Should catastrophic events be a reason to ingore the rule of law?

[Robace252]

After reading another post I thought it would be a good question and to me it is a question because I for one am confused and maybe thats normal in a time like this. Here is the whole question I would like for any and all readers to reply to:
Should we justify to ourselves that a catastrophic event such as Katrina should adjust all of our morals and allow bedlam rule, is such an event justifiable means to allow law and order to be simply swept under the rug in the name of humanity or should we feel that theft under any circumstances is wrong and should be dealt with as if it were not during such an event.
And Im am sympathetic to these people I was there, but anyway you slice it the correct term no matter what the circumstance is theft. You take something you did not pay for, and not given to you by someone it is theft.

Again I am confused by this. Why in one place like New Orleans do people break into stores to obtain needed items (such as food, water and clothing) and also non-needed items (Jewerly, TV's, Rims for cars) but down the coast in Mississippi where the devestation is as bad or worse (no homes but no flooding) do these same things do not take place.
My view is not an opinion I was in these coastal towns in Mississippi and saw the stores, and though the windows we broken from the storm, the inventory was intact. Should those people now think, sheesh we should have taken some supplies to since it was justifiable and what will happen in future events now that it would seem that its justifable to take. Again I will say I am confused because I think taking food, shoes, diapers, water..heck even beer I think is okay because at least its liquid is actually OK but even that now seems a little diffrent when I see people in the same situation not take such items. I dont know, maybe some of my fellow members can help shed some light. Im not asking anyone to tell me what to think I meerly would like to see all sides of a discussion and then see how I feel after reading them.
Thanks Everyone....and please give, Im probally going to go down again next weekend.

[General Zod]

If someone breaks into a store for water,food,clothes or other neccesities for basic survival,I can see that But when a bunch of fools break into stores and steal firearms,electronic goods and other stuff not needed for survival until help and rescue arrives.......... Then they should be shot

There is no need for a lot of that looting Hell,some of those looters and gangs were,or still are shooting at the rescuers There is no excuse for that

I heard on an XM Radio news channel,CNN I think,that one police officer came right out and said that looters should be shot on site Then put a toe tag on them that says looter

The above is my opinion I am sure someone will come in and say how wrong I am Personally I could care less For the most part there is no excuse for looting Unless it's for food,water medicine etc

[isabeau]

dang robace now this is a dilemma. stealing is stealing in the eyes of the law. but if i were down there and i had children who had no food or water or even clothes, i cannot say what i would do in the same situation. i can understand the desparation which must be going thru these parent's minds or anyone who is facing starving. but since you say they are not doing that in mississippi makes me wonder. who is right and who is wrong? times like these bring out the best and worst in people. i havent the foggiest idea how i would react in similar circumstances, never having to face such a nightmare. we were flooded in our basement last fall when we got the remnants of hurricane ivan and our sumppump broke. we lost our furnace and my moms christmas decorations but of course that doesnt compare to what these people face. i honestly am not sure if we should forego the laws however this i will say (and this is just my opinion) if i were a store owner in new orleans i believe i would have handed out anything that people would need, therefore making looting unnecessary at least to those people who would live near the store. that might seem unrealistic, but i believe that is what i would do.

isabeau

[BOFH666]

I think there's three main things to consider here:

1) Relative crime rates between New Orleans and the areas you're comparing it to. New Orleans had something like ten times the national average when it came to violent crime. This is a city where, after police fired several hundred blanks into the air as a test, no-one reported anything unusual. Same goes for drug use, junkies looking for a hit aren't going to be the most rational people around.

2) Poverty rates between New Orleans and the areas you're comparing it to. I can't find an exact figure but estimates range from over a quarter to under a third of all of New Orleans residents were below the poverty line. For those people the need to find food and water is likely to be more urgent as they're likely to be underfed at the best of times.

3) Mob mentality. When you have 20,000 people crowded together in the middle of a disaster like this who have the sense of being abandoned things are going to get very bad, very quickly. It's very different when you're on your own or in a small group, when you see thousands upon thousands of people around you and no-one seems to know you exist it's very easy for panic to set in, especially if there's a voice in the back of your mind saying that the powers that be wouldn't mind if you did die as they don't care about the poor at the best of times.

There are other questions that we won't know the answers to for weeks, if ever. For example, in those towns that got hit hard where those who couldn't get out stayed at home rather than go somewhere like the Superdome, how many of the poorest and / or criminal elements where killed in the hurricane? Were those that stayed in their homes better stocked with supplies? What is the psychological impact of mass flooding versus hurricane damage that many involved have probably seen before, if not in person then in the news?

Oh, and I don't call taking food, water, and other supplies from the wreckage of New Orleans theft, I call it survival. Damn straight if I were in that situation I'd be grabbing what I could too.

[Cosmo_ac]

If the government is failling to provide for the people, then the people must provide for themselves. Simply put, those stores have food and water these people need, and since the government can't get those supplies to them for whatever reason you like, they have little choice.

With the reports of rape and murder in New orleans i could also understand somebody stealing a firearm, though thats a bit more tricky.

[MrMacphisto]

BOFH, I agree with a lot of your post, but I have to admit that I'm starting to care less and less about what's justified and what isn't. Survival is an instinct, while law is arbitrary. I agree that if I were in the same situation as these people, I'd be taking what survival requires, but hey, if I saw a bunch of money laying around and I knew that I had very little chance of getting caught, I'd probably take that too. Theft may be wrong, but it pales in comparison to violent crime. I think the cops have understandably focused more on preventing rapes and deaths than on preventing theft.

[kurchatovium]

One has law for a reason to prevent chaos. If one is going to constantly make exceptions for when and if laws can be broken then the laws themselves become meaningless. One is confusing I think what is morally right from what is legally right. Yes a person morally I think would and should steal to save his starving family if there is no other way. I think God would forgive such a transgression in an instant. Legally though the law still has been broken and some sort of penalty must ensue so that the whole system does not eventually become meaningless. Certainly I think the prosectors should make allowances in such cases maybe just put the person on probation something like that. Now people stealing TV's and stereos get aboslutely no sympathy from me and the should feel the force of the law. Just my thoughts.

[BOFH666]

Actually, and I admit this might be a stupid thought, I wonder if it is legally stealing in the eyes of the law? At what point does insurance kick in legally, if when New Orleans flooded the stores and their stock was written off under the terms of insurance policies and it wasn't likely that the owner or the insurance agency could reach those items in the immediate future did they still have an owner at that point or had they been thrown on the metaphorical trash pile?

[kurchatovium]

Its stealing I think once the brick hits the window. ;)

[isabeau]

Actually, and I admit this might be a stupid thought, I wonder if it is legally stealing in the eyes of the law? At what point does insurance kick in legally, if when New Orleans flooded the stores and their stock was written off under the terms of insurance policies and it wasn't likely that the owner or the insurance agency could reach those items in the immediate future did they still have an owner at that point or had they been thrown on the metaphorical trash pile?


actually that isnt a stupid thought at all in fact it makes perfect sense to me. i would say it gets thrown on the metaphorical trash pile. in fact to me, as i think more about it, its not stealing to take things for survival. its necessity. and if you want to throw politics into the mix, why did bush wait five days before getting down there? it took the mayor to call him down on live tv at that. i do believe.

isabeau

[Mimi]

I'm with BOFH all the way on this one. If I were in their shoes, I simply could not justify respecting an authority force that was leaving me to starve and perish. If they can not provide those basic essentials needed in a time of crisis like that, and we have no other means of obtaining it, then I say one must do what one must do to maintain themselves or their families until said moment when the authorities do provide the help required.

As a mother of 4, you can damn bet I'd be giving a middle finger and a hefty elbow in the face of any "authority" who could not provide my family food or water, but was trying to prevent me from obtaining it myself to sustain them.

[kurchatovium]

Well let me ask this then is it stealing if I go into someones house and take there stuff, if the insurance is going to replace it technically it is not according to this line of reason and if I need it more than you all the more reason for me to have it right. ;)

I am not a lawyer but this sounds similar to this situation:

A man jumps off a tall building to his certain doom, on the way down he is shot by someone fatally. Did the man commit murder? In the eyes of the answer yes he did.

The thing here is the same (in prinicipal) if you enter property that is not yours and take stuff you do not own you have comitted the act of stealing. Whether or not the insurance covers it or not is not a factor. How the goverment or any other individual has acted is for the most part inadmissable.

[MrMacphisto]

One has law for a reason to prevent chaos. If one is going to constantly make exceptions for when and if laws can be broken then the laws themselves become meaningless.

I can see where you are coming from. Enforcing laws makes them practical; otherwise, why have them? On the other hand, what if you personally believe law is meaningless already? It has a meaning in the sense that it prevents chaos, but I have no personal attachment to it besides its personal benefit for me. In the case of these people that would otherwise starve without some sort of theft, law has no meaning to them under these circumstances, because naturally, the self-preservation instinct kicks in.

One is confusing I think what is morally right from what is legally right. Yes a person morally I think would and should steal to save his starving family if there is no other way. I think God would forgive such a transgression in an instant. Legally though the law still has been broken and some sort of penalty must ensue so that the whole system does not eventually become meaningless.

But... one could argue that the system IS meaningless, given the circumstances. For example, it is illegal to kill someone, but if he/she is trying to kill you, you can kill him/her in self-defense. Therefore, under that circumstance, the law against murder is meaningless for the person trying to defend him/herself. The same exception is made during wartime.

Theft can be regarded the same way -- circumstantially.

Certainly I think the prosectors should make allowances in such cases maybe just put the person on probation something like that. Now people stealing TV's and stereos get aboslutely no sympathy from me and the should feel the force of the law. Just my thoughts.

I agree that those who steal non-essential supplies should get no slack. However, I believe any jury ruling on a parent stealing food to feed his/her family under these circumstances would likely let him/her off without punishment for good reason. Besides, if we were to take every looter (regardless of what they stole) to court, we'd be trying people for the next decade.

[kurchatovium]

I can see where you are coming from. Enforcing laws makes them practical; otherwise, why have them? On the other hand, what if you personally believe law is meaningless already? It has a meaning in the sense that it prevents chaos, but I have no personal attachment to it besides its personal benefit for me. In the case of these people that would otherwise starve without some sort of theft, law has no meaning to them under these circumstances, because naturally, the self-preservation instinct kicks in.

I would say if you do not believe in this country or states laws then you need find a country where you do or work to change the ones on the books you dont think are right. Society works because we all agree to abide by the same rules. If we start to make tons of exceptions everything breaks down. Thats the way society works.

But... one could argue that the system IS meaningless, given the circumstances. For example, it is illegal to kill someone, but if he/she is trying to kill you, you can kill him/her in self-defense. Therefore, under that circumstance, the law against murder is meaningless for the person trying to defend him/herself. The same exception is made during wartime.

I humbly disagree the situation is certainly bad but we can't have people deciding to violate laws everytime a natural disaster happens. One has to draw a line at some point. You could carry this to an extreme and say I now can kill people and take their food in order to preserve my life. Like I say I cetainly believe in leniancy for those just trying to get basic supplies but order must be maintained it is better in the long run for the safety of all.

I agree that those who steal non-essential supplies should get no slack. However, I believe any jury ruling on a parent stealing food to feed his/her family under these circumstances would likely let him/her off without punishment for good reason. Besides, if we were to take every looter (regardless of what they stole) to court, we'd be trying people for the next decade.

I agree as well. I think one needs only to take enough looters to court to discourage the practice and maintain order. Of course the nastier people should come first.

[Cosmo_ac]

So...these people should allow themselves and children to die, for fear of breaking the law?

[kurchatovium]

Its the difference between morality and legality.

Morally they have the right and I would do the same thing to protect and save my family.

However if the state decided to prosecute me I would hope they would be lenient. As stated I feel they should go after the people stealing stereos and tvs first. They may well be enough of them to set the example the laws of the state need to be obeyed. I just hope and pray order can be maintained so no more people are hurt.

[isabeau]

ok i'm not sure if this is the right thread for this or rather i should have started a new one, anyway here goes, since it does have to do with the law in a way. i just heard on cnn that dozens of cops have turned in their badges in new orleans, and two have taken their own lives. what on earth is going on here???? is it because they dont want to have to deal with the looters or what? and the two who took their own lives, why did they? were they unable to face the panic and desparation anymore, and realize they couldnt help? or did they lose their familes, and were unable to help, being on duty at the time.

isabeau

[Robace252]

WOW! Ive read some very intelligent responses, and some very emotional ones as well. Here are a few Id like to highlite:
And just so I say in advance Im not trying to "cut out" portions of any statement made by a member to further anything I have to say or to criticize anyone either. I will show when a statement was cut, I just trying to use the meat so my post wont be as long as has been lately.
From BOFH666
) Relative crime rates between New Orleans and the areas you're comparing it to. New Orleans had something like ten times the national average when it came to violent crime...(not entire statement)
2) Poverty rates between New Orleans and the areas you're comparing it to. I can't find an exact figure but estimates range from over a quarter to under a third of all of New Orleans residents were below the poverty line. For those people the need to find food and water is likely to be more urgent as they're likely to be underfed at the best of times.
3) Mob mentality. When you have 20,000 people crowded together in the middle of a disaster like this who have the sense of being abandoned things are going to get very bad, very quickly....(not entire statement)
And now from Cosmo:
If the government is failling to provide for the people, then the people must provide for themselves. (not entire statement)
Again from BOFH666
Actually, and I admit this might be a stupid thought, I wonder if it is legally stealing in the eyes of the law? At what point does insurance kick in legally, if when New Orleans flooded the stores and their stock was written off under the terms of insurance policies and it wasn't likely that the owner or the insurance agency could reach those items in the immediate future did they still have an owner at that point or had they been thrown on the metaphorical trash pile?
I actually like to answer this one, I saw many insurance adjustors down in Mississippi and I did ask them. The reply was that 1st they needed to see the damaged inventory, since most paperwork was gone. Then if no inventory was found they would try to see paperwork. If that also was not found they would go back to purchase records whereever they could be found. Lastly most stores do not carry insurance from "looting" normaly these costs are handed down to the consumer..a la all the security at stores nowadays against shoplifters. So they do not usually recieve money from this but he said during events such as this there can be exceptions made as in the LA Riots, but those shops were given substantially less than the actual sold value, but only the value that which it was purchased at. Also they did not recieve any monies for shipping, pricing and stocking items which automatically was reduced from the original cost of the item. All of this I think is awful, but you know these damn insurance companies.
And now from my new good friend and I appoint leader of the "Thinking Left"
Macphisto:
BOFH, I agree with a lot of your post, but I have to admit that I'm starting to care less and less about what's justified and what isn't. Survival is an instinct, while law is arbitrary. I agree that if I were in the same situation as these people, I'd be taking what survival requires, but hey, if I saw a bunch of money laying around and I knew that I had very little chance of getting caught, I'd probably take that too. Theft may be wrong, but it pales in comparison to violent crime. I think the cops have understandably focused more on preventing rapes and deaths than on preventing theft.
And now from kurch:
One has law for a reason to prevent chaos. If one is going to constantly make exceptions for when and if laws can be broken then the laws themselves become meaningless. One is confusing I think what is morally right from what is legally right. Yes a person morally I think would and should steal to save his starving family if there is no other way. I think God would forgive such a transgression in an instant. Legally though the law still has been broken and some sort of penalty must ensue so that the whole system does not eventually become meaningless. (not entire statement)
Ok, for those of you whom I didnt quote it doesnt mean I didnt think any less of your answers than those I quoted. I just took a snapshot to get the general consenous. Here however is what I can say too about these questions that raise an interesting arguement. Also not from a personal but more for the sake of argument I wont say what God would or would not think. True its in the mindstate of these unfortunate people but I dont want to start a "God Morality" issue of this thread. Not thats theres anything wrong with thinking or mentioning it.
Where as these people needed help, and since the goverment could not/would not go to them they needed to take their survival into their own hands. I can see this point and I think it is a good one. Like Kurch said the reason for law is to prevent chaos. Could be the reason the relief did not arrive is that the looting started IMMEDIATELY, and we all know it was happening as soon as the storm was over, like within minutes, that the CHAOS created by the looters and criminal element PREVENTED relief aid from comming in? It doesnt seem illogical that since the media started reporting immediatley that looting had started it made the goverment afraid of sending in relief for fear of these criminals attacking a large group of defenseless people to take what was being provided. I heard a question on a local radio talk show that had a woman ask a good question. If we can take aircraft and drop supplies to people in Africa, why couldnt we have here. I called in and answered simpily "In those area there are not armed gunmen that could open fire and massacre many of a crowd waiting for needed relief. Then create a bigger panic, and thus lose many more lives." After that everyone kinda agreed on to why they didnt do it. Granted they should have had the National Guard there 1st to control it, but the basic question is still a valid one. Did the Chaos those people create by not following the law create or make worse the situation for those that needed help. If the answer is yes then we can only assume that if people like in Mississippi follwed the rule of law then relief would have come sooner, order restored sooner and thus people helped sooner. The crime and poverty levels in the city are certainly valid points so we can assume they should have moved troops in faster but in a PC society any immediate shooting of anyone would have been seen as hasty, and thus wrong. Or moving in the troops would have been seen as racist because "Why are they moving troops in just because they are poor, and might do something..thats profiling."
I have a belief that in this Politically Correct world that we live in makes it harder and harder to justify anything as "Preventive" whether or not it is a good idea or a "sterotyping" idea.
My thought as of now is that if Chaos had not erupted that many people could have been saved sooner. But with faced with a situation where your devestated, and panic sets in much as with a person who kills another out of self defense, anything can be justified...but should it?
I still am confused and will watch with GREAT anticipation your responses.
I really find this thread informative and interesting..thanks for participating.

[maniactickler]

actually that isnt a stupid thought at all in fact it makes perfect sense to me. i would say it gets thrown on the metaphorical trash pile. in fact to me, as i think more about it, its not stealing to take things for survival. its necessity. and if you want to throw politics into the mix, why did bush wait five days before getting down there? it took the mayor to call him down on live tv at that. i do believe.

isabeau

The mayor in my mind is the biggest fool here. he sure sounds uneducated. complete unpreparedness and incompetence from him and the governer. hes turning the blame on the feds when it was he who dropped the ball.

[asutickler]

If you kill or injure someone who is attempting to do physical harm to yourself or someone else, you are not guilty of morder or assault; you are acting in self-defense.

Similarly, if you break into a store or warehouse in the middle of a declared disaster area to acquire food, water or other necessities, you are not guilty of theft; you are acting in self-preservation.

However, if you break into the local Best Buy to cart off as many plasma televisions as you can carry, you are a looter and should be treated as such under the law.

[jim66e]

So...these people should allow themselves and children to die, for fear of breaking the law?

No, but if they do take matters into their own hands and break the law, they should acept resposibility for thear actions and the concequences thereof.

[Cosmo_ac]

so you think these people should be prosicuted for theft for stealing food to survive in a situation that the government has dropped the ball on, and has been unable to give them the supplies they need to survive?

Don't get me wrong. If people are stealing TV's and such, ok, i can understand criminal charges. However, if people are stealing food and water to survive, when the government and the state have fucked up so much, then there's no way they should be charged.

[jim66e]

so you think these people should be prosicuted for theft for stealing food to survive in a situation that the government has dropped the ball on, and has been unable to give them the supplies they need to survive?

Don't get me wrong. If people are stealing TV's and such, ok, i can understand criminal charges. However, if people are stealing food and water to survive, when the government and the state have fucked up so much, then there's no way they should be charged.

I don't think they should be heavely punished for stealing food and water, simple probation or have the governer anonce amnisty would be good, but as you said several times, the people are stealing. They may have a good reason to steal, but the fact is, they still broke the law. Sometimes people have to break the law to survive but they still have to take responsibility for their actions and accept the concequences of them.

[Cosmo_ac]

yes, they are stealing, but that's only because of the lack of planning towards relief and evacution for these people. As was pointed out ealier, if you kill a person in self defence, that is not breaking the law. These people who are stealing food aren't stealing it for kicks, but because the relief services haven't made it to them yet.

[Robace252]

Again all very good points. I can see this is a great topic for a lot of us. I still have one question though and maybe my prior post was too long to see it so Ill ask again. If Chaos had not erupted immediately by those that broke the law in the first place then it is concieveable that the relief that was needed would have gotten there sooner like in Mississippi and thus there would be no theft because the rule of law maintained order to allow supplies to be brought in quickly and easily.
And Ive seen people that kill in self-defense serve time in jail, be it usually a very short peroid of time. I like the amniesty idea someone proposed. It would still show that law and order should be followed but at the same time, understanding and allowances can be made to those that were seeking not to profit but to survive. That way if this happens again no one will have the mindstate to re-create the unfortunate bedlam and terror that was in New Orleans. Offer it like this:
"The justice system offers amniesty from any and all proscutions of those that took items such as clothing, food and drink. But understand these allowances are made with the knowledge that what was done was against the law but due to the unfortunate circumstances that many people were left in due to the failure of the goverment on all levels to protect its citizens we are making this amnesty available. But to those who looked to profit by taking Jewerly, Applicances and other non-life saving or sustaining items will be found and prosucuted to the full extent of the law. Those taking firearms will be subject to Federal Laws as well as any state or local laws."
Maybe that may be a little too overboard, I dont know, again tell me what you all think.

[Ticklemmmeeeeee]

One has law for a reason to prevent chaos. If one is going to constantly make exceptions for when and if laws can be broken then the laws themselves become meaningless. One is confusing I think what is morally right from what is legally right. Yes a person morally I think would and should steal to save his starving family if there is no other way. I think God would forgive such a transgression in an instant. Legally though the law still has been broken and some sort of penalty must ensue so that the whole system does not eventually become meaningless. Certainly I think the prosectors should make allowances in such cases maybe just put the person on probation something like that. Now people stealing TV's and stereos get aboslutely no sympathy from me and the should feel the force of the law. Just my thoughts.


I agree Kurch!!!!! To consider a starving family in need of food and supplies for survival not being justified in taking those supplies is not only heartless it is (I believe) not pleasing to God. Conversely, the looters must be stopped and held accountable as any other crime. I wonder sometimes how sad God must be that there is always someone waiting to take advantage of another's misfortune...just another reason why we are in such desperate need of Jesus in our lives.

As far as shooting a looter as some have said, well they anger me too but one crime does not justify another. As kurch said we have laws to deal with such people. Perhaps allowing them to see the selfishness and viciousness of their own crimes would be enough to turn their lives around, it happened for the apostle Paul. Prior to his conversion to christianity he was Saul of Tarsus and in his words "the worst of sinners"...so if there is hope for him there is hope for others. Killing them removes all chance of hope for change.

That said, I don't consider taking food and supplies for survival stealing,few people would deny a starving person food. Conversely, taking anything above what is needed for survival is selfish and sickening.

There is a quote I care for a great deal..I forget who wrote it but it goes like this..."if someone has something he did not work for somewhere someone worked for something they do not have."

Sad times...
~tm