I have any choice?

Seriously, declaring martial law would make a lot of what I’m suggesting legal.

Also, I don’t understand how it is that you don’t understand what a breakdown in order looting represents. Have you never lived in a bad neighborhood? Looting is violent. It is an act that says, “What’s yours is mine, including your life.”

If government doesn’t have a monopoly on violence (and really, that’s what government ultimately is about: violence, and its uses), then there is no government. And no government leads directly to a Hobbesian existance. THAT’S what we’re seening in New Orleans.

Finally, what good would letting the rescuers have armed escorts do if the armed escorts aren’t permitted to use their arms? Everytime they shoot back they would have to stop, fill out reams of paperwork for an incidence report, be removed from active duty until their cases have been investigated by several local and state authorities, and the cases are reviewed and adjudicated according to the laws of Louisianna? (Which wouldn’t happen here because the court system has been destroyed.) That would be following the letter of the law. Rather than do that, why not just send the rescue crews home, assuming they still have homes?

You seem to think civilization is agreeable and orderly and dictated by law, while I think civilization is the surpression of violence by threat, and use, of greater violence. How and to what ends that threat is used represents the art of governance.

However, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree.

As it is, by letting the situation descend into chaos, hundreds of people are not going to be rescued fom their immediate danger (as I write, boat rescues have been suspended because of violence committed against the rescuers), and thousands more may well die from privation and squalor.

They can’t have armed escorts? I heard about this too, and it’s frightening, but firefighters go into burning buildings to rescue people. I think they should be able to handle this better.

Order has broken down. How do you propose to restore it?

I’ve explained how you restore it. You take the laws and you follow them. If somebody is trying to rob somebody else, you arrest them. If somebody is looting, you arrest them. If somebody is firing a gun at you, you kill them. That’s how it works. Some innocent people will die and some guilty people will get away. But you can’t go around and kill people on imperfect suspicions.

The person pulling the trigger always has discretion. But yes, I am saying shoot looters on the spot unless there is a reason to do otherwise.

We’re simply not going to agree on this. Icepick, your methods would be effective, but against the law. Remember, we have to save as many innocent people as possible, and somebody who is looting a television or jewelry deserves to go to prison, but doesn’t deserve to die. However, if they choose to resist, the powers that be have every right to respond with appropriate force to subdue them, as in any normal situation.

Alright, agree to disagree?

As it is, by letting the situation descend into chaos, hundreds of people are not going to be rescued fom their immediate danger (as I write, boat rescues have been suspended because of violence committed against the rescuers), and thousands more may well die from privation and squalor.

Saying that shooting looters is uncivilized completely ignores the consequences of NOT shooting looters.

And Justin, the law cannot resume where it left off. It left off in a time of normalcy, in a fully populated city. That is gone. In its place is a ruin populated by the poor, the sick, the elderly. And those that don’t give a damn. Order has broken down. How do you propose to restore it?

The law needs to resume the way it left off. Anything else would be playing into the hands of chaos and I think we can all agree that order needs to prevail in this situation.

“They may well need to issue an order to shoot looters on the spot, but given that I’ve read several reports of police looting, even that may not be enough.”

I do not have a problem so much with people looting, as I do with anyone who is using force of any kind to do it. Things certainly have gotten more out of hand than when we first heard that people were stealing diapers and TV’s. However, shooting looters on the spot is more than a little extreme. Civil order has broken down in these areas, and we’re just going to have to get over that. Certainly people who are committing violent crimes need to be stopped, but immediate execution for stealing?

I am assuming you did not literally mean anyone who is looting, no matter what they are taking and whether or not they are enagaging in violent behavior, should be immediately killed. I really thought you made some good points, but I found that comment to be disturbing.

I wrote this post before I heard about the New Orleans shooting.

Fair enough.

However, that doesn’t mean those people were looters.

It doesn’t. However, violence usually goes with looting. It is the breakdown of civil order that is the main worry here. Allowing looting means the government has no authority in those areas. If they have no authority, they can’t do anything to help others. I heard or read a report last night of two police officers getting car jacked. How are they going to help the helpless if they can’t even keep their squad car from getting stolen with them in it?

All your points are well taken and appreciated. I’m not sure that I agree quite yet, as people are still dying everyday. It seems that turning a blind eye to people stealing jewelry might be a good strategy so the police can save lives. I believe the two things can coexist for a while without serious reprecussions.

However many died in NO in the flood, I fear a greater number will die from the health crisis. They HAVE to get everyone out as fast as possible. And to do that, there has to be a semblance of order. They may well need to issue an order to shoot looters on the spot, but given that I’ve read several reports of police looting, even that may not be enough.