Shoot Looters (1 Viewer)

[Bodi]

Looters should be shot on sight... shouldn't they?

I think this would be a great deterrent to lawlessness and the destruction of communities...

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Looters should be shot on sight... shouldn't they?

I think this would be a great deterrent to lawlessness and the destruction of communities...

Proof the person was a looter would at least be required. Shooting someone for taking stuff out of their flood damage home would be murder (or the person they paid to do it)

 

[TheGoverness]

Police should shoot looters when it is necessary to do so.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Taking stuff shouldn't carry the death penalty.

 

[bearpoker]

Police should shoot looters when it is necessary to do so.

Whoa Nellie!!! Necessary to do so? Reality Check!!! Exactly who's life is endangered here when some is running off with a TV or a load of bottled water and hot pockets? We're talking about looters, not carjackers.

 

[Bodi]

Proof the person was a looter would at least be required. Shooting someone for taking stuff out of their flood damage home would be murder (or the person they paid to do it)

To clear it up I am referring to people running out of stores with armfuls of things, that kind of stuff.

 

[joG]

Looters should be shot on sight... shouldn't they?

I think this would be a great deterrent to lawlessness and the destruction of communities...

It depends on circumstances, don't you think? Right now it would seem like overkill. But it might disuade many delinquents from ruining their lives for a pair of designer sneakers, of course.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

To clear it up I am referring to people running out of stores with armfuls of things, that kind of stuff.

What about water, should someone looting a case of bottled water be shot?

 

[Bodi]

Taking stuff shouldn't carry the death penalty.

Why not?

 

[joG]

Taking stuff shouldn't carry the death penalty.

That would probably depend on circumstances.

 

[Bodi]

Whoa Nellie!!! Necessary to do so? Reality Check!!! Exactly who's life is endangered here when some is running off with a TV or a load of bottled water and hot pockets? We're talking about looters, not carjackers.

Why shoot a person stealing a car but not hot pockets?

 

[DaveFagan]

Looters should be shot on sight... shouldn't they?

I think this would be a great deterrent to lawlessness and the destruction of communities...

The question is "should they be shot," and doesn't say killed. .22 rifle and shoot them in the legs. Collect them up as convenience allows.
/

 

[Goshin]

'Druther see the owner shoot the looters.

 

[Lutherf]

If someone is committing a robbery incidental to a disaster or a riot or something then they should be captured and prosecuted appropriately. There is no good reason to shoot them merely because of the theft.

If someone is breaking into a home in the course of a disaster or riot then the homeowner should feel free to blow them to kingdom come. A home invasion is a MUCH different type of crime and carries a reasonable presumption that the intent includes violent crime in addition to property crime.

 

[TheGoverness]

To clear it up I am referring to people running out of stores with armfuls of things, that kind of stuff.

Okay, it is not necessary for the police to shoot them in that situation. If they are not directly putting anyone else at risk they should be taken down, not shot. That's overkill.

 

[disneydude]

Death penalty for looting? That's absurd. Why don't we just cut off their hands?

 

[disneydude]

Why not?

You really have to ask? Because the penalty is complete disproportionate to the crime. It would violate the 8th amendment. The better question is; Why do you not support the U.S. Constitution?

 

[TheGoverness]

Whoa Nellie!!! Necessary to do so? Reality Check!!! Exactly who's life is endangered here when some is running off with a TV or a load of bottled water and hot pockets? We're talking about looters, not carjackers.

This is exactly why I said if necessary.

 

[bearpoker]

Why shoot a person stealing a car but not hot pockets?

Lethal weapons may be used in car jackings, so its reasonable for a victim or bystander to think that a life is in danger. Looting is just taking stuff. No weapons involved.

 

[TheGoverness]

Lethal weapons may be used in car jackings, so its reasonable for a victim or bystander to think that a life is in danger. Looting is just taking stuff. No weapons involved.

Lethal weapons can be, and have been, used in lootings.

 

[bearpoker]

The question is "should they be shot," and doesn't say killed. .22 rifle and shoot them in the legs. Collect them up as convenience allows.
/

Would you trust just anyone's aim? "I swear I was aiming at their legs officer. Can't help it if I'm a bad shot. Just ask at the range. They banned me there just last week. Something about pointing up and down range. I donno."

 

[Bodi]

Police should shoot looters when it is necessary to do so.

I agree. It is lawlessness and unacceptable.

 

[bearpoker]

Lethal weapons can be, and have been, used in lootings.

That's not a looting. That's a robbery. Different definition, different animal.

 

[Bodi]

It depends on circumstances, don't you think? Right now it would seem like overkill. But it might disuade many delinquents from ruining their lives for a pair of designer sneakers, of course.

My assumption is that a few people would initially be shot and that everybody else would go, "damn!" and NOT go looting as they learned the lesson.

 

[holbritter]

To clear it up I am referring to people running out of stores with armfuls of things, that kind of stuff.

Shoot them in the legs