Shoot Looters (1 Viewer)

[Northern Light]

Then let's just say that Martial LAw should be put into affect during national emergencies... then the cops and military can blast the looters.

Martial law doesn't mean that the cops get to shoot whoever they want or engage in summary executions. They are still bound by protocol and paperwork. Every bullet fired has to be justified. Your idea of martial law is a tyrannical fantasy land that doesn't exist. Martial law is about freeing up resources and rapid mobilization without the usual red tape to slow down the process. It means rapid response. It does not mean lawless government where human rights no longer exist.

I err on the side of the freedoms and liberties of the individual, which means I value the Constitution. A cop who kills someone during martial law is just as liable as under standard conditions. Murder is murder. Sorry to break it to you.

 

[Bodi]

Martial law doesn't mean that the cops get to shoot whoever they want or engage in summary executions. They are still bound by protocol and paperwork. Every bullet fired has to be justified. Your idea of martial law is a tyrannical fantasy land that doesn't exist. Martial law is about freeing up resources and rapid mobilization without the usual red tape to slow down the process. It means rapid response. It does not mean lawless government where human rights no longer exist.

I err on the side of the freedoms and liberties of the individual, which means I value the Constitution. A cop who kills someone during martial law is just as liable as under standard conditions. Murder is murder. Sorry to break it to you.

Shooting looters is a morally justified shooting (and killing if that is the end result).

It is defense against anarchy... something that every democratic society should embrace.

 

[Parrish]

Ya gotta a gun. Why not not take advantage of a situation to use it for what it is intended to do?

 

[Bodi]

Ya gotta a gun. Why not not take advantage of a situation to use it for what it is intended to do?

Target practice? Hunting? War? Skeet shooting?

 

[ashurbanipal]

Shooting looters is a morally justified shooting (and killing if that is the end result).

I'm guessing you've never actually killed another human being. The near-universal refrain from those who have is that the glory and self-righteous congratulatory feeling you think you'll have beforehand doesn't come along, and instead, you feel sick and are left to question your decision in ever-present doubt the rest of your life. Either that, or, as a kind of weird defense mechanism, you become a calloused psychopath incapable of feeling anything.

Killing someone is no joke. Yes, sometimes it has to be done to avoid some greater evil. But looting is not a moral justification for shooting someone. A few people (such as yourself) may think so, but most people's moral intuition runs to the contrary. If you ever find yourself in that situation, and you pull the trigger, it won't be how you think it will be, afterward.

 

[Aristaeus]

Shooting looters is a morally justified shooting (and killing if that is the end result).

Only if you value material possessions over human life (so pretty much every right-wing libertarian/Randroid).

 

[Aristaeus]

I believe that shooting looter would be a lot of lost votes for democrats....so I approve this message.

Nothing better than killing your political opponents, eh? You probably support Trump, given you seem to share similar authoritarian/fascist views. Trump himself said he could shoot somebody and not lose any support. Perhaps he was thinking of shooting people who voted Democrat.

 

[iliveonramen]

They arrested all the looters based off of video?

Probably not all of the looters but they got a decent amount.

 

[Cephus]

I don't accept your racist definition of looters

The left is absurdly racist after all, what do you expect?

 

[Kobie]

The left is absurdly racist after all, what do you expect?

Oh boy, here we go ...

 

[Cephus]

Oh boy, here we go ...

Don't like reality, do you?

 

[Kobie]

Don't like reality, do you?

Please explain how the absurd racism of "the left" manifests itself. This should be good for a few giggles.

 

[cuban smokes]

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

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

considering the source I'm not surprised you would desire to have looters shot on sight by police .......... good luck with that tho' ...........

that is just as stupid assed of an idea as having looters shoot police on sight

 

[Northern Light]

Shooting looters is a morally justified shooting (and killing if that is the end result).

No it isn't, and prior precedent proves this. In every modern riot where cops shot indiscriminately, there were court cases for years. Some cops lost their jobs or worse. You might want to read up on the LA riots as they set the stage for this whole issue.

Sorry but you're just plain wrong.

 

[Bodi]

I'm guessing you've never actually killed another human being. The near-universal refrain from those who have is that the glory and self-righteous congratulatory feeling you think you'll have beforehand doesn't come along, and instead, you feel sick and are left to question your decision in ever-present doubt the rest of your life. Either that, or, as a kind of weird defense mechanism, you become a calloused psychopath incapable of feeling anything.

Killing someone is no joke. Yes, sometimes it has to be done to avoid some greater evil. But looting is not a moral justification for shooting someone. A few people (such as yourself) may think so, but most people's moral intuition runs to the contrary. If you ever find yourself in that situation, and you pull the trigger, it won't be how you think it will be, afterward.

What a strange post. The reason to shoot looters is not to feel good about it.

 

[Bodi]

Only if you value material possessions over human life (so pretty much every right-wing libertarian/Randroid).

Good job turning looting into partisan hackery... :roll:

 

[Bodi]

Probably not all of the looters but they got a decent amount.

Hmmm.. interesting. Didnt know that. Do you have a source?

 

[Bodi]

considering the source I'm not surprised you would desire to have looters shot on sight by police .......... good luck with that tho' ...........

that is just as stupid assed of an idea as having looters shoot police on sight

You think police shooting criminals and criminals shooting police is equal?

:lol:

Holy cow...

 

[Bodi]

No it isn't, and prior precedent proves this. In every modern riot where cops shot indiscriminately, there were court cases for years. Some cops lost their jobs or worse. You might want to read up on the LA riots as they set the stage for this whole issue.

Sorry but you're just plain wrong.

The law would be changed prior making the shootings legal.

 

[Northern Light]

The law would be changed prior making the shootings legal.

What are you even talking about now?

Martial law does not mean summary executions by police. Do you understand?

There is no scenario in the United States, apart from total anarchy and collapse of society, where police can summarily shoot people that they see looting stores. If looters are attacking police, threatening the public, resisting arrest, etc... these are all potential justifications for shooting them. But you don't get to shoot and kill people just because you see them committing a crime. That's a violation of the 4th Amendment and NOT what law enforcement is used for.

How many times does it have to be explained to you? Do you understand the Constitution? There is no scenario wherein your fantasy of killing looters gets a free pass. You may want it to be real, or wish it could be possible, but it's not.

Property owners in high risk areas are responsible for having something called INSURANCE. If you want to talk about property owners shooting looters, under Castle Law, then that's a totally different story. My issue with you is that you're promoting something that police CANNOT and SHOULD NOT do. You are wrong.

 

[Bodi]

What are you even talking about now?

Martial law does not mean summary executions by police. Do you understand?

There is no scenario in the United States, apart from total anarchy and collapse of society, where police can summarily shoot people that they see looting stores. If looters are attacking police, threatening the public, resisting arrest, etc... these are all potential justifications for shooting them. But you don't get to shoot and kill people just because you see them committing a crime. That's a violation of the 4th Amendment and NOT what law enforcement is used for.

How many times does it have to be explained to you? Do you understand the Constitution? There is no scenario wherein your fantasy of killing looters gets a free pass. You may want it to be real, or wish it could be possible, but it's not.

Property owners in high risk areas are responsible for having something called INSURANCE. If you want to talk about property owners shooting looters, under Castle Law, then that's a totally different story. My issue with you is that you're promoting something that police CANNOT and SHOULD NOT do. You are wrong.

This whole thing is a hypothetical about "what should happen" and in that hypothetical police would be granted the power to shoot looters.

Pretty basic concept.

 

[ashurbanipal]

What a strange post. The reason to shoot looters is not to feel good about it.

I'm sure you find it strange. There is no moral or ethical ground for shooting looters. The reason you would feel bad afterward is because you'd recognize exactly that.

 

[Bodi]

I'm sure you find it strange. There is no moral or ethical ground for shooting looters. The reason you would feel bad afterward is because you'd recognize exactly that.

My argument has nothing to do with the morality of shooting people for the sake of shooting people and everything to do with a consequence to an action. I don't feel good giving my kid a time out... but I do it anyway because it is the consequence to an action that is deemed unacceptable. Consequently... your attempt to factor in how one would feel about shooting a person is irrelevant and a Straw Man.

 

[devildavid]

It isn't just "stealing" like a person is taking a pack of gum.

It is a moral breakdown of society.

Moral breakdown of society is not a legal term.

It is a temporary situation brought on by a natural disaster and will always happen as long as our society has people who take advantage of these situations. After things return to normal the moral breakdown of society will magically disappear. Letting law enforcement shoot suspects on sight will not create a moral society.

 

[Bodi]

Moral breakdown of society is not a legal term.

Correct. So what?

It is a temporary situation brought on by a natural disaster and will always happen as long as our society has people who take advantage of these situations. After things return to normal the moral breakdown of society will magically disappear. Letting law enforcement shoot suspects on sight will not create a moral society.

Shooting the looters is not an attempt to create a moral society. It is to punish looters...