happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,900
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 11:50:28 GMT -5
Post by happyhoix on Oct 30, 2012 11:50:28 GMT -5
I'm hoping that people will behave better than they do in the south when this happens. . But if they choose not to, well, that's what being armed is for. I have no issue with replacing a tv, either, but would feel that I'm doing the community as a whole a favor by removing an anti-social person from the planet. Umm, wait, what? Why are you singling out the south as behaving badly? Sure we had some guys who showed up to pull copper wiring out of destroyed houses after our big tornado event, but we had WAY more people show up with saws and gloves and shovels to help clean up. We also had the guy who thought the power was out at the substation and electrocuted himself trying to steal the wiring - that was just good karma. I don't think we're different from any other region of the country, when it comes to our ratio of shitty people to helpful people, though.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 15:57:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 12:14:43 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2012 12:14:43 GMT -5
I thought it was common to warn that looters would be shot on sight? (By the authorities- not Joe Castlelaw) After the storm of 1978 our coast was torn up pretty bad. The state deployed National Guard troops to the beach area, and it was broadcast that looters would indeed be shot on sight. It seemed to me to be an over reaction in that case, as there were no looters. Of course that proclamation could have desuaded a few. In Canada "We have authority by martial law to shoot looters"
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 12:17:35 GMT -5
Post by milee on Oct 30, 2012 12:17:35 GMT -5
I thought it was common to warn that looters would be shot on sight? (By the authorities- not Joe Castlelaw) After the storm of 1978 our coast was torn up pretty bad. The state deployed National Guard troops to the beach area, and it was broadcast that looters would indeed be shot on sight. It seemed to me to be an over reaction in that case, as there were no looters. Of course that proclamation could have desuaded a few. The idea of using a threat as deterrence is a good one. For example, around here there is the belief that a pump action shotgun is the best home defense. Not because you'd necessarily shoot someone, but the sound of a shotgun being racked is instantly recognizable and a huge deterrent to any would-be intruder. If the threat of shooting looters keeps people behaving during a temporarily vulnerable situation, that seems a reasonable way to keep things under control without using actual violence. It's the actual shooting that I would object to.
|
|
Abby Normal
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 12:31:49 GMT -5
Posts: 3,501
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 12:30:55 GMT -5
Post by Abby Normal on Oct 30, 2012 12:30:55 GMT -5
It's the actual shooting that I would object to. So, a warning shot right over their heads is ok? just don't hit them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 15:57:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 12:34:03 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2012 12:34:03 GMT -5
It's the actual shooting that I would object to. So, a warning shot right over their heads is ok? just don't hit them. Aim low, shoot their legs out from under them.
|
|
PK Bucko
Junior Associate
Joined: Aug 29, 2011 9:06:37 GMT -5
Posts: 5,098
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 12:37:56 GMT -5
Post by PK Bucko on Oct 30, 2012 12:37:56 GMT -5
I thought it was common to warn that looters would be shot on sight? (By the authorities- not Joe Castlelaw) After the storm of 1978 our coast was torn up pretty bad. The state deployed National Guard troops to the beach area, and it was broadcast that looters would indeed be shot on sight. It seemed to me to be an over reaction in that case, as there were no looters. Of course that proclamation could have desuaded a few. The idea of using a threat as deterrence is a good one. For example, around here there is the belief that a pump action shotgun is the best home defense. Not because you'd necessarily shoot someone, but the sound of a shotgun being racked is instantly recognizable and a huge deterrent to any would-be intruder. If the threat of shooting looters keeps people behaving during a temporarily vulnerable situation, that seems a reasonable way to keep things under control without using actual violence. It's the actual shooting that I would object to. I cannot make up my mind if you're serious about this. A threat is no good unless you're willing to make good on it. The threat of actual/real/death is what makes the threat viable. Shoot the bastards.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 12:38:27 GMT -5
Post by zibazinski on Oct 30, 2012 12:38:27 GMT -5
I'm thinking New Orleans. I have no guilty feelings about offing a criminal at all. Wouldn't cause me another thought. They chose a bad path and got what's coming to them and as for their families, it's always amazing how these mommas cry about their babies dying but did nothing to raise them correctly.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 12:43:19 GMT -5
Post by milee on Oct 30, 2012 12:43:19 GMT -5
The idea of using a threat as deterrence is a good one. For example, around here there is the belief that a pump action shotgun is the best home defense. Not because you'd necessarily shoot someone, but the sound of a shotgun being racked is instantly recognizable and a huge deterrent to any would-be intruder. If the threat of shooting looters keeps people behaving during a temporarily vulnerable situation, that seems a reasonable way to keep things under control without using actual violence. It's the actual shooting that I would object to. I cannot make up my mind if you're serious about this. A threat is no good unless you're willing to make good on it. The threat of actual/real/death is what makes the threat viable. Shoot the bastards. I'm very serious. Steve is asking probing questions to determine where our personal beliefs lie on complicated issues. I'm saying it's OK to threaten violence to control a situation like looting (on a very temporary basis, the threat is sufficient to keep law and order, no need to shoot people to demonstrate that you're serious.) Personally, the threat is as far as I'd go, since I do not believe that I would be able to kill someone who was stealing a TV. Diplomacy sometimes involves empty threats to get something you want. Only works in certain short term situations, like looting after a storm, because if the situation continues for long you'd need to be willing to demonstrate follow through to be effective.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 12:43:33 GMT -5
Post by midjd on Oct 30, 2012 12:43:33 GMT -5
I really can't wrap my mind around anyone championing the idea of murdering (and yes, it is still murder) a complete stranger for stealing a TV or similar item.
I guess I just see too many opportunities for senseless tragedy. Not much excuse to be lifting a TV during a hurricane, but diapers? Bottled water? Medicine? Are we really willing to kill someone for these things?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 15:57:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 12:48:02 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2012 12:48:02 GMT -5
I cannot make up my mind if you're serious about this. A threat is no good unless you're willing to make good on it. The threat of actual/real/death is what makes the threat viable. Shoot the bastards. I'm very serious. Steve is asking probing questions to determine where our personal beliefs lie on complicated issues. I'm saying it's OK to threaten violence to control a situation like looting (on a very temporary basis, the threat is sufficient to keep law and order, no need to shoot people to demonstrate that you're serious.) Personally, the threat is as far as I'd go, since I do not believe that I would be able to kill someone who was stealing a TV. Diplomacy sometimes involves empty threats to get something you want. Only works in certain short term situations, like looting after a storm, because if the situation continues for long you'd need to be willing to demonstrate follow through to be effective. umm...there already are laws against stealing property that does not belong to you. I think perhaps looters don't really care about laws. Just a hunch.
|
|
PK Bucko
Junior Associate
Joined: Aug 29, 2011 9:06:37 GMT -5
Posts: 5,098
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 12:48:08 GMT -5
Post by PK Bucko on Oct 30, 2012 12:48:08 GMT -5
This is absurd. I have to believe you're taking this stance just to provoke a reaction.
Empty threats are just that. Empty. And easily recognizable as such.
Given your scenario, what do you do after you've already pointed a gun at somebody and threatened their life and they call your bluff?
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 12:50:16 GMT -5
Post by milee on Oct 30, 2012 12:50:16 GMT -5
This is absurd. I have to believe you're taking this stance just to provoke a reaction. Empty threats are just that. Empty. And easily recognizable as such. Given your scenario, what do you do after you've already pointed a gun at somebody and threatened their life and they call your bluff? I don't plan on pointing a gun at any looters. Leave that to the National Guard. Apparently from what Dem said simply the announcement was enough to control behaviour. No mention of the Guards needing to point the gun. But I'd bet that any potential looters would put the TV down if faced with a gun and a member of the Guard. Not my problem - looters can have my TV as I've already stated.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 15:57:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 12:51:33 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2012 12:51:33 GMT -5
I really can't wrap my mind around anyone championing the idea of murdering (and yes, it is still murder) a complete stranger for stealing a TV or similar item. I guess I just see too many opportunities for senseless tragedy. Not much excuse to be lifting a TV during a hurricane, but diapers? Bottled water? Medicine? Are we really willing to kill someone for these things? I've lived through a riot and watched one unfold not far from me. It seems apparent that if the looting is not stopped it escalates and endangers many innocent people? What about the poor people hiding in the stores and innocent bystanders having objects hurled at them in attempts to break into stores? Shoot the looters!
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 12:52:32 GMT -5
Post by zibazinski on Oct 30, 2012 12:52:32 GMT -5
You didn't have diapers, baby food, water, insulin on hand? Hurricanes take days to get there. You have plenty of time to stock up or to leave.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 12:53:23 GMT -5
Post by midjd on Oct 30, 2012 12:53:23 GMT -5
Wal-Mart reportedly puts plenty of family-owned stores out of business, too. Does that mean we should have the OK to assassinate the Walton family?
|
|
PK Bucko
Junior Associate
Joined: Aug 29, 2011 9:06:37 GMT -5
Posts: 5,098
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 12:54:14 GMT -5
Post by PK Bucko on Oct 30, 2012 12:54:14 GMT -5
This is absurd. I have to believe you're taking this stance just to provoke a reaction. Empty threats are just that. Empty. And easily recognizable as such. Given your scenario, what do you do after you've already pointed a gun at somebody and threatened their life and they call your bluff? I don't plan on pointing a gun at any looters. Leave that to the National Guard. Apparently from what Dem said simply the announcement was enough to control behaviour. No mention of the Guards needing to point the gun. But I'd bet that any potential looters would put the TV down if faced with a gun and a member of the Guard. Not my problem - looters can have my TV as I've already stated. Bank robbers that never actually present a gun, but only say they have a gun are still charged with armed robbery. The reason being that the people being robbed felt their lives were in danger because the criminal said he had a gun. When a person's life is in danger, it's hard to know how they'll react. If you SAY you have a gun to a looter, but you don't actually have a gun, AND the looter does... Well the looter's reaction may well be to shoot you and get out believing that his life was in danger although it never was. That is the danger of hollow threats.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 15:57:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 12:55:20 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2012 12:55:20 GMT -5
Wal-Mart reportedly puts plenty of family-owned stores out of business, too. Does that mean we should have the OK to assassinate the Walton family? When the Waltons break the store windows go in and steal items, ya shoot them. Otherwise its capitalism at work. God Bless America.
|
|
PK Bucko
Junior Associate
Joined: Aug 29, 2011 9:06:37 GMT -5
Posts: 5,098
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 12:56:48 GMT -5
Post by PK Bucko on Oct 30, 2012 12:56:48 GMT -5
Wal-Mart reportedly puts plenty of family-owned stores out of business, too. Does that mean we should have the OK to assassinate the Walton family? Wal Mart didn't put a gun to anybody's head or break any laws to achieve their success. Love em' or hate' em.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 12:57:01 GMT -5
Post by milee on Oct 30, 2012 12:57:01 GMT -5
I don't plan on pointing a gun at any looters. Leave that to the National Guard. Apparently from what Dem said simply the announcement was enough to control behaviour. No mention of the Guards needing to point the gun. But I'd bet that any potential looters would put the TV down if faced with a gun and a member of the Guard. Not my problem - looters can have my TV as I've already stated. Bank robbers that never actually present a gun, but only say they have a gun are still charged with armed robbery. The reason being that the people being robbed felt their lives were in danger because the criminal said he had a gun. When a person's life is in danger, it's hard to know how they'll react. If you SAY you have a gun to a looter, but you don't actually have a gun, AND the looter does... Well the looter's reaction may well be to shoot you and get out believing that his life was in danger although it never was. That is the danger of hollow threats. So your point is that not only should we shoot looters but we should go ahead and shoot them without warning since otherwise they may kill us? And the fact that they might kill us is what justifies killing them without warning?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 15:57:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 12:57:03 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2012 12:57:03 GMT -5
Wal-Mart reportedly puts plenty of family-owned stores out of business, too. Do es that mean we should have the OK to assassinate the Walton family? Capitalism builds, looters destroy. People as smart as you shouldn't make that kind of argument.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 12:58:39 GMT -5
Post by midjd on Oct 30, 2012 12:58:39 GMT -5
There are plenty of non-lethal ways to stop criminals in their tracks (rubber bullets, tear gas, tasers). Why do we have to kill them?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 15:57:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 12:59:44 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2012 12:59:44 GMT -5
Bank robbers that never actually present a gun, but only say they have a gun are still charged with armed robbery. The reason being that the people being robbed felt their lives were in danger because the criminal said he had a gun. When a person's life is in danger, it's hard to know how they'll react. If you SAY you have a gun to a looter, but you don't actually have a gun, AND the looter does... Well the looter's reaction may well be to shoot you and get out believing that his life was in danger although it never was. That is the danger of hollow threats. So your point is that not only should we shoot looters but we should go ahead and shoot them without warning since otherwise they may kill us? And the fact that they might kill us is what justifies killing them without warning? Its about controlling the crowd. An out of control crowd of looters is a dangerous thing. If I was a store owner I would be pissed if the police just sat back and watched my store be looted.
|
|
PK Bucko
Junior Associate
Joined: Aug 29, 2011 9:06:37 GMT -5
Posts: 5,098
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 13:00:11 GMT -5
Post by PK Bucko on Oct 30, 2012 13:00:11 GMT -5
Bank robbers that never actually present a gun, but only say they have a gun are still charged with armed robbery. The reason being that the people being robbed felt their lives were in danger because the criminal said he had a gun. When a person's life is in danger, it's hard to know how they'll react. If you SAY you have a gun to a looter, but you don't actually have a gun, AND the looter does... Well the looter's reaction may well be to shoot you and get out believing that his life was in danger although it never was. That is the danger of hollow threats. So your point is that not only should we shoot looters but we should go ahead and shoot them without warning since otherwise they may kill us? And the fact that they might kill us is what justifies killing them without warning? You remind me of somebody I know... No. Do not ignore the point or put words in my mouth. Read the words as they're typed, not as you wish to interpret them. Warn them if you like, but be ready to act on your threat. Because if you don't, you will likely lose more than just your worldly possessions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 15:57:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 13:00:37 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2012 13:00:37 GMT -5
There are plenty of non-lethal ways to stop criminals in their tracks (rubber bullets, tear gas, tasers). Why do we have to kill them? I'm not saying kill them, just shoot them. Rubber bullets kill too you know. Tasers also kill.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 15:57:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 13:01:19 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2012 13:01:19 GMT -5
So your point is that not only should we shoot looters but we should go ahead and shoot them without warning since otherwise they may kill us? And the fact that they might kill us is what justifies killing them without warning? You remind me of somebody I know... No. Do not ignore the point or put words in my mouth. Read the words as they're typed, not as you wish to interpret them. Warn them if you like, but be ready to act on your threat. Because if you don't, you will likely lose more than just your worldly possessions. ;Dlmao...
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 13:01:36 GMT -5
Post by midjd on Oct 30, 2012 13:01:36 GMT -5
Wal-Mart reportedly puts plenty of family-owned stores out of business, too. Do es that mean we should have the OK to assassinate the Walton family? Capitalism builds, looters destroy. People as smart as you shouldn't make that kind of argument. Well your argument seems to be that all looters destroy family businesses and livelihoods, and this justifies their death. I don't think it's a huge leap to conclude that by this logic, anyone who engages in (illegal) activity that destroys a family business should be killed. Wal-Mart has broken many laws over the years - labor laws, bribery laws, antitrust laws. I find the idea that it should be perfectly fine to murder someone WE view as breaking the law (because our perception is not always reality) to be a little disconcerting, to say the least.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 13:04:21 GMT -5
Post by milee on Oct 30, 2012 13:04:21 GMT -5
So your point is that not only should we shoot looters but we should go ahead and shoot them without warning since otherwise they may kill us? And the fact that they might kill us is what justifies killing them without warning? You remind me of somebody I know... No. Do not ignore the point or put words in my mouth. Read the words as they're typed, not as you wish to interpret them. Warn them if you like, but be ready to act on your threat. Because if you don't, you will likely lose more than just your worldly possessions. OK, let's both take that advice then. Go back and read what I've typed. I've never said I'd threaten a looter with a gun, so that's your interpretation. You are responding to a situation in which I have been clear I will not place myself so it's difficult to respond to your points. If you cannot see the difference in dynamics between dealing with an armed bank robber (or even one who is just claiming to be armed) and dealing with a guy running down the street carrying a TV, we're going to have some difficulty coming to middle ground.
|
|
PK Bucko
Junior Associate
Joined: Aug 29, 2011 9:06:37 GMT -5
Posts: 5,098
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 13:05:37 GMT -5
Post by PK Bucko on Oct 30, 2012 13:05:37 GMT -5
I cannot make up my mind if you're serious about this. A threat is no good unless you're willing to make good on it. The threat of actual/real/death is what makes the threat viable. Shoot the bastards. I'm very serious. Steve is asking probing questions to determine where our personal beliefs lie on complicated issues. I'm saying it's OK to threaten violence to control a situation like looting (on a very temporary basis, the threat is sufficient to keep law and order, no need to shoot people to demonstrate that you're serious.) Personally, the threat is as far as I'd go, since I do not believe that I would be able to kill someone who was stealing a TV. Diplomacy sometimes involves empty threats to get something you want. Only works in certain short term situations, like looting after a storm, because if the situation continues for long you'd need to be willing to demonstrate follow through to be effective. So you're saying these are not your words?
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 13:06:22 GMT -5
Post by midjd on Oct 30, 2012 13:06:22 GMT -5
Where did Milee write "gun" in that post? I'm not seeing it.
|
|
PK Bucko
Junior Associate
Joined: Aug 29, 2011 9:06:37 GMT -5
Posts: 5,098
|
Looting
Oct 30, 2012 13:07:33 GMT -5
Post by PK Bucko on Oct 30, 2012 13:07:33 GMT -5
Where did Milee write "gun" in that post? I'm not seeing it. How is it you would threaten somebody with any real expectation of effectiveness? "Stop! Or I'll say stop again!" LOL
|
|