looting

[Az]

What if it's your stuff getting saved, by an opportunistic thief? That's the benefit of this protection.

Better the thief than noone at all.

the benefits - 1. encourages property owners to evacuate when asked, rather than staying around to protect their NOT total loss items .

That's why there should be a differentiation between stuff just stolen, and stuff rescued - a blanket ban on looting won't do any better than a differential ban. Both can be enforced with the same amount of success, btw.

2. Encourages would be salvagers to depart, rather than stay behind to collect salvage, in circumstances of danger

It does? it surely didn't now.

3. Simplifies the job law enforcement faces, in distinguishing between "bad salvers" (those seizing guns, seizing relief supplies, or seizing items in no danger) from "good salvers"

This is pretty weak stuff. So, now you gonna blanket ban looting - now it's time for law enforcement to establish ownership of the salvaged goods.

[lord of the mark]

No owners move stuff out of stores, in trash bags, a few items at a time. I think its clearly much easier for LE to enforce a blanket ban, than a differential ban.

as for why it didnt work here? I suppose because LE has not cracked down that hard on looters in the past, and the looters didnt expect any such crackdown now, esp with LE otherwise occupied.

[Az]

No owners move stuff out of stores, in trash bags, a few items at a time.

Why not? don't they want to rescue their own stuff?

I think its clearly much easier for LE to enforce a blanket ban, than a differential ban.

Yeah, enforcing a blanket ban on looting has proven to be a very easy job for LE.

as for why it didnt work here? I suppose because LE has not cracked down that hard on looters in the past, and the looters didnt expect any such crackdown now, esp with LE otherwise occupied.

The fact that they didn't crack down this time, also, just makes the whole debate even more theoretical.

[Kontiki]

Part of the problem is this assumption that everything is going to get destroyed. Supposed you and your family lived in New Orleans and managed to get out before the hurricane hit. Now, you're lucky enough that your house was build on slightly higher ground, so the flood waters only covered the first couple of feet of the lower floor of your house. When you inevitably came back to pick through your remains, you'd probably prefer to have all the stuff on the second floor of your house still there rather than picked clean.

[Az]

I didn't assume everything was going to get destroyed. I was specifically saying that some stuff is bound to get destroyed, and it's better be stolen than destroyed. It's the anti-loot crowd who support a blanket ban on looting.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Az
It's the anti-loot crowd who support a blanket ban on looting.

isn't looting already illegal?

anyways the point is moot because there is nobody to enforce the law

[Az]

isn't looting already illegal?

Yes, we're arguing that this isn't right.

anyways the point is moot because there is nobody to enforce the law

Precisely.

[Ben Kenobi]

Eh, what's wrong then? You're no worse off. So what that the person who benefitted wasn't Jesus?

You don't have anything personal that you would rather see destroyed then stolen?

[Az]

I don't think there is anything of material value I'd rather see destroy than stolen, and looters won't bother with anything else, anyway.

[Pyrodrew]

I do see the great benefit in saving stuff.

What is the margin of error allowed for "saving stuff" that didn't need saving or is it good enough if I say I believe I was saving stuff? Do I have to wait for a teethering multi-floored building that's on fire while a tidal wave filled with crocodiles approaches or can I start looting 12hours before a hurricane even hits? I demand to see the guidelines.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Az

No owners move stuff out of stores, in trash bags, a few items at a time.

Why not? don't they want to rescue their own stuff?

LOTM -store owners usually use trucks, pallets, etc.

I think its clearly much easier for LE to enforce a blanket ban, than a differential ban.

Yeah, enforcing a blanket ban on looting has proven to be a very easy job for LE.

LOTM - apparently they are trying to stop looting now. Forcing LE to make fine distinctions on this can only make their job more difficult.

[Az]

LOTM -store owners usually use trucks, pallets, etc.

Usually - not in the case of a cat. 5 hurricane destroying your city.

LOTM - apparently they are trying to stop looting now. Forcing LE to make fine distinctions on this can only make their job more difficult.

Yeah, well good luck to them.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Az
I didn't assume everything was going to get destroyed. I was specifically saying that some stuff is bound to get destroyed, and it's better be stolen than destroyed. It's the anti-loot crowd who support a blanket ban on looting.

because asking the police to guess whether the looter taking a $1000 piece of electronics from a house got it from the first floor, or the second, is absurd.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Az

LOTM -store owners usually use trucks, pallets, etc.

Usually - not in the case of a cat. 5 hurricane destroying your city.

Yes, most owners run. Which is why your suggestion that the folks taking stuff from stores might be owners is even sillier.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You don't have anything personal that you would rather see destroyed then stolen?

Anything I have of sentimental value doesn't have any material value.