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?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
There have been some good replies to this on the Hurricane thread.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
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.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
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.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I saw a guy with some diapers.
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.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
If you're taking food, water, or medical supplies because of an immediate, necessary need, then it's not looting.
Looting is when you see these degenerates running out of stores with electronics, jewelry, etc.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Right on Belle
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
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,... ).
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: saw a guy with some diapers.
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.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
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.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I don't think I'm particularly moral in this respect.
I can see that what Katarain says is the right thing to do. But I doubt I'd actually do that.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
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.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I agree with what Belle said.
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.
FG
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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?
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I think taking food, water, medicine, first aid supplies, etc is OK. But not luxury items.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
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.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
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.
Edit: Whoops.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Yeah right. If it really weren't usable, they wouldn't be stealing it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
This thread is about when looting is OK for survival, Kat. Most of us aren't talking about luxury items.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
First you posted this:
quote:Originally posted by Katarain:
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.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
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.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
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.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Where is the line between flood damage and hurricane damage?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
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.]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Exactly what did I misread?
As for Pot/Kettle, you might want to think about the response you'll provoke before you roll your eyes at someone.
And especially before you tell someone else that they are "deliberately misreading."
You aren't qualified to judge that. And you happen to be very wrong about that.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Steve, I sent that to my mom and sister. That's not cool at all.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
You know what? You're right. I was clearly wrong. I'm so very sorry for the inconvenience.
Posted by Kettricken (Member # 8436) on :
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.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
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.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I didn't notice it was AFP.
But that's still not cool.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
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.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
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.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
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.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
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.
Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
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.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
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.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
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.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
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.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
People did try to get out, run out of gas, there was none available... It's a possible scenario, at least.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I don't know that we really pay grocery stores for food. We pay them to package, distribute, and store it. I guess that's why it's called a store. Most people live in a city under the notion of a social contract that they will be supplied with food by the system under which they work. None of this is legally defensible, of course. And it's not like the system didn't give proper warning to everyone that it was not going to be able to sustain them.
Why didn't people leave? I imagine some might have been sick, or stayed with someone who was. Some might have anticipated the opportunity to loot. We can't know what someone's intent was from observing their behavior and slapping a label on it.
Even in the case of a luxury item, the person may be mentally ill, which could be why they didn't obey the order to leave, and they have hoarding OCD. Yeah, they shouldn't break into places. It's that age old question of what a mental illness justifies. Even if one didn't start out with a mental disorder, their world has been turned upside down. I'm not saying there are no people who aren't just grabbing for greed.
I think "looting" would by definition involve taking more than one needs. If someone already posted a different definition, I apologize.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Also, some people could be already suffering health problems. Like people using Dialysis- it's been said that they are suffering horribly, or people who can barely walk, it would be difficult for them to leave.
I personally would probably take what was necessary for survival- but then again- I'd also be smart enough to avoid a freaking hurricane! But, if for whatever reason I couldn't or it was like an earthquake or something- then yes, I would. I doubt I'd keep a tally of what I took so I could pay back the store owner either- but I'd do what's necessary for me to ensure the survival of the people I love. TV's, expensive shoes, that's not high on my "necessary for survival" list- take things like medicine (my entire family takes medicine- so that'd be a real problem for us, especially since I suffer seizures and my mom has cluster headaches) and food and bottled water. Items like these- I would definitely take.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Some stuff:
ABCNews:Why do some stay, despite evacuation orders?
quote:Aug. 30, 2005 — New Orleans resident Richard Thomas heard the orders to evacuate ahead of Hurricane Katrina. But like thousands of others, he chose to stay and ride it out.
"They wanted to move, they wanted to go to Mississippi, but I said I wasn't going to go," he said.
...
"There's a certain amount of denial involved," said Dr. John Stutesman, director of outpatient treatment in psychiatry at Chicago's Northwestern Memorial Hospital. "They allow themselves to believe they can handle the storm."
In New Orleans, many residents said they had no means to leave. Many ended up in a stuffy, collapsing Superdome. Images of thousands of people shuffling around the stadium as the roof tore off will be a lasting image of the destruction caused by Katrina.
Kathleen Bartels, a Hammond, La., resident, told ABC News that she and her family tried to flee, but found they couldn't make it out. They decided to ride the storm out in their home.
...
When faced with the idea of being completely out of control of a situation and at the mercy of Mother Nature, people stay on because it gives them a sense of control, experts say. People also stay on out of fear of losing everything they have.
--j_k
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: But they couldn't rent a car, ride the bus, ride a bike or call a cab?
I take it you've never been destitute. If you don't have a credit card, you can't rent a car, period. If you are under 24, you probably can't rent a car even if you have a credit card. Even if you've got all the money in the world, I bet you couldn't have found a rental car company with a car available last weekend. If there is an evacuation order, you can bet the greyhound will be sold out. You must remember, there were over 1 million people trying to get out of the city.
Call a cab? Do you have any idea how much it would cost to get a cab to drive you out of the Hurricane zone?
Ride a bike? For 60 to 100 miles with gridlock traffic and an approaching Hurricane? I'm a very serious long distance cyclists and I'm not sure whether I'd choose that risk over the risk of the Hurricane.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'd also have to say that in a situation like this their is a fine line between looting and salvaging. If the water levels are rising and everything in the store will be ruined in a couple of hours, isn't it better for some one to grab a TV and take it to high ground where it will stay dry, even if they keep it for themselves, than it would be to simply let it sit there and be destroyed by the rising water.
You also have to consider that after the flood waters have retreated and people start cleaning up the mess. Either the business or their insurance companies will likely sell everything to a salvage company for a penny on the dollar or less. I'm not sure I see a big ethical difference between a large company that makes their profits salvaging and the poor kid who "loots" a stereo.
Don't get me wrong. I think stealing is wrong under any circumstances, I'm simply trying to put what is going on in context. Something which our sensationalistic news will never do.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
This is mostly what I was referring to earlier. (Yes, TVs and appliances, and whatever, in addition to food, for those who were arguing.) Sure, ideally it would be nice to find the person and return it to them later. If you can't, or don't want to do this, though, it's still no worse than simply letting it be destroyed.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Anyone that has what they need to survive and then chooses to walk/wade/swim past countless helpless humans in order to rescue a TV for later use certainly has his priorities confused.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
Suppose hypothetically that there are no helpless humans in the vicinity.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Sorry, but I still think that in this situation a person should spend his energy on more constructive activities than trying to salvage a TV that he has nowhere to take and which may not even work. So given the circumstances, I think it is morally wrong to steal what is not absolutely necessary for one's survival.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
There's a couple from Cedar Rapids, Iowa down in New Orleans that tried to get out, but decided to stay when the cab driver demanded $1000 to take them to the airport.
On TV, I saw a woman saying she lives paycheck to paycheck, so she has no savings or extra money to be able to leave.
On the looting thing - if my kids were hungry, I would probably take food, if that was the only choice. (I'm thinking of canned goods.) I would try to avoid it, though, if at all possible, and make amends later if I did have to take something. But TVs, etc., no way.
I didn't see this on TV, someone at work told me about it.
Reporter to person taking things from a store (clothing, I think): "sir, are you salvaging things from your store?" Man: "Ma'am, this is everybody's store."
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Hey, I'm neither destitute nor disabled and I probably could not get out of Phoenix if we had to evacuate. I don't have a car or a bike. I can't rent a car because I'm 20. There's no way I could walk out of here, even if it weren't 105 degrees F. The public transportation isn't great. I suppose the University might take care of the students on campus, but I bet they don't have the resources.
There's a halfway decent chance I could get a ride with someone I know. Unfortunately, that would be my only chance.
So, if you ever have to evacuate your city, and you haven't filled your car completely, see who needs help leaving.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I know plenty of people who wouldn't be able to leave my city if an evacuation were demanded. We almost never have natural disaster issues, so I'm really not that worried. But if it came down to it, my family would probably have to leave literally everything behind to make room for family and friends who don't have transportation out.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
The reason they try to stop looters, even though everyone knows most of the merchandise is ruined or insured, is because without order, then chaos reigns.
The bad element of society, which may have already had some organization in the area, then takes over - much like a gang, and begins to exert control, instead of the police/government having control.
quote: But as night fell, police chased looters across the darkenened streets amid mounting pillaging of stores, carjackings and armed robberies.
One nurse told how helicopters evacuating patients from a local hospital had been fired upon. There were also reports of men armed with automatic rifles opening fire in a police station.
This is why they work to stop looting. Not because of the stealing of the stuff itself, but because of the lack of control and order.
FG
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
FG's post made me think about the chaotic mob scene in War of the Worlds, and then I read some of the recent news articles about crime and looting.
"Tempers were beginning to flare in the aftermath of the storm. Police said a man fatally shot his sister in the head over a bag of ice in Hattiesburg, Miss."
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
It made me think of the old movie Escape from New York Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
The Stand.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Also, no offense, but if you've been to New Orleans, it's not hard to WALK places. Unless your legs are broken/unusable, then they still have no reasonable excuse for staying behind. All they had to do to escape the worst flooding is walk anywhere from 2 to 7 miles to any of the shelters around.
Don't get me wrong. I have pity on those that are stuck and suffering the same way I do for someone who smokes until they contract lung cancer.
It's sad but if they can WADE through chest high water to loot a TV, then they sure as hell could have walked to an evacuation center. Why didn't they?
That's my question: What did you try to do to get out or did you even try?
Pity and anger at the same time.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Now I'm thinking of War of the Worlds too. When I was telling people I liked it for how it depicted the panicked mob, many said it wasn't realistic. Now I wish they were right. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Hell, yes, looting for survival is OK.
I think some of the people castigating the survivors for not leaving and for not going to "official" shelters or evacuation sites are more than a little clueless about what chaos really means.
quote: Desperation, death on road to safety Wednesday, 11:09 p.m.
By Keith Spera Staff writer
At 91 years old, Booker Harris ended his days propped on a lawn chair, covered by a yellow quilt and abandoned, dead, in front of the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center.
Mr. Harris died in the back of a Ryder panel truck Wednesday afternoon, as he and his 93-year-old wife, Allie, were evacuated from eastern New Orleans. The truck's driver deposited Allie and her husband's body on the Convention Center Boulevard neutral ground.
And there it remained.
With 3,000 or more evacuees stranded at the convention center -- and with no apparent contingency plan or authority to deal with them -- collecting a body was no one's priority. It was just another casualty in Hurricane Katrina's wake.
A steady stream of often angry or despondent people, many from flooded Central City, trickled first toward Lee Circle and then to the convention center, hoping to be saved from increasingly desperate straits. Food, water and options had dwindled across Uptown and Central City, where looters seemed to rage almost at will, clearing out boutique clothing shops and drug stores alike. Hospitals would no longer accept emergencies, as staffers prepared to evacuate with patients.
"If you get shot," said a security guard at Touro Infirmary, "you’ve got to go somewhere else."
As a blazing sun and stifling humidity took their toll, 65-year-old Faye Taplin rested alone on the steps of the Christ Cathedral in the 2900 block of St. Charles Avenue. Rising water had finally chased her from her Central City home. She clutched two plastic bags containing bedding, a little food and water and insulin to treat her diabetes.
She needed help but was unsure where to find it. She wanted to walk more than 15 blocks to a rumored evacuation pickup point beneath the Pontchartrain Expressway, but she doubted that was possible.
"I'm tired," she said. "My feet have swollen up on me. I can't walk that far."
The church custodian, Ken Elder, hoped to free his car from the parking lot behind the church as soon as the water went down. He rode out Katrina on the Episcopal church’s altar steps and was well stocked with food. But he feared the marauding looters that roamed St. Charles Avenue after dark.
"I lived in Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots," Elder said. "That was a piece of cake compared to this."
Clara Wallace pushed her brother in a wheelchair down St. Charles from Fourth Street to the Pontchartrain Expressway. Suffering from diabetes and the after-effects of a stroke, he wore only a hospital robe and endured part of the journey through standing water.
"Nobody has a bathroom he can use," Wallace, 59, said of her brother. "Nobody would even stop to tell us if we were at the right place. What are we supposed to do?"
A man in a passing pickup truck from the state Department of Wildlife and Fisheries finally directed Wallace and the 50 other evacuees under the overpass to the convention center.
But they would find little relief there.
New evacuees were being dropped off after being pulled from inundated eastern New Orleans and Carrollton, pooling with those who arrived on foot. Some had been at the convention center since Tuesday morning but had received no food, water or instructions. They waited both inside and outside the cavernous building.
The influx overwhelmed the few staffers and Louisiana National Guardsmen on hand.
With so much need and so few resources, the weakest and frailest were bound to suffer the most. Seated next to her husband's body on the neutral ground beneath the St. Joseph Street sign, Allie Harris munched on crackers, seemingly unaware of all the tragedy unfolding around her. Eventually, guardsmen loaded her into a truck and hauled her off with other elderly evacuees.
Mr. Harris' body was left behind.
Such a breakdown did not bode well for other evacuees. As the afternoon wore on, hope faded, replaced by anger.
"This is 2005," John Murray shouted, standing in the street near Mr. Harris' body. "It should not be like this for no catastrophe. This is pathetic."
Times-Picayune Of the 3 THOUSAND refugees, "Some had been at the convention center since Tuesday morning but had received no food, water or instructions."
So it's just lame to say people should go to official shelters and hope the gov'ment comes through with food and water.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Looting for food and water is okay. The food'll go off anyway.
Looting for electronics, shoes and jewelry is not. I understand why it's happening, but that's America's job to examine why in the aftermath, and I'm not going into that now.
EDIT: Shoes, maybe. A pair of boots or running shoes if you can't walk in what you've got on.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
An explanation for the shooting at helicopters.
Apparently the shooters are yelling at the helicopters to pick up their families. Of course the helicopters simply don't land at all, so everybody loses.
Don't expect people to make sense in this state of tragedy.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I expect chaos. I don't have to endorse violence. I can't concievably believe that I would ever reach a place where I would shoot at someone trying to give me aid. Actually, I can think of two possible scenarios: 1) if I overheard people on the ground talking about overtaking the helicopter when it landed and killing the pilot etc. 2) if we had a horribly untreatable contagious disease.
I know that if the world suddenly pludged into a natural disaster I'd be at the store picking at the canned food, toilet paper and bottled water as much as anyone. I might also go for things other people would really need, like flashlights, batteries, saucepans, umbrellas, candles and tents. I do not see that jewellry and such things would have any conceivable use unless, like these desperate people, I saw this as my chance to make myself more economically equal.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Am I the only person who's pictured scuba divers going from bank to bank with underwater cutting torches?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Looting and shooting is unforgivable. But I can understand this type of do-it-yourself rescue missions.
School bus comandeered by renegade refugees first to arrive at Astrodome
The first busload of New Orleans refugees to reach the Reliant Astrodome overnight was a group of people who commandeered a school bus in the city ravaged by Hurricane Katrina and drove to Houston looking for shelter.
Jabbar Gibson, 20, said police in New Orleans told him and others to take the school bus and try to get out of the flooded city.
Gibson drove the bus from the flooded Crescent City, picking up stranded people, some of them infants, along the way. Some of those on board had been in the Superdome, among those who were supposed to be evacuated to Houston on more than 400 buses Wednesday and today. They couldn't wait.
The group of mostly teenagers and young adults pooled what little money they had to buy diapers for the babies and fuel for the bus.
After arriving at the Astrodome at about 10:30 p.m., however, they initially were refused entry by Reliant officials who said the aging landmark was reserved for the 23,000 people being evacuated from the Louisiana Superdome.
"Now, we don't have nowhere to go," Gibson said. "We heard the Astrodome was open for people from New Orleans. We ain't ate right, we ain't slept right. They don't want to give us no help. They don't want to let us in."
Milling about the Reliant entrance, Sheila Nathan, 38, told her teary-eyed toddler that she was too tired to hold him.
"I'm trying to make it a fairy tale so they won't panic," said Nathan, who had four grandchildren in tow. "I have to be strong for them."
After about 20 minutes of confusion and consternation, Red Cross officials announced that the group of about 50 to 70 evacuees would be allowed into the Astrodome.
All were grateful to be out of the devastation and misery that had overtaken their hometown.
"I feel good to get out of New Orleans," said Demetrius Henderson, who got off the bus with his wife and three children. Many of those around him alternated between excited, cranky and nervous, clutching suitcases or plastic garbage bags of clothes.
They looked as bedraggled as their grueling ride would suggest: 13 hours on the commandeered bus driven by a 20-year-old man. Watching bodies float by as they tried to escape the drowning city. Picking up people along the way. Three stops for fuel. Chugging into Reliant Park, only to be told initially that they could not spend the night.
Every bit worth it.
"We took the bus and got out of the city. We were trying to get out of the city," James Hickerson said.
Several passengers on the bus said they took the matter into their own hands earlier Wednesday because they felt rescuers and New Orleans authorities were too slow in offering help.
"They are not worried about us," said Makivia Horton, 22, who is five months pregnant.
By that logic (and this is a maybe) if I knew my next door neighbors had a good grill, and they became vegans, and I KNEW they would never use the grill again, I would be justified in sneakin over into their yard at night and taking off with the grill. The problem isnt people taking what they need for survival, the problem is people saying "you are selfish if you dont give me these things. How do you KNOW a TV is going to be ruined by water? My sister dropped by game boy into the tub (luckily it was switched off when she did) I let it dry out for several days, turned it on and it worked fine. This wasnt about just food. There were shoe stores being looted with police standing in front of them too afraid to stop the masses of people. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU NEED SHOES FOR? FOR SWIMMING?
I agree 100% with one of the earlier posters. If you need the things you are taking then you are obligated to leave monetary compensation or at least leave a note with your information if the person wants to persue legal action. If you are in the moral high ground you shouldnt fear the legality of what you are doing.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)