posted
I keep watching the news and am shocked by the lawlessness on New Orleans, but amny of these folks are just trying to get water, snacks and diapers.
Where are the ethicists on this here River?
Posts: 514 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My answer - no, it's not ever okay but it's more understandable if it's about survival.
But, there is also the fact that everyone who is looting in New Orleans had every opportunity to get out of the city and were in fact ordered to do so and didn't. They also could make their way to shelters that are providing food and water for free. Some I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone thinks it's justifiable to steal food and water when food and water is being given out to anyone who needs it. It's possible that there would come to a point where someone might have to loot or die, but we're not at that point yet. Keep in mind that most of the looting began as soon as the wind died down. Well before anyone could be in a crisis of needing food or water immediately to stave off death. Now, because of the extensive looting that has already taken place, if in a day or so you have somebody that absolutely must take food or water from a grocery store to survive, they aren't going to be able to get it because it's all already gone, taken by people who didn't need it to survive.
Secondly, even if they had no way to leave the city or to get to a shelter, they certainly don't need tvs, vcrs, toys, and new clothing in order to survive and many of the looters are taking exactly those types of things.
Thirdly, looting takes resources like police and national guard to guard against, prevent, or at least to try and hold down the level of violence and those resources should be directed at search and rescue instead, so the looters are contributing to the problem, and endangering lives.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
None of the looters I saw were carrying essentials, they were all carrying TV's, furniture and "luxury" items.
They all look like they are about as ignorant as you can get just by their actions. I mean WHY steal a TV when your HOUSE is at least half filled with WATER and there's NO Electricity? I seriously believe half those people expected them to work when they plugged them in.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think it's perfectly reasonable to do that. It might be "wrong." But it would be more wrong to not worry about your baby.
...Yes, I know if you worried about your baby you'd probably already be out of the area. But assuming there is a legitamite reason for not being able to leave - I can't really thinkg of one for this situation, but theoretically.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what the real definition of looting is, but I see nothing wrong with taking essentials for an immediate need in this situation.
However, even when talking food and water, clearing out the whole store is wrong unless you're taking it out to share with lots of people.
And the TV thefts are both mind-boggling and selfish. Who would spend their energy that way when survival is on the line?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the store and everything inside was going to be destroyed by the wind/water, then I say sure, go ahead. It's better than simply allowing things to be destroyed. But, that's rarely the case. Plus, you should definitely have different priorities ( IE - necessities, shelter, getting the heck away,... ).
Posts: 433 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think it's perfectly reasonable to do that. It might be "wrong." But it would be more wrong to not worry about your baby.
...Yes, I know if you worried about your baby you'd probably already be out of the area. But assuming there is a legitamite reason for not being able to leave - I can't really thinkg of one for this situation, but theoretically.
Call me an intollerable hard @ss but the #1 largest reasons for looting IMHO is "ignorance" and "stupidity" and "laziness".
I went down to New Orleans TWICE this year, most recently the end of June for business and stayed in Metairie (sp?). The company I was visiting actually occupied an office building just to the west of the canal where the levee broke. I remember standing on it's roof and looking east towards downtown New Orleans and the Mississippi, then straight down to the bridge across the 17th canal right below me (two Mormon missionaries rode their bikes across it just then. It was the Veteran's Blvd bridge) and then east towards Causeway Blvd and the Causeway Bridge.
I also stayed at a couple different places there. One right off of causeway (Hampton Inn) and I think a Hilton closer to New Orleans, but still west of downtown.
Kinda weird to think I was just there not long ago and it's all under water now.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fusiachi: If the store and everything inside was going to be destroyed by the wind/water, then I say sure, go ahead. It's better than simply allowing things to be destroyed. But, that's rarely the case. Plus, you should definitely have different priorities ( IE - necessities, shelter, getting the heck away,... ).
No. If you're taking things because they're going to be destroyed, then you should take them to keep them from getting destroyed and THEN give them back to the store owner when he gets back.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. If you're taking things because they're going to be destroyed, then you should take them to keep them from getting destroyed and THEN give them back to the store owner when he gets back.
And what if the property will be worthless to the owner, once returned? Food, for instance, will go bad. And for most major chains, replacing their inventory will be much more cost effective than trying to collect and sell goods that went through the hurricane.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
And it doesn't matter if they want it back. The right thing to do is to OFFER it. If they refuse, fine.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
And the chaos part now is that the looters are becoming violent with each other. And there is no way for law enforcement to restore order when they are all acting like packs of hyenas fighting over the spoils.
posted
The life of a human almost always takes precedence over property rights, in my opinion. Looting for survival purposes would be wrong only if it endangers the survival of someone else. So, walking out with five cans of food would be fine. 100 cans, probably wrong. Also, despite what some think, a television is generally not necessary for survival. However, if you have absolutely no other access to a broadcast receiver, I think it's all right to take a television, assuming all the radios are gone. Finding out what's going on may be vital to your survival if you are stranded in a threatened area.
Of course, other avenues should be exhausted first. It's not okay to loot to avoid a three-hour wait for food, say. Unless the wait would endanger your survival somehow. And you really ought to make sure that no one around you has a TV or radio that you can watch or listen to before you take one. But if you or people who depend on you need something to survive, and the only way to get it is to steal it, then steal it. I think that in many cases, it would be wrong not to.
Edit to add: I'm not sure that any of what I said actually applies to this situation. Most of those people probably have other options.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax, Are you deliberately misunderstanding???
We were talking about luxury items--NOT things needed for survival.
But since you brought up food and survival items, the right thing to do is offer monetary reimbursement for the things you took.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would take things I needed to survive if I were in that situation. However, I would keep note of what I had taken and from where, so I could repay the owners (plus interest) once things had settled down some.
posted
Devil's Advocate's argument: All the stuff being stolen from stores is ruined anyway, who cares if they are stealing it? They have no where to go with it, no one to sell it to, no where to use it at. It's dead weight, and much of what is being stolen isn't even usable in the case of electronics.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread is about when looting is OK for survival, Kat. Most of us aren't talking about luxury items.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No offense to the victims of the tradgedy, but I don't think they are thinking at 100% capacity at the moment. They are probably desperate and are grasping at straws...that are attached to televisions.
But from what I saw, most of the stores being looted were partially flooded. And where are they going with it with everything under water? Doesn't make any sense.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, the particular thread of conversation that I was taking part in WAS about luxury items. I am well aware of the fact that there is also talk about food and survival items. I clarified what I was talking about when I said I wasn't talking about food. Tresopax chose to be deliberately obtuse and think I didn't consider food to be a survival item, rather than realizing I was talking about luxury items.
quote:Originally posted by Fusiachi: If the store and everything inside was going to be destroyed by the wind/water, then I say sure, go ahead. It's better than simply allowing things to be destroyed. But, that's rarely the case. Plus, you should definitely have different priorities ( IE - necessities, shelter, getting the heck away,... ).
No. If you're taking things because they're going to be destroyed, then you should take them to keep them from getting destroyed and THEN give them back to the store owner when he gets back.
Then Tres posted this:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:No. If you're taking things because they're going to be destroyed, then you should take them to keep them from getting destroyed and THEN give them back to the store owner when he gets back.
And what if the property will be worthless to the owner, once returned? Food, for instance, will go bad. And for most major chains, replacing their inventory will be much more cost effective than trying to collect and sell goods that went through the hurricane.
Then you posted this:
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: We weren't talking about food.
And it doesn't matter if they want it back. The right thing to do is to OFFER it. If they refuse, fine.
Where in this particular thread of conversation did the participants decide they weren't talking about food?
You seemed to have made an assumption about what Fusiachi was talking about.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because Fusiachi said THINGS, and talked about THINGS being DESTROYED. Plus, he contrasted THINGS with necessities, which includes food. It should have been obvious that he was talking about electronics and other luxury items.
Typically, food isn't talked about in terms of being destroyed, either.
And the point is, I cleared up the initial confusion by saying we weren't talking about food. MAYBE Fusiachi was talking about food..maybe he was making no distinction, but whatever.. MY comment made it clear that I wasn't talking about food. And Tresopax decided that I was too stupid to consider FOOD a Survival item and countered me with
quote:
quote:We weren't talking about food.
Food is probably the biggest matter of survival. That and water.
quote:And it doesn't matter if they want it back. The right thing to do is to OFFER it. If they refuse, fine.
Why? Even if you can't find the owner and need whatever it is to survive in the meanwhile?
"Food is the biggest matter of survival"???? What the heck is that about?? He thinks I don't know that? It's insulting...and it's CLEAR what I was talking about. And then he continues with a question of survival???
No. He's deliberately misunderstanding. And you're deliberately misreading.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To quote the world's best terrible TV show:
Sandy: "You would never lie, you would never cheat, you would never steal."
Kirsten: "You know, I'd like to think so, but the truth is there is nothing I wouldn't do for my family."
That said, I'd definitely be out there looting essentails in this situation, whether I (or anyone) approved it or not.
If I were a store owner, I wouldn't give a damn whether people were looting or not, because everything in my store would be insured to the gills anyway.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heck, some of those store owners may not have flood insurance, but if the can catch some videos of people looting their stores they might actually be able to collect. The looters are just trying to be helpful.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because Fusiachi said THINGS, and talked about THINGS being DESTROYED. Plus, he contrasted THINGS with necessities, which includes food. It should have been obvious that he was talking about electronics and other luxury items.
Not when people have made the point in this thread and the other one that taking only enough for the immediate need might be appropriate with respect to food. His comment was relevant to both food and non-food items, and there's nothing "obvious" about your arbitrary restriction of it to food.
quote:Typically, food isn't talked about in terms of being destroyed, either.
Food goes BAD. It's far more likely to be destroyed than any electronic items that haven't already been destroyed.
quote:"Food is the biggest matter of survival"???? What the heck is that about?? He thinks I don't know that? It's insulting...and it's CLEAR what I was talking about. And then he continues with a question of survival???
Tres hadn't caught on that you had decided to change the topic without announcing it. You essentially said, "We're not talking about food." He, thinking for some reason that the thread title was relevant because no one had announced a change of topic, essentially said, "Food is relevant to survival, so we are talking about.
quote:No. He's deliberately misunderstanding. And you're deliberately misreading.
Don't tell me what I'm deliberately doing and not doing. The only think I'm deliberately doing is demonstrating why your self-righteousness about what's being discussed is misplaced.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hurricane damage is damage caused by winds and falling raing. Flood damage is damage caused by rising waters.
[Edit: Insurance against flooding is not available as part of standard insurance. It is only available through the government. Most people and businesses, even those in flood plains, do not have it. There is some concern that the availability of flood insurance perpetuates problems with people re-building in known flood-prone areas.]
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On another interesting note, a friend just sent me this link from a blog. It highlights two different pictures - one of a black guy wading through flood waters with a big bagful of groceries; the other picture is of a white couple doing the same thing. All of them got their groceries from a store.
Guess which ones are described as having "found" the food and which one is described as a "looter?"
I think the problem is that you (and Tres evidently) thought I was talking about everyone in the thread when I said we. I was talking about me and Fusiachi. The little 2 post thread of conversation. I already admitted that MAYBE I was wrong about Fusiachi's intent...and maybe he'll come in and explain that he wasn't making any distinction. So there, yes, maybe I made a mistake...and I should have said "I," but the point is, I made it clear that I wasn't talking about food.
And I do think you're deliberately misreading just so you can make your case.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see no harm in taking what is needed for survival, but I always think people’s lives are more important than property.
As for paying for it afterwards, assuming those who took the food / water can trace the owner, what if they have no money and no possessions left? Should they have gone without food because they would not be able to pay for it?
Does anyone know if the food / water aid is accessible to everyone? It seems unlikely to me if the reports about how difficult it is to get around the city are true.
Posts: 169 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No that's not cool, but I'm not as upset as I would be if the news agencies were the same.
If AFP/Getty has photos of African Americans described as "finding" along with their photos of white people described as "finding" then no problem. Likewise, if AP has photos of people of different ethnicities and describes them all as being "looters" then we don't have racism, we have agencies using the words "find" and "loot" in different ways.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does anyone know if the food / water aid is accessible to everyone? It seems unlikely to me if the reports about how difficult it is to get around the city are true.
You're right - many people don't have access to food and water because the aid workers can't reach all the affected areas yet.
Yet again, I must point out that if people had evacuated or gone to shelters they would have plenty of food and water - I have not heard about any shortages in any of the official shelters.
I recognize there are some people for whom evacuation is particularly difficult, but if you're able bodied enough to carry tvs on your back to your home, I think you were able to get to shelters that would be giving you food and water right now.
Let me be clear I AM talking about people who are taking luxury items and I'm condemning that. As for the people who took water and food, like I said in my first post - the looting started well before food and water were immediate crisis concerns. Many stores were looted even before the levee breach that caused all the post-storm flooding. People were stealing food and water when the roads were still passable enough for them to get to shelters, where they would now be safe, fed, and watered, and instead of making their way to safety they chose to steal.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait, I think that hispanic/white(?) couple bought and paid for their food....
Aww. Just kidding.
But those are from two different news sources. Maybe the AFP calls looting "finding" in all of their stories? I doubt it but are we reading something more than what was meant? Intentional or not?
Also we don't know what constitutes "finding" in the case of that couple or "looting" in the case of the young man.
There's a lot we don't know to automatically judge intents on two captions for two separate pictures taken by two different photographers and printed by two different news agencies.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's also possible, the photographer from AP observed the young man looting the store and took the picture after he left, so was confident in calling him a looter. On the flip side, perhaps the other couple wasn't observed taking the food, and so a less charged word like "finding" felt more appropriate for the situation.
Like I said, I don't see enough here to make me completely outraged yet.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I recognize there are some people for whom evacuation is particularly difficult, but if you're able bodied enough to carry tvs on your back to your home, I think you were able to get to shelters that would be giving you food and water right now.
Quoted for Truth.
There is a big question I want to ask every looter out there.
Why are you still in New Orleans?
And they better have a damn good explanation, like they're dead, because they even evacuated people who couldn't walk from the city.
And it's not the STORE owners faults that they decided to stay, so why are they supposed to suffer for stupid people's mistakes?
I'd also like to point out, if you start a grass fire shooting off bottle rockets that requires the fire department to respond, guess who gets sent the bill? Obviously these people are not responsible for the storm, but they are responsible for their decision to stay and it's consequences.
The mayor's right, get out of New Orleans NOW! Go to a shelter, get food and water and don't make the government's job harder than it already is.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I just found this photo, which doesn't really make AFP look better than AP on the looting/finding issue.
But yeah, it can be hard to tell from still photos what's really going on in the scene, so I'm trying not to jump to conclusions.
Posts: 952 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like I said, I don't see enough here to make me completely outraged yet.
If it had been the same photographer at the SAME place at the same news org, then you'd have a case.
Another important point. AFP is NOT the "Associated Free Press" It's the Agence France Presse. If that caption was originally in FRENCH than they may not have a viable French word for "looting" or "looter" and they may actually say "finding" in french.
EDIT: Doubtful but you never know.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is worse, steeling to get the food and water you need to live, or hoarding the necessities others need to survive?
Which is worse, lotting shops that will probably end up selling everything at 1penny on the dollar to salvage operations, or reaping windfall profits by selling essential goods and exorbidant prices?
Historically, many cultures (including some Christian cultures) have keeping anything which others need more than you as a form of theft.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:but if you're able bodied enough to carry tvs on your back to your home, I think you were able to get to shelters that would be giving you food and water right now.
Weren't some perfectly able-bodied people unable to get out because of lack of transportation? Some don't have cars, some didn't get out because the roads were too full, and some because they couldn't buy gas.
For those who were just stubborn, you have a point. Still, they deserve to eat, too, even if they made a stupid decision a few days ago. I'm actually not entirely certain whether it's relevant that they could have gotten out. I suppose it probably is, but I'm not convinced it pushes looting over into the "wrong" category.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, because people chose to stay (contrary to the evacuation orders) and were unprepared for the consequences, they are entitled to steal?
I can possibly condone someone taking things necessary for survival after a sudden catastrope, when they have no other access to aid. However, this was not an earthquake - people knew the hurricane was coming. They chose to ignore the order to evacuate and didn't think ahead enough to realize "gee, if we stay here, things might get bad and we might need food and water".
It's difficult for me to understand how someone would be "unable" to evacuate. People may not have had cars. But they couldn't rent a car, ride the bus, ride a bike or call a cab? Even if my financial situation was grim, knowing that staying where I was could mean death, would motivate me to find a way out.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
People did try to get out, run out of gas, there was none available... It's a possible scenario, at least.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
