Excellent. I will add you name to my list of petioners proposing that the LA State Police do just that.

lol

Note to self: Kill Telan... as an example to the rest, of course. Then it's okay.

If I was doing something heinous, then by all means. Like Marcehal Ney, in that case I would give the order to fire.

Yes... as heinous as stealing a tv.

Or maybe, you should be killed as an example to drug users - wait, you say you're not a drug user? But you go to TRF, and there are certainly a few drug users here, so killing someone from TRF would - by your logic, it seems - put the scare into TRF's members and ensure there will be less illegal drug using.

My point there being you can't just slap some big label on a group like "Everyone you see looting until people stop looting." What if someone actually lives there and is moving their T.V? Are they just 'collateral damage'? Are you going to go up and check what they're carrying first, and if it's food then send them on their way but if it's a stack of books shoot them in the back of the neck and move on? Nevermind the moral perspective for a second, even on a practical perspective that just doesn't work.

Collateral damage is a risk of warfare. I was trained as an officer, Dolash, IRL, and I know that sometimes to coin a French phrase not omlette arises without the breaking of eggs.

Would I agree executing a drug user to stop drug users yes. A non drug user no as it serves no point.

And yes, things can be discerned through a telescopic sight. During a flood, no one is going to move their TV.

People taking food clothing etc would not be harmed.

Telan, if you want to open fire, start with whoever taught you morality. kthxbye

Telan Desaria

Collateral damage is a risk of warfare.

Maybe it's a risk of warfare but the situation there is hardly a war.

Telan Desaria

Would I agree executing a drug user to stop drug users yes. A non drug user no as it serves no point.

Have you ever thought that maybe those people use drugs because they know no alternative? Or that rather than shoot them on site it may be better all round if you helped them to come off the drugs and used that as an example?

You can't shoot someone because they're addicted to something. Someone taking drugs may have become addicted to it through harmless reasons. My uncle uses them, he only started because he works as a coroner and it helps him get a good nights sleep after being around dead bodies all day.

Telan Desaria

During a flood, no one is going to move their TV.

You'd be surprised at what exactly some people will do in that situation. Some people become as addicted to their possesions as they are to family members. If my home town was to become flooded there's a few tems I'd grab, not because I wanted them for recreational purposes but because some things have sentimental properties to me.

How would you tell if someone was looting something or keeping hold of an item they feel connected to? How do you know they haven't been forced into doing it by someone else, a gang possibly?

Don't forget the fact that it's still just POSSIBLE that they're not looting. Are you really going to shoot everyone who tries to move objects? Lots of people move stupid crap they shouldn't be bothering with in disasters, that's no reason to shoot them. This isn't war, these people aren't in the army, and they certainly aren't some invading hord or scheming militia. They're just people stuck in a desperate situation overcome with panic and fear and isolation and loss. Shooting people will only make things worse - you'd have an uprising, a riot, a mini-rebellion on your hands if you tried that sort of strong-arm tactic, not to mention the fact that you're probably outnumbered by those who find it morally reprehensible, and thus this would cause more disorder and chaos since those people would react negatively and angrily towards you as well.

Steda is also right in that - whatever Machiavelli might say - good examples can work just as well as bad ones. You don't have to be feared to create change, you can do it through positive examples as well.

Most of this is just the practical application of this principle, not even factoring in the moral questions - in other words, would you think a worthy punishment for looting is death under normal circusmtances? No? Well then why would it be okay now? To restore order? But if doing so is so unlikely to restore order - in fact, it seems more likely to worsen it - then why do it at all?

Steda brings an interesting point to the equation. There would be no doubt people trying to salvage what possessions they can from their own homes. Thus to a police officer or military infantry, how would they know if the person carrying electronic equipment from a home is the owner of that home or not? Granted, people doing such things while the place is still flooded may not have their priorities straight, but shooting at people taken things from homes would not be a good idea.

Going back to the point of my last post, those looters taking flat screens and such from stores just have their priorities mixed up and don't deserve to be shot.

Now...if there was a fuckturd that was pointing a gun at someone trying to what little possession someone has left: open season IMO.