for a purpose, and if that purpose can be better served by ignoring the laws, then they should be ignored. That's why the President has the power to pardon people - sometimes the laws simply aren't relevant to the actual situation.

Also, whoever suggested arresting them is an idiot. Jesus christ, man, they can't get food in there and you expect them to be airdropping jail cells? Get out of the sandbox and watch a bit of CNN - no matter how well-prepared people were, there's no way that they'd be in a position to be running a legal system right now.

Phil's right. What's wrong with shooting rampaging gangs who are raping, car-jacking, and attacking hospitals, retirement homes, and rescue workers as Reynolds reccomended? Ok, what Reynolds actually said was that people who "sack [abandoned stores] for valuables" should be shot, but obviously what he really meant was rapists, car-jackers, etc.

And come on, Eric, what kind of bleeding heart nutcase do you have to be to argue that rescue workers who are under attack shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves by returning fire? Sure you can try to weasel out of it by pointing out that you only expressed opposition to shooting people for committing larceny, but it's really all the same thing, isn't it?

I'm starting to see a pattern here. In earlier posts, you criticized D. G. Martin for equating property damage with homicide, and now you seem to be trying to create some sort of artificial distinction between people who steal and those who attack other people. I don't know where you came up with the crazy idea that human life is somehow more valuable than property, but you're really going to have to get over it if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Funny; back in the late '60s, Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley thought the proper way to control looters was "Shoot to kill".

Funnier still: The rioting and looting calmed down considerably after the police actually shot a few looters.

Different times, I guess....

It's silly to get on a high horse and pretend that we're talking about "summary executions" for "larceny" as if such a concept is impossible. Use of deadly force to protect property is not unheard of in the US. See, e.g., Tex. Penal Code sec. 9.42.

Abc, it's also easy for you to sit at your keyboard condemning Glenn for his right to express an increasingly justified position.

If communications and other supplies are the key to restoring order then you sir, volunteer to go down and help or you are just as big a hypocrite as you accuse Insty of being.

The whole situation -- arming "good citizens" to kill those "bad looters" -- conjures up images of an "All in the Family" episode in which Archie, the rightwing law-and-order guy, did a TV editorial on skyjackings.

His suggestion was, "Hand out guns to all the passengers when they get on the plane. That way they can shoot the hijackers. Then collet the guns when everyone gets off."

When this issue first came up, the context was shooting people who looted food and water.

It's now morphed into liberal-bashing on the assumption that gangs beating and maiming aid-workers should be free from retaliation.

That's too bad. Because no one said that.

Obviously, you don't need a natural disaster to defend yourself from someone trying to kill you.

Jeebus. It's like an audition for Heston's role in The Omega Man.

I'm referring specifically to those looting the general goods stores and houses, even if the looters are not at that time directly threatening people. They should have a few rounds sent their way, though the shooters don't need to aim very carefully.

The widespread looting is more than a threat to property, it is a threat to the law and order that makes society possible in a way that a teenager shoplifting in Utah is not. The looting creates an environment in which a minority will do things like shoot at relief boats or hospitals. An organized relief effort can't operate when it's Mad Max the next street over.

Failing to meet looting with an aggressive response -- one that would be totally out of place under normal circumstances -- is a 'broken windows' theory equivalent, a signal that other forms of lawlessness will go unanswered. Hence the lurid accounts (some certainly rumors, I hope) of occupations by gun-toting gangs, shootings, rapes and other forms of lawlessness.

Anarchists take note. In the vacuum created by the absence of 'legitimate' authority, rule quickly falls to the most ruthless, while the rest live in fear.

Nobody cares much about ordinary "larceny".

It is the violent predatory criminality that spreads like locusts. THAT is what needs to be tamped down roughly.

Well, now the governor of Louisiana says the same thing, but obviously Prof. Muller won't criticize her, because she is a Democrat, and partisanship trumps principle at crucial times like this (and every other time). What Prof. Muller and his political comrades don't realize is that this is why they are never very persuasive.

Well, now the governor of Louisiana says the same thing

Really? The governor of Louisiana says that anyone who steals valuables from abandoned stores should be shot? You wouldn't happen to have a citation for that, would you?

Believe it or not, there are people who support deadly force for some circumstances (e.g. when it's neccesary to protect human lives), but not for others (e.g. when it's neccesary to protect HDTVs). I realize that must be a difficult concept for you to grasp, but trust me, it's true.

Here ya go Beth, from CNN this morning and echoed by LA Congressman Rodney Alexander:

A fed-up Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco warned the lawbreakers that extra troops have already arrived in the city, and others are on the way—and “they’re locked and loaded.”

She said Thursday night that 300 soldiers from the Arkansas National Guard had arrived—“fresh back from Iraq.”

“These are some of the 40,000 extra troops that I have demanded,” Blanco said. “They have M-16s, and they’re locked and loaded … I have one message for these hoodlums: These troops know how to shoot and kill, and they are more than willing to do so if necessary, and I expect they will.”

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,16466908%255E1702,00.html

Shoot-to-kill orders for New Orleans
From correspondents in Baton Rouge
02sep05

A DETACHMENT of 300 Arkansas National Guard troops have landed in anarchic New Orleans, with the authorisation to shoot and kill "hoodlums", Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco said.

"Three hundred of the Arkansas National Guard have landed in the city of New Orleans," Ms Blanco said.
"These troops are fresh back from Iraq, well trained, experienced, battle tested and under my orders to restore order in the streets.

"They have M-16s and they are locked and loaded.

"These troops know how to shoot and kill and they are more than willing to do so if necessary and I expect they will."

Thanks, Drake and Grayson, but according to my dictionary, a hoodlum is "A gangster; a thug" or "A tough, often aggressive or violent youth." Neither of those definitions seem to include everyone who takes valuables from an abandoned store (which can certainly be accomplished without thuggery, violence, or even particular aggression), so sean's assertion that the governor is saying the same thing as Reynolds is still unsupported.

I'm not surprised that the governor is threatening deadly force "if necessary". In fact I'd be surprised if she weren't. I just don't see how her comments can be construed as being identical to Reynolds'.

With due respect Beth, that seems more in line with the previous commenters argument than yours in my opinion. Gov. Blanco's remarks also to me are fairly clear. Defining who constitutes what seems micromanagement at this point.

Beth's right. In addition to an M-16, every National Guardsman should be equipped with a dictionary.

I'm not sure Drake, but I think we're arguing at cross-purposes. I object to Reynolds' suggestion that looters should be exterminated, but that doesn't mean I want them to be treated as some sort of protected species, either. There's no reason we should have to choose between "shoot all looters" and "never shoot any looters." Why not choose a third option: respond appropriately to the situation at hand?

If anyone is trying to micromanage here. it's Reynolds. He's the one advocating a specific response in a specific situation. I'd like to see the Guardsmen follow a more general rule: use lethal force if it's necessary to save human lives, and don't use it if it's not. (And yes, I do realize that in the "heat of battle", it's not always possible to judge that correctly.)

In addition to an M-16, every National Guardsman should be equipped with a dictionary.

I seriously doubt that will be necessary, Jim. As I understand it, troops generally receive orders from their CO. They're rarely guided by political rhetoric alone. I suppose that if the only order they were given was, "If you see a hoodlum, shoot to kill," a dictionary would be helpful, but I'm confident their orders are more specific than that. I'm even hopeful that they're more along the lines of "Protect this hospital," or "Oversee the distribution of those supplies," than "Guard that abandoned store."

I think the problem is that I assumed the governor's words were directed at the residents, while you assumed they were directed at the Guardsmen. As a result, I took them to mean, "Don't even think about messing with the Guard," while you read them as, "Here are your orders men: shoot all hoodlums."

"As I understand it, troops generally receive orders from their CO. They're rarely guided by political rhetoric alone."

Well, maybe next disaster.

The bottom line is...shoot for protection of life. Mob mentality is what the looters are working on, stealing food and water, then jewelery, shoes, TV, ransacking deserted houses, and it keeps escalating to carjackings, rape, murder. You have to stop it somewhere. Do you wait until some man or woman is killed before you act? I don't think so. Give fair warning for the looters to drop their weapons (if you can in the situation) and if they do not, open fire. Law and Order has to be restored before New Orleans can begin to be salvaged. Or you can just wait them out and let them die from one of the many diseases they could get or starve to death. But that could take a few months; and some of you might think that is inhumane. I have seen the devastation looters leave behind. I have no sympathy or empathy for rapists, murderers or lawlessnes in general. Respect for HUMAN life has gone out of America's vocabulary along with any mention of GOD, unless you are cursing. Like the mayor of NO using GD in his radio interview. No respect for God; this will be the downfall of America.