Shoot Looters? You Betcha!

Jim,

You're a voice in the darkness. For some strange reason, it seems that
ALL the newsgroups that I frequent consider the worst of this human
garbage - make the sewage -as "poor disadvantaged souls who are just
doing what they can to survive". I shake my head in disbelief. I
wonder if they would be so charitable if it were THEIR daughters and
wives who were being raped.

Anyway. I say, yeah, shoot them. You bet.

chula

Peter Aitken said:

"JimLane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they
should be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):

New Orleans police kill looters in shoot-out
By Mark Egan Sun Sep 4, 9:26 PM ET

NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - New Orleans police killed four looters who
had opened fire on them on Sunday as rescue teams scoured homes and
toxic waters flooding streets to find survivors and recover
thousands of bloated corpses.

It continues to amaze me that you and some others are so festeringly
stupid that you cannot tell the difference between someone who is
shooting at the authorities and an unarmed person who is looting.

Peter, did you read the post? "New Orleans police killed four looters who
had *opened fire* on them on Sunday". They weren't just looting, they were
shooting at police and rescue personnel. Like there isn't enough to deal
with without gang-bangers thinking it's okay to steal everything in sight
and then start shooting when they are caught.

Jill

Peter Aitken said:

"JimLane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they should
be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):

New Orleans police kill looters in shoot-out
By Mark Egan Sun Sep 4, 9:26 PM ET

NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - New Orleans police killed four looters who had
opened fire on them on Sunday as rescue teams scoured homes and toxic
waters flooding streets to find survivors and recover thousands of bloated
corpses.

It continues to amaze me that you and some others are so festeringly stupid
that you cannot tell the difference between someone who is shooting at the
authorities and an unarmed person who is looting.

Perhaps you don't possess the true meaning, which is often the case
with overuse of terminology especially as is attributed to the media...
and how do you know whether a looter is or isn't armed, are you
clairvoyant... in the true sense of the term, and especially when in
time of *chaos*, it *must* be assumed all looters are armed (even after
the fact of their actual looting while simply making off with their
booty). The act of looting (which includes making off - looters will
often protect their loot to the death) is in of itself an act of war.
If a marauding horde, even though not appearing armed with weapons,
were to burst into your abode, rob and pillage your stuff, rape your
women folk, and proceed to beat you with their fists would not the
thought cross your pinhead that they were likely about to next hang you
from the nearest tree... were you to have access to a weapon would you
not shoot them dead, I certainly would... perhaps you're simply a dumb
jerk, ie. Liberal. In periods where marshall law is enacted looting is
punishable by death without benefit of trial... in times of chaos
looting needs to be stopped dead in its tracks before this very violent
act escalates... it's a very small leap from mere taking to taking with
utter disregard.

loot[2]
1 a : to plunder or sack in war; b : to rob especially on a large scale
and usually by violence or corruption; 2 : to seize and carry away by
force especially in war : to engage in robbing or plundering especially
in war
---

Sheldon

"jmcquown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Aitken said:

"JimLane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they
should be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):

New Orleans police kill looters in shoot-out
By Mark Egan Sun Sep 4, 9:26 PM ET

NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - New Orleans police killed four looters who
had opened fire on them on Sunday as rescue teams scoured homes and
toxic waters flooding streets to find survivors and recover
thousands of bloated corpses.

It continues to amaze me that you and some others are so festeringly
stupid that you cannot tell the difference between someone who is
shooting at the authorities and an unarmed person who is looting.

Peter, did you read the post? "New Orleans police killed four looters who
had *opened fire* on them on Sunday". They weren't just looting, they
were
shooting at police and rescue personnel. Like there isn't enough to deal
with without gang-bangers thinking it's okay to steal everything in sight
and then start shooting when they are caught.

Jill

THAT IS MY PRECISE POINT FER CHRISSAKE!! I have explicitly said that I agree
it is OK to shoot people who are firing on authorities. You and others have
said expicitly that it is OK to shoot someone for JUST LOOTING. If you do
not see the difference between an unarmed person who is stealing a TV and a
person who is shooting at the police (and may or may not have been looting
too) then you are truly beyond help.

--
Peter Aitken

Peter Aitken said:

THAT IS MY PRECISE POINT FER CHRISSAKE!! I have explicitly said that I agree
it is OK to shoot people who are firing on authorities. You and others have
said expicitly that it is OK to shoot someone for JUST LOOTING. If you do
not see the difference between an unarmed person who is stealing a TV and a
person who is shooting at the police (and may or may not have been looting
too) then you are truly beyond help.

I think that it depends on the type of goods being looted and the severity or
nature of the disaster. People taking things like food, water, diapers are
acting out of necessity. People stealing televisions are just plain thieves. I
would not ordinarily support the use of deadly force for theft, but I certainly
do when it comes to looting such goods after a disaster. There has to be some
law and order, and wide scale looting is the start of a downhill plunge in our
civilization.

"Sheldon" <[email hidden]> wrote:
(edited quote)

Quoted message said:

The act of looting (which includes making off - looters will
often protect their loot to the death) is in of itself an act of war.
If a marauding horde, even though not appearing armed with weapons,
were to burst into your abode, rob and pillage your stuff, rape your
women folk, and proceed to beat you with their fists would not the
thought cross your pinhead that they were likely about to next hang you
from the nearest tree... were you to have access to a weapon would you
not shoot them dead,

(Stands and applauds.) Of course, I hope I never have to hurt anyone,
sometimes people think us "survivalists" sit around and masturbate
over the dream of killing. I have a number of non-lethal choices that
I would always prefer to try first. OTOH, everyone who lives here has
pretty extensive practice with a number of weapons (yes, even the
16-year old) and to be honest they're all better than me because of my
vision. My son can outshoot me at clays any time. My prayer is that
I never have an encounter where I hurt anybody. But, as they say, in
Glock we trust, and if the worst happens, one of us will take care of
business, even if the rest of us are toast. I've been a gun
enthusiast all my life and it's never had anything to do with
self-defense, it was just a hobby - that's the way I was raised. I
was able to recently acquire an Armalite AR-10 chambered in .308 with
an ACOG sight. I haven't been to "the land" yet to try it out. ( I
can't shoot on my own property because some nut-case calls the sheriff
every time I try, even though it's legal)) . Most people think us
"gun nuts" are just Rambo killers, but the reason I spend a
considerable amount of time testing and re-testing any potential
weapon system is that my first priority is the safety of others. It
really doesn't do much good to defend your family if some other family
ends up hurt because of your choices. Truthfully, I think the AR-10
is a wash, because it's just too dangerous in terms of
over-penetration to use in a semi-urban area. To any potential gun
owners here: SAFETY is the number one issue. Think - if any action
you take is potentially harmful to someone else, then it's better to
just bite your tongue and be killed. I'd rather die by hesitation
than hurt some innocent bystander.

--
The Doc says my brain waves closely match those of a crazed ferret.
At least now I have an excuse.

AlleyGator said:

"Sheldon" <[email hidden]> wrote:
(edited quote)

Quoted message said:

The act of looting ......

<snip, snip>

Like someone once said: "If they got Rambo, van Damme and Chuck Norris
together WW III would be over in 3 days."

🙂

--
Cheers
Cathy(xyz)

cathyxyz said:

AlleyGator said:

"Sheldon" <[email hidden]> wrote:
(edited quote)

Quoted message said:

The act of looting ......

<snip, snip>

Like someone once said: "If they got Rambo, van Damme and Chuck Norris
together WW III would be over in 3 days."

🙂

Did you deliberately forget the Governator?

gloria p

jmcquown said:

Peter, did you read the post? "New Orleans police killed four looters
who had *opened fire* on them on Sunday". They weren't just looting,
they were shooting at police and rescue personnel. Like there isn't
enough to deal with without gang-bangers thinking it's okay to steal
everything in sight and then start shooting when they are caught.

The cops SAID the folks they killed were looters who had
opened fire. These are cops who had just shot a bunch
of people. New Orleans cops. They are not exactly
the most reliable source of information in this matter.

Read about the famous New Orleans cops:

http://www.hrw.org/reports98/police/uspo92.htm

Peter Aitken said:

"JimLane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they should
be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):

New Orleans police kill looters in shoot-out
By Mark Egan Sun Sep 4, 9:26 PM ET

NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - New Orleans police killed four looters who had
opened fire on them on Sunday as rescue teams scoured homes and toxic
waters flooding streets to find survivors and recover thousands of bloated
corpses.

It continues to amaze me that you and some others are so festeringly stupid
that you cannot tell the difference between someone who is shooting at the
authorities and an unarmed person who is looting.

Looters are criminals who are playing carpe diem to feather their nests
with stolen goods. I do not have a problem with someone grabbing
survival goods.

I am happy to know you ENDORSE looting of stores, stealing of jewelry,
electronic goods, guns and ammo and so on.

When I address looters, I am not talking about some mom grabbing food or
water, even blankets.

But can you tell me what the hell stealing a large flatscreen TV has to
do with survival?

Anyone shooting at authorities should be shot to death period. Looting
or otherwise.

jim

jim

jmcquown said:

Peter Aitken said:

"JimLane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they
should be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):

New Orleans police kill looters in shoot-out
By Mark Egan Sun Sep 4, 9:26 PM ET

NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - New Orleans police killed four looters who
had opened fire on them on Sunday as rescue teams scoured homes and
toxic waters flooding streets to find survivors and recover
thousands of bloated corpses.

It continues to amaze me that you and some others are so festeringly
stupid that you cannot tell the difference between someone who is
shooting at the authorities and an unarmed person who is looting.

Peter, did you read the post? "New Orleans police killed four looters who
had *opened fire* on them on Sunday". They weren't just looting, they were
shooting at police and rescue personnel. Like there isn't enough to deal
with without gang-bangers thinking it's okay to steal everything in sight
and then start shooting when they are caught.

Jill

Write Peter off as an anarchist. He evidently thinks law and order
should not be enforced.

jim

JimLane said:

Peter Aitken said:

"JimLane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they should
be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):

New Orleans police kill looters in shoot-out
By Mark Egan Sun Sep 4, 9:26 PM ET

NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - New Orleans police killed four looters who had
opened fire on them on Sunday as rescue teams scoured homes and toxic
waters flooding streets to find survivors and recover thousands of bloated
corpses.

It continues to amaze me that you and some others are so festeringly stupid
that you cannot tell the difference between someone who is shooting at the
authorities and an unarmed person who is looting.

Looters are criminals who are playing carpe diem to feather their nests
with stolen goods. I do not have a problem with someone grabbing
survival goods.

I am happy to know you ENDORSE looting of stores, stealing of jewelry,
electronic goods, guns and ammo and so on.

When I address looters, I am not talking about some mom grabbing food or
water, even blankets.

But can you tell me what the hell stealing a large flatscreen TV has to
do with survival?

Anyone shooting at authorities should be shot to death period.

Anyone shooting at *anybody* should be shot to death.

Sheldon

Peter Aitken said:

"jmcquown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Aitken said:

"JimLane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they
> should be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):
>
> New Orleans police kill looters in shoot-out
> By Mark Egan Sun Sep 4, 9:26 PM ET
>
> NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - New Orleans police killed four looters who
> had opened fire on them on Sunday as rescue teams scoured homes and
> toxic waters flooding streets to find survivors and recover
> thousands of bloated corpses.
>

It continues to amaze me that you and some others are so festeringly
stupid that you cannot tell the difference between someone who is
shooting at the authorities and an unarmed person who is looting.

Peter, did you read the post? "New Orleans police killed four
looters who had *opened fire* on them on Sunday".

THAT IS MY PRECISE POINT FER CHRISSAKE!! I have explicitly said that
I agree it is OK to shoot people who are firing on authorities. You
and others have said expicitly that it is OK to shoot someone for
JUST LOOTING.

It's funny, I didn't advocate stealing other than to say it *might* be
understandable if it was food, etc. At this point I'm not even sure it
depends on the type of goods, although I'd have a lot more sympathy for
someone making off with a case of Chef Boyardee than someone trotting down
the street with a television set.

The looters being shown on the news aren't looting because they need to.
They are taking personal advantage of the devastation to feather their own
nests at the expense of others. There might be a shop owner or two out
there who would want to go back and try to reclaim some of their goods and
make another start, regardless of where. What will they be coming back to?
Smashed windows, empty shops, years and reams of paperwork trying to file
insurance claims. Meanwhile, you've got the happy-go-lucky looters, woo
hoo! Look at all this [censored] I got for FREE! Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Jill

Dave Smith said:

Peter Aitken said:

THAT IS MY PRECISE POINT FER CHRISSAKE!! I have explicitly said that I agree
it is OK to shoot people who are firing on authorities. You and others have
said expicitly that it is OK to shoot someone for JUST LOOTING. If you do
not see the difference between an unarmed person who is stealing a TV and a
person who is shooting at the police (and may or may not have been looting
too) then you are truly beyond help.

I think that it depends on the type of goods being looted and the severity or
nature of the disaster. People taking things like food, water, diapers are
acting out of necessity. People stealing televisions are just plain thieves. I
would not ordinarily support the use of deadly force for theft, but I certainly
do when it comes to looting such goods after a disaster. There has to be some
law and order, and wide scale looting is the start of a downhill plunge in our
civilization.

At one Walgreen's the police were handing out drugs, nappies, etc. to
people. So, were they thieves, looters, what?

As you say, many people were acting out of necessity. It's not as though
they could go to a bank, withdraw some money, and go to a supermarket.

Looters stealing electronic goods, guns, etc, and shooting people, that's
another thing entirely.

Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk

Sheldon said:

Perhaps you don't possess the true meaning, which is often the case
with overuse of terminology especially as is attributed to the media...
and how do you know whether a looter is or isn't armed, are you
clairvoyant... in the true sense of the term, and especially when in
time of *chaos*, it *must* be assumed all looters are armed (even after
the fact of their actual looting while simply making off with their
booty). The act of looting (which includes making off - looters will
often protect their loot to the death) is in of itself an act of war.
If a marauding horde, even though not appearing armed with weapons,
were to burst into your abode, rob and pillage your stuff, rape your
women folk, and proceed to beat you with their fists would not the
thought cross your pinhead that they were likely about to next hang you
from the nearest tree... were you to have access to a weapon would you
not shoot them dead, I certainly would... perhaps you're simply a dumb
jerk, ie. Liberal. In periods where marshall law is enacted looting is
punishable by death without benefit of trial... in times of chaos
looting needs to be stopped dead in its tracks before this very violent
act escalates... it's a very small leap from mere taking to taking with
utter disregard.

What would you have advised a starving survivor in New Orleans to do last
week? Do you really think they all had a choice?

Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk

JimLane said:

Looters are criminals who are playing carpe diem to feather their nests
with stolen goods. I do not have a problem with someone grabbing
survival goods.

I am happy to know you ENDORSE looting of stores, stealing of jewelry,
electronic goods, guns and ammo and so on.

When I address looters, I am not talking about some mom grabbing food or
water, even blankets.

But can you tell me what the hell stealing a large flatscreen TV has to
do with survival?

Anyone shooting at authorities should be shot to death period. Looting
or otherwise.

I guess you probably have me killfiled, Sheldon, which is unnecessary
now, because I'm "reformed". I do, however, wish you could read my
response to your original post. It begins with "stands and applauds".
Very good points you made.

--
The Doc says my brain waves closely match those of a crazed ferret.
At least now I have an excuse.

JimLane said:

For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they
should be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):

(cut)
Is this going to apply to the looters to come? The contractors that
will rip off their clients by doing shoddy work. The politicians that
will milk off some of the rebuilding money for their own pocket. The
businessman who will rip off the insurance company when he turns in his
claim. The hundreds of people that will rip off FEMA buy claiming the
lose of things they never owned.

"willille" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

JimLane said:

For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they
should be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):

(cut)
Is this going to apply to the looters to come? The contractors that
will rip off their clients by doing shoddy work. The politicians that
will milk off some of the rebuilding money for their own pocket. The
businessman who will rip off the insurance company when he turns in his
claim. The hundreds of people that will rip off FEMA buy claiming the
lose of things they never owned.

Sure, it will make a better world.

AlleyGator said:

an ACOG sight. I haven't been to "the land" yet to try it out. ( I
can't shoot on my own property because some nut-case calls the sheriff
every time I try, even though it's legal))

So, what does the sheriff say? If it's legal what can he do? Try
this: go to your land and shoot 2 or 3 times more often than usual.
The sheriff will get tired of responding and tell your neighbor to
buzz off.

Our local range just reopened after a 3-4 yr shutdown due to an
alleged lone bullet found in some farmer's barn way downrange that may
or may not have come from the gun range. The range had to shut down
due to a lengthy political fight and major renovations to add shooting
stalls limiting a shooter's barrel elevation. I went out yesterday
and tossed a buncha NATO rounds downrange and renewed my membership.
I'm not real happy with the new facilities, but ya' gotta support a
range that works that hard to stay open here in CA.

nb