I've done my fair share of looting but all of it was done in video games. Not once was I whacked upside the head. Maybe if someone had, I wouldn't have looted so much in those RPG games.
Unless you have reasonable suspicion to conclude that a person is in possession of stolen property you have no legal cause to search them, let alone arrest or prosecute them. For the record, being young and black while carrying CVS tote bags with shoes in them does not qualify unless you also have reason to believe it was stolen specific to the individual in question. If you do have the basis - you saw them committing the theft, you have footage of them doing it, etc. - then you have the foundation for search, arrest, and prosecution and should pursue it.
I should not be surprised that you are eating up the conservative MSM misrepresentation of the Mayor's statements, but if you actually read what she stated her intent was rather clearly not to endorse rioting. And to be entirely clear myself, I am not a fan of the Mayor but I am equally opposed to people twisting facts to suite their arguments. The Mayor has condemned the rioting and looting, as has President Obama which you seem to have conveniently overlooked.
Please tell me you are being facetious. That would be a disproportionate use of force. Law enforcement ought to attempt to stop the persons in question, and only if then threatened with force ought they to use force themselves. Firing a weapon without direct provocation is a great way to exacerbate an unstable situation.
It may exacerbate the problem but it will also deter many from looting and it will also get rid of many looters. This would help keep the prison population down in the future. The current situation exists because they know they can get away with it.
It might deter looting, though I think that assumes the decision to loot is well thought out with to begin and rather flies in the face of research that suggests even rather extreme deterrents fail to deter effectively. It is also not uncommon for looters to be identified after the fact from surveillance and media coverage, so the notion that they "get away with it" is somewhat tenuous.
But let us assume it does deter looting. It is an even safer assumption to conclude that it would escalate violence, with citizens arming themselves and shooting back or even initiating armed conflict with officers and other persons.
So? Look at the bright side. Man made green house gasses, that are causing global warming, would not be a problem if there were considerably less people on the planet adding their carbon foot print to the environment. Also, most of those looters are probably nonworking, wefare recipients. If we shoot looters we would help fix global warming, reduce the number of the unemployed, reduce the number of welfare recipients, help gentrify a part of town, help ease traffic congestion and increase the overall IQ in the area. It's a win, win situation.
You are assuming that the parties involved are unemployed, welfare recipients without substantiation. You are further assuming that they would die instead instead of being permanently incapacitated and treated on state/federal money. You are further assuming deaths would be so numerous as to have any impact on population and climate change, which is a stretch. You actually want to kill of large swaths of undesirables... there are better ways.
My suspicion is that you are not taking this seriously and/or are actually incapable of advancing a sound argument on the matter. Either is fine, but neither is compelling enough for me to continue this rather absurd exchange any further.
In the old wild west horse thieves were hanged by the neck until dead. They weren't hanged for stealing horses, but to deter people from stealing horses. It was a highly effective way with which to deal with what was then an epidemic, just as ''Bongo'' looting is an epidemic today. The difference between then and now is that the politicians had balls whereas today's vote conscious politically correct wimps have chocolate eclairs for backbones.
To be fair, in the 'old wild west,' to steal a mans horse was, quite frequently, a de facto sentence to slow death for that man. A man whos horse was stolen all too often faced death from exhaustion and dehydration in the desert, whereas a company who has been looted faces the horror of filing an insurance claim.
I would cut off a finger if found guilty! if there caught thieving again another finger and so on and so on!! and at some stage they will think shit! im running out of fingers better change my career!
You do understand why that mother is so angry, right? That reaction is about way more than disappointment at childish stupidity... it is about seeing your child do something you know could destroy their life if not actually get them killed.
Most people do not understand that. They see this and immediately assume the mother was disciplining her child because he was "behaving badly", without doing the research to see her own statements saying she was hitting him because she knew what he was doing included a very significant chance of him being killed. But that goes ahead and changes the conversation back to disproportionate police abuse against young black men, which is something that people tend to want to avoid.
But that goes ahead and changes the conversation back to disproportionate police abuse against young black men, which is something that people tend to want to avoid.
A looter should have something taken away that he or she likes. For instance, taking away their auto or house would teach a looter never to break into a store and steal ever again.
