Is That Legal?

Ah, the public duty defense.

I heard on NPR news yesterday that many looters are taking toilet paper, soap, and other essentials. Who among us would shoot a fellow human being coming out of Walgreens with an armload of Charmin Ultra?

I couldn't fault someone for taking the basics. But a guy coming out of WalMart with a big screen, a garbage can loaded with jewelry and a brace of shotguns...

And of course, the way we know that we're shooting the "right" people is ...

Judging by the media coverage (as in the post above), black folks loot but white folks find. I guess that completes your sentence.

Shameful.

Sheesh, I think the nature of these "looters" differs somewhat from the looters in say LA after the Rodney King trial. Far as I can tell these are not members of an angry mob bent on destroying and stealing t.v.s and VCRs. As was mentioned above people are looting food, water esssentials.

By all means lets shoot them. The sheer stupidity....

There's a case in 1st year criminal law that involves the prosecution of a woman who's caught stealing bread from a local grocery store to feed her starving family. The case is in the "necessity" section of the book, right next In re Dudley & Stevens -- the two men who cannibalize a dead/dying raftmate to stay alive after their boat is destroyed in a storm.

Look, if we let people steal essentials after a natural disaster, where does it end? Doesn't that just doom the concept of "private property"? What legal (as opposed to moral) obligation or duty does anyone have to give away their "stuff"? Otherwise, starving families could steal food and water without consequence. In that light, what possible good is the concept of "private property" if you can't prosecute trespassers to the full extent of the law? And if necessary, shoot them when they make off with your property? Really, this seems like a question of personal religious beliefs.

We need to be pre-emptive about the problem. We need to compile racial statistics on those we shoot for stealing food and basic supplies when their usual life lines have been cut off by natural disaster. Then, when we think a natural disaster might hit, we can lock them all up in "evacuation" centers until the crisis abates. It's for their own good after all, if we don't "evacuate" them, we might have to shoot them.

Truly a frightening logic isn't it?

why stop at suspected looters? why not shoot "likely looters"?

wouldn't that be poor young blacks in flooded neighborhoods because, after all, they'll be the looters, right?

and why take the chance you'll miss someone? round up ALL young blacks, regardless of neighborhood, because some of the "likely looters" probably got away.

Then again, why impose an artificial age cut off? Let's round up all the blacks within a 50-mile radius, as looting is a reflection of a "gang mentality" anyway, so if 1 does it, they'll all do it.

Hell, rather than round them up, particularly given the scarcity of dry land at this point, just shoot them all now. We'll get the looters for sure, and as an added bonus, we'll get the people who've committed crimes but haven't been caught. We'll also get people who would've committed crimes in the future.

And if there's "collateral damage" -- such as the loss of innocent life -- well, that's just the cost of building a democracy in an anarchic region. Right?

how on earth is anybody to know for sure whether a particular looter's booty includes items other than "bottled water, food, or diapers?"

If the Associated Press can tell, I'd wager law enforcement could also.

Didn't American soldiers shoot looters when occupying post-WWII Berlin, or am I misremembering?

Eric, how do you feel about the property owners shooting looters, or threatening lethal force?

Read the Kerr comment and saw nothing much in it. I guess once a person is crowned smart, you must as well concur.

How about calling shooting looters the Fallujah method? This makes clear that (1) the method is widely used, (2) the method is widely supported and (3) it doesn't work.

A truck carrying medical supplies was carjacked.

Yes, I believe the perps should be shot. The longer the violence continues the worse the situation becomes for the lawabiding people.

I thought someone told me they were bringing the Louisiana national guard back from Iraq. You really want guys that have been in a war zone to be confronting looters? Guaranteed they shoot em, and probably don't miss. What about a store owner, if his store/shop is being looted is it okay for him to defend his property, family, and self by shooting someone?

"how on earth is anybody to know for sure whether a particular looter's booty includes items other than "bottled water, food, or diapers?"

In the immortal words of Justice Potter Stewart, I'll know it when I see it. As Phil said, if even the AP can tell, I suspect the National Guart, property owners, and law enforcement types can "know it when they see it".

Nursing home bus carjacked. (Nursing home residents trapped in wheelchairs; the loss of the bus can't help). A fully functioning hospital was asking for assistance to shut down because of the hjacking of vital medical supplies. Doctors in a hospital were held at gunpoint while thugs stole narcotics from the hospital. Forklifts are being used to smash in pharmacies while trucks cart off drugs.

Carjackers? Shoot them.
Woman with diapers? Don't shoot.
Man with bread? Don't shoot.
Man with narcotics he stole at gunpoint? Shoot.

Those who sit back with loftly liberalism and declaim the dangers of shooting the wrong people must bear all the deaths and horror visited upon innocents that will ensue from not enforcing the law. Yes, an "innocent" looter may be wrongly shot. That's terrible and it would weigh on the conscience of the shooter and on those who made the tough decision to restore the rule of law.

But is Prof. Muller prepared to accept moral responsibility for the horrors that will ensue if order and law are not restored?

With respect, I rather doubt it. If I'm wrong, please clarify.

Holmwood

Holmwood,

Please let me know what your rulings would be on the following cases:

woman with diapers in arms and narcotics in a backpack

woman with narcotics in hand and diapers in a backpack

man with bottled water and a fancy Rolex he's stolen

man with bottled water and a fancy Rolex he's owned for 10 years

carjacker

carjacker needing to drive pregnant wife to hospital to deliver

Once you've ruled on those, I'll come up with some more for you, and when you've finished them, you can get back to deciding when Mt. Saint Helens should next erupt and when the San Andreas fault should slip and whether life begins at conception and all of the other things that God gets to figure out.

Eric,

Investigations -- were there time -- would have your cases figured out, but then you don't say where these cases are encountered...

The element "narcotics" itself would be suspect, but moreso in the vicinity of a violently looted hospital. Same for Rolex watches found near a looted jewelry store, though such a case slips to the back burner for instances where people are being violently threatened.

Such as in the case of the carjacker, who dies, period. For a husband to put himself and his pregnant wife at risk by potentially losing that confrontation is dumb. It would be far easier and safer to ask for a ride. Or have manners -- and NOT breaking the law by threatening to steal transportation and leave it's owner marooned -- gone completely by the wayside?

Be sure to let me know that it's you getting pulled out of that car or getting your Rolex stripped. I'll be sure to ignore you in favor of someone that may not object to any rescue.

Ah yes, how nice of you to decide who is and is not permitted to defend themselves.

I mean as the looters tear into hospitals and threaten doctors and patients with guns

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-katrina1sep01,0,7731365.story?coll=la-home-nation

the patients should just nicely give up their medicine and other health sustaining matters. Just to make sure your sensibilities are not, you know, hurt.

And the UNARMED citizens being taken advantage of

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/01/national/nationalspecial/01lawless.html?ex=1283227200&en=c11fb920c4fd74f6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

they should just get out of the way because the good Professor knows better than to actually act in self-defense! Just give up your generators, Professor says! And don't you shoot now!

Heaven forbid we so much as shoot a dirty look at the looters. We should all just feel guilty, blame Bush some more and understand the looter with the plasma TV was deprived and probably abused as a child.

Or maybe, and this is me thinking/typing aloud here, maybe we should do what we can to restore law from the lawlessness.

No, no it would be better if we follow the good Professor's plan of hugs, kisses and feeling their pain as they push a cart full of electronics goods down the street. If we just "feel their (the looters) pain" we'll understand.

And remember: shooting NEVER stopped a riot or looting before. No Professor, all those previous efforts at riot and looting were stopped with positive good thoughts, Care Bears and bubble gum wishful thinking.

Eric,

How about if you are a jewelery shop store owner, it's your livelihood, you live upstairs 'cause that's the way we do it in New Orleans and your family is with you and because you sell jewelry you have found it prudent to own a gun, just in case, and oh, my God, they've driven a car through my front door and men with knives are making their way into the store, where's the gun, damn it, where's that gun, oh, there it is, Pam, get the kids out of here, I don't know, the back door, what do you mean it's stuck, hey, get out of here, you, all of you, get out of here, Blam! Blam! Blam!

Or, let's assume you're driving a truckload of medicine to one of the shelters, you're talking to your traveling companion, pointing out the horrific sights, Oh, my God-ing at every intersection, you slow down to get around a burning car, suddenly a gang appears like out of nowhere, man, what the hell..., Fred, Fred, lock your door, watch out, Fred, that one's coming at you with a tire iron, shoot, shoot, shoot, man!

Eric, for every borderline case you come up with, I assure you that there's more than one that's not.

You're playing strawman with your hypos, and so am I. Yours, because you are mixing elements that would guarantee indecision or a possible mistake on the part of the decision-maker if the shoot-to-kill policy for looters was in effect. Mine, because self-defense is a likely defense in both cases.

Police Officers are asked every day to make life and death decisions. We give them discretion, which I can tell you as a former police officer, is one of the most important aspects of the job, and the most revered as a statement of societal trust. We train and rely on these men and women on the ground to show clear judgment. Most of the time that trust is well-placed and well-earned; sometimes it is not. Often, well after the fact, after the smoke has blown away and the sun is shining, it is the police officer's judgment that goes on trial; and mature, intelligent police officers, which can be counted in the majority, understand and appreciate and willingly bear the burdens that society has placed on their shoulders.

Eric, neither one of our arguments is convincing, I believe, when we decide to throw strawman hypos around like as if we know the dire realities existing in New Orleans today.

I agree that a shoot-to-kill policy is ill-advised; property is not as important as people, end of statement.

But I do not subscribe to your vision of humane law enforcement intervention because it lacks utilitarian clarity. If a looter comes out of a gun shop with several weapons in his possession, the police officer at the scene needs to take action immediately to prevent that person from introducing those weapons into a hostile, anarchic community where the rule of law has been supplanted by the rule of might. You have to ask yourself, What's the likely use of those weapons?

If medications are hijacked, medications including narcotics badly needed by the innocent victims of a terrible natural disaster, whose side would you be on? Whose life would you spare?

I can't tell you when Mt. Saint Helens will blow, but I know the answers to these much easier and likelier questions with the precision of a marksmen who has devoted his entire life to the pursuit and abolishment of injustice at street level here and abroad.

The "innocent" and even the not so innocent looters in your borderline cases have no reason to fear me or my hypothetical policies.

On the other hand, I suspect the victims of looting have much to lose and nothing to gain from the policies you would enact.

Shooting looters is also a theme at NRO's The Corner:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

At least, Kathryn Lopez is against the idea:

"LOOTERS [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
It's wrong and has to be cracked down on--probably by the National Guard or someone else military--no tolerance has to be the message. But I don't think the "looters should be shot on sight" instinct is a good one.
Posted at 10:18 AM"

Peggy Noonan suggests:

"As for the tragic piggism that is taking place on the streets of New Orleans, it is not unbelievable but it is unforgivable, and I hope the looters are shot. A hurricane cannot rob a great city of its spirit, but a vicious citizenry can. A bad time with Mother Nature can leave you digging out for a long time, but a bad turn in human behavior frays and tears all the ties that truly bind human being--trust, confidence, mutual regard, belief in the essential goodness of one's fellow citizens.
There seems to be some confusion in terms of terminology on TV. People with no food and water who are walking into supermarkets and taking food and water off the shelves are not criminal, they are sane. They are not looters, they are people who are attempting to survive; they are taking the basics of survival off shelves in stores where there isn't even anyone at the cash register.

Looters are not looking to survive; they're looking to take advantage of the weakness of others. They are predators. They're taking not what they need but what they want. They are breaking into stores in New Orleans and elsewhere and stealing flat screen TVs and jewelry, guns and CD players. They are breaking into homes and taking what those who have fled trustingly left behind. In Biloxi, Miss., looters went from shop to shop. "People are just casually walking in and filling up garbage bags and walking off like they're Santa Claus," the owner of a Super 8 Motel told the London Times. On CNN, producer Kim Siegel reported in the middle of the afternoon from Canal Street in New Orleans that looters were taking "everything they can."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110007187

In Noonan's stated view of "looters", there's no difference between

someone who steals a gun and ammunition and starts shooting at civilians and police

and

Joe Schmuck who steals some televisions and a bunch of cd players.

That's just morally and logistically STUPID.

Absoutely not surprising that Eric would place himself on the side of the looters, not of domestic peace and civic order.

People wonder why liberals can't win elections; people wonder why lawyers and professors are viewed by the public with distaste and disrespect.

The people wondering that aren't up on liberal orthodoxy.

What a sniveling idiot you are! Of course you shoot them; that's rule number one. As noted in the original slap that you received, if looting is the rule, then the criminals get fed, and everyone else dies. You want to leave the distribution of life and death essentials to the gangsters?! Idiotic.

See if you can wrap your feeble mind around these concepts: if you use a forklift to break through a metal grating and plate glass window into my business, you get shot. If you are carrying water and bread out of Walgreens, you get a pass. If you come out of Walmart with plasma tv, either you drop it, or you get shot. If you come out with a gun, you're dead.

You fucking whiner...I'm so glad you aren't in charge of anything more important than your opinion...

Maybe shooting the ones walking the streets brandishing AK-47s is a good start. There seems to be a significant population conducting armed looting. It may be difficult to prove the case in front of a jury, so what we are really requesting is that the police/military be given the authority to act as judge/jury without consequence. [b]In this situation[/b], I have no problem with that.

It is called law and order, and although having both is best, if I can only have one in a crisis like this: Order will save more lives.

To turn some people on their head: If it is ok for the population to be lawless when necessary, why is it not acceptable for officials to be lawless when necessary?

David Kopel doesn't mince words:

"[David Kopel, September 1, 2005 at 1:51pm] 3 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
Armed Response to Looters: I will be on NRAnews today, at 5:20 p.m. Eastern Time, to discuss citizen response to the New Orleans looters, along with some thoughts about the surge in gun ownership that followed 9/11. You can listen/watch on the web, or on Sirius satellite channel 141. My view on the looting is that it is reasonable, under the legal excuse of Necessity, for a person to take food from a store, if no other food is available in the disaster zone. Such a person would be obligated to remember the value of the food, and to make payment for what he took as soon as practically possible. However, the looting of concern in New Orleans isn't Jean Valjean taking bread for his children; the looting involves attacks on hospitals to steal their narcotics, and attacks on stores or homes which have nothing to do with acquiring necessities for short-term survival. Given the absence of a sufficient police presence in order to stop the looters, I strongly agree with Glenn Reynolds that such looters should be shot on sight by armed citizens. A citizen's arrest and detention isn't possible as a practical matter. Shooting the New Orleans looters is, under present circumstances, an appropriate response to the collapse of civic order, and a first step towards the restoration of that order."

http://volokh.com/

Again, the indiscriminate lumping together of disparate kinds of looters AND the strong suggestion of the killing of each of them.

Appalling.

Prof Muller (Eric),

I note you've avoided answering the question I asked. No doubt you treated it as rhetorical. But by avoiding this question, you seem to abdicate all responsibility to intervene to protect innocent people.

You may also have missed this point in the four examples I chose: all of the looters I would consider guilty gained their loot via violence (or immminent threat of violence) against innocent people.

If the woman with diapers and narcotics (however she is carrying them) held someone up or shot someone to obtain them, then I'd consider her a danger and she might well need to be shot to prevent anarchy and protect the innocent. Keep in mind we're speaking of a situation involving extreme breakdown of order. Ditto the man with the Rolex. Doesn't matter how long he owned it; if he robbed another at gunpoint to get that bottle of water (and/or the Rolex), then he may need to be shot, depending on the force continuum authorized in the area.

Is it possible you could make a mistake; e.g. you witness a man point a gun at another's head; the first man removes the Rolex the second is wearing and walks off, smiling. You shoot the first man, only to find out weeks later that he had been robbed 20 minutes earlier by the first man.

Of course it is (so you need not get into your bizarre Mt St Helens straw man). An innocent man has just been shot because a decision was made to use lethal force where deemed necessary to restore order and protect innocent people. Absolutely granted. (I'm assuming this is the point you were attempting to argue).

But you appear to continue to argue it's preferable for us to abdicate morality (and past legal approaches) and remain insufficiently active thereby permitting a depraved group of thugs to prey on the innocent, in order that we not run the risk of making an error and harming or killing an innocent through action.

I, and others, believe that there are situations (this may be one) where that would be a dreadful mistake.

Regards,
Holmwood

Holmwood,
You advocate the granting of license to all residents of a major urban area to shoot others to kill at will, and you say that I advocate the abandonment of morality?

No order and the residents of the major urban area will shoot to kill others at will. Always has been. Always will be.

You're not advocating the abandonment of morality, just sanity for the sake of a twisted ideal that withers in New Orleans with every passing moment.

Eric,

Will you give us your address so we may come and remove your property when you are not home?

No order and the residents of the major urban area will shoot to kill others at will. Always has been. Always will be.

Amen to that. We will likely find (some) law professors among the residents abdicating their own responsibilities to uphold law and order and protect the weak from the thugs.

Eric,

"You advocate the granting of license to all residents of a major urban area to shoot others to kill at will, and you say that I advocate the abandonment of morality?"

I do not believe you remotely read or grasp what I wrote. I am puzzled at your lack of comprehension, since your other writings demonstrate a keen intelligence.

Never said that, and am not saying that. Then again, I think you know that.

The very fact that I specifically referred to "National Guard, property owners [in defense of their property -- emphasis added], and law enforcement personnel" does distinguish it from "granting of license to all residents of a major urban area to shoot to kill at will".

The very fact that I wrote "he may need to be shot, depending on the force continuum authorized in the area."... does "authorized force continuum" really mean "any and all shoot to kill at will" to you? If so, communication with you seems a bit too difficult.

I also didn't say that you advocated the abdandonment of morality; I did say that your argument appeared to me to do so. The distinction? Semantic perhaps, but I was (and am) giving you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you genuinely believe that conventional law enforcement techniques and approaches will resolve this problem happily and peacefully. Or perhaps you really do believe it's better for many innocents to die at the hands of thugs than run the risk of one national guardsman killing an innocent by mistake. To me, it genuinely appears that you prefer the latter; I hope I'm wrong.

I can't tell what you do believe since you've declined to respond in a constructive fashion.

If you're interested in responding to what I've written, rather than your bizarre straw men, fair enough. If not, hey, it's your blog.

Regards,
Holmwood.

Why does anyone give a shit about the looters?

Isn't it obvious to even the most grossly obtuse fake libertarian that anything below twenty feet in that city is a complete write-off?

Who cares? What I want to know is why Wal-Mart stocks so many guns in a city known for it's extremely high murder rate. It sure as shit a'int so people can buy 12-gauge shot, then drive past fourteen other Wal-marts on the way to somewhere legal to hunt?

If in doubt
Shoot it out.

Holy hell...

Every day these victims of Katrina go without food and water increases the likelyhood that they will rob and kill for food.

Every second that an authority is unable to project any sort of presence or control increases the belief that there is no-one to prevent violence.

Every second we leave these victims amongst the shattered ruins of businesses increases the appeal of getting that which is not theirs.

These victims are struggling with the most basic of human needs, and are rapidly approaching the thresholds for dehydration. Is shooting people on sight any rational or logical excuse to do this? Dear god, the government has failed these victims of the Hurricane and floods enough by leaving them to starve in a cesspool of death and despair, and the solution is to kill people until they cooperate?

IT's BEEN 3 DAYS SINCE KATRINA!!! GET THESE PEOPLE FOOD AND WATER, AND GET THEM THE HELL OUT OF THERE!!! The looting will stop once that's accomplished.

Holy fucking hell...

I'm rather curious as to why there seems to be a strict dichotomy between "shoot to kill" and 'let drug addicted gangsters rob hospitals at gunpoint". Why not just arrest or (if not in uniform) detain unarmed or lightly armed looters? If they are armed with guns,then of course shooting becomes a serious option, and in some circumstances would be a necessity. But why do we have to go immediately to killing?

Can we have a WAG regarding the value of looted merchandise, vs. what would be salvageable weeks from now when people begin to return, vs. expected public and private price tags for this disaster?

I'm thinking maybe a few hundred K in losses from looting. Or I'll be more pessimistic and say a cool million or two.

$25 *billion with a B* in losses for NO. Have Halliburton root through their couches for what's lost from looting in NO. While they're doing that, maybe some of the looters could ask Halliburton and KBR how to polish the turd that is looting, so they can get those sweetheart contracts too.

Don't know if you've seen this. Seems Gov. Blanco has chosen a side.

"Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco declared war on looters as 300 National Guard troops landed in New Orleans fresh from duty in Iraq. "These troops know how to shoot and kill, and they are more than willing to do so, and I expect they will," she said."

I don't see why all the conservative posters are getting all upset about looters. When it was only the Baghdad museum being looted, you guys were seconding Rumsfeld's "democracy can be messy" argument. NOW apparently things are different. You can't talk about shooting looters now unless you're willing to admit that Bush was wrong to allow looting in Iraq. Unless you want to be tarred as a moral relativist, that is.

This discussion is silly.

Right now there is no order in NOLA, and certinly no law.

The incompetence of the current federal government has guaranteed for us that, under these circumstances, lawlessness, starvation and the death of masses of poor and powerless people would be the result.

In a lawless environment, there is no point in discussing law, legalities, bureaucratic procedure or legislative response.

What must be accomplished -- first and foremost -- is the reestablishment of order.

A shoot-to-kill-all-looters-on-sight policy would not help to achieve that; a feed-and-protect-all-peaceful-people would.

Protection of peaceful people would satisfy all of Holmwood's examples, while obviating the need to consider any of Eric's qualifications. And notice: no mention is made of looters.

That's because looters aren't the problem. Starving, frightened, angry, homeless, potentially plague-ridden people are.

People who own shops and have guns are, undoubtedly, doing everything they can -- including shooting people -- to protect themselves. But as anyone who's ever lived on the streets will attest, armed gangs are undoubtedly also preying upon many of said gun-toting shopowners (and their families).

What i find disgusting is that the Hyatt Regency is sitting high-and-dry and well-stocked -- and is surrounded by an armed guard -- while 25,000 people are starving in the stadium just down the street.

Reestablishing order is the only thing people should be discussing, right now. Sending out military people to hunt down looters is by far and away the wrong thing to do; the military and police should instead be doing everything in their power to feed and protect the innocent. If the shopowners and businesses are robbed while the medicine and food are being distributed, then let us place the blame squarely where it should rest:

on the utter incompetency of this sociopathic administration.

I am coming late to this and have a few questions if any one is still around; it seems to me the people that have a problem with looters, who they think are most likely "criminals", taking firearms are in fact the very same people who advocate easier and more access to firearms for "law-abiding" citizens. That "carry" laws make a safer society because criminals will not know who is and who is not armed. "An armed Society is a polite Society." But the advocates for the "carry" laws also bridle against the concept of background checks, training and registration or ANY regulations restricting the proliferation of firearms. So isn't what is happening in NO an exercise in the holy 2nd Amendment? WTF do the "shoot the Looters" crowd want? "Guns for me and not for Thee"? I guess it was a good thing there was not a sanctioned gunshow at the Superdome last weekend. How could we do background checks without electricity? Silly me: they don't do background checks at gunshows....

Obviously anyone left in NO is a looter, so we should just bomb the whole place. That will also make it easier to rebuild.

For the benefit of any with trouble reading: I don't advocate a "shoot-to-kill-all-looters-on-sight" by anyone; I don't advocate a "shoot-looters" policy for everyone, etc. I do think legally constituted authorities may have to order a response continuum that includes deadly force much earlier for authorized military and law enforcement personnel. It just seems this view ("shoot to kill all looters on sight by anyone") keeps cropping up.

Whether it's reading comprehension or some form of cognitive dissonance, or the fact that there are people who advocate such things, I don't know. I'll say in caps (forgive the shouting, please, Eric): I WOULD PREFER NO ONE BE SHOT AND NO ONE BE HURT. That may not be possible, and probably isn't.

Now, the details (and responses)

Left wing fox: one of the problems is that trucks with medical supplies, food, and water, intended to help people in the city are being looted. Helicopters are being fired upon, and ambulances are being carjacked. Hospitals are being attacked by armed gangs. So, "GET THESE PEOPLE FOOD AND WATER, AND GET THEM ... OUT" is indeed what's being done. Thugs (many of whom are looters) are making it much tougher.

Ginger Yellow: "Why not just arrest or (if not in uniform) detain unarmed or lightly armed looters?" Excellent post Ginger. I'd prefer that as a solution, if it were feasible. Who wants to shoot people? Not I. Here is why I suspect that will not work. The police started arresting people and had to let them go; jails were without power. Secondly, the situation has deteriorated precipitously. When you are at the point we are now (due to police corruption, city collapse), it may not be possible to restore order as you suggest. Hopefully, however, mass National Guard will be able to do just that, especially if it's well known that they have orders to shoot to kill if need be.

MasonMcD: The Halliburton reference is silly, and the value of what's looted is largely irrelevant at the moment. My concern is over the harm to innocent people in the city and the breakdown of order. Plenty of time afterwards to look at economic costs.

Stranger: "Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco declared war on looters". Having a maximum of rhetoric and the least violence necessary to restore order in this situation is probably the best thing to do in general. Of course, in this case, communications in the city are very poor, but hopefully the looters will have looted battery powered radios. If orders have been given to shoot everyone who "looks funny" on sight, I'd be as upset about that as you or Eric.

--------------
AmericanExpat (many paragraphs response): The US is a federal system. The Federal Government does not run cities. Whether you love or loath Bush, it's a bit silly to be pointing the finger at him for conditions on the ground in New Orleans.

"A shoot-to-kill-all-looters-on-sight policy would not help to achieve that; a feed-and-protect-all-peaceful-people would.".

As mentioned above, in the reply to left wing fox, thugs appear to be significantly hampering this.

"What i find disgusting is that the Hyatt Regency is sitting high-and-dry and well-stocked -- and is surrounded by an armed guard -- while 25,000 people are starving in the stadium just down the street."

Well, you'll be glad to know: "As of late Wednesday, the Hyatt Regency New Orleans was closed for business, but was accommodating roughly 1,000 people, including some guests, a 70-person FEMA team, the mayor's office, Entergy Corporation, the Office of Emergency Preparedness, as well as 165 of the Hyatt staff and their families, said Strategic Hotel Capital Inc"

Are you suggesting that FEMA, emergency personnel, the mayor's office, the people working to restore power. etc. should be out on the street? Or were you just unaware of the hotel's role? And they are evacuating the stadium.

"If the shopowners and businesses are robbed while the medicine and food are being distributed, then let us place the blame squarely where it should rest: on the utter incompetency of this sociopathic administration."

Wow. I'm afraid the America that rationally unfolds from your arguments would be a horrific place to live. It would be the Patriot Act x 1 million. For the Federal Government to be so rapidly responsible for looting on the street, robberies... that would mean such a staggering extension of Federal power in times of peace (since they'd have to be ready to move in the moment something went wrong). Do you really want national identity cards? Being thrown in a federal jail in Boston because of an unpaid parking ticket in Boise, or because you have the same name as someone who's an unpaid parking ticket? Federal troops on every street corner? That was done once in this country, and let's hope never again. I've lived (outside the US) in societies like that and it's not a whole lot of fun.

The list of things this administration has done badly is long. But New Orleans isn't yet on it. Don't let Bush-hatred blind you.

Expat, where you are right is where you say "What must be accomplished -- first and foremost -- is the reestablishment of order.". I agree 100%.

"A shoot-to-kill-all-looters-on-sight policy would not help to achieve that; a feed-and-protect-all-peaceful-people would." I agree with that, but then that's not what I advocated. I'm not overly concerned with the looter who goes and gets a big-screen TV from Walmart. Fine. Criminal, and a bad guy who may well go unpunished. That's life. I am concerned with the thug who goes and loots a hospital's medical supplies at gunpoint.

------------------

Where I part company with Expat (and presumably Ginger), is that I am concerned we are near (and possibly past) a tipping point into anarchy. There is no question that food, water and medical delivery, as well as evacuation capability have all been degraded by armed thugs. Innocents have been menaced and possibly killed. Conventional policing (arrest and detain) isn't working. Is this because of corruption in NOPD or the terrible situation? Probably both.

If the National Guard can restore order without a shot being fired, wonderful. I'm with Ginger (and, surprisingly, American Expat) on that. I think I'm also with Eric, though I don't know.

I suspect that it cannot. In that case, you authorize a continuum of force that includes shooting to kill for the national guard and other qualified law enforcement personnel. You loudly announce this policy (in the hopes that it thereby becomes less necessary). You make clear what circumstances justify such extreme force. You do so knowing there is a chance innocent (or not very guilty) people can be shot.

Is that a terrible thing to do? Yes. Is it necessary in some terrible cases? Yes. Is it necessary in this terrible case? Maybe. Probably. Based on what I've heard, yes. But the Governor and people on the ground can better decide.
And does that equate to "shoot everyone on sight", "kill all looters"? No, of course not. I'm amazed I have to repeat that.

It's not the guy stealing the big-screen TV from Wal-mart, it's the thug shooting at helicopters or the thug looting narcotics at gunpoint that may need to be shot.

-----------------------

If you're going to disagree with me, please do me the courtesy of describing my position accurately. If I fail to describe yours accurately, let me know.

I thank Eric (though he tossed straw men back at me) for providing a forum for this fairly civil discussion. I thank the rest of you for keeping it civil.

And if you haven't already done so, please give to the Red Cross or charity of your choice (if you can) to help. That'll be a lot more useful than 1000 blog posts.

Regards to all,
Holmwood.

Come on everyone, this is easy. If you're a cop, you shoot only who shoots first. Same rules of engagement as always. If people loot a TV, let them--what the hell are they going to do with a big screen tv anyway? There's no power. besides, the weight of it will probably kill them after they realize they should've stolen food instead and they get too weak and dehydrated.

Private property owners--if someone loots you, shoot them. But put a note on the body with your name and address, so the police know it was a warranted kill. Just like when you run into a parked car.

See? everyone wins. Except the guy you just shot. Oops.

This is what happens when a sadistic rich kid who is completely out of touch with society becomes the president. A bunch of angry white men still living with their mothers gets taken seriously. If we had a true democracy in this country, these people would be in jail, not writing blogs and working in 'think tanks'.

As far as I can tell, you americans are completely nuts.
Of course in a situation of dire emergency you look the other way when people loot to provide for their basic necessities (including necessary drugs like insuline and what not). When those elements in society who seem to abandon elements of civility in a crisis give in to their baser instincts you strive to protect yourself and your well-being. This does not give you the right or the moral authority to 'shoot the looters' (Which seems to me to be thinly veiled racism and an excuse for white people with guns to shoot black people who scare them, but hey what do I know).

What I'm trying to get at here is that I really don't understand this obsession with owning and using guns you americans seem to have (I realise I'm making generalisations here). An armed society does not make a polite society, it makes a frightened society. And as far as having a gun for protection, the criminals will always have bigger guns than you or be more willing to use them. Just look at Russia in the early '90s for a perfect example.

The point is (yes there is one) that you don't focus on the acts of a few miscreants in a crisis like this. You do your best to get people to safety and help as many of the sick and wounded as possible. Then you go in and try to clean up, ideally with police and millitary backup. But the most important thing at this stage is to help the people who need it, and to let everyone know (with concrete examples) that they are not abandoned. As someone else said earlier in this thread "people matter more than property, end of story." Why are people still sitting at a convention centre without food and water? Why isn't your National Guard in the city right now? You have the largest military on the planet, with organisational capabilities far in excess of what is needed to bring this crisis under control, what is it doing?

My heart goes out to the people devasted by the hurricane.

It's a shame we don't have a government that believes in the "Common Good". Watch as the racists among us rear their ugly heads. It's not an accident that it took four days for the feds to show up. All of you "shoot first" crowd are the ones that should be rounded up and shot for the way you're destroying America. Why do you hate America? Why do you hate Americans? How's that for liberalism. It's time we stopped humoring these repugs. Enjoy your time in the sun, I suspect it will be a while before the American people fall for your shit again.

"angry white men still living with their mothers", "americans are completely nuts", "you should be rounded up and shot".

I don't know how much of that is directed at me, but I'm the only one left arguing that conventional law enforcement techniques may no longer apply in a collapse of order.

For the record, "angry white men still living with their mothers"... that's four attributes. One of them applies to me. I'll let you guess which, and it ain't living with my mother. And I'm not Republican either.

The only thing I can agree with is "My heart goes out to the people devasted by the hurricane".

No question.

Since none seem capable of rational discussion (and the horrible events in New Orleans are reasonable justification), I'll bow out at this point.

This isn't and shouldn't be about left vs. right, american vs non-american. Let's do what we can to help out those in need (which at the moment means giving money if you can afford it, and, if you are so inclined, prayer).

Here's a link to places you can donate: http://instapundit.com/archives/025235.php

Or just go to www.redcross.(your country's internet code).

If you want to still slam white males, "rethuglicans", and Bush for not using his Rovian powers to control Hurricanes, or advocate shooting people who want the restoration of order, fair enough, enjoy as long as Eric wants.

If you want to discuss what I've said (and it's about protecting the helpless), then go for it.

Thoughts and prayers are with those in New Orleans,

Holmwood.

just wondering, how many of you assholes advocating "shoot the looters" have any first hand knowledge of the incidents that you keep referring back to? I mean which one of you fuckers actually saw, with your own two eyes, all of the incidents of carjacking and looting?

Also, how many of you have actually been to New Orleans in more happier times? You would probably be shocked to know that the level of crime there is huge, with or without this disaster. The officials of that city and state have done absolutely nothing to help mitigate the abject poverty that is rampant in New Orleans. They sat by as black neighborhoods in that city have fallen more and more into an economic black hole and crime has been one of the only outlets to any access to food and housing. And you self righteous fuckheads sit there, pull some stupid rhetoric of "liberals just don't get it", and you have never lived in any conditions remotley like what the majority of the citizens of New Orleans have been accustomed to. And these conditions have been there for generations. So I couldn't give two squirts of piss less if somebody is taking a TV from the flooded local Wal-Mart. I really couldn't, because in the grand scheme of things helping the thousands aren't looting is more important than stopping some looting. Fuck all of you douchebags who think property is more important than human life.

As for the people stealing medicine, it doesn't surprise me that it is happening. But I wonder if white folks were doing the same thing, which I'm sure they are but you don't get to see it on television, would you be so quick to advocate shooting them? Probably, but I doubt any of you assholes have the guts to take a human life.

Holmwood,
this is absolutely a situation where Pres. Bush was warned in 2001 before Sept. 11 that this exact situation would happen and instead of preparing for it he cut funding to numerous agencies that could have mitigated the outcome of Katrina. You seem to be ignoring the plethora of warnings he was given, the most recent being last year, that a disaster plan needed to be worked out for New Orleans. But I suppose that was Clintons fault.

Responding just to you Sherman,

Bush was warned. Sure, I'm certain you can drag out 20 (or 200) memos saying so. I'm equally sure 20 (or 200) memos can be dragged out saying Clinton was warned... Bush 41 was warned... all the way back to Jefferson.

You have a city where you look UP from the streets to see the river and yes, that's a bad sign. What part of this are you missing?

Every president was warned.

If Bush had ordered the evacuation of New Orleans 2 weeks ago (Note that the section of the dyke (levee) that broke was new) would you have said "Awesome Mr President, you're totally right"?

No, you'd have moaned and complained about the Bushitler police state.

Indeed, the ordered evacuation when it eventually came was disobeyed, which is why we have this problem.

Great. Thanks. It's noise like that that removes the ability to talk in a sensible fashion.

If you want to vest the US President with the power to destroy cities with a word, and force mass evacuation by shoot-to-kill policies, I can acknowledge (though vehemently disagree with) your argument. Otherwise, get real.

I have many disagreements with the Bush adminstration. But they're rooted in reality, not fantasy land.

Please. Discuss the issue not mad garbage,
Holmwood.

Anyone on this board opposing the shooting of looters on the grounds that 'there is a grey area', or that 'how can you know who is a bad man and who is a good man' is cutting the debate into the finest of pieces and impedes the ability of professionally trained law enforcement personnel to protect the truly innocent who are starving, ill, infirmed, and dying. You want it on your conscience that the US did not secure the safety of dying citizens because they could not eliminate the scum who were taking the streets by force? Get off your high-stools, you academic word-wealthy, experience-poor mouths. You're residing in disneyland and the innocent in New Orleans are in Hell.

Holmwood says:
>>>
AmericanExpat (many paragraphs response): The US is a federal system. The Federal Government does not run cities. Whether you love or loath Bush, it's a bit silly to be pointing the finger at him for conditions on the ground in New Orleans.
>>>

I find much of you say reasonable, though I am not sure to what extent I disagree, but this is condescending and absurd. The responsibility for disaster and mitigation and response rests to a great extent on the shoulders of the federal government. That's why we have FEMA and DHS. And the federal response has been pathetic. Pathetic and shameful. To say the federal government is responsible for current conditions in NO, including looting, is not to say that in conventional circumstances it is responsible for local law enforcement; this is the biggest natural disaster in the American history; it is properly in the federal sphere to be evacuating people and restoring order, and if they had responded to this crisis with anything like dispatch we should be able to expect four years after 9-11, this kind of lawlessness would not have taken hold.

i live in la

malicious looters should be shot
order restored
NOW

just so you know.....
the african american mayor has said the same thing

The rule of law must be upheld. In a state of emergency it is 100% legal and important that looters and others breaking the law are stopped IMMEDIATELY. Once one person sees another person getting away with theft, he will take it upon himself to steal also... Why not, the other guy got away with it. If he sees that his neighbor who had no care for laws, and decided to take advantage of the situation and steals guns and liquour, he himself will think that he can get away with it.

This is simple morality for you people. Just because I am a liberal democrat doesn't mean I don't have a moral compass. I can see quite clearly that the perpetrators of crime should be punished, and punished quickly. Also, the fact that a State of Emergency has been declared, martial law MUST be enforced.

Come on guys, morality is easy if you just use your thinking caps. I don't know about you people who are so worried about theives getting what they deserve. With civil unrest going on, law and order must be imposed. Otherwise we live in anarchy...

Thank you,
Michael

I agree that morality is easy. There is no property that equals a human life. (.) (That's period, by the way!) Secondly Michael, as you said, the rule of law must be upheld. The rule of law in the US does not allow vigilante justice. Those people looting, and I have sympathy for those looting to survive, if caught, should be arrested and taken to jail and tried. Not shot on sight. I'd wager that a jury of their peers might even forgive them for taking a little bread. What? You say you can't possibly arrest and jail all of them? Then it seems the rules have already broken down and you already have anarchy. In that case, we fall back on the previous rule, the absolute: "no property that equals a human life." All the property can eventually be replaced but not a single life. When order CAN be imposed it should, but under the same rules of engagement as we normally have.

"There is no property that equals a human life."

You obviously are not a homeowner.

The "african american mayor" has by no means said the same thing.

The Mayor of NOLA has demanded that order be restored, and that -- specifically -- "looters are not the problem". Rather, roaming gangs of thugs are.

Essentially the same thing i posted above (a full day before his quote was broadcast).

Again: no one should be wondering about what to do about looting"; the only thing anyone should be talking about is what to do about the starving, and how to protect the peaceful.

The President, of course, believes that there should be "zero tolerance for looting", or some other, nearly equal absurdity.

Meanwhile, there are still few -- if any -- troops on the ground.

It has also come out that on 28 of Aug, the Governor of LA sent out a formal expedited request for emergency aid to FEMA and the federal government. In it, she specifically requested buses, living nececssities such as food and medicine, and a plan for the immediate evacuation of the city.

Indeed, it now looks as if the death toll in Louisiana and Mississippi will surpass -- by many thousands --- that of 9/11; and the number of refugees and lives permanently displaced by many, many times.

The damage to NOLA, alone, is so completely beyond the events of 9/11 that any comparisons will be only pipe-dreams.

And yes -- in deed, the blame lies squarely with the current administration, for the loss of an entire U.S. city.

Actually, I am a homeowner and as of yesterday a homeowner x 2! And I still say no property is equal to a human life. Of course my perspective is colored by my beliefs as a Christian but it seems to me sheer logic would dictate the same thing. ALL property, EVERY thing you own, have owned, might own, will own, wish to own, is potentially replaceable. No human can replace another human's life. I feel that you should not take what you cannot replace, therefore, human life > property in all cases.

Only in America will we have a debate about murdering people for looting after an unprecedented national disaster.

Human life is absolutely greater than any piece of property--Just not in America.

Money is our God. Donating it, or losing any posession is deicide. Mourn not the Wal-Mart's lost revenues, mourn the thousands dead. SHAME ON US.