|
First, Katrina was a different situation. It was a national disaster, not a protest. People had no food and water, so of course they had to go to stores and loot them
Yes, the two scenarios are different. However, we're discussing the shooting of looters and whether it can be morally justifiable. It's less morally acceptable if they are looting basic necessities like food and water. But those people in New Orleans were shot without trial.
I'm not suggesting that where we're at is the right time to start shooting looters, but it's getting there, I mean it's spread to Dallas from what I can tell. If this actually takes hold, things will get nasty.
OTOH, some people were shooting at helicopters, gangs were running around threatening and raping people. Those weren't looters, they were criminals, and they were clearly violent.
Looters are criminals. Looters are violent. Violence is not just threatening people with attack, violence is also creating an atmosphere of fear and chaos. And if things carry on as they are, people will start shooting at helicopters. That's when the state has to up their game and consider all options.
Second, I don't know where you got the idea that Bush gave an order to shoot looters.
idk who gave the order, or if it was individuals taking the course of action they deemed necessary, but Bush was president at the time.
So clearly he didn't think shooting hurricane victims, even looters, was an appropriate response to the crisis.
Perhaps, or maybe he just thought the message had been sent out and the looting would not continue. idk. But if I could be bothered, I'm sure I could find a general who would say that shooting looters in extreme cases in necessary, such as this guy's predecessor. It's not like Gnrl Whatshisname is an authority on generals.
|