Comments on: Looting is Looting, Dammit!

By: spurwing plover

spurwing plover — Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:39:46 +0000

Looting is looting no matter who dose it and all looters should be arrested and if a person or buisness owner should catch looters in their place of buisness then they should be allowed to shhot the looters as was said in florida after hurricane andrew YOU LOOT I SHOOT

By: John Anderson

John Anderson — Mon, 05 Sep 2005 02:41:27 +0000

Food or a plasma TV (or a bus), it is looting. But food and water may be forgiveable looting, just as there is such a thing as justifiable homicide. And if some DA decides to prosecute, it would be a good time for jury nullification, right?

By: McGehee

McGehee — Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:45:55 +0000

In Alaska and elsewhere, it was also common practice that if one came upon an unoccupied cabin in a storm or other difficulty, it was acceptable to use the cabin provided you restored, as best you could, any provisions you used, and left it in at least as good condition as you found it.

And if you couldn’t restore provisions, you left a note explaining why and offering to try to pay back later if you could.

Same basic premise, I believe.

By: W Butler

W Butler — Sun, 04 Sep 2005 01:43:27 +0000

In the old days (late1800’s) in Alaska and Canada trappers and such would leave food in rock carns for future use. It was an immoral thing to do to take this food but if you were in a life threating situation it was OK to take half of it but never more. It was the “code of the North.” Ask anyone who has read Jack London.

By: Doc Rampage

Doc Rampage — Sat, 03 Sep 2005 17:15:53 +0000

People can theoretically survive for a long time without food, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t need food for survival. Being without food makes you more susceptible to disease and physically weaker which makes you more susceptible to murder and less able to handle emergencies. It also may make it impossible for you to get food when it does become a matter of immediate survival.

By: john

john — Sat, 03 Sep 2005 04:19:35 +0000

Dave and Xrlq: it is precisely the question of necessity that determines whether the extension of the self defense argument applies. If there is no necessity concerning survival, then there is no right to self defense argument. Taking food or other things is generally illegal and immoral, but there are legal and moral defenses in some cercimstances-necessity for survival. Deciding when those circumstance arise is difficult at best. Consider if a 400 pound man can claim taking food is necessary for his survival. On the other hand a thin person might need the food for survival. Also what about a diabetic–they might require sugar or insulin for their survival. It is not an easy, simple calculation. Each case can be very different. But each decision must be decided on the basis of the same standard (necessity for survival) or we would have an arbitrary result. As to the Louisiana State Police,the less said the better. What a corrupt organization.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:13:30 +0000

Tell that to the Louisiana State Police.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:04:30 +0000

No one is starving in New Orleans. It takes a long time to starve. Weeks. More likely months. Look it up. There is no moral or legal basis for excusing the looters. They’re criminals.

By: Joel Thomas

Joel Thomas — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:12:11 +0000

In case of such a catastrophic crisis, it is absolutely moral and ethical to appropriate, as necessary to survival, food and water belonging to others, so long as such doesn’t deprive the owner of his/her own right to survival. Of course, an attempt at compensation should be made later.

I speak from a Christian point of view, in which we regard humans as the mere trustees of God’s property. In a massive disaster, morally speaking God simply transfers the property into the hands of a new trustee.

If someone is stranded in the mountains in the dead of winter, perhaps lost in a snow storm, I pray that they damn well break into my family’s cabin and avail themselves to whatever they need to live.

To do otherwise is to say that property has a higher value than human life, an idolatry that is morally repugnant and contrary to common sense.

I am not aware that TV, stereos and the like are necessary to survival, however.

By: mikem

mikem — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:08:26 +0000

“I could ……………… so I won’t do that.” (chuckle)

But you are right. Hawkins takes it too far, as he often does. I think most commenters have made the correct distinction between stealing food and water and looting non necessities. However I do think that the oft repeated remarks by on scene reporters who expressed that it was OK to loot for the right reasons added to the problem. Hungry and suffering victims will not wait for approval from anyone to take food and water, but looters may very well have felt emboldened as they learned that they had a ‘right’ to loot.
It sure got the leftist ’speakers for the oppressed’ riled up at conservatives and liberals both, for condemning the kind of looting that we here agree is immoral.
I’ve never heard of looters sniping at medical personnel. In fact, I am suspicious that some other agency is taking advantage of the disaster and confusion to worsen it, to whatever ends.