• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should the looters be shot site if caught in the act of looting? (1 Viewer)

SHould looters be shot for looting non-essential items?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 44.7%
  • no

    Votes: 21 55.3%

  • Total voters
    38

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Hopefully some moron does not get their panties in a bunch and whines to a mod.


So the the question of this this thread is "Should looters be shot if caught in the act of stealing things other than food or water?


I am going to say yes.These looters need to made examples out of.People need to be taught that you can't be a low life degenerate scumbag during a time of crises and that there will be hell to pay to for being a low life degenerate scumbag.
 
Last edited:
This is America.
The summary execution of Americans is unacceptable behavior.
 
If martial law is declared yes. That was the way it was when I was growing up. The first thing you heard after a hurricane was that the National Guard had arrived and looters would be shot on sight. Guess what, no one ever got shot because no one looted.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
This is America.
The summary execution of Americans is unacceptable behavior.

I'd hate to have some 19-year old Guardsman making the determination as to who is a looter.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
This is America.
The summary execution of Americans is unacceptable behavior.

So is the blatan flouting of the law in a disaster situation. When people are at the most vulnerable is when the scum rises to the top of the pond. If your willing to take advantage of people and situations like this then there doesn't seem to be a whole lot redeeming value within you. And please don't give me the ole two wrongs don't make a right line either
 
I don't believe the punishment fits the crime. The looters are exploiting the situation, but shooting somebody because they stole some jeans or a television set? I think it would cause more chaos if men were given orders to shoot at their discretion. I saw a video of a man with an assault rifle ordering looters to drop the items they had taken. They didn't hesitate.

There are enough national guard down there now to arrest people when needed. That is what should be done.
 
Sorry, but I wont answer this poll, because it is tinged with rascism. No, not calling you a rascist. Am only saying that polls like this come from our perception of what is going on, and that perception has been distorted by the corporate mediawhores.

Sure, there have been a few criminals acting up in New Orleans, but most of whom the networks are calling looters were only searching for food and water. In white areas of Louisiana and neighboring Mississipi, those who did the same were called victims and survivors. I see a huge problem with that uneven portrayal, and therefore cannot answer the poll question for that reason.
 
Looting can be food searching, fresh water searching etc.. I think that to "shoot on sight" looters is something that would be practiced in a dictatorship, not in free society.

To take a human life is a very grave thing. You have to consider that you are ending an existence of one of your peers. Whether or not you believe that you have a moral high ground to do so makes no difference. If one lives under the assumption that a punishment must be harsher than the crime then we may aswell revert to a feudal system...
 
mistermain said:
I don't believe the punishment fits the crime. The looters are exploiting the situation, but shooting somebody because they stole some jeans or a television set? I think it would cause more chaos if men were given orders to shoot at their discretion. I saw a video of a man with an assault rifle ordering looters to drop the items they had taken. They didn't hesitate.

There are enough national guard down there now to arrest people when needed. That is what should be done.

Because hopefully the threat is enough to deter the majority of it.
 
Parmenion said:
Looting can be food searching, fresh water searching etc.. I think that to "shoot on sight" looters is something that would be practiced in a dictatorship, not in free society.

To take a human life is a very grave thing. You have to consider that you are ending an existence of one of your peers. Whether or not you believe that you have a moral high ground to do so makes no difference. If one lives under the assumption that a punishment must be harsher than the crime then we may aswell revert to a feudal system...


I place a difference on looting essentials for survival and stealing TV's and jewlery.
 
Stinger said:
If martial law is declared yes. That was the way it was when I was growing up. The first thing you heard after a hurricane was that the National Guard had arrived and looters would be shot on sight. Guess what, no one ever got shot because no one looted.
I have to agree with this statement. I think that if the consequences are bad enough, then the actions won't take place, i.e. looting. Taking food is one thing; taking a Playstation 2 is something else entirely. Now to comment on the photo from the previous post is hard. I would like to think that in both photos, the people were both "finding" or both "looting". How can anyone determine from a photo what is really happening. We rely on the media to relay this information in, hopefully, an unbiased, factual way. I regret to say that this probably rarely happens. I think we are best left to make our own deductions.
 
Sorry, but I wont answer this poll, because it is tinged with rascism. No, not calling you a rascist. Am only saying that polls like this come from our perception of what is going on, and that perception has been distorted by the corporate mediawhores.

I do not give a **** if someone is black,white or what ever,if someone is exploiting a situation like this by robbing the homes and businesses of people who are away then they need to be shot.To me a scumbag is a scumbag reguardless of race and ethnic origin.

Sure, there have been a few criminals acting up in New Orleans, but most of whom the networks are calling looters were only searching for food and water. In white areas of Louisiana and neighboring Mississipi, those who did the same were called victims and survivors. I see a huge problem with that uneven portrayal, and therefore cannot answer the poll question for that reason.

I do not watch CNN,MSNBC,or FOX.I have not seen those same images that you speak of.

I do not sit here at home thinking "damn black folks always stealing"Since the accusations of racism popped out of your mouth perhaps you are the one who is thinking that.Kind of reminds me of the saying "he who smelled it, delt it".I do not give a **** if it was only white people they showed on tv looting,I would still want them shot on site for looting.If they are carrying something other that food and water from a store that was broken into, then shoot them.
 
Stealing a Playstation or DVD player at a time of crisis is low and nasty, I definitely agree.

Is it deserving of death? No way in Hell.
 
I don't think a 'shoot to kill' order is an appropriate response in 2005 as there are other alternatives. I would normally recommend a taser to stun and then flex-cuff/arrest looters of non-essential merchandise. However with the current flood/water situation, this alternative may not be safe for either the looter or the law enforcement officer. In leiu of this, why not use blue-ammunition (rubber bullets) to force looters from the scene and discourage further criminal activity?


 
Simon W. Moon said:
This is America.
The summary execution of Americans is unacceptable behavior.

Why is it "unacceptable"?
Is looting "aceptable" then?
 
MiamiFlorida said:
I'd hate to have some 19-year old Guardsman making the determination as to who is a looter.

Quite easy to spot. A black man running away with a television is usually a very strong hint!:lol:
 
Sorry, but I wont answer this poll, because it is tinged with rascism. No, not calling you a rascist. Am only saying that polls like this come from our perception of what is going on, and that perception has been distorted by the corporate mediawhores.

The poll does not refer to race. If hundreds of negroes are running around looting other people`s goods and themedia report that why is it so wrong. Would you prefer it if CNN "whiten" the faces of the looters to make the news slightly more palatable for you? Negroes commit crime:deal with it!

Sure, there have been a few criminals acting up in New Orleans, but most of whom the networks are calling looters were only searching for food and water. In white areas of Louisiana and neighboring Mississipi, those who did the same were called victims and survivors. I see a huge problem with that uneven portrayal, and therefore cannot answer the poll question for that reason.[/QUOTE]

So a negro caught with 50 pairs of nappies, electrical goods and booze are "essential" items are they?
 
Parmenion said:
Looting can be food searching, fresh water searching etc.. I think that to "shoot on sight" looters is something that would be practiced in a dictatorship, not in free society.

To take a human life is a very grave thing. You have to consider that you are ending an existence of one of your peers. Whether or not you believe that you have a moral high ground to do so makes no difference. If one lives under the assumption that a punishment must be harsher than the crime then we may aswell revert to a feudal system...

To take worthless lives of thieving scum is a very sensible and worthwhile policy.
 
vergiss said:
Stealing a Playstation or DVD player at a time of crisis is low and nasty, I definitely agree.

Is it deserving of death? No way in Hell.

It would be a salutory lesson well learned. At the end of the day we are only talking about executing scum:why the crocodile tears?
 
Aryan Imperium said:
Quite easy to spot. A black man running away with a television is usually a very strong hint!:lol:

What if it's HIS television?
 
MiamiFlorida said:
What if it's HIS television?
...a very good point indeed. What if it IS his TV? I hope so, because otherwise he is just as low as the other scumbag looters.
 
Yea, most of the people looting, have no morals at all. If it's a necessaity you're looting for like food, or water, then, o.k., I agree with that, but morally bankrupt people are looting TV's, DVD players, and football jersey's.
 
Allowing criminal looting like usualy happens in cities like NYC, L A, or Newark N.J. would be better controled and do less damage if the authorities took a more severe hand.
Newark is still a mess from the Criminal riots of the 60's. New York was saved because of ts size.
 
I don't think a 'shoot to kill' order is an appropriate response in 2005 as there are other alternatives. I would normally recommend a taser to stun and then flex-cuff/arrest looters of non-essential merchandise. However with the current flood/water situation, this alternative may not be safe for either the looter or the law enforcement officer. In leiu of this, why not use blue-ammunition (rubber bullets) to force looters from the scene and discourage further criminal activity?

The way I look at it real ammo instead of blue tips sends more of a direct message to looters.The idea is to make examples out of a few looters,to send the message that behaviing like despicable scum will cost one their life.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom