Even a cop joins in the looting (police and firefighters)

[Barrett808]

Even a cop joins in the looting
Mike Perlstein and Brian Thevenot
Staff writers

Law enforcement efforts to contain the emergency left by Katrina slipped into chaos in parts of New Orleans Tuesday with some police officers and firefighters joining looters in picking stores clean.

At the Wal-Mart on Tchoupitoulas Street, an initial effort to hand out provisions to stranded citizens quickly disintegrated into mass looting. Authorities at the scene said bedlam erupted after the giveaway was announced over the radio.

While many people carried out food and essential supplies, others cleared out jewelry racks and carted out computers, TVs and appliances on handtrucks.

Some officers joined in taking whatever they could, including one New Orleans cop who loaded a shopping cart with a compact computer and a 27-inch flat screen television.

...

“The police got all the best stuff. They’re crookeder than us,” one man said.

(more)

http://www.nola.com/newslogs/breakingtp

[Kelvin Mace]

1. Any bets what their political affiliation is?

[rodeodance]

2. Bob Sheiver CBS showed police letting people take away food and

supplies. they just stood by the door and said it was survival.

[NYC]

8. Good.

People need food and water/beverages.

[saigon68]

19. The police got all the best stuff. They’re crookeder than us

Hm-mm they can't eat Flat screen Plasma TV's

[Conservativesux]

22. Ya just gotta love the excuses you read and hear about the looting..

of TV's, stereos, electronics, ect.

I guess the people stealing all that beer could make a case that they needed the fluids, but as for the rest of the non-food items?

Pure Theft.

[saigon68]

23. I HOPE THEY LIKE LOOKING AT BLANK SCREENS

No TV stations and no power to run the PLASMA things anyway

LOL

[LostinVA]

29. Especially since alcohol DEHYDRATES you n/t

[Ron Mexico]

39. Impossible. Yesterday it was clearly explained to me that these

looters are all good people just trying to survive. I've seen looters after Category 3 storms clean out electronics stores back from my days in Florida, but what I didn't know is that Category 4 storms automatically keep people from stealing anything but food and medicine.

I, like you, would have thought that most looting was "pure theft" as you put it, and I (like you, I'm guessing) usually apply extenuating circumstances AFTER the fact rather than applying a blanket assumption that all looters are good people entitled to take whatever they want, but yesterday, on this board, I learned the Category 3 > Category 4 property that clearly demonstrates that we're both wrong. :sarcasm:

It frightens me how quickly people will jump to justify lawlessness.

[NorthernSpy]

42. left behind to drown, some poor people steal watches and iPods!

Oh, what has happened to values in this country? Apparently, some of the poor value our desire to keep our property only as much as we value their desire to keep their lives! Shocking.

Look -- my own aunt is New Orleans right now, and I don't know what has happened to her. My worst fear is that she may have stayed in her home during the hurricane out of fear of losing her things to looters. That's foremost in my mind when I read the reports of looting.

But at the same time, I really do have to wonder about what seems to be passing for morality here. Some of the people who are looting are almost certainly lifelong criminals for whom all of this is a relished opportunity for personal gain. I grant you that. But others really are probably just desperate people who are looking to recoup some of their losses however they can. The America that lectures them now for carrying off laptop computers from a soon-to-be-flooded electronics store is the very same America that flatly refused to help them flee a doomed city before the rains set in. Evidently, they figure that they'd better help themselves now, while they still have the chance. It's not hard to see why they don't believe that anyone will help them later.

[saigon68]

48. And guess what-- the Chimp will never help a poor person of Color

Ain't going to happen

[Ron Mexico]

54. I wonder as well.

I wonder the reason for armed looters trying to break into a children's hospital, and I wonder how theft of laptops or whatever else can be so easily justified.

Difference of opinion, I guess. "Life isn't going my way, so the rules go out the window" is understandable (to me, I mean) for food and medicine, but not high-value electronics.

[NorthernSpy]

56. question: should I interpret your remarks as a justification...

... for abandoning poor people to the tender mercies of a category 5 hurricane? Are you trying to justify that choice?

[Ron Mexico]

58. Only if you're missing the point.

I'm just as anxious as everyone else to have more help sent down there, but if in your mind a failure to endorse theft of electronics is "abandoning poor people," we really have very little to discuss.

[NorthernSpy]

59. and if you think that pointing out some discomforting realities...

... is "endorsing" and "justifying" looting, then yeah, we have very little to discuss.

[Ron Mexico]

61. None of your "discomforting realities" are

news to me or anyone else who has watched coverage. We just have different views on theft under those circumstances. I would definitely steal food to keep myself and my wife alive, but I would not steal a goddamned laptop. You would?

[NorthernSpy]

62. I have no idea what I'd do if caught in such a plight

Nevertheless, I'd like to point out that anything that isn't carried off is destined to go under the floodwaters of Lake Pontchartrain shortly. That's what makes the situation in New Orleans right now somewhat unusual. But I'm sure it's much better to leave all that useful stuff to ruin, rather than to allow anyone to benefit from it. I mean, the sanctity of Property might suffer otherwise.

:eyes:

[Ron Mexico]

64. Ah, so if

it looks like the merchandise might be destroyed, these people aren't STEALING stuff, they're SAVING it? The "it will go to waste anyway" argument works for me when food is concerned, but not a laptop.

And as for your "sanctity of Property" remark, where do you draw the line? If I grant you that stealing food and medicine for survival is okay / understandable / however you want to put it, what's next? Let's use me as an example: I've survived a hurricane (admittedly not one this bad) and have been homeless. I can certainly say the government didn't do a whole lot for me at the time and definitely isn't now. If I don't make enough to afford a laptop (and as it stands, I don't make enough or own one even NOW, and don't even have Internet at home), and a hurricane or tornado knocks my city out, is it okay if I take one?

After all, my wife won't think of having kids until we're better off, and I'm getting pretty anxious to become a father before we get to the point where I'm a senior before they are seniors. Would you support me taking a laptop or two?

[NorthernSpy]

66. actually, the question is YOURS to answer

This merchandise doesn't just look doomed, it IS doomed. New Orleans is filling with water. Why is it better to leave the laptop in the watery grasp of Lake Pontchartrain than to take it and sell it for some desperately needed cash when you finally get to Houston?

[Ron Mexico]

67. Only because you can't answer it yourself?

How do you know some of the owners aren't planning to go rescue their stuff? How can you just write it off like that? Granted, a megachain will almost certainly write it off (which would still not make me approve of theft), but a small business owner might go get a friend or two and go try to save a few high-ticket items only to find that your brand of law-be-damned social justice has been exacted at his expense. Why are you so quick to write it off and so desperate to excuse theft in the midst of chaos?

And is Houston really planning on opening up the Astrodome and then having no food available? Oh, in that case I guess stealing and pawning for cash is just the thing to do. :sarcasm:

I'd still like to know if you think it'd be okay for me to steal laptops in the example I gave you.

Once you get past survival only, that sort of theft is about as low as you can get in my eyes. Not in yours, apparently. I hope wherever you live never gets hit, but if it does and looting takes place, I hope your house is one of those looted - after all, it clearly wouldn't bother you as much as it would me or others who HAVE been looted and robbed.

[NorthernSpy]

71. how do I know that owners aren't planning to go in and rescue their stuff?

This is how I know:

A. The water is rising steadily, and will continue to do so until New Orleans is full. We're looking at a very short timeframe here.

B. Private citizens are forbidden to enter the city, and are stopped on the way in (and subject to arrest for trying).

C. The water prevents truck traffic.

D. Any vehicle that can navigate the streets of New Orleans is almost certain to be taken by the authorities for use in the relief and evacuation effort -- and rightly so. Believe it or not, many of us consider the preservation of life to be a more pressing concern than even the guarding of merchandise.


So yes, all this swell stuff is indeed on its way to Davy Jones' locker if people don't take it now. Now: go right ahead and take a stab at explaining why letting it all go to ruin is preferable to allowing the survivors to salvage whatever they think they can use.

Once you get past survival only, that sort of theft is about as low as you can get in my eyes. Not in yours, apparently. I hope wherever you live never gets hit, but if it does and looting takes place, I hope your house is one of those looted - after all, it clearly wouldn't bother you as much as it would me or others who HAVE been looted and robbed.

Look, if my house and goods are doomed by some cataclysm, as is the case in New Orleans, and someone salvages something to use before it's all lost, then I doubt I'll see that as a particularly blameworthy action. God forbid I should ever pull some dog-in-the-manger act on the eve of Destruction.


Oh, and the "example" you gave me is neither relevant to the situation in New Orleans, nor at all interesting in its own right.

[Ron Mexico]

72. THAT'S how you "KNOW?"

"A. The water is rising steadily, and will continue to do so until New Orleans is full. We're looking at a very short timeframe here."

So people can go in to STEAL stuff, but not to RECOVER IT if they already own it? Of course we're talking a short timeframe since you're so quick to write off the stuff and endorse its theft.

"B. Private citizens are forbidden to enter the city, and are stopped on the way in (and subject to arrest for trying)."

So people willing to break the law and loot would be discouraged by a law forbidding them to enter the city? C'mon.

"C. The water prevents truck traffic."

But not rowboats and floating boxes full of jewelry, jeans and other high-priced goods.

"D. Any vehicle that can navigate the streets of New Orleans is almost certain to be taken by the authorities for use in the relief and evacuation effort -- and rightly so. Believe it or not, many of us consider the preservation of life to be a more pressing concern than even the guarding of merchandise.

Believe it or not, even cops are looting down there, and they could be saving lives.

"So yes, all this swell stuff is indeed on its way to Davy Jones' locker if people don't take it now. Now: go right ahead and take a stab at explaining why letting it all go to ruin is preferable to allowing the survivors to salvage whatever they think they can use."

Because there is no guarantee that an item will be lost until it actually is. If it looks like my house is going to collapse or go under water, you honestly believe that it's okay for someone to break in and just take my stuff based on the idea that I might not get there in time to save it myself?

Look, if my house and goods are doomed by some cataclysm, as is the case in New Orleans, and someone salvages something to use before it's all lost, then I doubt I'll see that as a particularly blameworthy action. God forbid I should ever pull some dog-in-the-manger act on the eve of Destruction.

If you want to be so generous with your stuff and consider it the rightful property of thieves, go ahead. If it isn't directly linked to immediate survival I can't endorse it. You obviously can, so let it be you who suffers the looting.

"Oh, and the "example" you gave me is neither relevant to the situation in New Orleans, nor at all interesting in its own right."

I was just trying to find out where you draw the line. I drew mine at immediate survival, whereas yours goes clearly beyond pocket cash, but I don't know where it is. Since you're unwilling or unable to explain it, you pick on my "example" as "not at all interesting," which is usually what I hear from people with no answer. Why not give me one of your own, then, one that "interests" you?

[NorthernSpy]

75. you asked how I knew that the OWNERS would not go into New Orleans...

... to salvage their property. And I gave you four reasons. And your response to these reasons borders on incoherent.

Me: A. The water is rising steadily, and will continue to do so until New Orleans is full. We're looking at a very short timeframe here."

You: So people can go in to STEAL stuff, but not to RECOVER IT if they already own it? Of course we're talking a short timeframe since you're so quick to write off the stuff and endorse its theft.

The point is that the city is filling with flood water. Get that through your head, please. Time is growing very short as the water continues to rise.


Me: "B. Private citizens are forbidden to enter the city, and are stopped on the way in (and subject to arrest for trying)."

You: So people willing to break the law and loot would be discouraged by a law forbidding them to enter the city? C'mon.

When you don't understand something I've written, just ask whoever is reading it aloud for you to speak more s l o w l y .

The point is that people who were able to get out of New Orleans before the hurricane hit are. not. allowed. to. go. back. until. the. authorities. declare. it. safe. Your "owners" can't waltz back into the disaster zone just because they want to. I believe the no-entry rule applies to everyone -- even to Owners.


Me: "C. The water prevents truck traffic."

You: But not rowboats and floating boxes full of jewelry, jeans and other high-priced goods.

So WalMart is going to get a convoy of rowboats together and remove their merchandise to a safer locale? Please.


Me: D. Any vehicle that can navigate the streets of New Orleans is almost certain to be taken by the authorities for use in the relief and evacuation effort -- and rightly so. Believe it or not, many of us consider the preservation of life to be a more pressing concern than even the guarding of merchandise.

You: Believe it or not, even cops are looting down there, and they could be saving lives.

A non sequitur. The fact that some cops have looted has no bearing on the observation that the authorities are likely to take any usable vehicle for the relief effort.


You: Because there is no guarantee that an item will be lost until it actually is. If it looks like my house is going to collapse or go under water, you honestly believe that it's okay for someone to break in and just take my stuff based on the idea that I might not get there in time to save it myself?

If the possibility that the property will escape immediate total loss is sufficiently remote, and the need to salvage something from it sufficiently pressing, then yes, such an action might be understandable. It depends on many things. Common sense tells us that what's on store shelves in New Orleans is done for -- unless the remaining survivors take it with them.

You: If you want to be so generous with your stuff and consider it the rightful property of thieves, go ahead. If it isn't directly linked to immediate survival I can't endorse it. You obviously can, so let it be you who suffers the looting.

You'll notice that I haven't been wishing loss and misfortune on you.

[Ron Mexico]

77. No, I didn't. Read it again, you'll see that what I ACTUALLY asked was

"...How do you know some of the owners aren't planning to go rescue their stuff" (you know, meaning "go into their homes or stores")not "How do you know that owners of property who have left the city are going to return to New Orleans and try to save their stuff..."

I never said "...into New Orleans," I said "planning to go rescue their stuff." To most, this would leave open the possibility that they, unlike the looters, NEVER LEFT. To borrow one from you, When you don't understand something I've written, just ask whoever is reading it aloud for you to speak more s l o w l y . It'll serve you much better than inserting words and / or placenames into what you think I asked just to make it easier to arrive at your own conclusions.



The point is that the city is filling with flood water. Get that through your head, please. Time is growing very short as the water continues to rise.

I can see that. What I wanted to know (get it through your head, please), is what special properties are in this flood water which enable looters to get at merchandise that owners can't touch - surely you can't think that everyone who owned stuff in the city left it, can you?

When you don't understand something I've written, just ask whoever is reading it aloud for you to speak more s l o w l y .

Cute. Almost as smart as the idea that looters would be scared by a law forbidding them from entering a city they're already in. Of course, you're under the impression that all property in the city belongs to people who left it, right? BTW, your reading comprehension doesn't seem so hot either.

The point is that people who were able to get out of New Orleans before the hurricane hit are. not. allowed. to. go. back. until. the. authorities. declare. it. safe. Your "owners" can't waltz back into the disaster zone just because they want to. I believe the no-entry rule applies to everyone -- even to Owners.

Not everybody left, my condescending comrade. New Orleans goes through so many false alarms and that some people stay. Others stay just because they are afraid that the government won't let them back to protect their property before it gets looted with your approval. Some may have changed their minds, and - oh, wait, I forgot - you spoke to all of them and KNOW that there is nobody left in the city who owns property and wants to protect or recover any of it. All. gone. except. for. looters. for. whom. you're. cheering. Sorry.

So WalMart is going to get a convoy of rowboats together and remove their merchandise to a safer locale? Please.

Of course not, but the owner of a small business might, and - oh, wait, forget it, that's right - they're all gone. Nobody who owns anything is left in the city. :eyes: Besides, even if there were any, which we know there aren't thanks to your investigative reporting, their property is something that looters are entitled to if you're going to go so far out of your way to make it impossible for anyone who had property and didn't get out to keep anything that was theirs.

A non sequitur. The fact that some cops have looted has no bearing on the observation that the authorities are likely to take any usable vehicle for the relief effort.

Fine, we'll assume that everything looted by cops is carried by hand.

If the possibility that the property will escape immediate total loss is sufficiently remote, and the need to salvage something from it sufficiently pressing, then yes, such an action might be understandable. It depends on many things. Common sense tells us that what's on store shelves in New Orleans is done for -- unless the remaining survivors take it with them.

I'm not arguing food and medicine here with you, but electronics are on store shelves, too. But you've gone so far out of your way to make stuff like that the entitlement of looters without telling me where you draw the line that this answer means nothing.

You'll notice that I haven't been wishing loss and misfortune on you.

Why would it be a loss to you? You seem to think that looters are entitled to anything they can grab - even at children's hospitals. You seem to think that stealing beyond the purposes of survival is acceptable and your words show no regard for property rights whatsoever, so I'm not wishing any loss on you at all. As long as you've got your health and loved ones, you haven't suffered a misfortune at all, have you? I'm not wishing physical harm on you or anyone you care about, I'm just saying that if there's to be looting where you live, let it be at your place since you're less bothered by property rights than others would be.

In my last post, I asked you this: "If it looks like my house is going to collapse or go under water, you honestly believe that it's okay for someone to break in and just take my stuff based on the idea that I might not get there in time to save it myself?" I'd still love for you to answer that, because I certainly don't think it's okay. If you do, then my wishing that if anyone gets looted it should be you isn't wishing anything bad on you at all.

[NorthernSpy]

83. one of the great things about money...

... is that allows those who have it to remove themselves from danger. Reportedly, about 80% of New Orleans residents left the city when the evacuation order was announced. Those left behind are overwhelmingly poor and working class.

Why would it be a loss to you? You seem to think that looters are entitled to anything they can grab - even at children's hospitals.

First, a loss is a loss -- even if it involved an act of appropriation that was understandable under the circumstances.

Secondly, point out exactly where I said that people are "entitled" to loot children's hospitals. And if you can't find any such quote, then kindly take it back.

You seem to think that stealing beyond the purposes of survival is acceptable and your words show no regard for property rights whatsoever, so I'm not wishing any loss on you at all. As long as you've got your health and loved ones, you haven't suffered a misfortune at all, have you? I'm not wishing physical harm on you or anyone you care about, I'm just saying that if there's to be looting where you live, let it be at your place since you're less bothered by property rights than others would be.

What I've pointed out is that your definition of survival is a mighty narrow one. I've also pointed out that refusing to allow disaster survivors to salvage what they can from store shelves before it all disappears under several feet of agua seems kind of, oh, dog-in-the-mangerish. The retailers won't be able to sell any of that stuff, but to the bottom it must go -- a watery sacrifice to honor our one true god, Property.

[Ron Mexico]

87. See, the thing about assumptions is

that they have you misreading my words, assuming that anybody who owns anything is out of the city (presumably because of those nice clear roads ( :eyes: ) and that they all want checks.

Secondly, point out exactly where I said that people are "entitled" to loot children's hospitals. And if you can't find any such quote, then kindly take it back.

I'll do nothing of the kind. I said that it seems that way to me (my quote was "You seem to think that looters are entitled to anything they can grab..."), and it certainly does. Agree with me or not on the issue, but you can't deny I've tried repeatedly to find out where you draw the line and that you have steadfastly refused or ignored those requests.

What I've pointed out is that your definition of survival is a mighty narrow one.

You have? Where? And what's YOUR definition? I said that any theft above immediate survival is unacceptable to me, you haven't done anything but defend looters and justify theft. Based on your words, I'm led to believe you think any theft is acceptable if the thief is poorer than the victim unless you specify otherwise.

I've also pointed out that refusing to allow disaster survivors to salvage what they can from store shelves before it all disappears under several feet of agua seems kind of, oh, dog-in-the-mangerish. The retailers won't be able to sell any of that stuff, but to the bottom it must go -- a watery sacrifice to honor our one true god, Property.

And you've blown off the possibility that some of the owners might want to go try to get some of it. On the assumption that nobody will come back to their houses or stores for anything, it's a free-for-all. Since you never answered my question I'll assume that you think it would be okay to break into my house if I weren't there.

See, I've been on the bad end of looting (despite never having reached middle class) and watching others defend the looters disgusts me, but hey, anything to knock down those pesky property owners in the name of what you call "social justice," right? First, assume that ALL of them left the city, then, assume that ALL of them would rather have checks for a fraction of the value, and open the gates for the poor to get even with those evil bastards!

As I said in an earlier post, I have to wrap it up for the night, but hey, you've convinced me! Go, looters, go looters, go!

[NorthernSpy]

92. you really haven't taken in ANYTHING I've said, have you?

I wrote: "Secondly, point out exactly where I said that people are "entitled" to loot children's hospitals. And if you can't find any such quote, then kindly take it back."

You: I'll do nothing of the kind. I said that it seems that way to me (my quote was "You seem to think that looters are entitled to anything they can grab..."), and it certainly does. Agree with me or not on the issue, but you can't deny I've tried repeatedly to find out where you draw the line and that you have steadfastly refused or ignored those requests.

Well, of course you'll do nothing of the kind. That would require both comprehension and honesty. I won't be holding my breath.

What I have tried to get you to understand is that much of this depends on the circumstances of particular situations. I don't have a pat answer for everything, and I'm skeptical of people who do.


I wrote: "What I've pointed out is that your definition of survival is a mighty narrow one."

You: You have? Where? And what's YOUR definition? I said that any theft above immediate survival is unacceptable to me, you haven't done anything but defend looters and justify theft.

I pointed this out when you assumed that valuable goods such as jewellery and electronics were of no use to a disaster survivor. Whatever you may think of looting, your assumption was simply false.


You again: Based on your words, I'm led to believe you think any theft is acceptable if the thief is poorer than the victim unless you specify otherwise.

That's because, as I've noted, you are not taking in much of what I've said to you. So your imagination fills in the blanks. And there are such a lot of blanks...


You: And you've blown off the possibility that some of the owners might want to go try to get some of it.

Yeah. Because I've got a grasp of reality and at least a smidgen of common sense. Your scenario won't be common, especially where corporate retailers are concerned.

On the whole, this 'faint hope' rationale of yours is rather beyond belief. Moreover, it's a dodge. Even you have to admit that the Walton heirs aren't going to swim into New Orleans to defend from the ravenous horde their glorious collection of Made-in-China crap. I continue to wait for you to come up with a solid reason why it is wicked for the survivors to salvage whatever they can of these goods before it all winds up abandoned beneath the waves.


You -- ALL you: On the assumption that nobody will come back to their houses or stores for anything, it's a free-for-all. Since you never answered my question I'll assume that you think it would be okay to break into my house if I weren't there.

Oh, why not? On the same grounds, you might as well assume that I myself plan to break into your house. After all, I never said anything about that either, so it must be true!


You: See, I've been on the bad end of looting (despite never having reached middle class) and watching others defend the looters disgusts me, but hey, anything to knock down those pesky property owners in the name of what you call "social justice," right? First, assume that ALL of them left the city, then, assume that ALL of them would rather have checks for a fraction of the value, and open the gates for the poor to get even with those evil bastards!

Oh dear, you're hysterical. I actually didn't say anything about "getting even" with "evil", property-owning "bastards" "in the name of social justice". That is merely another invention of yours, I'm afraid.

[Ron Mexico]

93. Haven't heard you say anything worthwhile.

And I've already answered your "I continue to wait for you to come up with a solid reason why it is wicked for the survivors to salvage whatever they can of these goods before it all winds up abandoned beneath the waves" question, but your only response is along the lines of "since it isn't probable that owners will take the stuff back, looting is cool." We don't agree, period.

I still would like to know where your cutoff is, or even a rough idea, but just as you say that you're skeptical of people who have a pat answer for everything, I am skeptical of people who dance around like you working so hard to avoid even giving a ballpark answer.

As for the rest of your post, it isn't worth a detailed response. For example, you wrote "I pointed this out when you assumed that valuable goods such as jewellery and electronics were of no use to a disaster survivor. Whatever you may think of looting, your assumption was simply false."

I didn't assume that those goods were of no use to a survivor at all. I merely pointed out that luxury items weren't what I call "immediate survival" items such as food or medicine. So this "false assumption" you refer to actually never existed - it's an invention of yours. Then you accuse ME of inventing things as you close you post.

You're not the only one laughing here. We obviously will never agree and don't think much of each other's opinion, but don't accuse me of "inventing" crap when you do the same thing. Now do you require the last word to make you feel good?

[NorthernSpy]

94. your comprehension and forthrightness leave a lot to be desired

You: And I've already answered your "I continue to wait for you to come up with a solid reason why it is wicked for the survivors to salvage whatever they can of these goods before it all winds up abandoned beneath the waves" question, but your only response is along the lines of "since it isn't probable that owners will take the stuff back, looting is cool." We don't agree, period.


No, you haven't answered my question. I wanted to know whether survivors of a disaster might be allowed to salvage what they could of shop goods that were otherwise destined to end up in the floodwaters in short order. And in response, you have kept intoning something along the lines of, 'well, maybe the goods aren't REALLY destined to end up in the floodwaters in short order'. And that's a pretty obvious ploy to avoid answering the question that I asked.

Because for some reason, you are reluctant to declare outright that no -- the doomed goods will just have to be left to the flood. It would be better just to let them ruin and go to waste, rather than allow anyone who is in a position to salvage a few items to do so. That, in a couple of short lines, is the position that you have been dancing around throughout this little exchange.

So here barks AEsop's dog in the manger! Really, it's no wonder that you are reluctant to declare this sentiment in so many words. Such a position is exactly the sort of irrational extremism that too many people mistake for "principle".




(edit: proofreading)

[Ron Mexico]

95. YOU'RE accusing ME of avoiding a question? LOL!

If you want me to say it, though, the goods being doomed doesn't mean stealing them is right. Am I correct in assuming that you're now going to mock me by using the word "property" with a capital 'p' again? :eyes:

[Ron Mexico]

97. I suggest a different approach.

Look, we can smack each other around over semantics as long as we like or live, and neither of us will change each other's mind. I can't bring myself to excuse certain instances of theft that you can excuse, but overall I'm willing to bet we're not that far apart in our general view.

The length of our discussion is already inversely proportional to my interest in it, and I'm willing to bet that you can say the same thing, so what I propose is that rather than sniping at each other, we join together and laugh at the other side. I can tell you right now that I understand the point you've been trying to make, and I don't agree with it - and I'm pretty sure that you can say the same, verbatim, to me. We have different degrees of what is acceptable to us, but take a look at the bullshit the Repugs are selling and tell me that you and I are spending our energy on each other wisely.

What I propose is that we both be adult enough to drop the nitpicking (and for the record, I'm not even remotely saying that you're more guilty of that than I am), agree to disagree on the one point that divides us, and join together to scoff at those who are way far to the so-called "right" of both of us. It's a tough time for everyone now, especially for those who have ties to New Orleans, and we don't need to be making enemies of each other within our own ranks.

As such, I declare my participation in this thread to be over, and if you wish to continue any discussion with me I direct you to a thread in which I think you and I will find common ground: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2051207&mesg_id=2051207 .

Have a good evening.

Chris (a.k.a. Ron Mexico ;) )

[Ron Mexico]

81. Gone for the night. Go, looters, go. (n/t)

[Autonomy]

60. I have to agree with you, Ron

except that I would be a bit more critical. We're not talking about people who have been without food and water for weeks; it's only been a few days. There's no reason not to have a few days' worth of food on hand, even in the poorest of neighborhoods, except by sheer negligence in taking care of oneself.

I don't see how one can apply a "need-based" justification in this circumstance. This is merely opportunistic crime, and you can believe it won't be the stores or the insurance companies paying for it in the long run.

[NorthernSpy]

65. hello? all this lovely Property is about to end up in the lake!

These people are taking food and fresh water and goods that will otherwise sink into a watery grave. If they don't take this stuff, it's just going to be junk.

We're not talking about people who have been without food and water for weeks; it's only been a few days. There's no reason not to have a few days' worth of food on hand, even in the poorest of neighborhoods, except by sheer negligence in taking care of oneself.

What the hell? A lot of poor people's homes got flooded out early in the game. The Ninth Ward was the first to go under when the Industrial Canal levee failed. Believe it or not, it's not easy to cart along a week's worth of supplies when you're running/swimming for dear life.

:eyes:

[Ron Mexico]

68. And since there's NO POSSIBLE CHANCE that the owners will try to save ANY

of it, write it off and endorse its theft! :)

[NorthernSpy]

73. once again...

Four good reasons why the owners of the merchandise will NOT be saving their property.

You continued, with sarcasm:

(...) write it off and endorse its theft!

Write it off? Dear boy, these poor, wronged "owners" had already done just that before the first looter punched the first lock on the first door. Even if any of this stuff were salvageable, your "owners" would really much rather just take the insurance check than attempt some heroic rescue of DVD players and whatnot.

[Ron Mexico]

74. Well, hell, I had no idea you spoke to them all.

I have been on the business end of robbery and looting and my insurance checks never covered anywhere near the value of what was lost. Also, isn't it POSSIBLE that one of the laptops you're so quick to consign to looters in the name of social justice and pocket cash might not be someone's personal computer filled with files the person wants, or maybe one that the owner just wants to grab for personal use on the way out of town? Isn't it also possible that someone might go back for something for reasons of sentimental value or to sell for cash as you suggested earlier?

I guess not. After all, according to you this stuff can only be salvaged by looters, not owners (I can only assume that's what you meant with your ridiculously sweeping "Even if any of this stuff were salvageable..."), and you've clearly spoken to everyone involved and determined that all of them want an insurance check instead. Thanks for letting me know. Hell, if I had known that from the beginning, I would have joined you in cheering on the looters!

[NorthernSpy]

76. you really should have noticed by now...

... that I have mostly been discussing the taking of commerical goods under catastrophic circumstances. Robbery and theft from individuals are a somewhat different matter. Individuals (unlike corporate entities) have physical survival needs of their own. Also individuals -- especially poorer ones -- are generally less well insured, and are less likely to be fully compsenated for their losses.

Hell, if I had known that from the beginning, I would have joined you in cheering on the looters!

Huh? I haven't "cheered" anyone on, and you should know it.

Really, it astounds me that in a situation in which poor people were more or less left to drown, the big moral issue turns out to be the Spectre of the survivors taking for themselves merchandise otherwise destined for a watery grave.


:eyes:




(edit: typo)

[Ron Mexico]

78. What in your words would have led anyone to that belief?

It sure looked to me like you were supporting looters unconditionally. I still don't know where you draw the line, despite repeated attempts to find out. For all I know, a wet poor guy can rob a children's hospital with your blessing whether there's been a natural disaster or not.

And those "poor people" I saw "left to drown" with clean clothes that were dry from the knees up looting stores didn't look too desperate to me. Then again, you've spoken to everyone down there and know that property owners want insurance checks instead of their property, so I guess you know best.

[NorthernSpy]

85. uh... frequent use of the word "merchandise"?

References to WalMart and "store shelves"? Such things should have tipped you off -- and would have, if you were the least bit capable of taking in anything I've said.

It sure looked to me like you were supporting looters unconditionally.

That's only because you can't read. Or perhaps you can, but don't. I've stated more than once that whether or not such acts of appropriation are understandable depends on the circumstances. Nothing "unconditional" about that.

[mondo joe]

84. Individuals also own those commercial good, you know.

Small businesses are more likely to fail than thrive in general, and now they get their good ripped off.

Nice.

[NorthernSpy]

88. no, it's not nice

And if we don't want to see it again, then perhaps we'll consider evacuating threatened areas before storm hits. If we'd done that in New Orleans, I wouldn't be sitting here, losing hope of ever hearing from my aunt again.

I'll repeat: businesses -- especially the corporate variety -- are not the primary victims of looting. The people who lose the most from looting are working class people like my aunt. They're the ones who stay home to protect their homes when the authorities refuse to carry out a complete evacuation. They're the ones who lose their lives because of this.

The affluent and powerful don't care about our lives. They do care about their stuff. If they believe that mass evacuations will save their stuff, then maybe not so many of us will be left to die in the future.

[mondo joe]

89. The people being ransacked are not responsible for NOT evacuating

these people. And some people - though not the majority - CHOOSE not to be evacuated and ONE reason is they fear looters.

I'm glad to see (but sorry it's the case) that we agree about the primary victims of looting: the working class. That's why I'm SO disheartened to see so many DUers refuse to condemn looting of non-essential items. It compounds the tragedy to see these people have to have what's left of their lives ripped off.

[ovidsen]

99. You lose

I've been reading this thread with amusement, and Northern Spy, you definitely came out on the short end.

1. Floodwaters are NOT rising. They haven't been rising since early this morning. Therefore, any merchandise above the waterline is perfectly salvageable. By stealing these goods (and that's what it is, stealing, unless it's food or water) thieves are robbing merchants, many of them small business owners, of their livelihoods. Sure, the merchants probably have insurance, but what's the deductible, hmm? Sorry, stealing perfectly salvageable laptops and plasma TVs is a no brainer. It's wrong. And given these facts, the excuse that "It's gonna get wrecked anyway" is the LAMEST of lame excuses.

2. Just because they couldn't (or wouldn't!) leave the city is no excuse to steal. That's childish. It ranks down there with "you winked at my girl so I'm gonna key your neighbor's car". Your cause (stranded) and effect (larceny) do not compute. It's an absolute crime that people in New Orleans were left to their own wits as the storm approached, and are now desperately hungry and thirsty, and I hope Chimp and Co. pay dearly, but that's no excuse for stealing computers, shoes, jewelry, guns, and TVs. Where did you hide your morals and ethics?

So there.

[NorthernSpy]

101. "so there"?

I've been reading this thread with amusement, and Northern Spy, you definitely came out on the short end.

Me, I can't afford to be amused. I've got family in there. So I guess you're chortling all alone.

1. Floodwaters are NOT rising. They haven't been rising since early this morning. Therefore, any merchandise above the waterline is perfectly salvageable. By stealing these goods (and that's what it is, stealing, unless it's food or water) thieves are robbing merchants, many of them small business owners, of their livelihoods. Sure, the merchants probably have insurance, but what's the deductible, hmm? Sorry, stealing perfectly salvageable laptops and plasma TVs is a no brainer. It's wrong. And given these facts, the excuse that "It's gonna get wrecked anyway" is the LAMEST of lame excuses.

Ooh -- the flood hasn't been rising since sometime this morning! Coming after all those other assurances that the levees would hold, that sure is heartening! And thank heavens that all that rain the storm dumped upriver isn't due to come down anytime soon, huh? :eyes:

Please. Do you have any idea what happens in a flood zone by the time the water's all gone? The buildings progressively crumble, and just about everything ends up water damaged. Unless you're prepared to divert resources from saving the living, retrieving the dead, and securing homes, then goods that are left in the disaster zone will inevitably become unsellable. That's just reality, and I'd wager anything that it's a reality that WalMart et al have wasted NO time in communicating to their insurers. Even if the water isn't up the rafters everywhere yet, the overwhelming likelihood is that the merchandise inside the disaster zone WILL have to be written off as a total loss. Already has been, I bet.

2. Just because they couldn't (or wouldn't!) leave the city is no excuse to steal. That's childish. It ranks down there with "you winked at my girl so I'm gonna key your neighbor's car". Your cause (stranded) and effect (larceny) do not compute. It's an absolute crime that people in New Orleans were left to their own wits as the storm approached, and are now desperately hungry and thirsty, and I hope Chimp and Co. pay dearly, but that's no excuse for stealing computers, shoes, jewelry, guns, and TVs. Where did you hide your morals and ethics?

You know what's really childish? This weird refusal to admit that yes, it really HAS come down to this. On Monday, our society's status quo -- infrastructure, laws, mores, and the lot -- came up against an act of God. And God won, hands down. All that's left is a struggle to survive long enough to get to a place where Situation Normal still holds.

If a stolen necklace buys some poor person a boatride out, or a bottle of clean water (because the criminal element always wind up controlling such desperately needed things), then I have no goddamn right to stand here on terra firma and say anything against it. If the greediest and most criminal concentrate on looting stores ('cause that's where most of the stuff is), in preference to robbing my aunt of whatever supplies she's managed to hang on to (assuming she's still alive), then it is absolutely worth it to allow the looting to continue. Sometimes, Property just has to take a back seat to the right to live. This is one of those times.

So there.

Your good will is worth less than nothing to me, bucko. And your idiotic "morality" is worth even less than that. All I want is for the dying to be saved -- those who are my of own family, and all those others from all the other families who are left waiting for word.

[ovidsen]

104. Yeah, so there.

Where to begin....

Me, I can't afford to be amused. I've got family in there. So I guess you're chortling all alone.

I have friends in New Orleans. I'm worried about them. But I bet they aren't stealing laptops, guns, or TVs. I guess I should have used the :sarcasm: label, but I thought my disdain for your rationalizations was obvious.

(the flood hasn't been rising?) Coming after all those other assurances that the levees would hold, that sure is heartening! And thank heavens that all that rain the storm dumped upriver isn't due to come down anytime soon, huh?

You haven't been reading posts or the New Orleans websites. The water in New Orleans isn't rising, because it's at the level of Lake Ponchartrain. Lake Ponchartrain isn't rising, because it's at sea level. The sea isn't rising because there isn't a hurricane anymore. Nor is the Mississippi rising. In fact, it's actually DROPPED since Tuesday. There is no threat of new flooding. New Orleans is a flooded as it's ever going to be. Don't cry "The sky is falling!". It doesn't cut it.

Please. Do you have any idea what happens in a flood zone by the time the water's all gone? The buildings progressively crumble, and just about everything ends up water damaged. Unless you're prepared to divert resources from saving the living, retrieving the dead, and securing homes, then goods that are left in the disaster zone will inevitably become unsellable. That's just reality, and I'd wager anything that it's a reality that WalMart et al have wasted NO time in communicating to their insurers. Even if the water isn't up the rafters everywhere yet, the overwhelming likelihood is that the merchandise inside the disaster zone WILL have to be written off as a total loss. Already has been, I bet.

You make such grand assumptions. Yes, I've survived hurricane flooding. Agnes in 1973. I won't bother with details. I'm not worried about buildings crumbling. Nobody's stealing buildings. And I'm not asking the government to divert personnel from rescues, victim recoveries, securing property, and repairing roads and utilities. I'm not demanding divisions of National Guard troops around shopping malls. I'm saying that the looting is wrong, and should stop. I'm not worried about Wal-Mart, but I am concerned about the small shopkeeper, the Mom and Pop storeowners, the independent jeweler, gunsmith or electronics merchant with goods that aren't damaged, won't be damaged (if left alone) and have value to their rightful owners. The people who give a community it's soul, personality and economic viability. If you think these people have already contacted insurance companies, and the companies have already decided to fund the writeoff of entire inventories, you have obviously never dealt with insurance companies. Those people will have to fight for every dime they end up getting. And do you mean to tell me that nonperishable goods above the waterline will spontaneously decay anyway? Not very likely. Give the storeowners the benefit of the doubt. Anyway, you can bet that the perps ripping off these working class stores are avoiding the waterlogged stock and stealing only the goods they think are worth stealing. Just how dumb do you think they are? Merchants of modest means in the flood zone will be trying to salvage everything they can in an effort to save their businesses and keep their lives together. Putting the comfort and welfare of ripoff jerks above the lives of independent small time store owners is disgraceful.

If a stolen necklace buys some poor person a boatride out, or a bottle of clean water (because the criminal element always wind up controlling such desperately needed things), then I have no goddamn right to stand here on terra firma and say anything against it. If the greediest and most criminal concentrate on looting stores ('cause that's where most of the stuff is), in preference to robbing my aunt of whatever supplies she's managed to hang on to (assuming she's still alive), then it is absolutely worth it to allow the looting to continue. Sometimes, Property just has to take a back seat to the right to live. This is one of those times.

You have GOT to be kidding. Do you think that a gold necklace or a laptop is going to "buy" someone a boat trip out of New Orleans, or a bottle of clean water? Dream on. Anybody craven enough to demand payment for a rescue or a bottle is craven enough to just take whatever you have to offer, especially if they know it's stolen stuff in the first place. Saves them the trouble of bartering a deal, don't you know. Your understanding of (in)human nature is very naive, and could get you in trouble someday. And where is your evidence that malcontents are willing to start breaking into homes, which could very well be occupied by people who don't have uniforms, but do have guns? Most of these cowards, who find it easy to walk off with stuff from a store where there's no armed presence will think twice about breaking into homes where they could get popped. It's already happened. Guns are in a LOT of homes in New Orleans. You MUST know that. Furthermore, and ultimately, this is not an "either/or" debate. It's wrong to rob a store. It's wrong to rob your aunt or my friends, too. There are no degrees. There are no shades of gray. Your moral relativism is appalling.

Go to your room.

[NorthernSpy]

105. sigh...

I'm not worried about buildings crumbling. Nobody's stealing buildings.

I knew it! Way, way before my time though that was, but Agnes nothing! You really haven't seen what happens to a building that is abandoned for a long stretch of time in a flood zone.

Buildings crumble -- if only at the seams. Rats and mice get in and spoil the cartons (you'd be amazed how soon the gnawing starts and how extensive the damage is). Mold grows on everything -- especially in such hot, damp conditions as those of New Orleans. Rain gets in. Insects everywhere and in everything. End result? The goods are spoiled.

Give the storeowners the benefit of the doubt.

I am going to give the most desperate -- those currently trying to get out alive -- the benefit of the doubt. Your kind never has, and never will.

Merchants of modest means in the flood zone will be trying to salvage everything they can in an effort to save their businesses and keep their lives together. Putting the comfort and welfare of ripoff jerks above the lives of independent small time store owners is disgraceful.

And people of no means whatsoever are at this moment engaged in a REAL life and death struggle. They are prey to many things, including the predatory criminal element. If the availability of shop goods draws the attention of the criminals away from the survivors, then thank fate for small mercies. If any of the goods in these stores help these poor people to stay alive, then thank heaven for that too.

You have GOT to be kidding. Do you think that a gold necklace or a laptop is going to "buy" someone a boat trip out of New Orleans, or a bottle of clean water? Dream on.

Such informal commerce networks always spring up in war zones -- frequently run by the same persons who run the local drug trade. Robbery does occur in these exchanges, but not often enough to end all such trade.

It's wrong to rob a store. It's wrong to rob your aunt or my friends, too. There are no degrees. There are no shades of gray. Your moral relativism is appalling.

Ah, very tricky of you! I've made it clear that I haven't included robbery, or even theft-without-violence from homes, in my argument concerning the circumstances under which it may be permissible to appropriate salvaged shop merchandise. Your lack of honesty on this point is, well, at least striking -- if not quite surprising enough to appall.

Anybody craven enough to demand payment for a rescue or a bottle is craven enough to just take whatever you have to offer, especially if they know it's stolen stuff in the first place.

Craven means 'cowardly', not 'criminal'. Go to YOUR room, mister! And take a dictionary with you.

[ovidsen]

106. Why do you justify the unjustifiable?

Your rationzalizations for stealing are just that. Rationalizations. There is no excuse for stealing TVs, jewelry or computers. You can't eat them, drink them, they won't keep you dry, and there is no evidence of a developing barter system in New Orleans on the scope of "I'll trade you two plasma screens for a ride to dry land". Your attempts to legitimize all thefts, or even most thefts, on the basis that they are needed to survive are untenable. It's mostly selfishness and greed, pure and simple. Go back to your cave.

[NorthernSpy]

107. simply this: I disagree with you

And I disagree with you because the preservation of life IS more important than the preservation of WalMart.

You give shop merchandise the benefit of the doubt. I give the survival of desperate human beings the benefit of the doubt.

[ovidsen]

108. The preservation of life has nothing to do with stealing.

If you could show me how stealing a laptop or an iPod or a necklace sustains human life, and that this, and not greed, is what motivates the New Orleans pillagers, I would agree with you. But you can't. And don't lay that WalMart jive on me. I've already said I don't care about WalMart. We will just have to agree to disagree. Peace.

[NorthernSpy]

109. I did explain it to you, and your response was...

... a classic appeal to personal disbelief. I say that the situation in New Orleans is so dire, and so far from even remotely normal, that I cannot condemn as crimes some acts that ordinarily would be. As I've also said, that does not mean that no act under these conditions constitutes a crime (robbery, other acts of violence, most instances of theft from persons are still criminal, even under such desperate circumstances as these).

And I still wonder why it is that those who left a quarter-million people behind to drown still feel entitled to hand out morality lectures to those who are stuck trying to claw their way out of hell. I think of that abandonment, and I read the reports of looting -- and I have no trouble at all figuring out which is the greater crime.

Two wrongs don't make a right? One wrong doesn't make a right -- especially when it made the second wrong awfully likely. If those who run this country care about their property, then perhaps next time they won't just leave people to fend for themselves in the face of some approaching catastrophe.

[ovidsen]

110. We agree one one thing.

By far the bigger crime here is a White House and federal government that's left hundreds of thousands of people to rot in New Orleans. Maybe we both should step back from what is turning into a peripheral and academic discussion of morality and personal property rights as they play out in an urban anarchy, and focus on the REAL bastards. I still think it's simply wrong to plunder fellow victims in the wake of a disaster. Such behavior just makes a chaotic situation worse for everyone. But I'm not calling for their arrest, much less their summary executions, and at this point I feel that no real purpose can be served by a thrust-and-parry debate over a subject that increasingly seems trivial, and distracts us from the real issue. The Chimp's response to the NO catastrophe is nothing less than a catastrophe itself.

P-S: It's 8:15pm ET, Geraldo's on Faux (I don't usually watch Faux, but... ) and Geraldo is going APESHIT over the situation at the New Orleans Convention Center. He's using words like "catastrophe", "anarchy", "it's gonna blow"... as that asshole O'Reilly tries to calm him down. I hope Faux addicts are getting a real education. All this after the Chimp's flyover visit, too. This situation is truly appalling.

[Autonomy]

69. I've changed my mind, loot all ya want. Damn it's bad down there. nt

[Ron Mexico]

79. Me too, and if anyone tries to stop looters,

just shoot them. All property owners are obviously out of the city because everyone leaves when told to and nobody stays behind to guard their belongings, so anyone who has stayed is in violation of the law and is interfering with just, corrective, long-overdue looting.

[NYC]

80. A pointless acquisition.

You can't even gain information because there's no electricity to plug it in.

On the other hand, the merchandise was going to drown. What's the difference where.

I'm glad the people got some food and beverages. Those were desperately needed.

[Mike Daniels]

37. Any bets as to what the political affiliation of most of the looters are?

It's not just police stealing the luxury items so I don't know what political affiliation has to do with it.

[pocket]

3. so what else is new

cops are the same all over it seems

[uberotto]

5. No, not the same all over...

While there are bad cops everywhere, Louisiana usually ranks at the top of the list for crooked cops.

Not content with having the most corrupt police force in the country, Louisiana also likes to employ an unusually large number of crooked judges.

[mitchum]

16. You are absolutely correct about N.O. cops...

I have a friend who "wound up" in the Navy as a result of slugging a N.O. cop when he was 18. While he found his military hitch to be a miserable experience, he is well aware that he was lucky to not be killed. For years, N.O. always had the highest number of cops under indictment for criminal activity. Even higher than freakin' Miami!

[Barrett808]

17. I've seen footage of security personnel looting

I don't think they were cops, but I could be wrong...

[XanaDUer]

27. And when you're worse than Miami,

that's pretty bad. Miami practically sets the standard for corruption.

[CottonBear]

4. Wal-Mart looting in Jefferson Parish too. People are desperate.

Wal-Mart looting in Jefferson Parish

Police had restored order and regained control of a devastated Wal-Mart store in Jefferson Parish.

Police escorted store officials to survey the damage.

"The situation is not good," said one grim faced store manager, before getting into a police car

http://www.nola.com/newslogs/breakingtp/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/2005_08.html#075161

[psychopomp]

26. Basically, poor people are always desperate

Some just bear with it better than others; I see the theft of non-essential merchandise as a matter of that pent-up desperation released in a mad grab for something in a time of chaos. It doesn't make sense but there is a reason that people act opportunistically in chaotic situations: war, natural and other disasters.

[defiant1]

32. Exactly....

These people lost everything, and now just want something.

Personally I can't imagine being in that situation.

[MasonJar]

6. If the store will be flooded and the food ruined, I do not have a

problem with people taking it. We are talking about possible starvation here. I doubt there are any stores open selling food.

[gate of the sun]

36. exactly really what does it matter at this point

it will all be ruined in a couple of days anyway.....I find the focus on this subject disturbing and later it can be used as a foundation to create the necessary force people to make people leave in the future or to declare Martial Law unnecessarily.

[bribri16]

7. Watch the entire video of this with the sound. They were helping

desperate people.

[Conservativesux]

20. Helping them to jewelery, TV's, DVD's, Walkmans, stereos, ect...

yeah, they sound real desparate to steal what electronics that is not thiers, and not food to eat, which would make sense.

Besides, the power is out so those wont work until it is back.

Looters and thieves !!!

[drmom]

49. Society is reaping what they've sown

These people are OPPRESSED! We all need to learn that by oppressing a group of people, some sort of revolt is inevitable.

[Conservativesux]

57. I feel oppressed with * in office, but stealing for profit is still wrong.

no matter if its the rip-off oil companies, * and his gang of thugs taking oil in Iraq or looters taking non-food items in NO.

Pure theft, plain and simple.

[robertpaulsen]

9. What was his excuse? Did he say something like...

"Stuff happens. Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things".

[Chiyo-chichi]

33. Stuff happens.

There ya go. Exactly what I was thinking.

[despairing optimist]

10. Taking food and water to survive isn't looting. It's an emergency.

But I don't think someone whose house has been leveled needs to cart off a TV and a vacuum cleaner. In two months, when electricity is restored, how many people will be living in tents with 50-inch plasma TVs and no cable?

[fleabert]

11. wal mart's got insurance, i don't feel bad for them one litte tiny bit.

serves the fuckers right, since they steal their workers blind and are a pus filled boil in the world of business operators.

[Conservativesux]

21. Two wrongs dont make a right. Stealing food and supplies to live is

one thing, but carting off with valuable items of no use to a flood victim is pure-d theft.

No excuses here.

[fleabert]

50. I'm not saying it's right, but I understand...

I'm paraphrasing Chris Rock...

[Ron Mexico]

55. You couldn't be more mistaken, unfortunately.

You should see the excuses I've been given on their behalf.

This is the sort of thing that sometimes makes me think that the country doesn't have much of a future no matter who's in charge. The slide into oblivion would be slower with us, but lawlessness is written off so easily these days that we've actually been reduced to this:

"That's wrong, looting."

"They're good people just trying to survive."

"Not all of them, some of them are taking advantage of a tragedy for personal gain."

"Well, that's justified because they're not lucky, this is their one big chance to change their fortune."

I really feel queasy right about now.

[NorthernSpy]

96. tell the truth, please! (if you can figure out how that's done)

You: "Well, that's justified because they're not lucky, this is their one big chance to change their fortune."

Actually, the arguments have been made on very different grounds. People have pointed out that goods that are not salvaged now will most likely be ruined in the disaster, and that the poorest of the survivors are likely to suffer many uncompensated losses and an extended period of unmet dire need. For some in flood zone, the question will come down to salvaging an iPod from a flooded store (to sell later elsewhere for desperately needed funds), or leaving the iPod to the flood (and possibly suffering an extended period of homelessness or other deprivation as a result). Remember: these are people who were refused help in getting out of the danger zone when the storm was approaching. Is it reasonable to expect that they should trust that the authorities will provide adequate help to them now?

[gmoney]

28. Look here...

:nopity:
It's the world's smallest violin playing "Hearts and Flowers" just for WalMart and the insurance industry...

[malaise]

103. This thread is so funny

No banks, no ATMS, no money, no insurance and payday for most of these people was this week. Stores have food and whatever else. People need food, water, clothes, shoes and clearly some are of the view that it's not a bad idea to have something to sell wherever they end up. I've never stolen in my life but I've never been in this situation in my life. I don't know what I'd so but I sure would not be letting my kids starve.

Truthfully I don't give a fuck what they take. I want then taken to safety. What's really immoral here is how they've been treated by their own government. What's really immoral is the price of gas within four days.

People stayed at the Convention Center like decent citizens and noone brought them a damn thing for days. Of course people went out and sought food for their families. Judge not or judge Bush et al. Oh and fuck Frist on CNN as well.
<edit -sp>

[Doremus]

12. Can't find the article at the link you posted n/t

[geckosfeet]

13. When do you start to call it a salvage effort? The city is devastated.

If anyone can salvage anything for use they may as well at this point.

[mknmehappy]

51. If it is not food, water, or clothes....

It is stealing.

[geckosfeet]

52. Why? The water will ruin everything. The city is being abandoned.

Why not save what can be saved.

I understand that you are taking something that does not belong to you. But thats what people do. Its an ownership society eh? Take the oil take the land.... Sorry. I am so angry.

But if you can salvage something and use it for yourself or even for a relief effort it seems better than letting the ocean take it. I would not begrudge someone from taking my things and using them if I had evacuated and my house was going to be flooded and stay flooded for weeks.

[ovidsen]

100. The water is not rising in NO

In fact, it stopped rising Wednesday. This means that all the goods above the waterline stand an excellent chance of being salvageable by their rightful owners. That's the stuff that's now being stolen.

Now, if it were my house, and my computer, TV, soundsystem, jewelry and guns were high and dry on an upper floor, and somebody broke in and stole them, I would be rather pissed.

As for your "(they) take the oil take the land" vent, I own neither. Please don't steal what little I do have.

[NorthernSpy]

102. and now for a little reality...

In fact, it stopped rising Wednesday. This means that all the goods above the waterline stand an excellent chance of being salvageable by their rightful owners. That's the stuff that's now being stolen.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. You simply haven't taken into account the sheer amount of time that this stuff will spend deteriorating in crumbling buildings in a flood zone filled with bodies, raw sewage, and spilled gas. Assuming, of course, that even you wouldn't want to put the rescue of shop merchandise ahead of such things as saving survivors, retrieving bodies, and securing homes.

Seriously, this stuff will be unsellable by the time WalMart is allowed into New Orleans to "rescue" it.

Now, if it were my house, and my computer, TV, soundsystem, jewelry and guns were high and dry on an upper floor, and somebody broke in and stole them, I would be rather pissed.

Yeah, you probably would.

As for your "(they) take the oil take the land" vent, I own neither. Please don't steal what little I do have.

As I was telling the other guy, I am talking about the looting of store merchandise, not robbery from persons. In fact, when the richest veins of loot are secured by the cops, to where do you suppose the criminal element will redirect their attention, hmmm?

[NNN0LHI]

14. I bet the police were just putting the stuff under protective custody...

...to prevent some criminals from getting their hands on it. And I am sure they will return it to its rightful owner as soon as it is safe to do so.

Don

[brentspeak]

15. I can understand some looters taking food and water, but

there's no excuse for making off with TV's and jewels and stereos.

Video of that kind of looting just makes the rest of America less willing to pitch in to the relief effort.

[NorthernSpy]

30. on the other hand, jewellery and such can be sold or pawned for money...

... after getting out of the disaster zone. Perhaps these are people who simply do not believe that they will be helped at all, so they figure they'd better grab whatever they think might help them start over.

My biggest objection to looting (not of food and water from supermarkets -- that's just plain survival) is that it has the effect of endangering lives. The fear of break-ins is KNOWN to prevent people from evacuating before the storm hits. They stay in their houses and apartments, because they figure that if they don't, all their possessions will be gone when they get back. I'm worried that my aunt in New Orleans might have stayed home during Katrina for this reason (though I'm hoping that the she went to the Superdome).

[JoFerret]

111. I think what it reveals

...is the sheer desperation of the situation there. The crazed and lawlessness of those who are impoverished, dispossessed and hopeless. We don't often see the poor and desperate on TV. Now we are and under extreme life or death circumstances. The poor and desperate don't have many opportunites and now - perhaps - in this extreme situation - they see one. Don't know what good the TV's will be to them in a city with no electricity but I don't expect they are thinking too well right now. When you have been abandoned then, perhaps, you behave in an abandoned way.

[Conservativesux]

18. And the police wonder why so many of us have NO respect for them?

Give me a break!!!

Hopefully, when all the damage is cleared and people go home, if they have a home, that is, the NO/LA authorities will take every measure to find these badge-wearing, gun-packing thiefs and criminals and bring them to justice.

[ima_sinnic]

24. Wal Mart got ripped off?

excuse me if I don't give a shit.

[brentspeak]

25. Most of the cops are doing an admirable job

Seriously undermanned and overwhelmed during this crisis, they've shown remarkable restraint dealing with the looting and the chaos. They're allowed to shoot at will in situations like this, but they're not doing so.

[northzax]

38. just as most of the civilian population

is pulling together and helping other people. Shame we only hear about the few who are idiots.

last night I saw footage of a man who stretched out over a gap between to houses so a child could climb over him to safety. That's the image being wiped out by the ciminals, the other people who are putting their own lives at risk to help the even less fortunate.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

31. No National Guard patrols that normally maintain order during disasters

[Romulus]

34. no National Guard? Probably 'cuz they're in IRAQ!!!

:eyes:

Way to go, Rummy!!!

[NorthernSpy]

35. Mad Max beyond Superdome

The authorities can croak about "martial law" all they want to, but I'm getting the impression that they're fast losing control of the city. You're right that Iraq has taken a huge bite out of the NG.

When you come right down to it, humans will do whatever it takes to survive. And if they don't believe that help is coming, then they rapidly proceed to help themselves to whatever they think will make their lives better after they've fled. If that means swiping gold and diamonds to sell later, then I guess that that's just what they'll do.

Maybe next time, the authorities will actually try to get everyone out of the danger zone before the storm hits, rather than just leaving them to drown or to fend for themselves in the aftermath.

[yellowcanine]

40. “The police got all the best stuff." That should be the story line of the

week.

[UofIDem]

41. Yes Walmart got ripped off..

And, as we all know, the looters are looking at the sign as they run in trying to determine if the company is a large corporation that they want to stick it to.

I'm sure people walk by and say, "Oh, wait this store pays a living wage and benefits, we should leave these televisions alone."

Perhaps when this whole thing started, you could argue that people were starving and desperate and they wanted some food and water, fine. Let's open the grocery stores, and let people clean them out,they can even get some medicine and medical supplies from the in-store pharmacy. Televisions, radios, CD's are just greedy people taking stuff for personal benefit. The problem needs to be solved, not only is it wrong, but it creates a larger danger because eventually easy targets are going to run out and then the only people to loot from are the other looters. But again, since the looters are good people and obviously care about others, they are just desperate, I'm sure they will refrain from attacking other people and taking their stuff right there on the street.

<sarcasm off>

[NorthernSpy]

43. and my answer to that is...

.... the same as my answer to another guy upthread a ways.

[UofIDem]

46. True

I suppose your view of the looters depends on which of the two groups you define represent the majority. Personally, I don't think it's the latter. I think many people see this as a way to make a quick buck. Are they doing it on the backs of people who can afford it, maybe, maybe not, but what kind of morality do we have here when argue that people should be the victim of crime simply because they can afford it.

If, as you claim, these are desperate people the question then becomes desperate for what? Being desperate, even for food and water, does not justify stealing electronics, particularly where there is nowhere to sell them and even if there were, no where to buy food with the proceeds. Not to mention that people stealing food and water are pretty much being given a free pass by many, including right-wing radio hosts and their audiences (See poll and commentary on, if you can believe and stomach it, boortz.com)

I'm sorry, but people have no right to other's belongings. This is not an opportunity to help themselves free of charge, this is an opportunity to step on someone else to get ahead. They aren't looting governement stores in retribution for not getting them out of the city, they are destroying, in some cases, years of work by mom and pop to keep their computer repair shop afloat in a world of Best Buy and Circuit City.

It seems to me that many here are so blinded by their hatred of Walmart and Best Buy that they forget that they aren't the only game in town, but they are the only ones that will survive this nonsense.

[NorthernSpy]

53. if property rights were unconditionally respected, what incentive...

... would there be for funding evacuation efforts in the first place? Usually, the affluent can leave the potential danger zone whenever they want. Given a reason to believe that all their wealth will remain sacrosanct and untouchable throughout the disaster, why should they bother with trying to get everyone else out to safety as well? It might well be cheaper just to leave the poorer citizens to -- literally -- sink or swim. In fact, I wouldn't be too surprised if mass evacuation planning got more attention after Katrina -- if only as a strategy to aid business and the affluent in protecting their stuff. If the value of poor people's lives isn't enough of a reason to help the desperate get out of the way of a hurricane, perhaps the threat of property loss will be.

If, as you claim, these are desperate people the question then becomes desperate for what? Being desperate, even for food and water, does not justify stealing electronics, particularly where there is nowhere to sell them and even if there were, no where to buy food with the proceeds.

But it's just not true that valuables such as these won't aid survival. Jewellery and electronics can be sold later, once one has finally found a way out of the disaster zone. And if a person's job and home (possibly un/underinsured) are gone, they know only too well that they'll be needing money, and fast.

I'm sorry, but people have no right to other's belongings. This is not an opportunity to help themselves free of charge, this is an opportunity to step on someone else to get ahead. They aren't looting governement stores in retribution for not getting them out of the city, they are destroying, in some cases, years of work by mom and pop to keep their computer repair shop afloat in a world of Best Buy and Circuit City.

Where survival is an issue, property rights tend to disappear. That's just reality. Property rights are creatures of law, and do not survive in a state of nature. The time to defend property was before the storm hit, before situation had gotten so dire.



(edit: proofread)

[mondo joe]

82. Congratulations. Armed gangs rove the French Quarter. They

have apparently taken your notion to heart that laws no longer exist after the storm.

[NorthernSpy]

90. so my observation was correct, but why the congratulations?

I wanted a full evacuation before the hurricane, because I believed that would save lives and prevent the current chaos.

[mondo joe]

91. I misunderstood at least some of your position. Sorry. n/t

[JoFerret]

112. That was true at the World Trade Center.

...the cops and the firefighters. (A few of them.)

[JPZenger]

44. Walmart Allows Police to Remove Items During a Crisis

Walmart has a corporate policy of allowing police and firefighters to remove items from their stores during a crisis if needed for an emergency. However, they are supposed to keep a list of the items so that they can be paid for later. That does not excuse a police officer stealing a TV set, of course.

If the store was closed, and people really needed food and water, I could understand some looting. But, again, that does not excuse carloads of TV sets.

[Kweli4Real]

45. Slightly off topic, but ...

The media pisses me off ... Does anyone notice a problem with this reporting? Subtle media messages lead to accepted public perceptions.

The Looter

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/480/ladm10208301530


A young man walks through chest deep flood water after looting a grocery store in New Orleans on Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005. Flood waters continue to rise in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina did extensive damage when it made landfall on Monday. (AP Photo/Dave Martin)



The Finder

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/photos_ts_afp/050830071810_shxwaoma_photo1

Two residents wade through chest-deep water after finding bread and soda from a local grocery store after Hurricane Katrina came through the area in New Orleans, Louisiana.(AFP/Getty Images/Chris Graythen)

[UofIDem]

47. That's a great observation....

Took me two times through your message to figure out what you meant, but that is pretty slick.

[soda]

63. i see it now

The first photo is a black guy,so he´s looting those diapers under his arm and the secound photo is of two white people just trying to survive after the terrible disaster the double standard is as clear to me as black and white

[ariesgem]

70. Yep, the way we're portrayed by the media tells it all

NOLA is a complete loss, A WRITE-OFF! :cry:

I'm sick to death with people's fixation on judging the people there who are trying to survive. EVERYONE is capable of looting if they're put under these dire circumstances.

[Scout1071]

86. The 2 NO Police officers they showed looting on MSNBC last night

were just seen by me in another MSNBC video today....still looting.

They were no longer in their uniforms, but I recognized them right off the bat. One was very tall and one was short and portly. I kid you not that I just saw them looting again in their street clothes. They immediately jumped out at me as the 2 Laurel & Hardy characters I saw last night.

[txaslftist]

98. Think a little preplanning and maybe...I dunno, a PLAN...mighta helped?

"nobody could have ever imagined the levies would break..."

[marshall]

113. shocked at the lack of plan

I am shocked at the lack of a plan on the local level to deal with evacuation and then organization of rescue. The governor doesn't know how to get in touch with her people on the ground, all the poor people are told get out, while school buses lay unused in a parking lot that is eventually flooded, and when mayhem starts happening what is an individual police officer supposed to do? There is no place to take a prisoner. Compared to the quick action of the city of Houston there is a stark contrast. Even Galveston has a major evacuation plan that involves comandeering school buses and getting the local poor out.