Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Possible "Shiawase Decision" type incident...
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3
TheOneRonin
Guys and girls, I just got word that a transport truck hauling medical supplies to a hospital in Gretna, LA (very near New Orleans) was stopped and hijacked at gunpoint by looters.

Things are starting to get bad down here too. Several of the state offices downtown are being closed due to carjacking and violence and all sorts of other mess. I will keep everyone informed as things develop.
Aku
I'm honestly amazed that it wasnt given some sort of armed guard in the first place, but my best wishes go out to those affected
hobgoblin
oh crap, here we go...
Chance359
I heard reports yesterday that looters had attacked a hospital and the police were unable to get there. Also, a rep for one of the insurance companies said on NPR to shoot looters. Fun
Kagetenshi
Insurance Wars!

~J
TheOneRonin
Just so people don't think I'm rumor-trolling, I work for Innovative Emergency Management, and we have contracts with FEMA, the ODP, and DHS. My company holds the contract for the New Orleans Hurrican Evacuation planning, and we also have teams down there now helping with the emergency planning and coordination.

If anyone wants more details, you can e-mail me at chris.louviere@ieminc.com.
Sabosect
I'd say I'm surprised, but a friend I talk to on regular basis lives down there. I've been getting reports of similar events ever since the rescue efforts moved in. One of them includes a police officer shot because he didn't get to a guy fast enough to rescue him.
TheOneRonin
More of the same:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/01/katr...pact/index.html
SL James
QUOTE (TheOneRonin)
Guys and girls, I just got word that a transport truck hauling medical supplies to a hospital in Gretna, LA (very near New Orleans) was stopped and hijacked at gunpoint by looters.

Seretech equivalent, not Shiawase (I or II, yet).
hobgoblin
hmm, true. there was the attack on the nuke plant thats the shiawase...
jhsiao
This thread reminds me so much of the shadowtalk in Bug City...

Edit: Even down to using the domes as havens. There's even a competing faction in the convention center--fighting for evac and food/supplies.
mmu1
Our group is in Bug City right now.

We knocked over a restaurant earlier (turned out to be a good call, it was uncontested since all the other citizens were going for obvious things, like Stuffer Shacks - even if the fact it was a soy steakhouse franchise led to a certain lack of variety of the spoils) and we ended last session in the middle of a fight with some people who got to the local Home Despot before we did, in order to get our hands on generators, water purifiers, insecticide, power tools, building materials, etc.
ShadowDragon8685
Home Despot?

Either a funny typo, or the best management decision ever. smile.gif
Sabosect
Escuse me while I steal that, all ninja-like.

Seriously, this looting going on... not good.
FlakJacket
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
Insurance Wars!

Well they are saying that the insurance industry is going to take a real beating from Katrina... Maybe having the industry go through this and become that much more competitive is just the nudge they need to start down the tright path. biggrin.gif

QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685)
Home Despot? Either a funny typo, or the best management decision ever. smile.gif

It was a parody site from a while back that unfortunately seems to have disapeared. The the Home Depot site but with products for military dictators and mad scientist types. smile.gif
Toshiaki
Home Despot courtesy of the Way Back Machine.
mmu1
QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685)
Home Despot?

Either a funny typo, or the best management decision ever. smile.gif

No, not a typo. smile.gif
Talia Invierno
Cross your fingers that the Wayback Machine doesn't find itself hobbled by the current copyright suits. (Too many attorneys have found some otherwise gone-forever evidence there.)
hobgoblin
QUOTE (Toshiaki @ Sep 2 2005, 03:33 AM)
Home Despot courtesy of the Way Back Machine.

nice one rotfl.gif

that CIA commersial up in the corner realy does the trick nyahnyah.gif

and talia's comment about copyright suits sadly makes a good point.

but to me its like going after a library that keep track of old newspapers or similar.

thats realy the problem of the law and the net today. they keep reacting like its something totaly new while in fact most of the actions take online have physical paralells that are fully ok.

only real diff is that you cant be 100% sure that when you delete something of the net its gone forever spin.gif man i love the digital age silly.gif
blakkie
QUOTE (FlakJacket)
Well they are saying that the insurance industry is going to take a real beating from Katrina... Maybe having the industry go through this and become that much more competitive is just the nudge they need to start down the tright path. biggrin.gif

Unfortunately such is not the way of insurance firms. Due to the large capital barrier to start-up they operate at near a monopoly, and because our society generates a huge demand though many ways including government mandated ones the demand for their product is relatively price inflexible. So they tend to go with increasing premiums across the board (even in entirely unrelated policies) rather than focusing on increasing efficency, and even their attempts at increasing efficency look a lot more like actions designed to disuade, minimize, or thwart claims.

Expect New Orleans to be given as a reason for a double digit bump in things like your car insurance and home insurance rates, even outside of the US.

P.S. Yesterday our gasoline in Calgary, Alberta jumped over 15 cent/L (nearly 50 US cent/US gallon). eek.gif Apparently much worse elsewhere in the country and at least parts of the US.
Jrayjoker
QUOTE (blakkie)
P.S. Yesterday our gasoline in Calgary, Alberta jumped over 15 cent/L (nearly 50 US cent/US gallon). eek.gif Apparently much worse elsewhere in the country and at least parts of the US.

Yeah, we saw a $0.30 US jump in one day, it is now hovering around $3 US per gallon.
hobgoblin
hmm, that would make the us fuel more expensive then whats sold here in norway. and i dont know when it was like that before...
jhsiao
QUOTE (blakkie)
QUOTE (FlakJacket @ Sep 1 2005, 07:08 PM)
Well they are saying that the insurance industry is going to take a real beating from Katrina... Maybe having the industry go through this and become that much more competitive is just the nudge they need to start down the tright path. biggrin.gif

Unfortunately such is not the way of insurance firms. Due to the large capital barrier to start-up they operate at near a monopoly, and because our society generates a huge demand though many ways including government mandated ones the demand for their product is relatively price inflexible. So they tend to go with increasing premiums across the board (even in entirely unrelated policies) rather than focusing on increasing efficency, and even their attempts at increasing efficency look a lot more like actions designed to disuade, minimize, or thwart claims.

Expect New Orleans to be given as a reason for a double digit bump in things like your car insurance and home insurance rates, even outside of the US.

It may very well signal the death of the homeowners insurance market in Louisiana.

In Florida after hurricane Andrew, alot of insurance companies cut their losses by going bankrupt (11 companies) or simply stopped writing policies (nearly all of them). When natural disasters occur, the state subsidiary may need to tap the national "bank". So while the national company is claiming record profits (to stockholders), the state branch is asking state legislatures for insurance relief.
Link for article.

Still, even with Florida being a growing state (ranked 7th in pop growth from 1990-2000 at 23%), private insurance companies have not been writing enough policies to cover everyone.

Florida actually ended up creating 2 state-owned underwriting associations after Andrew (now merged into "Citizens Insurance" in 2002) specifically to write policies for homeowners who couldn't find policies from private insurers. It was supposed to be temporary, but Citizens is still going 13 years after Andrew--it actually hit 1 million policies in 1996.

So with not enough insurance policies written in a state ranked 7th in growth, what do you think is going to happen with Louisiana which is ranked 40th in pop growth in the 90s at 6%?
Eldritch
Yeah, and the Insurance guys will be working overtime to get out of as many claims as possible. "You have Flood insurance, but not <I>Hurricane</i> coverage. Sorry, your house/business was destroyed by the hurricane, not the flood". Or vice versa.

Those insurance companies have boat loads of guys just standing around whose job it is to get out of paying on a claim. And in this particular situation, they will drag their feet, and get out of as many claims as possible.
blakkie
QUOTE (Jrayjoker)
QUOTE (blakkie @ Sep 2 2005, 07:48 AM)
P.S. Yesterday our gasoline in Calgary, Alberta jumped over 15 cent/L (nearly 50 US cent/US gallon).  eek.gif Apparently much worse elsewhere in the country and at least parts of the US.

Yeah, we saw a $0.30 US jump in one day, it is now hovering around $3 US per gallon.

I heard someone in Indiana say yesterday it hit $3.20 there. Incidentally about $3/gallon is what we were paying here before in Alberta, which is nearly always the lowest in the country. We have somewhat more "agressive" fuel taxing.

QUOTE
hmm, that would make the us fuel more expensive then whats sold here in norway. and i dont know when it was like that before...


That was coming eventually anyway. Norway has steadily been climbing in crude production from offshore, and with the huge royalties the government collects from exported eventually that comes back as lower local taxes overall including fuel taxes. We see the same thing in Alberta where a Constitutional quirk gives the Province authority over oil&gas. The Provincial Government has zero longterm debt, about 10 billion CAN in a trust fund (total population less than 3 million), and is expected to have a budget surplus of 6-8 billion CAN for this year. It has resulted in the lowest overal fuel taxes in the country, lowest personal income, and business taxes. So low that even with the Canadian federal income tax included it rivals even the lowest of the US states.
Blacken
As for New Orleans: I really don't see why there shouldn't be a shoot-to-kill order for looters. Okay, yeah, some are going for food. But I've seen numerous ones on the news carrying TVs down flooded streets. Beyond the basic question of what the hell you're going to do with a TV in a flooded soon-to-be-condemned city, I have no sympathy for the people who want to loot for the sake of looting.

Or are they "expressing their discontent with their social status"?

As for "Shiawase Decision" fears: To an extent, there ought to already be security forces working for these people. The Army ought to be guarding each of them, but there's just not enough boots on the ground for that to be effective. If the military can't protect them, a reasonable number of private security personnel is more than reasonable.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Blacken)
As for New Orleans: I really don't see why there shouldn't be a shoot-to-kill order for looters. Okay, yeah, some are going for food. But I've seen numerous ones on the news carrying TVs down flooded streets. Beyond the basic question of what the hell you're going to do with a TV in a flooded soon-to-be-condemned city, I have no sympathy for the people who want to loot for the sake of looting.

Or are they "expressing their discontent with their social status"?

Maybe they are just thinking ahead. Homes have been destroyed and jobs have been lost. Hotel rooms don't pay for themselves. Selling stolen goods is a decent way to make a quick profit. For the profit from a stolen plasma-screen TV a family of 4 could have a roof and half-decent meals for a week, give or take.
Supercilious
I think amen to the looters!

If the government wants to abandon them, they should get as much as they can, for as long as they can.

Additionally I hope the first "relief worker" who shoots to kill a looters gets shot in the face by the looter. Killing the citizens because they are trapped in the city, and UNABLE TO LEAVE BY GOVERNMENT ORDER is murder. I already feel a bigass class-action lawsuit against the U.S. government for their shoddy emergency work coming on. If Uncle Sam kills anyone the survivors of the disaster will be filthy rich for the rest of their lives, and the country cannot afford a large settlement.

Additional: New Orleans Free City?
Blacken
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
QUOTE (Blacken @ Sep 2 2005, 10:42 AM)
As for New Orleans: I really don't see why there shouldn't be a shoot-to-kill order for looters. Okay, yeah, some are going for food. But I've seen numerous ones on the news carrying TVs down flooded streets. Beyond the basic question of what the hell you're going to do with a TV in a flooded soon-to-be-condemned city, I have no sympathy for the people who want to loot for the sake of looting.

Or are they "expressing their discontent with their social status"?

Maybe they are just thinking ahead. Homes have been destroyed and jobs have been lost. Hotel rooms don't pay for themselves. Selling stolen goods is a decent way to make a quick profit. For the profit from a stolen plasma-screen TV a family of 4 could have a roof and half-decent meals for a week, give or take.

That makes it any less illegal? I have no pity for them.

QUOTE

  I think amen to the looters!

If the government wants to abandon them, they should get as much as they can, for as long as they can.

Additionally I hope the first "relief worker" who shoots to kill a looters gets shot in the face by the looter. Killing the citizens because they are trapped in the city, and UNABLE TO LEAVE BY GOVERNMENT ORDER is murder. I already feel a bigass class-action lawsuit against the U.S. government for their shoddy emergency work coming on. If Uncle Sam kills anyone the survivors of the disaster will be filthy rich for the rest of their lives, and the country cannot afford a large settlement.

Additional: New Orleans Free City?


The government isn't abandoning them, the fucking resources do not exist to help everyone. And the ones who are shooting at relief workers are not going to be let out any sooner, precisely for that reason. They stopped being citizens when they started taking potshots at helicopters. They stopped being citizens when they started trucking TVs out of Wal-Mart. They are criminals in a martial law setting and there is no court proceeding or jurisdiction other than that of the military under martial law.

You break the law, you face martial law punishments. There will be no class-action lawsuits. They'll be laughed out of court. Similar to the writ of habeas corpus, in extreme situations the rights of citizens can and in many cases must be abridged.

I'm guessing you're maybe 14, Supercilious? Think this is all some game? "Oh yeah, it's cool, it's like Shadowrun, let's make a free city, let's shoot the military, they're all conspiring to kill everyone in the city!"

Come fucking on.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Blacken)
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Sep 2 2005, 10:53 AM)
QUOTE (Blacken @ Sep 2 2005, 10:42 AM)
As for New Orleans: I really don't see why there shouldn't be a shoot-to-kill order for looters. Okay, yeah, some are going for food. But I've seen numerous ones on the news carrying TVs down flooded streets. Beyond the basic question of what the hell you're going to do with a TV in a flooded soon-to-be-condemned city, I have no sympathy for the people who want to loot for the sake of looting.

Or are they "expressing their discontent with their social status"?

Maybe they are just thinking ahead. Homes have been destroyed and jobs have been lost. Hotel rooms don't pay for themselves. Selling stolen goods is a decent way to make a quick profit. For the profit from a stolen plasma-screen TV a family of 4 could have a roof and half-decent meals for a week, give or take.

That makes it any less illegal? I have no pity for them.


Legality isn't any measure of morality. There was it was illegal for slaves to run away from their masters. That doesn't make it immoral. Laws exist to support and maintain social order. When that social order does not exist, laws are meaningless.

QUOTE
QUOTE

  I think amen to the looters!

If the government wants to abandon them, they should get as much as they can, for as long as they can.

Additionally I hope the first "relief worker" who shoots to kill a looters gets shot in the face by the looter. Killing the citizens because they are trapped in the city, and UNABLE TO LEAVE BY GOVERNMENT ORDER is murder. I already feel a bigass class-action lawsuit against the U.S. government for their shoddy emergency work coming on. If Uncle Sam kills anyone the survivors of the disaster will be filthy rich for the rest of their lives, and the country cannot afford a large settlement.

Additional: New Orleans Free City?


The government isn't abandoning them, the fucking resources do not exist to help everyone.


Well, they could pull resources away from Iraq.
Blacken
Oh, God, not another one of these.

Look, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about Iraq, suffice to say that we're there and there isn't a whole lot we can do at the moment about it. We can't pull applicable assets out of Iraq because they really don't exist. We already have enough AF members available within the States to handle it. They just can't get there fast enough.

As for morality--guess what? Theft is theft is theft. It's still immoral to steal, even if you aren't going to get caught. You're trying to tell me it's not immoral to steal from someone else, and I'm telling you you're full of shit. Food and water, life essentials? Okay, I'll go with you that far, especially in the case of perishables and such that are going to be useless in a week. But plasma-screen TVs? How do you call that kind of theft "moral"?
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Blacken)
Oh, God, not another one of these.

Look, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about Iraq, suffice to say that we're there and there isn't a whole lot we can do at the moment about it. We can't pull applicable assets out of Iraq because they really don't exist. We already have enough AF members available within the States to handle it. They just can't get there fast enough.

As for morality--guess what? Theft is theft is theft. It's still immoral to steal, even if you aren't going to get caught. You're trying to tell me it's not immoral to steal from someone else, and I'm telling you you're full of shit. Food and water, life essentials? Okay, I'll go with you that far, especially in the case of perishables and such that are going to be useless in a week. But plasma-screen TVs? How do you call that kind of theft "moral"?

If plasma screen TVs can be exchanged for the necessities of life, then yes.

I would also disagree that theft is necessarilary immoral. There is no such thing as universal morality. One could, easily, create a moral system in which all theft is good.
TheOneRonin
There are some things that I think you are missing, Superlicious.

First off, the order to evacuate New Orleans was sent down the pipe with short notice, but most people were actually able to get out. Many of those that weren't able to evacuate were able to find shelter in the superdome and the civic center. Granted, some people weren't even able to make it there. And many of those people have already been rescued. However, you have a rather large group of people who didn't leave or take shelter because they were too stupid/poor/lazy to do so. It is THIS group that is causing trouble.

The NOPD and rescue workers have not had problems with people looting food and supplies. Those people, when found, are being rescued. The problem is with people stealing things like TVs and such, and with them committing violence against other trapped people/cops/rescue workers.

The government has NOT abandoned the people of New Orleans. My company, working very closely with FEMA, the cops, and all levels of city, parish, state, and federal agencies, has been working around the clock for 5 days straight trying to help people. The New Orleans Mayor himself has been out there, without sleep, without AC, doing what he can to help. Despite what you might be hearing, everyone is working to HELP the people of New Orleans, not shoot at them.

However, some people out there aren't helping the situation. They are shooting at police and rescue workers, they are robbing/raping/looting other poor, destitue familes that are stuck out there, and many of those same types of people have made it out of New Orleans and are doing the SAME things to outlying towns and cities even as far as here in Baton Rouge. It's THOSE people who are hindering the rescue effort. It's THOSE people who are causing the state leadership to get so irate and demand the federal government to send troops. It's THOSE people that I would gladly shoot myself if they come anywhere near my home looking for what they can steal/loot.
Blacken
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Sep 2 2005, 11:29 AM)
QUOTE (Blacken @ Sep 2 2005, 11:15 AM)
Oh, God, not another one of these.

Look, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about Iraq, suffice to say that we're there and there isn't a whole lot we can do at the moment about it. We can't pull applicable assets out of Iraq because they really don't exist. We already have enough AF members available within the States to handle it. They just can't get there fast enough.

As for morality--guess what? Theft is theft is theft. It's still immoral to steal, even if you aren't going to get caught. You're trying to tell me it's not immoral to steal from someone else, and I'm telling you you're full of shit. Food and water, life essentials? Okay, I'll go with you that far, especially in the case of perishables and such that are going to be useless in a week. But plasma-screen TVs? How do you call that kind of theft "moral"?

If plasma screen TVs can be exchanged for the necessities of life, then yes.

I would also disagree that theft is necessarilary immoral. There is no such thing as universal morality. One could, easily, create a moral system in which all theft is good.

Ah, so now we get into moral relativity. That's not an argument I wish to partake in, because it's ludicrous to even try to discuss morality with someone who refuses to acknowledge that it exists.

Fine, I'll rephrase. They are acting immoral based upon the codes of morality our society has agreed to follow. Yes, I know that Democrats and assorted liberals (and a few of the more wrong-minded Libertarians, but I love 'em anyway) want to change the morality our society is based upon, but so far, they haven't yet.

TheOneRonin: A viewpoint from someone who's actually there. Good luck, manno--it's gonna be needed.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Blacken)
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Sep 2 2005, 11:29 AM)
QUOTE (Blacken @ Sep 2 2005, 11:15 AM)
Oh, God, not another one of these.

Look, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about Iraq, suffice to say that we're there and there isn't a whole lot we can do at the moment about it. We can't pull applicable assets out of Iraq because they really don't exist. We already have enough AF members available within the States to handle it. They just can't get there fast enough.

As for morality--guess what? Theft is theft is theft. It's still immoral to steal, even if you aren't going to get caught. You're trying to tell me it's not immoral to steal from someone else, and I'm telling you you're full of shit. Food and water, life essentials? Okay, I'll go with you that far, especially in the case of perishables and such that are going to be useless in a week. But plasma-screen TVs? How do you call that kind of theft "moral"?

If plasma screen TVs can be exchanged for the necessities of life, then yes.

I would also disagree that theft is necessarilary immoral. There is no such thing as universal morality. One could, easily, create a moral system in which all theft is good.

Ah, so now we get into moral relativity. That's not an argument I wish to partake in, because it's ludicrous to even try to discuss morality with someone who refuses to acknowledge that it exists.

I'm not saying that morality does not exist. I am saying that it changes depending on one's point of view. The flow of time changes depending on one's point of view, so why shouldn't morality?
Blacken
Because if you want stability, you adhere to the underlying morality of the consensus. Note that I said underlying, because I'm sure someone's going to bring up gay marriage or some other minor point.

Don't kill people (except in self-defense).
Don't rape people.
Don't steal (again, a pass is, by me in a moral view and the police/military in a practical view, given on the people stealing food).

It's not a hard concept to grasp.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Blacken)
Because if you want stability, you adhere to the underlying morality of the consensus. Note that I said underlying, because I'm sure someone's going to bring up gay marriage or some other minor point.

Don't kill people (except in self-defense).
Don't rape people.
Don't steal (again, a pass is, by me in a moral view and the police/military in a practical view, given on the people stealing food).

It's not a hard concept to grasp.

If you want stability to adhere to the law. Morality has nothing to do with it. In this situation the law is no longer relevant as the social infrastructure that it supported doesn't exist any longer.
Blacken
So it's okay to steal from other citizens, harming them and their livelihood even more than has already occured?

Stop dodging, hyzmarca. Choose one. No gray area, no qualifiers. By using the term "stolen" you have tacitly agreed that the looters are, in fact, stealing. So now I'd like you to give a straight yes-or-no answer to the question "is it okay to steal non-essentials from other citizens who will be further harmed by the actions of these looters?"

"Yes, it is okay for looters to steal from fellow citizens."

"No, it is not okay for looters to steal from fellow citizens."
Sharaloth
A point, Blacken: Morality and society have both broken down in NO. At the moment the only morality is what you create for yourself, a kind of forced Nietzscheanism. Theft is reprehensible in our society, but in a place where our society no longer exists (the current anarchic NO) it ceases to be so. Outside of this environment theft is punishable within the guidelines of law (And unless I'm missing something, the law doesn't call for the execution of theives, as you have advocated), but within the environment, it is not even illegal (there being no law remaining). The only order such a 'society' has is what is imposed by an individual on themselves, and what they can forcibly impose on others. The looters are not imposing an anti-theft morality on themselves, and those that could (the police, the national guard, etc) have so far chosen to exercise their power in sporadic and limited terms. Therefore the looting is neither immoral nor illegal, it simply seems so from our societal, ordered perspective.

My opinion: Let the looters loot. They're not really hurting anyone (except perhaps financially, and with a disaster of this scale that hurt is but a mere drop in the ocean). The murderers and rapists, however, deserve every bullet they get. While it may not be immoral or illegal to them, it's stupid and wrong (in an absolute sense of the word, no ambiguity). Other people are more useful whole and alive to any continued survival effort, and if they cannot control themselves enough to preserve that much survival instinct, they need to be removed from the equation.
Blacken
You are right, Sharaloth. The looters are of course of far less importance than the murderers and rapists. If there's a choice between a bullet in a rapist and a bullet in a looter, the rapist gets the lead injection each and every time. I say the looters deserve the same for the fact that "you break one law, you get punished; you break another, you still get punished." Do I really think the military should be gunning down all of the looters? Not really. Their time is better spent elsewhere.

However, under martial law, there is no law that governs thievery. What needs to be done is just done. If a crowd of people is walking out of a Wal-Mart with plasma TVs in hand (a point that this raises: don't they fail the Darwin test on the ground of base stupidity? who will they sell the TVs to in lockdown within NO) and military elements shoot them, not only is it legal, it simply can't be questioned for the duration of the emergency.
Sharaloth
Is NO officially under Martial Law? Everything I've read so far from news organizations has not said they are. What's your source on that? (looking for more info)
Arethusa
Do you really believe looting is justly punishable by death? It's open range in their, right now, and if I had a gun and some food and shelter, there's no question that I'll defend it if necessary, but I would in no way call it just. Justice and necessity, here, do not easily allign.

[edit]

No, no part of the area is under martial law yet. That is a rumor. It is officially a state of emergency. That, of course, may change.
Blacken
You sure?

Is it really punishable by death? Depends. To be honest, I'm less worried about them stealing from Wal-Mart than I am from the now-trashed mom-'n-pop store nearby. Wal-Mart will barely notice. These people, when (or if) they return, already have so little--others depriving them of even that have no rights in my mind.
Sharaloth
Ah, so not martial law, but something close. Still not free reign to shoot people, though, just arrest without regard to civil or miranda rights. Technically, the people in NO right now DON'T have rights, because those rights cannot be enforced. Any authority that moves in, however, is still bound by the rights that they are attempting to enforce, thus giving those rights to the people they are enforcing them on. Fascinating stuff, really, but your advocation of killing people for looting one place but not another (when the financial devastation of an unlooted store left vacant for a month is not so much different from a looted store left vacant for a month, especially with proper insurance {though we could see that go down the tubes too, as discussed earlier}) is arbitrary and against the principles of the order that the forces there are trying to restore.
TheOneRonin
I think I've just figured out what is going on here. I would like everyone reading this thread to pay particular attention to what I'm about to say.

No one here is looking to shoot people who are walking out of wal-mart with a flat-screen TV and an iPod. The "looters" that the news and press conferences keep talking about are people who are armed and stealing not only from places of business, but also from other residents. These "looters" are also committing acts of violence against EVERYONE they encounter, be it police, rescue workers, or other trapped residents. PLEASE do NOT get caught up in the semantics of the word "looter". These people are a threat to EVERYONE, not just to people's property, and they need to be dealt with.

I don't have time to type more, but if anyone wants more info, either e-mail me at chris.louviere@ieminc.com or you can catch me on AIM (screen name: TheOneRonin).
Arethusa
QUOTE (Blacken)
You sure?

Is it really punishable by death? Depends. To be honest, I'm less worried about them stealing from Wal-Mart than I am from the now-trashed mom-'n-pop store nearby. Wal-Mart will barely notice. These people, when (or if) they return, already have so little--others depriving them of even that have no rights in my mind.

I am reasonably sure. I've heard since Wednesday that various officials have denied that martial law is under effect. There is, however, lots of confusion in and out of government, so I am not absolutely certain.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Blacken)
So it's okay to steal from other citizens, harming them and their livelihood even more than has already occured?

Stop dodging, hyzmarca. Choose one. No gray area, no qualifiers. By using the term "stolen" you have tacitly agreed that the looters are, in fact, stealing. So now I'd like you to give a straight yes-or-no answer to the question "is it okay to steal non-essentials from other citizens who will be further harmed by the actions of these looters?"

"Yes, it is okay for looters to steal from fellow citizens."

"No, it is not okay for looters to steal from fellow citizens."

You say no qualifiers, and then you add two qualifiers, "from other citizens" and "who will be further harmed by the actions of these looters"

Of course, when we talk about looting we are generally refering to theft from abandoned stores.

QUOTE (TheOneRonin)
. The "looters" that the news and press conferences keep talking about are people who are armed and stealing not only from places of business, but also from other residents. These "looters" are also committing acts of violence against EVERYONE they encounter, be it police, rescue workers, or other trapped residents. PLEASE do NOT get caught up in the semantics of the word "looter". These people are a threat to EVERYONE, not just to people's property, and they need to be dealt with.


In that case, we should be using a more accurate term. Looting implies stealing from abandoned stores. Warlords would be more accurare.
Arethusa
Warlords implies a certain organization. It may seem slightly anachronistic, or at least out of place, but bandits is (perhaps a little oddly) more accurate.
Sabosect
"Warlords" implies very limited, low-end organization and a lot of lack of overall organization. Similar to Bug City or the Barrens.

But, I will say this: Blacken, there is no black and white. No matter what the religious or the moralists try to bullshit, in the end the black and white view is just that: Bullshit. The entirety of life is moral relativity. For example, it's okay to kill Person X because of Reason Y, but not okay to kill Person Z because of Reason R. Now, before you think I'm just using law, keep in mind that same example comes from stories and rules in the Bible. Worse, is that the laws of the United States, supposedly (that is a very key word) based on an underlying morality, fully support that example.

So, no matter what, there is always going to be a qualification, always going to be an exception, always going to be a case where you may not like it, but it's acceptable. Don't like it? Too bad. Reality doesn't care if you like it.

You want example of moral relativity? Look at your own posts. Look at how it is okay for the military to literally walk down the street and shoot looters. Now, compare that with a case of it not being martial law and just a regular city. Is it okay then? No? That's moral relativity.

Accept it or no, I don't care. But don't think I'm going to stand by and let you try to dictate that it shouldn't be used when you are so clearly using it yourself.
Supercilious
QUOTE (Blacken @ Sep 2 2005, 08:01 AM)
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Sep 2 2005, 10:53 AM)
QUOTE (Blacken @ Sep 2 2005, 10:42 AM)
As for New Orleans: I really don't see why there shouldn't be a shoot-to-kill order for looters. Okay, yeah, some are going for food. But I've seen numerous ones on the news carrying TVs down flooded streets. Beyond the basic question of what the hell you're going to do with a TV in a flooded soon-to-be-condemned city, I have no sympathy for the people who want to loot for the sake of looting.

Or are they "expressing their discontent with their social status"?

Maybe they are just thinking ahead. Homes have been destroyed and jobs have been lost. Hotel rooms don't pay for themselves. Selling stolen goods is a decent way to make a quick profit. For the profit from a stolen plasma-screen TV a family of 4 could have a roof and half-decent meals for a week, give or take.

That makes it any less illegal? I have no pity for them.

QUOTE

   I think amen to the looters!

If the government wants to abandon them, they should get as much as they can, for as long as they can.

Additionally I hope the first "relief worker" who shoots to kill a looters gets shot in the face by the looter. Killing the citizens because they are trapped in the city, and UNABLE TO LEAVE BY GOVERNMENT ORDER is murder. I already feel a bigass class-action lawsuit against the U.S. government for their shoddy emergency work coming on. If Uncle Sam kills anyone the survivors of the disaster will be filthy rich for the rest of their lives, and the country cannot afford a large settlement.

Additional: New Orleans Free City?


The government isn't abandoning them, the fucking resources do not exist to help everyone. And the ones who are shooting at relief workers are not going to be let out any sooner, precisely for that reason. They stopped being citizens when they started taking potshots at helicopters. They stopped being citizens when they started trucking TVs out of Wal-Mart. They are criminals in a martial law setting and there is no court proceeding or jurisdiction other than that of the military under martial law.

You break the law, you face martial law punishments. There will be no class-action lawsuits. They'll be laughed out of court. Similar to the writ of habeas corpus, in extreme situations the rights of citizens can and in many cases must be abridged.

I'm guessing you're maybe 14, Supercilious? Think this is all some game? "Oh yeah, it's cool, it's like Shadowrun, let's make a free city, let's shoot the military, they're all conspiring to kill everyone in the city!"

Come fucking on.

I am 16, but locking people in the city IS WHY THEY ARE FUCKING LOOTERS!

If they let everyone who wanted to leave, then they could shoot-to-kill looters, and I would not mind.

But if it came down to starving, or breaking into a wal-mart, I would be stealing in a second. And after I stole the food, why not get a nice, free nest egg? What is my motivation not to steal? This is a total clusterfuck and the government (State, Local, and Federal) fucked this up big.

There is no reason compelling enough to warrant the death and disease and misery that it justifies locking everyone into the city.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012