Redstate

Hearing the stories coming out of the area, rapes, fights, gangs outnumbering the police...

just this morning, on NPR, I heard a story of a shopkeeper who opened his store to give all his food away...give it away, free of charge...and someone wanted more and tried to take his money. When he said no, he was killed. His killer was then killed by police.

It's a tough question. I understand people with nothing trying to get food, water, and medical supplies. People stealing tv's, jewelry, guns, etc...things you don't need to survive right now (well, aside from a gun maybe), we don't need that.

If there's any chance of violence from these people, unfortunaetly people need to defend themselves. It's literally Anarachy down there and people are fighting to survive.

I don't know. I'd rather not see anymore people die than have or will already. I just do't know. I'm watching the news and am beside myself at the situation here.

The "broken windows" theory has been proven painfully correct in the last 48 hours.

First the "innocent" theft of diapers and plasma TVs. Then the rapes and wanton murders.

Where is New Orleans' Rudy Giuliani?

i think we have to.  I have tried to put myself in the situation, and have asked myself if I would loot my own community.  i wouldn't.  I won;t be the one to debate or argue if looting for food, water, clothing, is "o.k."

my bottem line is if we giev an inch to lawlessness, where is the end?..who determines what is ok?..preservation of respect for the law is very important, even more so in a situation like this.

further, i wish there were non lethal measures, i.e. high powered pellets that could be shot at people, staining them for x period of time.  though it wouldn't deter looters, it sure would help identifying them at some point in the near future.

leon, great last statement in your text.

... is why we have a Second Amendment.

If they don't stop looting with guns pointed, shoot them.

Usually looters are not shot for looting, but this is an extraordinary case.

....and I basically come to the same conclusion: I'm glad others have to decide!

The only points I would make is that I only oppose the death penalty because sometimes we kill people who are really innocent. But I don't oppose it for any other reason. I think a significant part of the death penalty opposition feels as I do.

Overall, the decision is a sad one, because if troops were firing on looters, it is highly likely that rape, theft abuse and shootings (between civilians) would significantly decrease. The problem is that the actual looter you might be shooting would never even think about participating in the more horrific crimes under any circumstances. A very tough decision indeed.

At common law, we have to remember that private ncessity justifies theft.  If someone is starving and needs food, stealing food in the time of need where the party has no alternative is justifiable, AND it's forbidden for another party to prevent that person from stealing the food.  The thief is required to compensate for the food ultimately, but nevertheless the theft at the time is permitted.  It may be that shooting looters, at least at this stage, paints too broad a stroke.

I'm all for shooting if you're protecting life or preventing an assault/rape/other crime against a person. Personally, I couldn't shoot to stop someone from taking a plasma TV and I don't think I could ever have issued such an order.

Not to say the order, per se, is wrong or illegal, mind you, just that I couldn't have done it.

I say people should be able to shoot to protect themselves, but law enforcement has more options.

Shooting should be the last resort after all those options are taken.

Let's not let the hurricane turn New Orleans into a mini police state.

Leon, thank you for the thoughtfulness in this post.  

This is a very difficult question to answer.  In my mind, there are two types of looters in NOLA.  

First, there are those who loot to survive.  They are individuals who steal food, water, and other necessities (e.g. medical supplies) from stores because the government is unable to deliver them to them.  I don't believe these individuals would, given normal circumstances, steal.  As a result, I am extremely sympathetic to their actions given the dire situation they face.  I would definitely not condone shooting them for their actions and I would even find it hard to prosecute them once the crisis subsides and a semblance of normalcy returns.    

On the other hand, there are those who loot because they can.  These are individuals who have decided to take advantage of the anarchy in NOLA to benefit themselves.  Simply put, they are thieves.  In my opinion, they rightly risk the prospect of being shot for looting.  And if they haven't been shot by the time this crisis ends, they should be prosecuted.  

The main problem, though, is determining when it is appropriate to shoot-to-kill.  How does one determine who is looting to stay alive and who is looting for material gain?  I don't know the answer to that question.  Consequently, though I am sympathetic to the shoot-to-kill order as a way to halt looting, I fear that it will result in the death(s) of individuals who were looting simply to remain alive.  That thought makes me extremely uncomfortable.  At this point, the only solution I see is for store owners and the police to be armed and to warn potential looters that they will be shot if they steal anything other than life essentials.  By doing that, at least they will have been given proper warning while still allowing the possibility that the very real human needs that are present might be addressed.              

that armed personnel are flooding into the city, but I think a decision to do so on Tuesday would have saved lots of lives and trouble.  With respect to shooting at helicopters, that behavior justifies lethal force under normal rules of engagement.  The question to me is whether as many people would have dared fire on helicopters in the first place if the riot in progress had been stopped through a judicious application of violence before it got to that point.  I think it might not have, and I think the rescue efforts of the past few days might have been more effective if the marauding hordes had been dispersed immediately.  Given that resources were limited and circumstances desperate, that would have meant shooting some of them.

Arrest them?  And take them where?  Tear gas them?  Might work, but if you disperse them, they're likely to go somewhere else.  Besides, a tear gas grenade under two feet of water is not likely to be effective.  Tasers and pepper spray?  Useless against mobs.  Beat them up, as someone fancifully suggested?  Then you'd expose the police to unnecessary injury by forcing them to engage in brawls, and you'd be making an inefficient use of their time, which could be better spent saving lives, organizing the flow of the law-abiding, and shooting other looters.  A city that has descended into chaos should not be allowed to continue in that state because authorities are too squeamish to use the necessary force to restore order.  That just costs more lives than a crackdown would.

  I don't want to start endorsing the idea of giving our police shoot on sight authority.  Nor do I want the army sweeping the area like they would Felluja.  But, isn't that almost what this is becoming?  It is like a scene out of Escape From New York.  Gangs of machine gun toting thugs in abandoned building trying to establish themselves as "a number one."

  Lawless looters who defend their actions by insinuating they have endured lifelong persecution, and now they are "paying back the man."  Are any of these things really salvageable?  Where are these looters taking these Plasma TVs?  I imagine they will just end up abandoned as the situation worsens, and those folks realize that the things they coveted are worthless to their present situation.

  So I would say shooting looters is out of the question, but dealing harshly with gangs, murderers, and rapist is not.  I think they should be rounded up and put in camps, if they draw a weapon on the authorities, they should probably be shot.  I hope that local governments are allowing the police a lot of leeway in how they defend themselves against these entrenched hooligans.

Assuming the officers in question are assigned to looting patrol, it doesn't really matter how long it takes, I think.  If there are lives to be saved by the officer in question, going around and killing people is pretty much a waste of time period, don't you think?  Those assigned to dealing with looting had best just not be needed for the rescue efforts.

And besides, shooting is always efficient, but that doesn't make it best.  The right thing just costs more.

The rule of law works both ways.  Cops firing at will are no better than crooks stealing at will.

The first priority is to do what it takes to restore enough law and order to the city to allow emergency personnel to do their jobs without fear of violence.  Don't shoot looters, per se, but do make it known that people who disobey police orders will be dealt with, by force, if necessary.

Some of the stranded people haven't had access to clean drinking water in days.  Humans can only go about 72 hours without water, so priority needs to be on getting to these people.  When evacuations under these conditions have to be halted for fear of violence, it is reasonable for law enforcement to do whatever it takes to restore order.

I'm less concerned with stolen property than with human lives.

An officer assigned to looting patrol is an officer not doing something else.  In conditions of low manpower relative to life-and-death need, it makes sense to do things that under normal conditions would and should not be countenanced, like shooting down looters in the street.  As more manpower becomes available for more conventional policing methods, this calculus changes.

disobey police orders can already be dealt with by force.  People know this already.  What do you do when there are not enough police to handle the number of criminals, and when the criminals are running roughshod?  Seal off the area, and leave the good people there to their fate?  That doesn't strike me as a morally serious course of action.

If we have the manpower to patrol the looting, I would think there are better places to put it.  I can't imagine many of these looters will actually benefit from their horrifiic actions.  As someone earlier pointed out, ok, you have a plasma TV, now what?  Where are you going to put it?

Shoot them with cameras, prosecute them later.

I'm all for shooting if you're protecting life or preventing an assault/rape/other crime against a person. Personally, I couldn't shoot to stop someone from taking a plasma TV and I don't think I could ever have issued such an order.

I would add that I think it would be helpful if all the lawlessness in NO was not lumped into the general category of "looting".  The big problem here is assault/rape/murder which is a far different thing.

The governor of the state and the mayor can call for marshal law with a shoot to kill order, and better do it soon. The second amendment does not operate in isolation. The constitution also provides a right to be free from being killed by a looter or anarchist running around with a gun. Life of innocents trumps any due process clauses in my book.  

This is war, a war against people who are now gone into full anarchy mode, you give no quarter to the enemies of civilization, domestic or foreign.

Put some trucks with loud speakers in the street telling civilians to put down their guns or face the possibility of being shot on sight. If you are in the street with a gun, not a law enforcement or national guard troop, you may be shot and killed.

Restoring order now to allow rescue efforts to go forward and save the lives of those still trapped in New Orleans is the more important than anything else, hard measures for hard times.

The only points I would make is that I only oppose the death penalty because sometimes we kill people who are really innocent. But I don't oppose it for any other reason. I think a significant part of the death penalty opposition feels as I do.

I would quibble that if this is so, you are not a death-penalty opponent, per se. You are an opponent of the current execution of the death-penalty.

In other words, if it could be certainly ascertained that someone was guilty of a crime deserving of death (whatever your formulation of such a crime is), you'd be fine with the death penalty in that circumstance, yes?

The martial law concept in the U.S. is closely tied with the Writ of Habeas Corpus. The ability to suspend Habeas Corpus is often equated with martial law. Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

If the public Safety is not at risk in New Orleans, then it will never exist.

As an advanced, moral, and highly civilized society I believe that we have an obligation to help people who are in extreme circumstances in proportion to our ability to provide help.  And our obligation to help applies particularly to our fellow Americans.  As government is the direct manifestation of our society, of all of us, and because we have invested government with the authority and resources to act for us in extreme circumstances, it falls primarily to government to provide the help that we, as individuals and even as corporate entities, cannot reasonably provide apart from government.

Government failed to provide timely assistance and relief in New Orleans and other parts of the gulf coast.  As a consequence, people there are suffering and dying.  Not the least part of their suffering is the feeling that they have been betrayed and abandoned by the rest of us and the hopelessness that flows from that.

I'd like to think that in such circumstances I would act with faith and character, organizing, galvanizing, working, praying, and just keeping hope alive.  I cannot say for sure that I would be strong enough to do this and I cannot really blame anyone who is not.  Four days and more without food and water in the sweltering gulf coast heat in August is simply too much for many to bear.  The realization that help is not coming must be a terrible thing indeed.

If it is ultimately necessary for the military or for law enforcement to shoot civilians on the streets of New Orleans it is hardly reasonable to think of it as some sort of escalation in deterrence warranted by circumstance.  First it will be necessary to understand that the escalation of lawlessness happened as a consequence of a failure to maintain deterrence.  That failure is on us and not on the looters.  And it didn't have to happen.  Timely action by government would have restored deterrence before the lawless reaction had time to fully germinate.

To open fire on the very people we have materially abandoned and who are suffering and dying without hope would be a grossly immoral thing.  Some of them have lost their way and are doing horrific things.  We are complicit in their dehumanization in that our government did not meet the obligation we have placed on it to provide timely assistance.  We have failed them.  Until we are able to redeem our failure we have no moral authority to judge theirs.

If, in the end, we have no choice but to start shooting to restore order, no one can foresee the consequences of that action.  The tragedy of the Kent State shootings will be as nothing compared to the deliberate and purposeful shooting of Americans on the streets of New Orleans by the government in the aftermath of its colassal failure following Katrina.

God help the people of New Orleans.

God help us all.

First, thanks for your response. One thing popped out at me in your post:

First it will be necessary to understand that the escalation of lawlessness happened as a consequence of a failure to maintain deterrence.

Does it not seem weird to you to use this point to argue against the escalation of punishment to restore deterrence?

Ray Nagin: You just tell him we had an incredible crisis here, and that his flying over in Air Force One does not do it justice.  And that I have been all around this city, and I am very frustrated because we are not able to marshall resources, and we're outmanned in just about every respect.

You know the reason why the looters got out of control?  Because we had most of our resources saving people, thousands of people, that were stuck in attics, man... old ladies... when you pull off the doggone ventilator vent, and you look down there, and they're standing there in water up to their fricking neck...!

And they don't have a clue what's going on down there.  They flew down here one time, two days after the doggone event was over, with TV cameras, AP reporters, all kinds of goddamn -- excuse my French, everybody in America, but I am pissed.

Garland Robinette: Did you say to the President of the United States, I need the military in here?"

RN: I said I need everything.  I will tell you this, I'll give the President some credit on this: he sent one John Wayne dude that can get some stuff done, and his name is [Lieutenant] General [Russel] Honore. And he came off the doggone chopper, and he started cussing and people started moving.  And he's getting some stuff done.  They ought to give that guy -- if they don't want to give it to me, give him full authority, to get the job done and we can save some people.

GR: What do you need right now to get control of this situation?

RN: I need reinforcements.  I need troops, man.  I need 500 buses.  Man, they were talking about... you know, one of the briefings we had, they were talking about getting public school bus drivers to come down here ... I'm like, you've got to be kidding me!  This is a national disaster!  Get every doggone Greyhound busline in the country, and get their asses moving to New Orleans.  That's them thinking small, man.... this is a major major major deal!  

And I can't emphasize this enough, man -- this is crazy!  I've got 15,000-20,000 people over at the Convention Centre, it's bursting at the seams.  The poor people in Plaquemines parish... they're air-vacc'ing people over here in New Orleans...  we don't have anything and we're sharing with our brothers in Plaquemines parish.  It's awful down here, man.

GR: Do you believe that the President is serious, holding a news conference on it, but can't do anything until [Louisiana Governor] Catherine Blanco requests him to do it, and do you know whether or not she's made that request?

RN: I have no idea what they're doing, but I'll tell you this.  You know, God is looking down on all this... and if theyre not doing everything in their power to save people, they are going to pay the price.  Because every day that we delay, people are dying... and they're dying by the hundreds, I'm willing to bet you.

We're getting reports in calling that are breaking my heart, from people saying, 'I'm in my attic...I can't take it any more.  The water's up to my neck.  I don't think I can hold out.  And that's happening as we speak.

And you know what really upsets me, Garland.   We told everybody the importance of the 17th Street Canal issue.  We said, please, please take care of this, we don't care what you do, figure it out.

GR: Who did you say that to?

RN: Everybody -- the governor, Homeland Security, FEMA... you name it, we said it.

They allowed that pumping station, next to Pumping Station 6, to go underwater.  Our sewage and waterwork people [unclear] stayed there and endangered their lives.  And what happened when that pumping station went down, the water started flowing again in the city, and started getting to levels that probably killed more people.

In addition to that, we had water flowing through the pipes in the city, that's a power station over there.  So there's no water flowing on the east bank of Orleans Parish, so critical water supply was destroyed because of lack of action.

GR: Why couldn't they drop the 3,000-pound sandbags or the containers that they were talking about earlier?  Was it an engineering feat that could not be done?

RN: They said it was some pulleys that they had to manufacture but you know, in a state of emergency, man, you are creative, you figure out ways to get stuff done.  Then they told me that they went overnight, they built 17 concrete structures, and they had the pulleys on them and were going to drop them.

I flew over that thing yesterday [Wednesday] and it's in the same shape as it was after the storm hit.  There's nothing happening.  And they're feeding the public a line of bull. And they're spinning and people are dying down here.

GR: If some of the public called, and they're right, that there's a law that the president, that the federal government, can't do anything without local or state request, would you request martial law?

RN: I've already called for martial law in the city of New Orleans.  We did that few days ago.

GR: Did the governor do that, too?

RN: I don't know.  I don't think so.  We called for martial law when we realized that the looting was getting out of control and we redirected all of our police officers back to patrolling the streets.  They were dead tired from saving people.  They worked all night because we thought this thing was going to blow wide open last night, and so we redirected all of our resources and we held... I'm not sure we can do that another night, with the current resources.

I'm telling you right now, they're showing all these reports of looting, people doing all that weird stuff, and they are doing that.  But people are desperate.  They're trying to find food and water.  The majority of them.

You have some knuckleheads out there, taking advantage of the lawlessness, this situation where, you know, we can't really control it, and they're doing some awful, awful things.  But that's a small [minority] of the people.  Most people are looking to try and survive.

Nobody's talked about this: drugs flow in and out of New Orleans and the surrounding metropolitan area so freely they were scaring me.  That's what we have an escalation in murders.  People don't want to talk about this, but I'm going to talk about it.  You have drug addicts that are now walking around this city, looking for a fix.  That's the reason why they were breaking into hospitals and drug stores.  They're looking for something to take the edge off of their jones, if you will.  And right now they don't have anything to take the edge off, and they've finally probably found guns.  So what you see is drug-starving, crazy addicts, drug addicts, that are wreaking havoc.  And we don't have the manpower to adequately deal with it.  We can only target certain sections of the city, and form a perimeter around them, and hope to God that we're not overrun.

GR: You and I must be in the minority, because apparently there's a section of our citizenry out there that thinks because of a law that says the federal government can't come in unless requested by the proper people, that everything that's been going on to this point has been as good as it can possibly be.

RN: Really?

GR:  I know you don't feel that way.

RN: Well... did the tsunami victims request?  Did they go through a formal process to request?  Did Iraq -- did the Iraqi people request that we go in there?  Did they ask us to go in there?

What is more important?  I tell ya man, I'm probably going to be in a whole bunch of trouble, I'm probably going to be in so much trouble it ain't even funny.  You probably won't even want to deal with me after this interview is over.

GR: You and I will be in the funny place together.

RN: But -- we authorized $8 billion to go to Iraq, lickety-quick.  After 9/11, we gave the president unprecedented powers -- lickety-quick -- to take care of New York and other places.  Now you mean to tell me that a place where most of the oil is coming through... a place that is so unique, when you mention New Orleans anywhere around the world, everybody's eyes light up... you mean to tell me that a place where you probably have thousands people that have died, and thousands more that are dying every day, that we can't figure out a way to authorize the resources that we need?  Come on, man.

You know I'm not one of those drug addicts, I am thinking very clearly.  And I don't know whose problem it is.  I don't know whether it's the governor's problem, I don't know whether it's the president's problem.  But somebody needs to get their ass on a plane, and sit down, the two of them, and figure this out right now."

GR: What can we do here?

RN: Keep talking about it.

GR: Okay, we'll do that  What else can we do?

RN: Organize people to write letters, make calls to their congressmen --

GR: Emails...

RN: -- to the president, to the governor.  Fill their doggone offices with requests to do something.  This is ridiculous.

I don't want to see anybody do any more goddamn press conferences.  Put a moratorium on press conferences.  Don't do another press conference until the resources are in this city, and they come down to this city, and stand with us, with their military trucks and troops that we can't even count.  Don't tell me there are 40,000 people coming here, they're not here!  It's too goddamn late!

Get off your asses and let's do something.  Let's fix the biggest goddamn crisis in the history of this country!

GR: I'll tell you, right now, you're the only politician that's called, and called for arms like this.  And whatever it takes, the governor, the president... whatever law precedent it takes, whatever it takes... I bet that the people listening to you are on your side.

RN: Well, I hope so, Garland.  I am just... I'm at the point now, where it don't matter.  People are dying.  They don't have homes.  They don't have jobs.  The City of New Orleans will never be the same.  And it's time.

(Then there's silence.  Background studio noise comes up as the microphones self-adjust to pick something up.  You hear sniffling... Nagin's in tears.  Interviewer too.)

GR: We're both pretty speechless here.

RN: I don't know what to say.  I've got to go.  Okay.  Keep in touch.

I came across an interview with the Mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nugan on a local radio station in New Orleans.

"RN: I said I need everything.  I will tell you this, I'll give the President some credit on this: he sent one John Wayne dude that can get some stuff done, and his name is [Lieutenant] General [Russel] Honore. And he came off the doggone chopper, and he started cussing and people started moving.  And he's getting some stuff done.  They ought to give that guy -- if they don't want to give it to me, give him full authority, to get the job done and we can save some people."

There's no Rudy G., no leadership going on in New Orleans disaster relief, time for the President to go all in on this disaster, declare Martial Law, put someone, this General Horne in charge and get things moving. FEMA, the local government, the state goverment, all are floundering. If the President is going to be blamed for the disaster, more blame for declaring Martial Law is nothing compared to saving lives.  

Understanding that things won't get better tomorrow, and that it may take months to get all the water out of NO, and even then the region will not be inhabitable, I believe we are on the cusp of a ongoing emergency.

If we do not declare martial law and enforce lethal measures to take control right now- I fear 3 days will be to late.  Eliminating a violent criminal element with deadly force may be the only way to keep innocents safe and prevent a larger loss of life.

At the same time, if shooting does start, we could see a riot that exceeds beyond NO.  The area will quickly become a war zone and spiral into armed combat.  

You have a mass of desperate people with nothing to lose- if this isn't a powder keg ready to blow- then what is.

In terms of the racial component of this, there is still a lose-lose situation.  The murder rate in the city I live in is about 2 times more this year then what it was last year, and it is predominatly black on black violence.  This same population will protest a single justified police shooting of a black criminal, they will sue the city, and demand retribution- but do nothing to curb the violence of gangs and black youths.

If the National Guard goes in and shoots one black man who is looting- there will be a unified sense of outrage in black America against the government and the President that will spart riots elsewhere.  Don't for a moment expect Al Sharpton to defend the use of force to protect innocent life.  This will get played as Bush finaling getting a chance to shout blacks.

I do not see escalation of punishment as necessary to the restoration of deterrence.  Deterrence can be restored in other ways.  We need to try all of them before we start shooting.

How about restoring order?

that, in writing what is a largely well-reasoned and cogent post on the question of the proper response to conditions of mayhem and anarchy in an American city, you felt it necessary to stoop to the level of caricaturing those who wish for the looters, save those who are looting the necessities of life (among which are not to be numbered plasma TVs, stereos and jewelry), to be shot on sight.  Knee-jerk?  Pulling the trigger with nary a thought?  Might it not be that those, such as myself, who hold such an opinion, hold it precisely on account of a rational analysis of the situation and, more generally, of the purpose of state authority as a philosophical question?

I can state, unequivocally, that I not only could, but would, issue a shoot-to-kill order for looters of the second type, and would both sleep quite soundly at night, and go to my grave secure in the conviction that I had acted justly.  Reproach me for callousness, brutality or whatever else enables you to feel yourself morally superior, but the only justification of the existence of state authority and power is the establishment of those conditions of social existence without which human life is miserable, incomplete and stunted, even nasty, brutish and short; in sum, the reason for the existence of government is that without it, civilization is not possible.  The first duty, therefore, of state power, is the establishment and preservation - and, in the breach, the restoration of - that level of order without which nothing civilized is possible; order is not civilization; it is the presupposition, the condition of the possibility, of civilization.  Moreover, the measures necessary to the establishment of order will, as you know and acknowledge, vary greatly depending upon circumstances.  

In NO, then, which has descended into a state of chaos, or anarchy, as we have had so graphically demonstrated to us by the cases of gangs of untermenschen firing upon hospital evacuation teams and rescue helicopters, the restoration of even the minimum of civilized norms of conduct and regard for our fellow man is rendered incalculably more difficult, and in some cases impossible, by the presence of armed bands of thugs exerting their will upon man and property alike, in exercises of raw will which it slanders barbarians to refer to as barbaric.  The restoration of order is essential to the orderly and systematic efforts at rescue, provision of necessities of food, water and medicine, and the evacuation of the afflicted; without such order, the process of providing civilization to those who have lost it can only be partial - and not partial in the now trivial sense that little can be done for those who have lost everything - and partial in the relevant sense that even remedial efforts must face the obstacles created by those who believe that their willingness to utilize illicit force entitles them to primary consideration.  Those who prevent the establishment, or re-establishment of civilization in the wake of disaster have placed themselves outside the boundaries of civilization in a way that criminals acting against existing order have not; the former are, in consequence, owed none of the niceties of civilization, and it is licit for them to be killed.  In view of the suffering of the innocent, the goods of civilization, and the utterly gratuitous nature of the additional obstacles the looting and anarchy have introduced, one might even go so far as to say that there exists a positive duty, on the part of the authorities, to kill them.  The lives of the evil are not so precious that the suffering innocent are morally obligated to endure more evils for their sake.

Shoot them.  Shoot them now.

"Deterrence can be restored in other ways.  We need to try all of them before we start shooting."

For how long should they wait, until the number of innocent dead reach a fixed number, a number of days what is your criteria for when other means have been tried and harsher measures should be resorted to?

innocent victims that would be shot as misidentified looters?  

When we went into Iraq, there was much looting, and it got a lot of comment at the time and since.  Coalition troops obviously were not briefed on how to deal with looters, but the Occupying Power is required to maintain order and preserve life and property.  Any breach of order should have been met with force; it would not take very many dead looters to convince the criminals to find a better way to occupy their time. This is true of street looting as well as industrial strength looting which was also observed in Iraq.  But to prevent industrial strength looting would have required that potential targets be known and protected from criminal activity; this was not always possible.

Regardless, the lawlessness of the first days and weeks set a very bad precedence, and we continue to reap a bitter harvest.

This article is way to legalistic; the polity was ruptured in the aftermath of the hurricane and crime and punishment were no longer operable concepts.  The only criteria was public order, and someone was going to dictate the terms of public order, either the thugs or an organized force such as police or National Guard.  In the event, the thugs took over.   This happened previously in Los Angeles.  It did not happen in NYC.

Taking food, water, or diapers hardly constitutes a crime in the circumstance.  Taking TVs is a problem but not a disaster.  Taking guns, liquor, and pharmaceuticals is a disaster because of the contribution to additional disorder.  Thieves of these last items should be shot.  Then we can worry about law and order, crime and punishment, after order is restored and the polity resumes functioning.

.....believe me, I shed no tears for the ones that really did it.

Yes that would be a danger, but one that would be a risk weighed off against restoring order which is required to save lives. Risk verse benefit.

I would advocate a shoot to kill order if someone is armed, in the street and refuses a order to drop their weapon. The risk of an innocent person wandering around the streets armed is pretty low I would think and if a guardsman, or a police officer tells them to drop a weapon, most would comply.

Civilization is a thin veneer that separates us from the hardships of raw survival. While Western civilization has provided us with the opportunity to enjoy the more heady pursuits, our love affair with our own minds often precludes us from taking concrete steps to ensure our continued survival, and often blinds us to the obvious.

Any society, particularly ours, is nothing more than a social contract amongst citizens to follow a basic set of precepts.  As our individual survival is paramount, these group covenants typically address issues related to our own physical and mental well-being, allowing the parties to enjoy a certain level of freedom and to thrive.  Don't murder me; don't steal from me; don't cheat me; protect me.  These are four of the most basic tenants of any civilization.  They lead to laws against killing and stealing; laws of fair-business practices, and the recruiting and training of an army.  With these basic needs protected, the society can concentrate the rest of its resouces of agriculture, infrastructure, education, and a host of other higher functions:  philosophy, mathematics, science, engineering, and arts, to name a few.

Read more here.

I think most people would agree that the police should be able to shoot anyone who is brandishing a weapon on the streets and refuses to heed police demands.

If someone is posing a violent threat then, just as in any other circumstance, they must be handled harshly if necessary.

But people looting in itself does not come up to the level of warranting executions.  

In that case, may I humbly suggest that you are not a death-penalty opponent. You are an advocate of accuracy in justice.

I think you know me better than that by now than to assume that comment was directed at you.

There are some folks like you and I, who reason through it all and conclude that shooting the looters (or certain classes of them) is wholly justified and should be ordered.

Then there are folks whose answer to every problem is the simplest one that occurs to them.

I am of the school of thought that even if the two groups arrive at the same conclusion inevitably, it matters how you got there. I would have thought, given your philosophical proclivities, that we would be in agreement on that point.

One more thing that apparently you missed:

gangs of untermenschen firing upon hospital evacuation teams and rescue helicopters

I fully admitted in my post that these people had "earned" death without trial. They were not under consideration in my post.

The people who are stealing TVs, clothes, etc. were. I tried to make that distinction clear.

The basic point of your original post was that the lawlessness exists because we allowed deterrence to deteriorate. Therefore, in order to cease the lawlessness, we must restore deterrence through the threat of punishment.

Apparently, in an environment where looting is widespread, you think there are other practical ways of doing this. I'd love to hear them.

Where do we line up the oil company CEOs to shoot them??

Given the way events have unfolded, what with looting escalating to rape, mayhem, and murder, and further given the fact that hoarding is only going to exacerbate the logistical problems New Orleans is suffering and thereby put innocents at risk, it seems to me that both private citizens and police are entitled to a presumption that any given looter represents a threat of serious bodily injury or death to themselves or others.

Justifying the use of deadly force as an act of self defense, or defense of others, would therefore be entirely proper.

to every conceivable question and I do not propose to try to address every eventuality.  If I tried to do that we could have a hundred threads on a hundred details and no way I could begin to keep up, even assuming I actually had all the answers, which I certainly don't.  I'll try to take this one step further and then ask that I be let off the hook for the rest of the minutae.

In essence, my comment said two things.  First, we have no moral authority to shoot these people.  Second, shooting them may well lead to consequences much more disastrous than what is happening now, horrific as that may be.  I did not intend to go further than this but since you ask, I'll give it a shot.

I think that the first order of business is assuring everyone in the country, including all of the people of New Orleans, that the basic human needs of all of the refugees are guaranteed for the foreseeable future.  And we need to assure everyone in ways that are irrefutable.  All the buses, boats, and helicopters that are needed to take everyone to safety have to be there.  People that have to wait for evacuation need to see water trucks within walking distance, they need to see food distribution centers within walking distance, they need to know where to go to sign up for evacuation and when and where they will be evactuated, they need to see ambulances or aid stations within walking distance, they need to see portable latrines maintained within walking distance.  And so on.  Much of this might not have been necessary if the government's response had been more timely.  It wasn't.  Now we have to do more.

Second, there needs to be a palpable, reliable, and pervasive sense of authority and order that I think could be provided by simply having a sufficient number of troops/law enforcement officers in plain sight, within hailing distance.  I've read that there may be as many as 120,000 refugees still in the city.  How about 1 armed officer for every 4 refugees.  30,000 guardsmen, marines, police, etc. seems quite realistic to me for the time it will take to evacuate.

I think that providing for basic human and security needs would stop a lot of the looting/lawlessness.  Whatever such remained ought to be surrounded and treated with the response we've all seen on television and in the movies with the criminal types locked down and unable to move and ongoing negotiation, for days if necessary.

The reinstitution of civil society need not be sudden and brutal.  It can be organized, humane, and even kind.

After all of that and countless other things that I can't hope to ennumerate, it is possible, likely even, that there could be some who have crossed the line and won't come back.  They ought to be isolated, defanged, and captured.  Where this is not possible it is perhaps reasonable that they be shot as the very last resort, to save others who are in imminent danger.

It is only when we have done everything possible to help and save the refugees, perhaps even risking ourselves in the process, that we will regain any sort of moral authority that would allow for the taking of life.  And it is only when we have shown everyone that we have done everything possible that the people of America will accept that the taking of life is necessary.

Don't you think the army, national guard, or police would have better aim?

If you acknowledge that there exist reasoned, principled cases for the use of lethal force against certain classes of looters, you get a post off on the wrong foot by characterizing those who argue for that policy as knee-jerk and thoughtless.  

And I have no objection to your discussion of the purposes of punishment and the questions of proportionality.  But these are questions which have a greater weight in ordered, civilized society; they have little weight when civilization has effectively ceased to function, even to exist.  In those cases, order is the precondition of any further good, and that means that brigands must be dealt with severely; by the nature of the present case, this cannot mean detention without trial.  Shooting them is the only alternative to permitting them to rempage unchecked.  

And yes, it does matter how one reaches one's conclusions, which is to say that while I generally applaud your reasoning, and share it, I do not approve or share the squeamishness of many regarding doing what is necessary to the brigands.  Shoot some moral retard whose actions demonstrate his creed that disaster is a "get free stuff from unfortunate people" card?  Yes.  Because such actions are themselves destabilizing, adding chaos, and because they contribute to the spread of the conviction that certain events revert us as a people to some mythical state prior to law, an attitide corrosive of all civilized order, and because people who seek to profit from misfortune are likely to impose misfortune for their own benefit.  The broken-windows theory obtains here, as well.

If someone is seen running off with a TV but evinces no apparent threat to anyone else, do you think they should be shot?

If you understood this:

Some have advocated "shoot to kill" against the looters in a kneejerk reaction of human disgust.

To mean that there are some people who are advocating "shoot to kill" and all of those people are doing so in a kneejerk reaction of human disgust, then I apologize for not making the sentence clear enough. It was intended to convey something along the lines of "some of the people who are advocating "shoot to kill" against the looters are doing so in a kneejerk reaction of human disgust."

we should shoot those who violate the 4 tenants you've determined.

To me, the looters are not a part of society, but, by performing criminal acts in the face of tragedy, remove themselves from the protection of society.

The thugs who shoot at a medical convoy would not have been an accepted part of any society, modern or otherwise.  Yet they are afforded the benefit of a judical system they seek to prevert.  

This example is one of the crux of the problem.

If you shoot this person, it is for a property crime. If you arrest this person, you take away some one from rescuing a person in distress to transport and guard him. Yet absent any punishment at all, it encourages others to follow suit, which leads to other crimes and anarchy.

If the person has a gun on them, shoot em.

Short of that, we could go Muslim on him/her and just cut off their hand on the spot, maybe we can outsource this job? Calypso Joe where are we when we need you?

Or we could have a bucket of paint or something and make him dip his/her hands in some day glow orange and then let him go. Next time we see some day glow orange hands looting, we shoot the owner of those hands on the spot.

but Ray Nagin.

they DIDN'T issue shoot to kill orders for dealing with looters and order is already returning to the area.  

I MOST CERTAINLY oppose killing looters simply because incarcerating them is inconvenient.

New Orleans has no money.  Never has.  This is a disaster of proportions we have never seen.  The city does not even have 10% of the resources New York has.  We have to face reality; Bush, the federal government and others have failed us.  

So this is a moot discussion.  

Good to know that you were able to do an inventory of New Orleans so quickly.

A few people, moral retards all, who act on the supposition that a natural disaster is a "get free stuff" card, when they get away with it, are examples to a few other people, who act on the supposition that the disaster is a "get away with (insert serious crime here)" card.  

Sorry.  Zero tolerance for those who are taking anything other than food and water.

placing the poorer construction on your sentence.  I'm very touchy, viewing the scenes of disorder and hearing reports of the anarchy.  

the arrival of National Guard and military forces is supposed to be imminent.  Crimes of opportunity decline when the window is believed to be, or is, closing.

Thanks for this post, it was very intelligent.  I especially like the discussion of the purposes of punishment in criminal justice.

Having said that, I don't think the looters should be shot.  I think the normal police engagement rules should apply i.e. shoot in self-defense or against non-compliance during serious crime.  Ultimately, I believe deterrance is the most important aspect of punishment.  The main goal here is to regain order.  Shooting looters might help this...assuming other looters are watching TV and they hear about it.

I think the best solution is simply to get enough security in place.  No one is going to loot if the streets are crawling with NG units.  A band of ten commandos running through New Orleans, killing everyone breaking the law, isn't going to restore order.  Quite the contrary.  Not that I think you're suggesting that.  But my point is, as long as you get enough troops in the streets, THAT will provide deterrence.  Whether they shoot looters on sight seems far less important.

Also, I'm iffy on your example of the stolen ox.  Presumably, before we punish the culprit, we first return all stolen goods.  Thus, even with a one-ox penalty, he should be in the red (on his ox balance sheet).  Returning stolen goods is not part of the punishment.

for a state of reality that doesn't exist.  You can't just miracle a division or two worth of troops out of thin air.  And while you wait, people are dying from chaos.  Civil order is not an afterthought, it is the sine qua non of social existence.  

Blame the one guy whose job it was to get ready for something like this?

You betcha.

Here's a telling line:

"I need 500 buses."

You had 500 buses, pal.  I saw shots of them sitting in eight feet of water the day after the floods.

If the locals had any sort of planning, those buses would have been three hundred miles to the West, full of poor people.

The only prep the Mayor's folks did was to say "everyone leave, I hope you have cars."

There were no emergency communications set up, there were no safe places for the cops to organize, there were no plans for the cops to organize, there was no gasoline stock for their cars, and there was even less work beforehand by the State of Louisiana.

The day the levees broke, there should have been police cars driving through the street in the not-yet-flooded areas telling everyone to get the hell out, and start walking west on the no-yet-flooded roads.

The pickpockets in the French Quarter could buy transportation out for everybody.

I think there will be enough blame to spread around.  Just none for the mayor, apparently.

This was an opportunity for a local or state leader to step up and do what was needed, without worrying about whether he was permitted.  It's easier to get forgiveness than permission.

"... I tell ya man, I'm probably going to be in a whole bunch of trouble, I'm probably going to be in so much trouble it ain't even funny.  You probably won't even want to deal with me after this interview is over ..."

Yup.

Because NewOrleans as we see it today is a massive failure of local authority from the git-go.

Civilization has the right to protect itself against barbarism. Or, am I wrong about this?

I'd say that shooting at patients in a hospital is barbaric. Shooting the guy who's shooting at patients in a hospital is life saving to the folks in the hospital (who can't defend themselves)

NO doesn't have 10% of the resource of NY is it is less than 10% of the size.

We have to face reality; Bush, the federal government and others have failed us.

Hah. Notice who's missing from this? The people responsible for a)governing the city, b)maintaining the city, c)protecting the city, and d)those who didn't leave after the evacuation order.

Those "others" are responsible.

But the failure is happening everywhere.  There are two states called Mississippi and Alabama and things are pretty ugly in some places there too.

The job of the federal government is to take the lead in time of disaster.  Unfortunately, Condi Rice forgot about this while she was shoe shopping in NYC yesterday. Then again, ignoring help from foreign governments must be "hard work."

No folks.  Let me be the first to welcome you to the demise of everything you stand for.  Your ideology is a laughable joke, your President is missing, and everywhere I go in my very red county in Virginia, everyone is screaming bloody murder.

So long.      

of course, that Rice is the Secretary of State? I'm guessing you don't.

Maybe the reason New Orleans has no money is that it is one of the most corrupt places on the face of this earth. You have failed yourselves by putting up with corruption and incompetence for so very long.

If you can get every person in the city to the polls, without fail, every time you have an election down there (which seems to be every third Tuesday), you sure as hell ought to have been able to get them out of the city.

Secretary of State.  Hmmm.  Do I need to connect the dots for you?

when we could be helping those in need? Unless you are willing to put a price tag on someone's relative all resources should be focused on saving lives.

Target the looters when you have time.

There aren't employees at State? Oh, no. That's right. They just collect checks. The SecState has to do the rest.

Bye.

Clearly, oil execs would not be able to properly do the job. I'll bet they can barely load their guns. However they should be called upon to assist - perhaps as spotters or something.

How about society's responsibility to protect the vulnerable ... like medical personnel and patients being shot at by men with guns. Like rescue workers?

First I want to state in my own words a principle that others have stated somewhat differently:  A minimal level of civil order is a necessary precondition for policies of punishment based on any goal other than deterrence.  Whether that minimal level of civil order exists in any particular circumstance, however, is a judgement call -- and not an easy one.

Furthermore, even if one has made the judgement that civil order has collapsed, it is not obvious that the best means for restoring it is zero tolerance of any behavior that might be characterized as "looting."  When survival is at stake, humans are driven to various behaviors that would ordinarily be considered criminal.  Most of us consider some of these behaviors morally acceptable -- such as taking a loaf of bread from an unattended store in order to feed a hungry child.  While small violations of the law can help to pave the way for a complete breakdown of civil order, there are two different strategies for dealing with these.  One is to respond with harsh punishment to even small violations.  The other is to ameliorate the conditions that pose an immediate threat to survival.  If a governing authority undertakes the former while neglecting the latter, it undermines its moral authority and makes its task more difficult.  So if you're going to be shooting looters to restore civil order, you better also be working very hard to at least get water, food, medicines, and sanitary supplies to crowds of people with children and old folks dying in their midst.  Finally, it is important to recognize that there is a tradeoff between force levels and level of force required to maintain order.  If you have a large number of armed and uniformed personnel visibly available to enforce the law, the question of shooting looters hardly ever comes up.  

So yes, there are times when the need to restore civil order may justify the shooting of looters on sight.  In such times, the need to restore civil order also would rightly justify the commandeering and distribution of water, food, medicines, and sanitary supplies to those in dire need.  A prudent society will do what it can to prevent such situations in order to avoid the costs to liberty and justice that restoring civil order may entail.

A. "...the escalation of lawlessness happened as a consequence of a failure to maintain deterrence.  That failure is on us and not on the looters."

B. "To open fire on the very people we have materially abandoned and who are suffering and dying...."

C. "We have failed them."

A.  That equates to, "Since we didn't keep them under guard during this difficult time, it's our fault that they decided to take advantage of their youth, health, and mobility to steal and to kill their neighbors."

B.  Those aren't the people who are doing the looting.

C.  Haven't they failed themselves and us, too?  If that statement is anywhere approaching the truth, there would be 99% of the public looting, and only 1% being victimized.  100% are in the same boat.  Why aren't they all looting?

But I heard on the radio news this afternoon around 2:00 (9-2) that they had indeed issued shoot to kill orders and that some looters had been shot.

If order is being restored, I am venturing a guess that the orders are related to the order.

the comments I don't like the dumbest things I've read?  Can I respond in kind or will that violate the Redstate honor code?  If I start calling "dumb" I get banned, don't I?

But I understand WHY Nagin did what he did.

The Tourism business leaders were in denial that the Hurricane would hit, they thought it would be like Georges. Not the disaster it was. Thus Bush leaning on Blanco who leaned on NAgin to interrupt his Saturday Dinner and issue evac orders. According to Blanco. Grain of salt and all that.

However, Bush DECLARED a Disaster Area before the Hurricane hit on Saturday. Nagin should have started evacs on Thursday/Friday; he had over 500 buses combined with transit and City School buses, he could have evaced over 60,000 people at least before the hurricane hit.

Nagin was so unprepared and unwilling to be ruthless that the prisoners in local jails were just set free ala Baghdad when the flood waters rose.

Then when it was obvious to everyone that order needed to be restored he didn't do the sensible thing: open every store on City Authority and "OK" people taking what they want (less guns and drugs) with the advisory that you can't drink a DVD player. Up to them and warning them it might days before water.

People NEEDED food and water, so you do what's needed and make sure things don't start out lawless.

The thugs from the projects had kept New Orleans poor and decreipt despite the advantages (largest port in the US, unique culture, LOTS of hard working people in Mid City and East New Orleans). The level of violence you would not believe and it was pervasive driving folks out of the city (I used to live there in the nineties).

People raping, murdering, shooting at Evacs/Medical folks/hospital patients etc needed killing right from the start; as well as any armed thugs no questions asked. Just kill them.

This would have saved about a dozen desperately ill patients in Charity, Tulane, and Children's Hospital, as well as probably a hundred each at the Convention Center and Superdome. That was Nagin's decision.

He chose PC and an unwillingness to confront the monsters (what else can you call rape-murders?) This is no exaggeration all the major media outlets and NOPD officers have confirmed this.

New Orleans as we knew it is dead, I'm sorrowful to say. It will probably be reborn as an ultra safe Las Vegas with a port; the French Quarter, Uptown, CBD, and maybe Fauburg Marigny. That's it.

I promised to be good.

While there HAS been some small-time looting; in both Alabama and Mississippi, the State Leaders there jumped on the anti-looting (and anti-gouging) sentiment immediately.

Better leadership has led to far less looting, and more importantly nowhere near the rapes, murders, and horrors inflicted on the innocent people at the Convention Center and Superdome in New Orleans.

[I used to park at the Superdome every day when I worked in New Orleans in the nineties]

Barbour and Perdue are better leaders, all there is to it, compared with Blanco. That is not hard, for three days Blanco was just crying on TV not directing resources.