Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The question was about shooting random looters, not about whether I'd shoot one trying to steal my food, water, or medications.
Of course I would. It would be legal, too.
I would not patrol town, shooting looters for fun. That's murder.
Don't think you'll see that in Houston. Someone leaving a Best Buy with a TV ... let him go.
Texas assumes if you are in my house, you are there to do me harm. The worst thing you can do here is go into a home. The assumption is that you are there to hurt or kill especially after dark or if the couple is elderly.
Normally, Only time you'll usually see someone shot is in someones home.
Yep, the video I just watched of the LOOTERS who were taking stuff from a cell phone store deserve that stuff right? Sorry, using a disaster to take things you don't feel like paying for or to resell at the expense of the victims? Yes, front,back or sideways looters deserve to be dropped due to lead poisoning on sight.
Like that, yes.
It's a matter of proportionality, something that a disturbing percentage of firearm owners seem to throw out the window once there's a chance to somehow come up with a justification to, as it is so nicely put, "drop someone due to lead poisoning".
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 08-30-2017 at 03:55 PM..
yes shoot the people that are basically helping clean out your flood damaged food inventory. Grocery stores should pretty much hand the food out during a flood like this. It's going to go bad anyways. LMAO. But yeah, shoot people over twinkies guys.
yes shoot the people that are basically helping clean out your flood damaged food inventory. Grocery stores should pretty much hand the food out during a flood like this. It's going to go bad anyways. LMAO. But yeah, shoot people over twinkies guys.
Well, not all of it will go bad, but I agree. And the food store owners' losses will be covered by insurance. BUT, why do the looters have to trash the store in the process? Can't they just be respectful and grateful that food is even available at all even though they have to take it due to the extraordinarily life-threatening disaster?
I would like to see grocery stores giving in stock food away to those in need once a disaster has been declared. There would have to be some rules like limiting the giving to a specific radius of the area. It would fulfil an immediate need until outside aid could be supplied. With appropriate record keeping the grocery store could potentially be reimbursed. If not, call it an occasional cost of doing business.
I think he's got a valid point, though. That person is taking your money under the pretense of providing a certain service. If they provide a shoddy service, it's not much different than outright theft in terms of how it affects you personally.
I'm not hurt if someone steals my laptop while looting. I am if someone steals my savings to fix my house, then doesn't really fix it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vacoder
I didn't give then permission to put a faulty roof on my house. They lied about their ability and/or cut back on execution. Neither which I approved.
The difference is that kind of thing happens daily, storm or no storm. Secondly, it's not being taken by force as it is in a looting situation, you are willingly giving it to him/them, some would say by your own fault for not doing your own due diligence and checking references/licensing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.