Shoot Looters (1 Viewer)

[Bodi]

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

Yes. If they did not leave a note with their phone number or something then yes. Otherwise people will start making all sorts of justifications as to why their stealing is legitimate.

 

[Winchester]

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

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

Only if vigilantes can be shot on sight.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Other - let me do it.

The police should not use deadly force to stop a presumed property crime but should also not stop the property owner from dong so because they are sure that it's their property and not the looter's.

 

[Bodi]

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.
/

That is also a possibility.

 

[Bodi]

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.

Pun or subliminal slip? :lol:

 

[Bodi]

Why don't we just cut off their hands?

That is cruel and unusual...

 

[Bodi]

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?

I do. The government should declare Martial Law. Then it would be Constitutional.

 

[Kobie]

That is cruel and unusual...

But shooting them isn't? The entire premise of this thread is asinine.

And to the "aim for the legs" crowd -- do you guys have any idea how guns work and what they do?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Yes. If they did not leave a note with their phone number or something then yes. Otherwise people will start making all sorts of justifications as to why their stealing is legitimate.

By the time the shooter got inside to check would not the looters have had the chance to get away?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I do. The government should declare Martial Law. Then it would be Constitutional.

That would only allow government forces to shoot looters, not the average person

 

[bearpoker]

That would only allow government forces to shoot looters, not the average person

Well yes. I personally don't want to be in the neighborhood when all the average persons are out shooting looters. Odds are to too great they'll miss and hit me.

 

[vesper]

Gee I am not sure if I agree that looting to people that have been through a horrible disaster and what few possessions they may still have sitting outside on their driveway to either dry out or removed from the home to allow the needed renovations and repairs......only to have folks pull up in their trucks and load up their belonging for a free for all. I think if that was me I would be tempted to shoot the son of a guns that thought so little of me then drag them into the house then call the police. It sure would be tempting.

 

[Cephus]

If they're looting your property and there's no other way to stop them, I have no problem with it. You can't just shoot them at random if you are not personally invested in what they're looting.

 

[Rogue Valley]

With the plethora of cameras everywhere and facial recognition software, there is little compelling reason to shoot looters.

Looting and vigilantism are both illegal.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

I think the national guard and/or military should be deployed in these disaster areas to detour the problem. I would think even the dumbest looter would have second thoughts if their were a couple of armed soldiers standing in front of the store or strip center. Even then I would not give the order to shoot unless they are protecting someone's life. In the big picture a life is far more valuable than whatever merchandise is being taken. Apprehend and detain or let them go.

 

[Bodi]

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.

So you know that no looters are carrying weapons?

I have seen a car jacking that was weaponless...

There goes your theories...

 

[Bodi]

Only if vigilantes can be shot on sight.

Sure... that would be a good idea too... Martial Law is what it is...

 

[Bodi]

By the time the shooter got inside to check would not the looters have had the chance to get away?

That is why I advocate just shooting them... honestly. Looting is completely unacceptable in a civilized society.

 

[Bodi]

That would only allow government forces to shoot looters, not the average person

I don't want average people to be shooting looters... just the cops.

 

[Bodi]

With the plethora of cameras everywhere and facial recognition software, there is little compelling reason to shoot looters.

Looting and vigilantism are both illegal.

What are the arrest rates for post disaster looting?

I would bet 0%

 

[bearpoker]

So you know that no looters are carrying weapons?

I have seen a car jacking that was weaponless...

There goes your theories...

Car jackings involve personal threats by definition. Looting is a grab and run thing, not involving personal confrontation.

 

[Bodi]

Car jackings involve personal threats by definition. Looting is a grab and run thing, not involving personal confrontation.

Yeah... I saw a car jacking that involved a person threat but no weapon. I got it. Your statement was wrong.

 

[Kobie]

That is why I advocate just shooting them... honestly. Looting is completely unacceptable in a civilized society.

So is offing people for property crimes.

 

[Cephus]

That is why I advocate just shooting them... honestly. Looting is completely unacceptable in a civilized society.

Especially when it isn't food they're stealing, they're taking off with TVs and Air Jordans.

 

[Bodi]

So is offing people for property crimes.

Looting is not a property crime... it is a reflection of the breakdown of society.