Les Jones

I guess people may misunderstand my position on looting. I really don't care if people steal DVDs or food (though the former isn't so noble). My issue is what is basically robbery /rape/ general rabble that is being lumped into looting.

As I said, if you come to take my big screen TV, I could care less. If you're taking my baby's food, then you will die. Or I will.

Yep, and I don't have any problem with defending the necessities of life from looters, particularly if they're threatening you. But that's a far cry from just "shooting looters" in general. We have to be careful about what we're talking about.

I am glad to see a more reasoned take on this whole business.

This is one of those times where you have to be careful about saying exactly what you mean.

There is a level of civil disorder which is intolerable - as a rule of thumb, it's the level at which it becomes dangerous to the innocent. It may be because of criminal violence, it may be because relief efforts are being hindered, it may be because stockpiles in hospitals or shelters are being stolen instead of being distributed to those in greatest need.

The police may be unable to respond in a more measured way. They might be trapped themselves, with no ability to transport prisoners and no place to take them to anyway. Criminals begin to simply ignore the cops, or even to prey on them.

Using lethal force to restore order in these circumstances is not only acceptable, it's a duty. This does not mean you kill everybody with a DVD player. It means you kill who you have to kill to get the situation under control.

When expressed in these terms, I'll guess that few people really disagree. It's the sort of thing that has to be determined on a case-by-case basis, by individuals, trying to do the best they can. There are no bright lines or easy answers.

"...shoplifting, armed robbery, carjacking, and lots of other crimes for which we don't prescribe an on-the-spot death penalty."

Shoplifting gets a pass. But armed robbery & carjacking do call for an on the spot death penalty, preferably administered by the victims.

Sorry, just had to point that out.

"...if you come to take my big screen TV, I could care less. If you're taking my baby's food, then you will die. Or I will."

If someone was sneaking out of my house with my TV they'd get hurt. It's not that I value material possessions over anything else (hell, I don't even have a TV) but I do value what I've busted my ass to accumulate much more than the well being of a thief. Besides, just as in social policy/politics, once we start neglecting property rights in material things there's a great danger that property rights in our own beings will be devalued. I've seen it first hand (if that means anything). Once a fellow gets it in hsi head that stealing is okay it's not a far leap for him to feel a sense of entitlement to goods he eyes & a willingness to use force to secure it for himself. I'm afraid I must remind you of your Spiderman. :)

In general shooting looters who are attepting to loot is possibly the best way of discouraging said activity, which is the best way of ensuring that a looting mob doesn't turn into a murdering or raping one. A guy running down the street with a TV - well as long as it's not mine or my neighbors I'd probably just shoot a shot into a safe backstop close to him.

Oh, government is not necesary to restore order, nor should it be assumed that the .gov would be the only ones who should even contemplate shooting looters. What would have worked to restore order is an aware & thoughtful populace who knew what to do & why to do it & possessed the tools to do it. If that sounds somewhat like a loose description of a militia, then you get the $2 cigar. Sadly the notion of government dependence has been drilled in so deep that most of the folks (not all) were simply hoping .gov would come to their rescue.