Sigh...

[pecunium]

What's wrong with these pictures?





Nothing, right?

Well, if you go and look at them here and here you will see that the couple in the first picture are just grabbing needed food, where the kid in the second has looted a grocery.

The only differences I can see between them are the color of their skin, and the bag of food the kid has (and the guy has a knapsack, so it's possible they have more than a "bottle of milk, a loaf of bread and come home right away." Absent knowledge of what's in the bag, and of how many people the kid might be taking it too; or of when he might be rescued, I'm willing to cut him the same slack the ones in the top picture get.

The food in those groceries is doomed. The perishables will perish and the semi-durable (canned goods) will probably be unsalvageable by the time they get the waters out of the city for not only are the pumps not capable of more than an inch an hour (as I recall reading) but they put the water into Lake Ponchartrain, which would be, until they repair the levee breaches, a Sysiphean task, since it will just run right back into town, charging anyone with looting; for food, is pointless, but the distinctions made here... sigh.

Comments

[lagilman]

I'm not being jovial about anything that's going on down there right now. I draw a line (as I said quite clearly) between taking perishables to survive, and looting. Looting is the lowest form of theft I can imagine, taking advantage of a crisis situation for your own material good -- you'd rather I was a traditionalist and said they should be shot on sight? Just what we need, more bodies.

An ear tag is probably more workable, though.


(no, I'm not serious. Entirely. They'd take away my ACLU card. I can dream though, cant I?)

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I can agree with punishing them (a long stint of community service seems a good idea, and perhaps prison, depending on just what they were stealing, and why) but the tattoo? No.

After all, they probably won't get the chance to do it again, and a permanent mark is a terrible thing. Unending obloquy, not on old chap, not on.

TK

[firinel.livejournal.com]

No, I'd not rather you were traditionalist and say they should be shot on sight, actually. I did understand that you were quite clear about taking perishables to survive being different - that wasn't my issue; I simply find the idea of a permanent mark denoting criminal activity to be abhorent.

How you label/define yourself is entirely your dealing, but I'd have a hard time reconciling being an ACLU member, and even dreaming of permanently marking someone for such a reason.