For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they
should be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):

New Orleans police kill looters in shoot-out
By Mark Egan Sun Sep 4, 9:26 PM ET

NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - New Orleans police killed four looters who had
opened fire on them on Sunday as rescue teams scoured homes and toxic
waters flooding streets to find survivors and recover thousands of
bloated corpses.

A fifth looter was in critical condition but no more details were
available about the incident in a city where authorities are slowly
regaining control after a wave of looting, murders and rapes in the wake
of Hurricane Katrina.

"Five men who were looting exchanged gunfire with police. The officers
engaged the looters when they were fired upon," said New Orleans
superintendent of police, Steven Nichols.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contractors working on a levee breach were
fired on by gunmen but no one was hurt, said the Corps' Mike Rogers. It
was not clear if the two incidents were connected.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050905/ts_nm/katrina_dc

Friggin ****ants. Hoping the military does the same.


jim

Jim,

You're a voice in the darkness. For some strange reason, it seems that
ALL the newsgroups that I frequent consider the worst of this human
garbage - make the sewage -as "poor disadvantaged souls who are just
doing what they can to survive". I shake my head in disbelief. I
wonder if they would be so charitable if it were THEIR daughters and
wives who were being raped.

Anyway. I say, yeah, shoot them. You bet.

chula

"JimLane" > wrote in message
...
>
> For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they should
> be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):
>
> New Orleans police kill looters in shoot-out
> By Mark Egan Sun Sep 4, 9:26 PM ET
>
> NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - New Orleans police killed four looters who had
> opened fire on them on Sunday as rescue teams scoured homes and toxic
> waters flooding streets to find survivors and recover thousands of bloated
> corpses.
>

It continues to amaze me that you and some others are so festeringly stupid
that you cannot tell the difference between someone who is shooting at the
authorities and an unarmed person who is looting.


--
Peter Aitken

Peter Aitken wrote:
> "JimLane" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they
>> should be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):
>>
>> New Orleans police kill looters in shoot-out
>> By Mark Egan Sun Sep 4, 9:26 PM ET
>>
>> NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - New Orleans police killed four looters who
>> had opened fire on them on Sunday as rescue teams scoured homes and
>> toxic waters flooding streets to find survivors and recover
>> thousands of bloated corpses.
>>
>
> It continues to amaze me that you and some others are so festeringly
> stupid that you cannot tell the difference between someone who is
> shooting at the authorities and an unarmed person who is looting.

Peter, did you read the post? "New Orleans police killed four looters who
had *opened fire* on them on Sunday". They weren't just looting, they were
shooting at police and rescue personnel. Like there isn't enough to deal
with without gang-bangers thinking it's okay to steal everything in sight
and then start shooting when they are caught.

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
.. .
> Peter Aitken wrote:
>> "JimLane" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they
>>> should be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):
>>>
>>> New Orleans police kill looters in shoot-out
>>> By Mark Egan Sun Sep 4, 9:26 PM ET
>>>
>>> NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - New Orleans police killed four looters who
>>> had opened fire on them on Sunday as rescue teams scoured homes and
>>> toxic waters flooding streets to find survivors and recover
>>> thousands of bloated corpses.
>>>
>>
>> It continues to amaze me that you and some others are so festeringly
>> stupid that you cannot tell the difference between someone who is
>> shooting at the authorities and an unarmed person who is looting.
>
> Peter, did you read the post? "New Orleans police killed four looters who
> had *opened fire* on them on Sunday". They weren't just looting, they
> were
> shooting at police and rescue personnel. Like there isn't enough to deal
> with without gang-bangers thinking it's okay to steal everything in sight
> and then start shooting when they are caught.
>
> Jill
>
>

THAT IS MY PRECISE POINT FER CHRISSAKE!! I have explicitly said that I agree
it is OK to shoot people who are firing on authorities. You and others have
said expicitly that it is OK to shoot someone for JUST LOOTING. If you do
not see the difference between an unarmed person who is stealing a TV and a
person who is shooting at the police (and may or may not have been looting
too) then you are truly beyond help.


--
Peter Aitken

Peter Aitken wrote:

> THAT IS MY PRECISE POINT FER CHRISSAKE!! I have explicitly said that I agree
> it is OK to shoot people who are firing on authorities. You and others have
> said expicitly that it is OK to shoot someone for JUST LOOTING. If you do
> not see the difference between an unarmed person who is stealing a TV and a
> person who is shooting at the police (and may or may not have been looting
> too) then you are truly beyond help.

I think that it depends on the type of goods being looted and the severity or
nature of the disaster. People taking things like food, water, diapers are
acting out of necessity. People stealing televisions are just plain thieves. I
would not ordinarily support the use of deadly force for theft, but I certainly
do when it comes to looting such goods after a disaster. There has to be some
law and order, and wide scale looting is the start of a downhill plunge in our
civilization.

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:09:57 -0400, in rec.food.cooking, Dave Smith wrote:

>Peter Aitken wrote:
>
>> THAT IS MY PRECISE POINT FER CHRISSAKE!! I have explicitly said that I agree
>> it is OK to shoot people who are firing on authorities. You and others have
>> said expicitly that it is OK to shoot someone for JUST LOOTING. If you do
>> not see the difference between an unarmed person who is stealing a TV and a
>> person who is shooting at the police (and may or may not have been looting
>> too) then you are truly beyond help.
>
>I think that it depends on the type of goods being looted and the severity or
>nature of the disaster. People taking things like food, water, diapers are
>acting out of necessity. People stealing televisions are just plain thieves. I
>would not ordinarily support the use of deadly force for theft, but I certainly
>do when it comes to looting such goods after a disaster. There has to be some
>law and order, and wide scale looting is the start of a downhill plunge in our
>civilization.
>
At one Walgreen's the police were handing out drugs, nappies, etc. to
people. So, were they thieves, looters, what?

As you say, many people were acting out of necessity. It's not as though
they could go to a bank, withdraw some money, and go to a supermarket.

Looters stealing electronic goods, guns, etc, and shooting people, that's
another thing entirely.

Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk

Peter Aitken wrote:
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Peter Aitken wrote:
>>> "JimLane" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they
>>>> should be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):
>>>>
>>>> New Orleans police kill looters in shoot-out
>>>> By Mark Egan Sun Sep 4, 9:26 PM ET
>>>>
>>>> NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - New Orleans police killed four looters who
>>>> had opened fire on them on Sunday as rescue teams scoured homes and
>>>> toxic waters flooding streets to find survivors and recover
>>>> thousands of bloated corpses.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It continues to amaze me that you and some others are so festeringly
>>> stupid that you cannot tell the difference between someone who is
>>> shooting at the authorities and an unarmed person who is looting.
>>
>> Peter, did you read the post? "New Orleans police killed four
>> looters who had *opened fire* on them on Sunday".
>>
>
> THAT IS MY PRECISE POINT FER CHRISSAKE!! I have explicitly said that
> I agree it is OK to shoot people who are firing on authorities. You
> and others have said expicitly that it is OK to shoot someone for
> JUST LOOTING.

It's funny, I didn't advocate stealing other than to say it *might* be
understandable if it was food, etc. At this point I'm not even sure it
depends on the type of goods, although I'd have a lot more sympathy for
someone making off with a case of Chef Boyardee than someone trotting down
the street with a television set.

The looters being shown on the news aren't looting because they need to.
They are taking personal advantage of the devastation to feather their own
nests at the expense of others. There might be a shop owner or two out
there who would want to go back and try to reclaim some of their goods and
make another start, regardless of where. What will they be coming back to?
Smashed windows, empty shops, years and reams of paperwork trying to file
insurance claims. Meanwhile, you've got the happy-go-lucky looters, woo
hoo! Look at all this shit I got for FREE! Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Aitken wrote:
>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> Peter Aitken wrote:
>>>> "JimLane" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they
>>>>> should be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):
>>>>>
>>>>> New Orleans police kill looters in shoot-out
>>>>> By Mark Egan Sun Sep 4, 9:26 PM ET
>>>>>
>>>>> NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - New Orleans police killed four looters who
>>>>> had opened fire on them on Sunday as rescue teams scoured homes and
>>>>> toxic waters flooding streets to find survivors and recover
>>>>> thousands of bloated corpses.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It continues to amaze me that you and some others are so festeringly
>>>> stupid that you cannot tell the difference between someone who is
>>>> shooting at the authorities and an unarmed person who is looting.
>>>
>>> Peter, did you read the post? "New Orleans police killed four
>>> looters who had *opened fire* on them on Sunday".
>>>
>>
>> THAT IS MY PRECISE POINT FER CHRISSAKE!! I have explicitly said that
>> I agree it is OK to shoot people who are firing on authorities. You
>> and others have said expicitly that it is OK to shoot someone for
>> JUST LOOTING.
>
> It's funny, I didn't advocate stealing other than to say it *might* be
> understandable if it was food, etc. At this point I'm not even sure it
> depends on the type of goods, although I'd have a lot more sympathy for
> someone making off with a case of Chef Boyardee than someone trotting down
> the street with a television set.
>
> The looters being shown on the news aren't looting because they need to.
> They are taking personal advantage of the devastation to feather their own
> nests at the expense of others. There might be a shop owner or two out
> there who would want to go back and try to reclaim some of their goods and
> make another start, regardless of where. What will they be coming back
> to?
> Smashed windows, empty shops, years and reams of paperwork trying to file
> insurance claims. Meanwhile, you've got the happy-go-lucky looters, woo
> hoo! Look at all this shit I got for FREE! Sorry, I'm not buying it.
>
> Jill
>
>

I have *NEVER* encountered anyone with such dismal reading comprehension and
lack of logic. Have even a semi-intelligent discussion with you is
completely impossible. I surrender, I give up, I hoist the white flag, I
cannot take it any more. Adios.


--
Peter Aitken

jmcquown wrote:
>
> Peter, did you read the post? "New Orleans police killed four looters
> who had *opened fire* on them on Sunday". They weren't just looting,
> they were shooting at police and rescue personnel. Like there isn't
> enough to deal with without gang-bangers thinking it's okay to steal
> everything in sight and then start shooting when they are caught.

The cops SAID the folks they killed were looters who had
opened fire. These are cops who had just shot a bunch
of people. New Orleans cops. They are not exactly
the most reliable source of information in this matter.

Read about the famous New Orleans cops:

http://www.hrw.org/reports98/police/uspo92.htm

Mark Thorson wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>
>>Peter, did you read the post? "New Orleans police killed four looters
>>who had *opened fire* on them on Sunday". They weren't just looting,
>>they were shooting at police and rescue personnel. Like there isn't
>>enough to deal with without gang-bangers thinking it's okay to steal
>>everything in sight and then start shooting when they are caught.
>
>
> The cops SAID the folks they killed were looters who had
> opened fire. These are cops who had just shot a bunch
> of people. New Orleans cops. They are not exactly
> the most reliable source of information in this matter.
>
> Read about the famous New Orleans cops:
>
> http://www.hrw.org/reports98/police/uspo92.htm


Right. You're merely an apologist for the looters and shooters.


jim

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, JimLane wrote:

> Mark Thorson wrote:
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>> Peter, did you read the post? "New Orleans police killed four looters
>>> who had *opened fire* on them on Sunday". They weren't just looting,
>>> they were shooting at police and rescue personnel. Like there isn't
>>> enough to deal with without gang-bangers thinking it's okay to steal
>>> everything in sight and then start shooting when they are caught.
>>
>>
>> The cops SAID the folks they killed were looters who had
>> opened fire. These are cops who had just shot a bunch
>> of people. New Orleans cops. They are not exactly
>> the most reliable source of information in this matter.
>>
>> Read about the famous New Orleans cops:
>>
>> http://www.hrw.org/reports98/police/uspo92.htm
>
>
> Right. You're merely an apologist for the looters and shooters.

Why the **** shoot the looters? Maybe you've never gone without food for
a day...

Personally, I'm all in favor of shooting all the people who got out. With
a television, instead of the person down the street. I've got this to
say, to everybody that left... "How many did you save?" Could you have
smuggled a baby out of there? Did you really cram as many people into
your car as you could have?

Sorry, folks, today's the day that I hate humanity.

Everyone that left, without people packed in the car, is guilty of
manslaughter (perhaps involuntary? i don't know the legal terms...).

Lena

and every time I hear "I got out with only what I got in the car" I can
hear people dying.

jmcquown wrote:
> Peter Aitken wrote:
>
>>"JimLane" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they
>>>should be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):
>>>
>>>New Orleans police kill looters in shoot-out
>>>By Mark Egan Sun Sep 4, 9:26 PM ET
>>>
>>>NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - New Orleans police killed four looters who
>>>had opened fire on them on Sunday as rescue teams scoured homes and
>>>toxic waters flooding streets to find survivors and recover
>>>thousands of bloated corpses.
>>>
>>
>>It continues to amaze me that you and some others are so festeringly
>>stupid that you cannot tell the difference between someone who is
>>shooting at the authorities and an unarmed person who is looting.
>
>
> Peter, did you read the post? "New Orleans police killed four looters who
> had *opened fire* on them on Sunday". They weren't just looting, they were
> shooting at police and rescue personnel. Like there isn't enough to deal
> with without gang-bangers thinking it's okay to steal everything in sight
> and then start shooting when they are caught.
>
> Jill
>
>


Write Peter off as an anarchist. He evidently thinks law and order
should not be enforced.


jim

Peter Aitken wrote:
> "JimLane" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they should
> > be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):
> >
> > New Orleans police kill looters in shoot-out
> > By Mark Egan Sun Sep 4, 9:26 PM ET
> >
> > NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - New Orleans police killed four looters who had
> > opened fire on them on Sunday as rescue teams scoured homes and toxic
> > waters flooding streets to find survivors and recover thousands of bloated
> > corpses.
> >
>
> It continues to amaze me that you and some others are so festeringly stupid
> that you cannot tell the difference between someone who is shooting at the
> authorities and an unarmed person who is looting.

Perhaps you don't possess the true meaning, which is often the case
with overuse of terminology especially as is attributed to the media...
and how do you know whether a looter is or isn't armed, are you
clairvoyant... in the true sense of the term, and especially when in
time of *chaos*, it *must* be assumed all looters are armed (even after
the fact of their actual looting while simply making off with their
booty). The act of looting (which includes making off - looters will
often protect their loot to the death) is in of itself an act of war.
If a marauding horde, even though not appearing armed with weapons,
were to burst into your abode, rob and pillage your stuff, rape your
women folk, and proceed to beat you with their fists would not the
thought cross your pinhead that they were likely about to next hang you
from the nearest tree... were you to have access to a weapon would you
not shoot them dead, I certainly would... perhaps you're simply a dumb
jerk, ie. Liberal. In periods where marshall law is enacted looting is
punishable by death without benefit of trial... in times of chaos
looting needs to be stopped dead in its tracks before this very violent
act escalates... it's a very small leap from mere taking to taking with
utter disregard.

loot[2]
1 a : to plunder or sack in war; b : to rob especially on a large scale
and usually by violence or corruption; 2 : to seize and carry away by
force especially in war : to engage in robbing or plundering especially
in war
---

Sheldon

"Sheldon" > wrote:
(edited quote)
> The act of looting (which includes making off - looters will
>often protect their loot to the death) is in of itself an act of war.
>If a marauding horde, even though not appearing armed with weapons,
>were to burst into your abode, rob and pillage your stuff, rape your
>women folk, and proceed to beat you with their fists would not the
>thought cross your pinhead that they were likely about to next hang you
>from the nearest tree... were you to have access to a weapon would you
>not shoot them dead,

(Stands and applauds.) Of course, I hope I never have to hurt anyone,
sometimes people think us "survivalists" sit around and masturbate
over the dream of killing. I have a number of non-lethal choices that
I would always prefer to try first. OTOH, everyone who lives here has
pretty extensive practice with a number of weapons (yes, even the
16-year old) and to be honest they're all better than me because of my
vision. My son can outshoot me at clays any time. My prayer is that
I never have an encounter where I hurt anybody. But, as they say, in
Glock we trust, and if the worst happens, one of us will take care of
business, even if the rest of us are toast. I've been a gun
enthusiast all my life and it's never had anything to do with
self-defense, it was just a hobby - that's the way I was raised. I
was able to recently acquire an Armalite AR-10 chambered in .308 with
an ACOG sight. I haven't been to "the land" yet to try it out. ( I
can't shoot on my own property because some nut-case calls the sheriff
every time I try, even though it's legal)) . Most people think us
"gun nuts" are just Rambo killers, but the reason I spend a
considerable amount of time testing and re-testing any potential
weapon system is that my first priority is the safety of others. It
really doesn't do much good to defend your family if some other family
ends up hurt because of your choices. Truthfully, I think the AR-10
is a wash, because it's just too dangerous in terms of
over-penetration to use in a semi-urban area. To any potential gun
owners he SAFETY is the number one issue. Think - if any action
you take is potentially harmful to someone else, then it's better to
just bite your tongue and be killed. I'd rather die by hesitation
than hurt some innocent bystander.

--
The Doc says my brain waves closely match those of a crazed ferret.
At least now I have an excuse.

AlleyGator wrote:
> "Sheldon" > wrote:
> (edited quote)
>
>> The act of looting ......


<snip, snip>


Like someone once said: "If they got Rambo, van Damme and Chuck Norris
together WW III would be over in 3 days."



--
Cheers
Cathy(xyz)

cathyxyz wrote:
> AlleyGator wrote:
>
>> "Sheldon" > wrote:
>> (edited quote)
>>
>>> The act of looting ......
>
>
>
> <snip, snip>
>
>
> Like someone once said: "If they got Rambo, van Damme and Chuck Norris
> together WW III would be over in 3 days."
>
>
>


Did you deliberately forget the Governator?

gloria p

On 2005-09-05, AlleyGator > wrote:

> an ACOG sight. I haven't been to "the land" yet to try it out. ( I
> can't shoot on my own property because some nut-case calls the sheriff
> every time I try, even though it's legal))

So, what does the sheriff say? If it's legal what can he do? Try
this: go to your land and shoot 2 or 3 times more often than usual.
The sheriff will get tired of responding and tell your neighbor to
buzz off.

Our local range just reopened after a 3-4 yr shutdown due to an
alleged lone bullet found in some farmer's barn way downrange that may
or may not have come from the gun range. The range had to shut down
due to a lengthy political fight and major renovations to add shooting
stalls limiting a shooter's barrel elevation. I went out yesterday
and tossed a buncha NATO rounds downrange and renewed my membership.
I'm not real happy with the new facilities, but ya' gotta support a
range that works that hard to stay open here in CA.

nb

notbob > wrote:

>So, what does the sheriff say? If it's legal what can he do? Try
>this: go to your land and shoot 2 or 3 times more often than usual.
>The sheriff will get tired of responding and tell your neighbor to
>buzz off.
>
What he SAID the last time was that while it's legal to open-carry on
your own property, it could get you killed or at least result in a
tense encounter with law enforcement. I took it to his seargent, who
told me to conceal carry on my land. His reasoning was that while
it's not legal, it would avoid a lot of trouble. See, they've had to
respond just because someone spotted my holster from the road, a good
60 yards away from where I was. I never go into our woods unarmed,
because we've got coyotes running around in the streets in the middle
of the day. They're nuts. However, while being armed is not a prob
anymore, shooting apparently bothers someone. It doesn't matter if
it's legal or not, they have to respond when someone complains. I'm
pretty certian who's doing it, based on past experience, but it's not
something to get all mad about. I have a safe place to shoot that's
less than a half-hour away, so why start trouble with people?

--
The Doc says my brain waves closely match those of a crazed ferret.
At least now I have an excuse.

On 5 Sep 2005 07:19:04 -0700, in rec.food.cooking, Sheldon wrote:

>
>Perhaps you don't possess the true meaning, which is often the case
>with overuse of terminology especially as is attributed to the media...
>and how do you know whether a looter is or isn't armed, are you
>clairvoyant... in the true sense of the term, and especially when in
>time of *chaos*, it *must* be assumed all looters are armed (even after
>the fact of their actual looting while simply making off with their
>booty). The act of looting (which includes making off - looters will
>often protect their loot to the death) is in of itself an act of war.
>If a marauding horde, even though not appearing armed with weapons,
>were to burst into your abode, rob and pillage your stuff, rape your
>women folk, and proceed to beat you with their fists would not the
>thought cross your pinhead that they were likely about to next hang you
>from the nearest tree... were you to have access to a weapon would you
>not shoot them dead, I certainly would... perhaps you're simply a dumb
>jerk, ie. Liberal. In periods where marshall law is enacted looting is
>punishable by death without benefit of trial... in times of chaos
>looting needs to be stopped dead in its tracks before this very violent
>act escalates... it's a very small leap from mere taking to taking with
>utter disregard.

What would you have advised a starving survivor in New Orleans to do last
week? Do you really think they all had a choice?

Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:34:20 +0100, Doug Weller
> wrote:

>
>What would you have advised a starving survivor in New Orleans to do last
>week? Do you really think they all had a choice?

How many of 'em are eating those TVs and stereos they're stealing?
If you look at the posts in the thread, you'll see a fair bit of
sympathy for folk who're taking food or similarly necessary products.

--
-denny-

"I don't like it when a whole state starts
acting like a marital aid."
"John R. Campbell" in a Usenet post.

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Denny Wheeler wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:34:20 +0100, Doug Weller
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> What would you have advised a starving survivor in New Orleans to do last
>> week? Do you really think they all had a choice?
>
> How many of 'em are eating those TVs and stereos they're stealing?
> If you look at the posts in the thread, you'll see a fair bit of
> sympathy for folk who're taking food or similarly necessary products.

Well, I'd call those televisions and stereos _bribes for food_. but I'm
smart that way. what good's a television without power, anyway?

lena

Peter Aitken wrote:
> "JimLane" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they should
>>be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):
>>
>>New Orleans police kill looters in shoot-out
>>By Mark Egan Sun Sep 4, 9:26 PM ET
>>
>>NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - New Orleans police killed four looters who had
>>opened fire on them on Sunday as rescue teams scoured homes and toxic
>>waters flooding streets to find survivors and recover thousands of bloated
>>corpses.
>>
>
>
> It continues to amaze me that you and some others are so festeringly stupid
> that you cannot tell the difference between someone who is shooting at the
> authorities and an unarmed person who is looting.
>
>

Looters are criminals who are playing carpe diem to feather their nests
with stolen goods. I do not have a problem with someone grabbing
survival goods.

I am happy to know you ENDORSE looting of stores, stealing of jewelry,
electronic goods, guns and ammo and so on.

When I address looters, I am not talking about some mom grabbing food or
water, even blankets.

But can you tell me what the hell stealing a large flatscreen TV has to
do with survival?

Anyone shooting at authorities should be shot to death period. Looting
or otherwise.


jim



jim

JimLane wrote:
> Peter Aitken wrote:
> > "JimLane" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they should
> >>be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):
> >>
> >>New Orleans police kill looters in shoot-out
> >>By Mark Egan Sun Sep 4, 9:26 PM ET
> >>
> >>NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - New Orleans police killed four looters who had
> >>opened fire on them on Sunday as rescue teams scoured homes and toxic
> >>waters flooding streets to find survivors and recover thousands of bloated
> >>corpses.
> >>
> >
> >
> > It continues to amaze me that you and some others are so festeringly stupid
> > that you cannot tell the difference between someone who is shooting at the
> > authorities and an unarmed person who is looting.
> >
> >
>
> Looters are criminals who are playing carpe diem to feather their nests
> with stolen goods. I do not have a problem with someone grabbing
> survival goods.
>
> I am happy to know you ENDORSE looting of stores, stealing of jewelry,
> electronic goods, guns and ammo and so on.
>
> When I address looters, I am not talking about some mom grabbing food or
> water, even blankets.
>
> But can you tell me what the hell stealing a large flatscreen TV has to
> do with survival?
>
> Anyone shooting at authorities should be shot to death period.

Anyone shooting at *anybody* should be shot to death.

Sheldon

Sheldon wrote:
> JimLane wrote:
>
>>Peter Aitken wrote:
>>
>>>"JimLane" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they should
>>>>be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):
>>>>
>>>>New Orleans police kill looters in shoot-out
>>>>By Mark Egan Sun Sep 4, 9:26 PM ET
>>>>
>>>>NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - New Orleans police killed four looters who had
>>>>opened fire on them on Sunday as rescue teams scoured homes and toxic
>>>>waters flooding streets to find survivors and recover thousands of bloated
>>>>corpses.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>It continues to amaze me that you and some others are so festeringly stupid
>>>that you cannot tell the difference between someone who is shooting at the
>>>authorities and an unarmed person who is looting.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Looters are criminals who are playing carpe diem to feather their nests
>>with stolen goods. I do not have a problem with someone grabbing
>>survival goods.
>>
>>I am happy to know you ENDORSE looting of stores, stealing of jewelry,
>>electronic goods, guns and ammo and so on.
>>
>>When I address looters, I am not talking about some mom grabbing food or
>>water, even blankets.
>>
>>But can you tell me what the hell stealing a large flatscreen TV has to
>>do with survival?
>>
>>Anyone shooting at authorities should be shot to death period.
>
>
> Anyone shooting at *anybody* should be shot to death.
>
> Sheldon
>


Well, that's an interesting scenario. I come across you who are shooting
at someone (who first shot at you and that is justifiable by your
position), but I don't know who shot first) so I should shoot both of
you? . . . and then someone comes across the three of us . . . .


jim

On 5 Sep 2005 13:14:54 -0700, "Sheldon" > wrote:

>
>JimLane wrote:
>> Peter Aitken wrote:
>> > "JimLane" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >>For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they should
>> >>be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):
>> >>
>> >>New Orleans police kill looters in shoot-out
>> >>By Mark Egan Sun Sep 4, 9:26 PM ET
>> >>
>> >>NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - New Orleans police killed four looters who had
>> >>opened fire on them on Sunday as rescue teams scoured homes and toxic
>> >>waters flooding streets to find survivors and recover thousands of bloated
>> >>corpses.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > It continues to amaze me that you and some others are so festeringly stupid
>> > that you cannot tell the difference between someone who is shooting at the
>> > authorities and an unarmed person who is looting.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Looters are criminals who are playing carpe diem to feather their nests
>> with stolen goods. I do not have a problem with someone grabbing
>> survival goods.
>>
>> I am happy to know you ENDORSE looting of stores, stealing of jewelry,
>> electronic goods, guns and ammo and so on.
>>
>> When I address looters, I am not talking about some mom grabbing food or
>> water, even blankets.
>>
>> But can you tell me what the hell stealing a large flatscreen TV has to
>> do with survival?
>>
>> Anyone shooting at authorities should be shot to death period.
>
>Anyone shooting at *anybody* should be shot to death.
>
>Sheldon
This statement coming from a person who chased a man across a field
with his vehicle and bragged about it on this group. BTW this was a
criminal offense.

On 5 Sep 2005 13:14:54 -0700, "Sheldon" > wrote:

>
>JimLane wrote:
>> Peter Aitken wrote:
>> > "JimLane" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >>For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they should
>> >>be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):
>> >>
>> >>New Orleans police kill looters in shoot-out
>> >>By Mark Egan Sun Sep 4, 9:26 PM ET
>> >>
>> >>NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - New Orleans police killed four looters who had
>> >>opened fire on them on Sunday as rescue teams scoured homes and toxic
>> >>waters flooding streets to find survivors and recover thousands of bloated
>> >>corpses.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > It continues to amaze me that you and some others are so festeringly stupid
>> > that you cannot tell the difference between someone who is shooting at the
>> > authorities and an unarmed person who is looting.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Looters are criminals who are playing carpe diem to feather their nests
>> with stolen goods. I do not have a problem with someone grabbing
>> survival goods.
>>
>> I am happy to know you ENDORSE looting of stores, stealing of jewelry,
>> electronic goods, guns and ammo and so on.
>>
>> When I address looters, I am not talking about some mom grabbing food or
>> water, even blankets.
>>
>> But can you tell me what the hell stealing a large flatscreen TV has to
>> do with survival?
>>
>> Anyone shooting at authorities should be shot to death period.
>
>Anyone shooting at *anybody* should be shot to death.
>
>
Sheldon , On 9/5/2005 you posted that you would shoot a looter.
Make up yur mind or remember what you post.

Allan Matthews wrote:
> On 5 Sep 2005 13:14:54 -0700, "Sheldon" > wrote:
>
> >
> >JimLane wrote:
> >> Peter Aitken wrote:
> >> > "JimLane" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> >>For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they should
> >> >>be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):
> >> >>
> >> >>New Orleans police kill looters in shoot-out
> >> >>By Mark Egan Sun Sep 4, 9:26 PM ET
> >> >>
> >> >>NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - New Orleans police killed four looters who had
> >> >>opened fire on them on Sunday as rescue teams scoured homes and toxic
> >> >>waters flooding streets to find survivors and recover thousands of bloated
> >> >>corpses.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > It continues to amaze me that you and some others are so festeringly stupid
> >> > that you cannot tell the difference between someone who is shooting at the
> >> > authorities and an unarmed person who is looting.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Looters are criminals who are playing carpe diem to feather their nests
> >> with stolen goods. I do not have a problem with someone grabbing
> >> survival goods.
> >>
> >> I am happy to know you ENDORSE looting of stores, stealing of jewelry,
> >> electronic goods, guns and ammo and so on.
> >>
> >> When I address looters, I am not talking about some mom grabbing food or
> >> water, even blankets.
> >>
> >> But can you tell me what the hell stealing a large flatscreen TV has to
> >> do with survival?
> >>
> >> Anyone shooting at authorities should be shot to death period.
> >
> >Anyone shooting at *anybody* should be shot to death.
> >
> >
> Sheldon , On 9/5/2005 you posted that you would shoot a looter.
> Make up yur mind or remember what you post.

Illiterate Matthews ******* can't read... it's patently obvious your
grandpa is yer pappy.

Sheldon

JimLane > wrote:

>Looters are criminals who are playing carpe diem to feather their nests
>with stolen goods. I do not have a problem with someone grabbing
>survival goods.
>
>I am happy to know you ENDORSE looting of stores, stealing of jewelry,
>electronic goods, guns and ammo and so on.
>
>When I address looters, I am not talking about some mom grabbing food or
>water, even blankets.
>
>But can you tell me what the hell stealing a large flatscreen TV has to
>do with survival?
>
>Anyone shooting at authorities should be shot to death period. Looting
>or otherwise.

I guess you probably have me killfiled, Sheldon, which is unnecessary
now, because I'm "reformed". I do, however, wish you could read my
response to your original post. It begins with "stands and applauds".
Very good points you made.

--
The Doc says my brain waves closely match those of a crazed ferret.
At least now I have an excuse.

AlleyKike wrote:
>
> I guess you probably have me killfiled, Sheldon, which is unnecessary
> now, because I'm "reform".

You're a Jew?

Sheldon

"Sheldon" > wrote:

>
>AlleyKike wrote:
>>
>> I guess you probably have me killfiled, Sheldon, which is unnecessary
>> now, because I'm "reform".
>
>You're a Jew?
>
>Sheldon
>
LOL. No, I'm a recovering jerk.

--
The Doc says my brain waves closely match those of a crazed ferret.
At least now I have an excuse.

JimLane wrote:
> For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they
> should be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):
(cut)
Is this going to apply to the looters to come? The contractors that
will rip off their clients by doing shoddy work. The politicians that
will milk off some of the rebuilding money for their own pocket. The
businessman who will rip off the insurance company when he turns in his
claim. The hundreds of people that will rip off FEMA buy claiming the
lose of things they never owned.

"willille" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> JimLane wrote:
>> For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they
>> should be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):
> (cut)
> Is this going to apply to the looters to come? The contractors that
> will rip off their clients by doing shoddy work. The politicians that
> will milk off some of the rebuilding money for their own pocket. The
> businessman who will rip off the insurance company when he turns in his
> claim. The hundreds of people that will rip off FEMA buy claiming the
> lose of things they never owned.

Sure, it will make a better world.