yeah, i'm not a big fan of mr. boortz. probably what bothers me most is his infamous claim of being a "libertarian." imho, he's on par with rush.

Posted by gringo on September 1, 2005 09:25 AM Link to comment

Death for petty larceny?

As we've seen over the past couple of days the situation with looters continues to erode. If the looters just took the stuff and moved on, you might look the other way.

But they are not just taking the stuff and moving on. They are now armed, aggressive and a menace to everyone in the area. Reports keep flowing in of "looters" shooting at police, holding up nurses, robbing pharmacies, the evacuation of the Superdome was halted because someone fired shots at the helicopters, firing assualt rifles into police stations, etc., etc.

So what started as simple looting has now transformed into general lawlessness. As I watched the early news reports the cops appeared to be stopping looters and then letting them go. I couldn't help but think that what was happening was that these looters were not being taken off the street, they weren't going to stop, and they would just be bolder next time. If the message "you loot, you die" were delivered in context there would be fewer looters and there would be a serious incentive to get out of New Orleans and be part of the solution vs. part of the problem.

Now lets fast forward a bit. Since there is no power it isn't like these folks are going to be using the stuff they are stealing. Are you going to be a happy camper when you buy a TV from ebay that either doesn't work or has mold in it because it was flooded? How about when you buy a car that has all kinds of mechanical issues because it was in the flooding?

m

Posted by m on September 1, 2005 09:50 AM Link to comment

M, I cannot imagine there being any more incentive to get out of New Orleans than what already exists.

There is a big difference in armed robbery and petty larceny. If a person is caught attempting to rob or steal and is using a gun in the process then killing them on the spot would be justified in my opinion.

Only if they are armed is killing justified. And simply being armed is not justification. If I were in New Orleans right now a fully loaded pistol would be my most important possession.

I saw a policeman on television stick the barrel of a pump shotgun in the face of a teenager and made the guy drop what looked like a handful of shirts.

To hell with that. The police should be working to get people out of there. At that point the looting will stop and how are you going to get all of those televisions you ripped off on that bus going to Houston?

Posted by Buck on September 1, 2005 10:51 AM Link to comment

Buck,

I love the visual of the guy getting on the bus with TV's. Good chuckle.

You would think that people would be more focused on getting out than staying there. Perhaps you have to see it to understand but it seems if I have the ability to wander around and steal stuff, I have the ability to get out.
What type of incentive does it take for these people to decide now might be a good time to leave?

I think I saw the same clip with the pump shotgun. The kid dropped the shirts and policeman let him go. On one hand we agree that killing somebody over a bag of shirts comes across as extreme. On the other, how exactly do you keep people from stealing, keep people from committing armed assault, and get people to leave when you take the kinder, gentler approach? As we're seeing, the answer is that you don't.

m

Posted by m on September 1, 2005 12:21 PM Link to comment

On the other, how exactly do you keep people from stealing, keep people from committing armed assault, and get people to leave when you take the kinder, gentler approach? As we're seeing, the answer is that you don't.

To hell with "kinder, gentler," and other irrelevant appellations.. The reason you don't shoot looters is that there is no justice in it. And, frankly, keeping our sense and system of justice intact is more important than gambling on whether violent overreactions my temporarily halt lawless abuses during times of great crisis.

Posted by smijer on September 1, 2005 12:36 PM Link to comment

I would not worry at all about the stealing. People stealing things would be the farthest thing from my mind. As far as stealing is concerned I would smile and say "Go with God".

Armed assault is a different matter. Anybody willing to kill for something must be willing to die for that same thing. If there are armed gangs roaming the streets and creating havoc then the law, the military and private individuals are, in my opinion, justified to shoot them if they are threatened by them.

I am a firm believer in self defense and the right to bear arms.

keeping our sense and system of justice intact is more important than gambling on whether violent overreactions may temporarily halt lawless abuses during times of great crisis.

I agree up to a point. It depends on how lawless those abuses are getting. Theft in New Orleans right now is practically meaningless in my opinion. Armed thugs roaming the streets and creating havoc are not to be tolerated.

These reports of armed thugs roaming the streets could easily turn out to be hyperbolic reporting. I don't know how sure we are that it is even actually happening. But if it is happening it must be stopped.

Posted by Buck on September 1, 2005 02:59 PM Link to comment

I agree up to a point. It depends on how lawless those abuses are getting. Theft in New Orleans right now is practically meaningless in my opinion. Armed thugs roaming the streets and creating havoc are not to be tolerated.

Of course not... but, of course, enough police and guard should be provided that "shoot on sight" should not be only workable M.O. for taking care of it. Justice sometimes does demand a lot of work.

Posted by smijer on September 1, 2005 03:21 PM Link to comment

"Of course not... but, of course, enough police and guard should be provided that "shoot on sight" should not be only workable M.O. for taking care of it." (I don't know how to do that box thingy).

Why shouldn't it be standard M.O.? Why do we need to provide enough police and guard to make people do what they ought to do? What kind of justice is it when you have to decide whether to deal with saving innocent people or convincing criminals to stop being criminals?

m

Posted by m on September 1, 2005 04:55 PM Link to comment

Again, you have to define "criminal". Do I shoot a guy with an armload of shirts? Personally I would not do that even if I were ordered to.

I do not like the shoot on site order. Just as an example remember what happened to the Brazilian guy that was simply trying to catch a train in London? He wound up with 5 bullets in his head.

Determining who is criminal and who is innocent can be a difficult process. Unless an officer is threatened he should avoid the use of his weapon. In the New Orleans situation it is my opinion that it is preferable to let 1,000 looters loot than it is to shoot and kill one innocent person.

And again, we are still not absolutely sure how bad the looting actually is.

Posted by Buck on September 1, 2005 05:25 PM Link to comment

Why shouldn't it be standard M.O.?

Because you don't want yourself or family killed by soldiers just because the police believe someone is part of a marauding gang... Or to settle a personal grudge, because the police know there is no system of justice to hold them accountable.

Why do we need to provide enough police and guard to make people do what they ought to do?

Because the alternatives are chaos or grave injustice.

What kind of justice is it when you have to decide whether to deal with saving innocent people or convincing criminals to stop being criminals?

Leaving murderers to roam free isn't going to save innocent people. Murdering the innocent and guilty together also doesn't do much to save innocent people. So justice is served by not just "saving" innocent people, but providing for their protection lawfully.

Posted by smijer on September 1, 2005 05:34 PM Link to comment

Smijer,

You are making this to hard. I didn't say shoot random people that _maybe_ part of a marauding gang.

Do you prefer chaos or grave injustice? I am curious why is it gravely unjust to deter people from breaking the law.

"Leaving murderers to roam free ..."

Again....pick one. If you provide sufficient deterent to start with perhaps you don't have to transfer 1500 officers from search and rescue operations to providing security (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-5249697,00.html).

m

Posted by m on September 1, 2005 10:24 PM Link to comment

Buck,

Maybe the Brazillian guy is perfect example of why we are looking at this topic from different views:
- There have just been a rash of bombings in London.
- A guy leaves a house that is under surveillance for connections with the bombings.
- The guy is wearing a heavy coat in the middle of summer
- When told to stop the guy runs away and attempts to evade police.
- The police know that if they do not shoot to kill and the guy detonates explosives they are going to die. Other innocent bystanders could also be hurt or killed.
- The police shoot to kill.

Seems like a perfectly rational and appropriate response.

The argument you and smijer are making is that the approach that has been used in New Orleans is the approach that should have been used. I haven't heard any instances where the police have used deadly force to stop looters for simply looting.

I am suggesting that this approach is exactly the approach that allows the situation to deteriorate from people doing the right things, to people stealing other peoples stuff, to people killing for other peoples stuff.

m

Posted by m on September 1, 2005 10:49 PM Link to comment

You are making this to hard. I didn't say shoot random people that _maybe_ part of a marauding gang.

Of course you did. You said shoot "on sight"... That means shoot based on appearances, not on conviction by a jury.

You aren't putting yourself in the situation. If I'm in NO right now chances are I'm armed and with a group of other armed individuals, for to keep myself and family safe until they can get out. You're a good cop. Do you shoot me on sight?

Now you're a bad cop. You have orders to shoot marauders on sight. You happen to notice me, and there's something you don't like about me: the color of my skin, the fact that I stole your girlfriend in 92, whatever. What keeps you from shooting this "marauder" on sight?

If you provide sufficient deterent to start with perhaps you don't have to transfer 1500 officers from search and rescue operations to providing security

But who says that summary execution is a deterrent? Maybe it's just going to cause escalation... Maybe it's just going to put police lives in more danger because who is going to stand around and get take a chance on getting shot if they have the option of shooting first?

Posted by smijer on September 2, 2005 06:40 AM Link to comment

Smijer,

Sorry but that is not what I said. I said that it was reasonable to shoot people that were obviously breaking the law.

I am putting myself in the situation. If I am in NO right now I am focusing on one of two things: either working to get my family out or working to help those who can't get out. Nowhere in my situation is either a need or desire to steal a new plasma TV or 80 pairs of sneakers. Nowhere is there a need to further destroy somebody else's propery just for the hell of it. I also have no need to shoot at the rescue helicopters, commit rape, or assault other people in need of rescue.

You are absolutely right about not knowing that imposing martial law and allowing deadly force to be used to prevent general lawlessness would change the situation. But we do know that the approach you are endorsing is the approach that has been used and it has led to the situation we are in now.

m

Posted by m on September 2, 2005 08:17 AM Link to comment

But we do know that the approach you are endorsing is the approach that has been used and it has led to the situation we are in now.

I'm not endorsing an approach, except to bring enough people in to do the thing right, which may be beginning to happen. I'm opposing an approach on the grounds of its inherent injustice.

"Breaking the law" is not a shooting offense. A plasma tv is not worth someone's life, even if they are pigs for choosing to steal it instead of doing something constructive. If you come into a situation where lives are at stake, you have to make a judgement call and shoot in self-defense or in defense of others. But summary execution of "offenders" is not a viable answer.

Posted by smijer on September 2, 2005 01:28 PM Link to comment

Maybe the Brazillian guy is perfect example of why we are looking at this topic from different views: - There have just been a rash of bombings in London. - A guy leaves a house that is under surveillance for connections with the bombings. - The guy is wearing a heavy coat in the middle of summer - When told to stop the guy runs away and attempts to evade police. - The police know that if they do not shoot to kill and the guy detonates explosives they are going to die. Other innocent bystanders could also be hurt or killed. - The police shoot to kill.

Seems like a perfectly rational and appropriate response.

You are aware now that the guy did not run, did not wear a heavy coat and that police never identified themselves to him?

The response could have been considered rational and appropriate had the situation been as described by the police. It was not.

Plasma TV's, sneakers, boomboxes. To hell with all of it. As long as these marauders are not threatening anybody with physical harm let them splash around in the water all the want.

I think there are bigger fish to fry in New Orleans right now.

Posted by Buck on September 6, 2005 10:32 AM Link to comment

Buck,

Thanks for the followup. Actually I was not aware that the events surrounding Menezes were not as originally portrayed. Smijer, I suppose a thank you is in order for letting me prove your point :-).

m

Posted by m on September 9, 2005 08:33 AM Link to comment