Looters in disasters

[freyasman]

Should they be shot?

Depends on the situation and the circumstances. But just the fact that there is looting going on in, or just after, a disaster implies that either the professional LE services are out of commission or are at least too busy elsewhere to address it. And most people have neither the training or the resources to detain, take into custody, gather evidence, and hold a suspected criminal until LE is back up and functioning..... so what else are they going to do to address the looting? Shooting them or hanging them is probably the only reasonable way to stop the looting under the circumstances.
(Pro-tip folks; LE exists more to protect suspected criminals from us, than it does to protect people from criminals.)

 

[redtide]

Right? I mean, what is a good Christian to do? Everyone knows Jesus preached that possessions are more important than a life, duh!

Actually Jesus always preaches that I should not keep my grass so short in the summer time as it will burn out the roots. just sayin

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

Right? I mean, what is a good Christian to do? Everyone knows Jesus preached that possessions are more important than a life, duh!

Luke 11:21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe.

 

[Boltlady]

So this is what passes for justice in the Trump era? Shoot on sight?
To my knowledge, the rules of engagement of our troops in Afghanistan are more restrictive than that.

See this is one of the big things wrong with a lot of you people. You assume way too much. Nobody said to shoot them on sight. We believe in the rule of law. First you have to prove they are looters. Then you shoot them.

 

[Boltlady]

Right? I mean, what is a good Christian to do? Everyone knows Jesus preached that possessions are more important than a life, duh!

Maybe it depends on how low that life is.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

Depends on the situation and the circumstances. But just the fact that there is looting going on in, or just after, a disaster implies that either the professional LE services are out of commission or are at least too busy elsewhere to address it. And most people have neither the training or the resources to detain, take into custody, gather evidence, and hold a suspected criminal until LE is back up and functioning..... so what else are they going to do to address the looting? Shooting them or hanging them is probably the only reasonable way to stop the looting under the circumstances.
(Pro-tip folks; LE exists more to protect suspected criminals from us, than it does to protect people from criminals.)

I agree it depends on the situation food and water take what you and your family need. FLAT SCREEN TV'S DOA

 

[John T]

Should they be shot?

Why are you advocating violence against Democrats?

 

[sear]

"See this is one of the big things wrong with a lot of you people." BL #45

"You people"? Conservatives? I wasn't aware there was anything wrong with conservatives, as a people.

"You assume way too much." BL #45

"Assume" means to accept as true what has not been verified.

What I have accepted as true is, the title of this topic is:

Looters in disasters

And the full text of the lead post is:

Should they be shot?

You accuse me of assuming way too much. I have simply executed on the givens.

"Nobody said to shoot them on sight." BL #45

"Like a rabid dog, on sight." JD #2

"Yes
twice to make sure they are cured" D #3

"Nobody said to shoot them on sight." BL #45

And in these first three posts there are two "winners", and eleven "agrees".

"Nobody said to shoot them on sight." BL #45

You may wish to reconsider your position.

"We believe in the rule of law. First you have to prove they are looters." BL #45

The vague "we" you reference does not include any of the first four posters in this thread.

"Then you shoot them." BL

That's potentially unConstitutional, as might be cruel, or unusual, or both.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

"You people"? Conservatives? I wasn't aware there was anything wrong with conservatives, as a people.

"Assume" means to accept as true what has not been verified.

What I have accepted as true is, the title of this topic is:

Looters in disasters

And the full text of the lead post is:

Should they be shot?

You accuse me of assuming way too much. I have simply executed on the givens.

"Like a rabid dog, on sight." JD #2

"Yes
twice to make sure they are cured" D #3

And in these first three posts there are two "winners", and eleven "agrees".

You may wish to reconsider your position.

The vague "we" you reference does not include any of the first four posters in this thread.

That's potentially unConstitutional, as might be cruel, or unusual, or both.

She was responding to YOU and talking about you and people like you

 

[afella]

During a storm a few years ago my cousin lost his cable. Being a huge NDSU fan, he grabbed his big screen tv after the storm had subsided a bit and ran with it three houses down to a neighbors to watch the rest of the game, this was when it was dark out.

Given the posts in this thread, he should have been DOA for looting. He displayed all of the traits of a person who had just stolen something. This seems to be just another right wing "kill them, though they may be innocent" thread.

 

[JackDallas]

Should they be shot?

Yes, Looters should always be shot first and the TV returned to family from whom it was stolen.

 

[JackDallas]

Ever hear of the United States Constitution?

You may wish to check the due process clause.

Shooting a looter IS due process.
Breaking into a man's house or business and stealing everything he's worked hard for all his life or taking away his means to support himself and feed his family, and having your worthless, thieving ass blown into the neighbor's yard, is an integral part of the process of learning the downside of being a criminal.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So this is what passes for justice in the Trump era? Shoot on sight?
To my knowledge, the rules of engagement of our troops in Afghanistan are more restrictive than that.

Muzzie Zoo up the Kazoo

That's exactly why we are losing there, and why it's been the longest war we've ever "fought."

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Ever hear of the United States Constitution?

You may wish to check the due process clause.

The Uncivilized Do Not Qualify for Civil Rights

Untamed feral beasts getting what is their due is what "due process" means.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

there is proof liberalism is a damn disease and racist

during Katrina the lotters walking knee deep in water with stolen stuffed teddy bears as big as themselves were what...….taking grandmaw a gift at nursing home or stole for Christmas presents...…

you one sick lib........IMO nothing was said of walking down the street...….point was inside flooded business or homes...……..it's why honest people ride out storms to ensure thieves don't rob them...…...

Only Stopping Those Who Turned the Savages Loose Will Put a Stop to Riots

Feral looters rove in gangs, so only being allowed to freely use a counter-assault weapon can put a stop to them.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Are you God?

Spankless Monsters

Spare the rod, and the child thinks he's God.

 

[BobbyT]

Spankless Monsters

Spare the rod, and the child thinks he's God.

I believe Jen is female.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

"You people"? Conservatives? I wasn't aware there was anything wrong with conservatives, as a people.

"Assume" means to accept as true what has not been verified.

What I have accepted as true is, the title of this topic is:

Looters in disasters

And the full text of the lead post is:

Should they be shot?

You accuse me of assuming way too much. I have simply executed on the givens.

"Like a rabid dog, on sight." JD #2

"Yes
twice to make sure they are cured" D #3

And in these first three posts there are two "winners", and eleven "agrees".

You may wish to reconsider your position.

The vague "we" you reference does not include any of the first four posters in this thread.

That's potentially unConstitutional, as might be cruel, or unusual, or both.

This Snow Falls Yellow

If we have a rating sign for Winner, we should have one for Loser, too. A star denotes Winner, so a snowflake should denote Loser.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I believe Jen is female.

If You Want to Be Honest, Leave the "I Believe"

As you well know, I was referring to the spoiled Mamas' Boys here always quoting doormat dogma, not to Jen. Besides, he has traditionally been used for "he or she." The Femininny powers forced us to use "they" instead, which shows how illogical, dysfunctional, and toxic-tongued those bitter Daddies' Girls are.

 

[JackDallas]

"You people"? Conservatives? I wasn't aware there was anything wrong with conservatives, as a people.

"Assume" means to accept as true what has not been verified.

What I have accepted as true is, the title of this topic is:

Looters in disasters

And the full text of the lead post is:

Should they be shot?

You accuse me of assuming way too much. I have simply executed on the givens.

"Like a rabid dog, on sight." JD #2

"Yes
twice to make sure they are cured" D #3

And in these first three posts there are two "winners", and eleven "agrees".

You may wish to reconsider your position.

The vague "we" you reference does not include any of the first four posters in this thread.

That's potentially unConstitutional, as might be cruel, or unusual, or both.

I agree there is nothing inherently wrong with Conservatives, as a people.
Unfortunately I cannot say the same about Leftist Democrats.