During a disaster, when is it ok to steal?

ffman · Sep 1, 2005

Ampoliros said:
And having read the mind of everyone getting food from stores in New Orleans, you obviously know whats going on.

Really? I'm doubting your mind reading powers, here, because your stereotypical thinking doesnt really apply (My views on abortion and the death penalty are entirely different than what your short-sighted thinking imply).

I have NEVER said that it is okay for people in New orleans to be stealing for profit. We are talking about these peoples lives, and you are equating it with swiping a CD player from Best Buy.

Again, I'm not saying 'Steal everyone's stuff ! Open season on cars and valuables!' I'm saying that if its a choice between grabbing a loaf of bread and some bottled water from Wal-Mart down the road, and death, that its perfectly okay with me if they take the bread and water. They are both in short supply.

'Hardball' is not simply shooting people who are doing things wrong. If people are stealing stereos and other things, then there will be the time and place to arrest them and try them appropriately. Shooting them is not an acceptable method of dealing with what is going on.

I agree with you. If people need food and water and have no other way to get it, let them take it from stores. Many may soon need food and water to survive, and many aren't getting it elsewhere. People shouldn't steal electronics (and especially not guns), but they should not be shot on sight. The only ones who should possibly be shot are those who try to inflict harm on others (such as those trying to snipe Charity Hospital personnel and patients). If they continue to hamper rescue operations and try to inflict more harm on the innocent, this may be required. I'm not sure, though - it's not my decision to make.

Scally Cap · Sep 1, 2005

ffman said:
The only ones who should possibly be shot are those who try to inflict harm on others (such as those trying to snipe Charity Hospital personnel and patients).

Well, sure. I'd gleefully help on that end were I there. And it honestly wouldn't bother me if the cops got slap-happy with guys they catch ripping off electronics, jewelry, CDs, and other non-subsistence related stuff. Here's hoping we see a massive influx of manpower soon to try to restore order--but with the situation deteriorating by the hour, I can't begin to imagine the logistics nightmare it's going to be. Police/NG AND medical assistance AND food distribution AND shelter until evacuation AND the evacuation itself AND all the public health timebombs waiting to go off... Who needs terrorists? Mama Nature has done us a good one without them.

Ampoliros · Sep 1, 2005

12volt_man said:
Actually, what I said is that looters should be shot because because their lawlessness takes police and fire and rescue people away from helping the innocent who need their help.

Again, we cannot have anarchy where people's lives are at stake.

The looters are, by taking men away from the rescue effort, endangering the lives of those who are still trapped, missing, or injured and the message that this will not be tolerated needs to be sent immediately.

While I do agree that looting - specifically of valuables - is taking police away from rescue duties, shooting them is not an acceptable answer. People don't get shot for stealing the same as they don't get their hands chopped off for it. We're not in the 11th century, here, we have laws and a system for dealing with criminals, and I hardly think we throw it out and just start shooting people.

I never said that anyone should be shot for taking food or water.

I also never said that anyone should be made to go without food or water, as you said I did.

With regards to the first, you in fact did. As I quote, post 38:

12volt_man said:
Robbie_James_Francis said:

If a man steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family has he committed a sin?

Click to expand...

Yes. Stealing is stealing and looters should be shot on sight.

With regards to the second, I did not say you want people to go without food or water. I accept that you are trying to help people get food and water there, as you stated. However, there may not be enough supplies to go around, and currently there is not, despite it having been several days. If looting prolongs the life of a person long enough for them to be rescued, I am in favor of it.

"" · Sep 1, 2005

ChristianCenturion said:
This makes my 11th post in this thread and only several (yourself included in that estimate) have taken hard objection to what I have said. What tells me that further elaboration is going to be profitable? Perhaps the subject could be addressed rather than the poster - that would seem more reasonable to me than my continuing in refuting what was claimed against me by a select few.

I don't know if it will make you feel any better CC, but I agree with what you said in your original post. :amen:

Stealing is a sin, no matter what the circumstances, BUT.... (a big BUT in there), just as you said, there is mercy and forgiveness provided through Christ.

Another poster shared these verses:

Matthew 12:1-13 1 At that time Jesus passed through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick and eat some heads of grain. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, "Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!" 3 He said to them, "Haven't you read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him-- 4 how he entered the house of God, and they ate the sacred bread, which is not lawful for him or for those with him to eat, but only for the priests? 5 Or haven't you read in the law that on Sabbath days the priests in the temple violate the Sabbath and are guiltless? 6 But I tell you that something greater than the temple is here! 7 If you had known what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice , you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." 9 Moving on from there, He entered their synagogue. 10 There He saw a man who had a paralyzed hand. And in order to accuse Him they asked Him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" 11 But He said to them, "What man among you, if he had a sheep that fell into a pit on the Sabbath, wouldn't take hold of it and lift it out? 12 A man is worth far more than a sheep, so it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." 13 Then He told the man, "Stretch out your hand." So he stretched it out, and it was restored, as good as the other.

Click to expand...

Which are an example of the forgiveness offered through Christ. When people steal food and water, because they are starving and thirsting to death, and there is no other way to get it, if they know Jesus as their Savior, they are covered. There is no judgment for them in this instance, on this issue.

For those who do not know Jesus, and they steal food and water, in the same situation... there is no blood covering from Jesus. This should not be their greatest worry however, because they won't suffer the final judgment, and be cast into the lake of fire, for stealing food and water. It is their denial of Jesus as the Savior that will put them there.

Romans 8:1-8

1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,] 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.
5Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

In short: Stealing is a sin. There is no way around that. Those who know the Lord Jesus, need not worry about this, if what they take is a necessity (food, water, clothing, shelter, during a crisis) because Jesus has them covered. They should still ask for forgiveness though. Those who do not know Jesus, and steal for the same reasons, won't have to worry about stealing. They'll be judged for turning their back on Jesus.

Seeking... · Sep 1, 2005

I haven't read the dozen pages of posts so forgive me if I state something similar to what has already been posted.

I didn't answer the poll because it didn't sufficiently cover my beliefs.

Stealing is always immoral.

Letting someone die due to starvation, dehydration or lack of medicine which is accessible is always immoral.

Given the choice I believe loss of life trumps loss of material possessions. I find no fault with individuals who in times of crisis steal what is neccesary to survive provided they have exhausted all other possibilities and they are not stealing from other individuals in need.

LittleNipper · Sep 1, 2005

Ampoliros said:
And having read the mind of everyone getting food from stores in New Orleans, you obviously know whats going on.

Really? I'm doubting your mind reading powers, here, because your stereotypical thinking doesnt really apply (My views on abortion and the death penalty are entirely different than what your short-sighted thinking imply).

I have NEVER said that it is okay for people in New orleans to be stealing for profit. We are talking about these peoples lives, and you are equating it with swiping a CD player from Best Buy.

Again, I'm not saying 'Steal everyone's stuff ! Open season on cars and valuables!' I'm saying that if its a choice between grabbing a loaf of bread and some bottled water from Wal-Mart down the road, and death, that its perfectly okay with me if they take the bread and water. They are both in short supply.

'Hardball' is not simply shooting people who are doing things wrong. If people are stealing stereos and other things, then there will be the time and place to arrest them and try them appropriately. Shooting them is not an acceptable method of dealing with what is going on.

I apologize if you are indeed against abortion and are not entirely against the death penality for murderers. I am not sure if you understand how Marshal Law works: however, it protects those trying to do their job of re-establishing law and order to a region for whatever reason. If a group looks to be looting, the officer tells the person to stop, put down what he is holding and to explain what he is doing. If the guy tries to run, a shot is fired over his head and if he refuses to obey or he threatens the authority, he is placing HIMSELF in a position to be shot. Try to find people later is not a real option-----there is only the here and now. You may not see tomorrow if things are allowed to go unchecked. The death of one may bring everyone else back to reality. It isn't about individual freedom in a crisis. It is about the safety of the majority and the establishment of law an order prevents needless deaths...

christalee4 · Sep 1, 2005

Given the scope of the suffering, for the lack of water and food, taking food and water to survive in okay in this most dire situation. I had also seen reports of police, who are operating on their own to try to restore security, removing what guns and bullets they found in stores, so that the general population wouldn't get a hold of them. Taking a pair of shoes to walk in, if you have no shoes, or if your child has no shoes, with no help in sight - while it's not something I would condone, I can understand it. Taking electronics, jewelry and robbing other people of their supplies is terrible. To think this is happening in that fair city and region - it's hard to believe that these scenes are in America.

Ampoliros · Sep 1, 2005

LittleNipper said:
If a group looks to be looting, the officer tells the person to stop, put down what he is holding and to explain what he is doing. If the guy tries to run, a shot is fired over his head and if he refuses to obey or he threatens the authority, he is placing HIMSELF in a position to be shot. Try to find people later is not a real option-----there is only the here and now. You may not see tomorrow if things are allowed to go unchecked. The death of one may bring everyone else back to reality. It isn't about individual freedom in a crisis. It is about the safety of the majority and the establishment of law an order prevents needless deaths...

Yes, but honestly just shooting people for looting is not a realistic solution, either. Even temporary hospitals are filling up; causing more injuries would be quite bad.

If the officers are threatened, however, i don't mind them striking back (Just as i wouldn't in a normal situation). It just seems incredibly overly harsh to kill or shoot someone for stealing a TV set. Life >>>> property.

printerr · Sep 1, 2005

12volt_man said:
No one is dying of dehydration.

How do you know that? The Gulf of Mexico is salt water, and salt water does NOT keep a person from dying of dehydration, and not only that but it is full of poisons. So how do you KNOW that no one down there is dying of dehydration, with no fresh water to drink for days now.......

Terrie

ChristianCenturion · Sep 1, 2005

Adiya said:
I don't know if it will make you feel any better CC, but I agree with what you said in your original post.

Thanks Adiya, but the objections didn't upset me, just made more work.

BTW - I agree with your post too.

12volt_man · Sep 1, 2005

printerr said:
How do you know that? The Gulf of Mexico is salt water, and salt water does NOT keep a person from dying of dehydration, and not only that but it is full of poisons. So how do you KNOW that no one down there is dying of dehydration, with no fresh water to drink for days now.......

Terrie

I've explained this a couple of times now.

printerr · Sep 1, 2005

12volt_man said:
Actually, you people are the ones who claimed that people have died from dehydration.

As the ones making the claim, it's up to you to demonstrate it, not up to me to disprove it.

sorry I can't put a direct link cuz of my new user status, but here are some websites.

english(dot)pravda(dot)ru/accidents/21/97/385/16069_Katrina(dot)html shows where 3 people have died of dehydration (and doing a yahoo search of the words katrina dehydration will show this information is on numerous pages....this page does not start with a www

www(dot)cnn(dot)com/2005/HEALTH/08/31/katrina(dot)public(dot)health/?section=cnn_latest shows the danger of dehydration on the coast, even though it does not report that deaths have happened.

Terrie

12volt_man · Sep 1, 2005

Ampoliros said:
While I do agree that looting - specifically of valuables - is taking police away from rescue duties, shooting them is not an acceptable answer. People don't get shot for stealing the same as they don't get their hands chopped off for it. We're not in the 11th century, here, we have laws and a system for dealing with criminals, and I hardly think we throw it out and just start shooting people.

For the thousandth time, it's not a matter of punishing crime, but a matter of stopping the lawless, whose behavior is endangering the lives of the innocent.

With regards to the first, you in fact did. As I quote, post 38:

What is it about liberals that they refuse to read the posts they're responding to?

However, there may not be enough supplies to go around, and currently there is not, despite it having been several days. If looting prolongs the life of a person long enough for them to be rescued, I am in favor of it.

And if they continue to cause chaos and take men away from search and rescue efforts that a vital to saving the lives of the innocent, then they should be shot.

12volt_man · Sep 1, 2005

printerr said:
sorry I can't put a direct link cuz of my new user status, but here are some websites.

english(dot)pravda(dot)ru/accidents/21/97/385/16069_Katrina(dot)html shows where 3 people have died of dehydration (and doing a yahoo search of the words katrina dehydration will show this information is on numerous pages....this page does not start with a www

Yes. Three elderly residents of a nursing home. This has already been brought up and refuted.

www(dot)cnn(dot)com/2005/HEALTH/08/31/katrina(dot)public(dot)health/?section=cnn_latest shows the danger of dehydration on the coast, even though it does not report that deaths have happened.

If it doesn't say that deaths have happened, then it's moot.

Scally Cap · Sep 1, 2005

12volt_man said:
What is it about liberals that they refuse to read the posts they're responding to?

What? You said, " I never said that anyone should be shot for taking food or water." All he did was point out that you did, in fact, say that in two separate posts. Why does that make him a liberal? Why is it necessary to go on an ad hom attack in order to respond (or deflect, as the case may be)?

Natman · Sep 1, 2005

I do not know if it is "stealing" but taking things that have been thrown out as waste, in essense, using recyclable resources, should be okay.

I wouldn't take ANYTHING without first getting permission. However, if something has already been placed in a waste bin by it's owner or representative, I think that is implied permission.

Son-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Ampoliros · Sep 1, 2005

12volt_man said:
For the thousandth time, it's not a matter of punishing crime, but a matter of stopping the lawless, whose behavior is endangering the lives of the innocent.

...

And if they continue to cause chaos and take men away from search and rescue efforts that a vital to saving the lives of the innocent, then they should be shot.

Shooting them is still not the right solution, here. The hospitals there do not have the ability to take on however many hundred people that are going to be injured. I agree that they're damaging the search efforts - especially the violent ones - and they need to be taken care of, but shooting them will only further strain resources as hundreds of people are taken to the hospital for gunshot wounds that the hospitals simply can't take. Not only are you now threatening the lives of hundreds who were shot to prevent looting, you may be threatening the lives of survivors where the hospitals simply cannot do anything as they are out of medications and equipment.

Simply put, shooting looters isn't going to make things better, it would make things much worse - regardless of the fact its a serious breach of all that trivial stuff in the constitution such as punishment fitting the crime, and right to a fair trial.

What is it about liberals that they refuse to read the posts they're responding to?

Clever deflection, but not buying it. Flip flopping and then pinning it on me doesn't work.

Scally Cap · Sep 1, 2005

LittleNipper said:
I am not sure if you understand how Marshal Law works: however, it protects those trying to do their job of re-establishing law and order to a region for whatever reason.

Honest question here--it's my understanding that two parishes wanted to declare martial law, but were denied by the state because that would violate LA law. Can a given jurisdiction impose measures such as curfews and general riot-control tactics without formally declaring martial law?

BarbB · Sep 1, 2005

I just heard on Fox News that Louisiana has a law that declares in a state of emergency, which is certainly the way New Orleans is now, a person is NOT guilty of theft and will suffer no penalties for stealing food, water, baby formula, diapers, asperin, etc. Anything necessary for life! This is actually very nice! :clap:

Now that 56" flat screen is NOT necessary for life!

12volt_man · Sep 1, 2005

Ampoliros said:
Shooting them is still not the right solution, here. The hospitals there do not have the ability to take on however many hundred people that are going to be injured. I agree that they're damaging the search efforts - especially the violent ones - and they need to be taken care of, but shooting them will only further strain resources as hundreds of people are taken to the hospital for gunshot wounds that the hospitals simply can't take. Not only are you now threatening the lives of hundreds who were shot to prevent looting, you may be threatening the lives of survivors where the hospitals simply cannot do anything as they are out of medications and equipment.

(a) Most people will stop looting once they realize that consequences are swift and severe.

(b) Most dead people tend not to need a lot of medical attention.

Simply put, shooting looters isn't going to make things better, it would make things much worse - regardless of the fact its a serious breach of all that trivial stuff in the constitution such as punishment fitting the crime, and right to a fair trial.

Again, this has nothing to do with punishing crime.

That's what courts are for.

Clever deflection, but not buying it. Flip flopping and then pinning it on me doesn't work.

I didn't "flip flop". I've been rather consistent in my posts.

It's not my fault that you either aren't reading them or are pouring your own meaning into them.

During a disaster, when is it ok to steal?

During a disaster, when is it ok to steal?

It's never ok.

Taking food that will be wasted is ok.

Taking food & clothes that will be wasted is ok.

Take anything that is going to be ruined if you don't.

It's always ok, as long as you don't get caught.

Regular Member

GO IRISH!!!

I'm my own wireless hotspot

Well-Known Member

A strange kettle of fish ...

Contributor

Senior Veteran

I'm my own wireless hotspot

Regular Member

Veteran / Tuebor

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

GO IRISH!!!

Well-Known Member

I'm my own wireless hotspot

GO IRISH!!!

I stand with my brothers and sisters in Israel!

Well-Known Member

Similar threads