A reader writes:
Had some discussions with folks about shooting looters (on site really) in New Orleans (unless they are shooting back of course).
I feel that it violates the Gospel message of love your neighbor, and of doing evil for good’s sake.
Could you blog on this maybe?
Sure. Shooting looters is a way that has been used historically to prevent the breakdown of social order. It was used, for example, in the wake of the 1906 San Francisco quake. With a similarly massive natural disaster now having occurred in the Gulf states, some are calling for similar measures, including Peggy Noonan, Glenn Reynolds, and Arthur.
The prospect of shooting looters, especially with a shoot-on-sight policy, is frightening. I have no idea what kind of legal framework might allow such a policy in the United States. I suspect that nothing short of a declaration of martial law (or an equivalent legal state, since it appears that martial law technically is not envisioned under Lousiana law) would allow it to take place legally.
Martial law (or the equivalent) might allow it, though. I did some checking and found reports on the web that, at one point, our forces in Iraq were given the authority to shoot looters on sight in order to establish social order amid the post-invasion chaos. (I don’t know if that was accuate or if the order is still in effect at this point.)
Implementing a shoot-on-sight order here on American soil–not just close to home but in our home–would likely set of political and legal firestorms of unimaginable proportions. The benefit to be gained by implementing such a policy would have to be proportional to the cost of the political and legal firestorms that would ensue.
My suspicion, at least at this point, is that such measures are not necessary, that we can get through the present crisis without a generalized shoot-on-sight order, and that such an order will not be given.
Fortunately, I don’t have to make the decision whether or not to
implement such a policy in the present circumstances, which is a good
thing because I am not qualified to make that judgment. I am very
thankful that I am not in the position of whoever would have the
responsibility of making that determination (whoever that might be).
Having cleared away the legal and practical issues connected with this question, let me address the moral aspect of it.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor…. the one is intended, the other is not."
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful:whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful …. Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.
From this, it would seem that it would be morally legitimate to shoot looters IF AND ONLY IF doing so is the only practicable way to stop grave harm from being done to the common good, which in practice is going to be parsed in terms of threats to human life.
You can’t kill people just because they take merchandise. Human life is more valuable than simple merchandise. But if the actions of the looters create a situation that is gravely threatening to human life then the use of lethal force will be proportionate to that. If there is no other practicable way to end the threat, lethal force would be justified.
I can think of examples in which the selective use of lethal force would be moral. For example: Suppose you are a cop, all by your lonesome, guarding a gun shop that is about to be looted by a gang of hooligans. You have no ability to move the guns from where they are, back-up will not arrive in time, and when you try to threaten the hostages away, including pointing your gun at them and even firing warning shots, they refuse to be deterred.
It is a vital necessity to keep the guns in the gun shop out of the hands of the hooligans in order to prevent a grave threat to human life. Therefore, you having no other options, it would be moral to shoot the first looter who attempts to enter the store. And the second, and the third, and as many as it takes. If you can deter them just by injuring them then you are morally obligated to do that. But if the only way to deter them is to use lethal force then Catholic moral theology would permit and even require that if there is no alternative.
This situation is not a shoot-on-sight policy, though. It’s only shooting in a very specific circumstance. In order to justify a shoot-on-sight policy, one would have to establish that the looting itself (not just the looting of specific things like guns) constitutes a grave threat to human life and that there is no other way to deal with this threat effectively.
Presumably, one advocating such a position would say something like: "If you let people start taking merchandise then it will lead to a generalized breakdown of social order in which one has gangs of armed men roaming the streets and committing unspeakable atrocities against the remainder of the citizenry. Indeed, right now in New Orleans there are gangs of armed men tossing the elderly out of nursing homes so they can be ransacked and shutting down otherwise functional and vitally needed hospitals by confiscating their medical supplies at gunpoint. There are reports of rape, and no doubt numerous murders are being committed as well. The only way to end this is with a shoot-on-sight policy for looters."
If the person making such an argument is right, then he’s right, and such a policy is morally justified (assuming the benefit is proportional to the consequences of implementing such a policy).
My suspicion, though, is that the person making this argument would not be right. At least at this point (and being a non-expert in such matters), my suspicion is that a more targeted use of lethal force would be able to cure the problem. For example, if only the armed hooligans (as opposed to people taking food and water) are targeted. And, indeed, I’ve seen cops in New Orleans quoted as saying things like: "I’m not going to arrest anyone who is just taking food and water. Those people are just trying to survive."
If the hooligans themselves can be deterred by things like tear gas, rubber bullets, being winged but not killed then these things would be morally obligatory. If the National Guard (or whoever) could restore order by killing just the leaders or just a few members of the gangs then this would be morally obligatory. One must use the least amount of force necessary to solve the problem in an effective manner.
The situation could well degenerate into an urban warfare situation (though not a long-lived one, since I doubt the hooligans have that much ammo). In that case the hooligans would be functioning as a force of enemy combatants, and the normal rules regarding warfare would apply.
The hooligans, knowing their shortness of ammo, could attempt to extend the situation through hostage-taking, in which case the (ill-defined) rules regarding dealing with hostage-takers would apply to them.
I suspect, though, that order could be restored through a limited use of lethal force, or (in the best of all possible worlds) even a show of force that did not resort to lethal force. In any event, I suspect that the situation could be solved without a general shoot-on-sight policy.
But I’m an apologist, not a general.
And at the moment, I thank God for that.
My parents and 3 brothers are in the thick of it in New Orleans. Our new family motto is:
If you loot we shoot
The good thing about shooting looters on sight, is that if looters believe the threat is real, they won’t loot.
One thing to remember is that the primary responsibility of government is to provide public order. Public order is a good, in and of itself. There is no order or law in New Orleans, there is only anarchy. The use of violence, even lethal violence, is necessary to reimpose order. This is the reason why martial law exists.
There can be no “proportional response” to individual acts of crime until the very essence of law is imposed for the same reason there is no propotional response in war.
Alot of progress has been made in the development of non-lethal loads for firearms. Things like rubber bullets or beanbags are effective (they hurt) and cut way down on injury and loss of life.
Once looters start shooting back, though, all bets are off.
The snipers and the armed mobs have been my main gripe and the source of anguish over this disaster and what prompted the post Jimmy quoted above.
I have no problem with looting for food and water and the other necessities of life. Nor would I expect any reasonable policeman or National Gaurdsman to act against them.
But when I see the suffering compunded by unbridled lawlessness that takes the form of shots fired at helicopters and ambulances and mobs of bullies terrorizing the hurt and homeless I feel that the time has come to take whatever steps necessary to restore law and order so that the victims can be rescued, fed and evacuated.
–arthur
That was an excellent post Jimmy, and it made thinking about deterring looters clearer for me. However, I am concerned about advocating either warning shots or “winging” someone in an attempt to defend yourself. I do not dispute the moral obligation to use force in moderation, but I do question the prudence of the two actions I mentioned.
I do not believe these actions have a reasonable chance of success in most situations, and thus cannot be morally obligatory, although it is conceivable they could be used in some situations.
Warning Shots
There are two reasons why warning shots have a poor chance of success:
1) Given the situation, firing a shot may trigger a firefight.
The emotional state of an armed looter is very hard to judge. Could they be frightened by a warning shot? Sure, it may be just the thing. However, they could also be startled or enraged. Plus, I can verify from firearms training experience that if you are just waiting for something to happen to make you start shooting, hearing a gunshot produces a reaction to pull the trigger. That reflex takes training to overcome, something a hoodlum likely would not have.
2) You have a responsibility to make sure you don’t accidentally shoot someone else.
Looking for a good solid backstop is probably not a good use of your time in this situtation, and firing into the air is unwise.
Winging ’em
In principle, if you have to use force, non-lethal force is better than lethal force. Anyone who have may ever have recourse to the use of force really needs to master that distinction. Most people, including most police officers, would be unable to successfully shoot to wound for the following reasons:
1) Insufficient Training
One would need a good knowledge of anatomy and physiology to know where best to shoot someone to cause a non-lethal incapacitation. Plus, training is needed to shoot accurately, and to shoot accurately under extreme pressure. In this situation, adrenaline is going to be in the bloodstream, and the person may be suffering from time dilation and tunnel vision when firearms are involved. Police departments are getting better about this kind of training, but it is not universally available. This applies more so to an armed citizen.
2) Wounding may not Incapacitate
It is not uncommon for a non-lethal gunshot wound to not even hurt until the fight is over. Even if it does cause pain, is that pain sufficient to keep the looter from shooting you?
3) Firearms are not really appropriate for non-lethal force
Firearms do frequently wound instead of kill, but that is not what they are designed to do. Even rubber bullets are more appropriately called “less than lethal”, since severe injury and death can result from their use. To really attempt to use non-lethal force, a non-lethal tool (or less than lethal) needs to be used. Even Tasers have come under fire recently for being lethal too often. To reliably incapacitate without killing, something blunt or something chemical is a better choice. However, those choices could get you killed in this situation.
If people think they need to explain to us normal folks that there is difference between a gang of men forcing doctors at gun point to empty a hospital’s narcotics into plastic garbage bags, versus a lady who stands outside a smashed drug store and says “I’m a diabetic and I need test strips”, with the former being looters (boo hiss) and the latter being a victim of disaster, then we all must be a lot dumber than I thought.
Does anyone know what the shoot-on-sight (shoot looters, not ladies looking for test strips, in case anyone forgot there’s a difference) policy is FOR or whence it arises? It’s simple: in times of emergency, the normal pratices of custody, investigation, not to mention eventual trial, simply cannot take place in time. The vastly outnumbered cops (and NG, if they are given bullets) do not have TIME to drive every LOOTER they catch to jail. Assuming they can even get to jail (duh). (Hell, one jail suffered a break and a guard and his piteous family weer taken hostage!). In the time the cop would be off doing that normal custody routine, a hundred other looters can go crazy. Also, looting does not subside on its own; it ALWAYS escalates till checked by external forces.
There’s not nice way to put this: people who are seriously questioning the shoot [LOOTERS!] on sight policy (a) have way too much time on their hands, (b) way too little knowledge of what N.O is actually like, and (c) way too little experience of, or imaganation for, what complete social collapse is really like.
On target, Ed. “Social collapse” is right.
With a similarly massive natural disaster now having occurred in the Gulf states, some are calling for similar measures, including Peggy Noonan, Glenn Reynolds, and Arthur.
When I read that, the first thing that came to mind was:
http://www.shelllake.k12.wi.us/library/Sue's%20library%20webpage/arthur.gif
Benedict,
My wife is a second grade teacher and her kids do think I’m a cartoon aardvark.
–arthur
One question:
How would the hypothetical cop decide if this was a gang of hooligans, or a group of citizens arming themselves to defend themselves from the hooligans? After seeing the situation in NO, I’d want to pick up some weapons myself, but chances are distinctions between friend and foe are impossible in crisis situations.
Oh, and if a putative cop were trying to loot my gun store, supplies, etc., could I shoot him in a vaccuum of effective authority?
This morning it occurred to me to pray to St. Michael to come to the defense of those who cannot defend themselves against the looters, rapists, etc.
A putative cop, sure. OTOH, in cases of emergency the government can take what is needed to maintain or resecure public order, so an actual cop, no. And to tell them apart. . . .
How great a blessing is public order!
When a semblance of order is restored, my recommendation for what to do with known “worst case” looters would be:
1. round ’em up,
2. create the world’s longest chain gang,
3. put one end of the chain in the water, and the other end on top of a levee,
4. give every one of them, man, woman, and adolescent, a 5-gallon detergent bucket,
5. tell ’em, “Start bailing. When this city’s dry, you can start shovelling out the streets. When the streets are clear, you can start clearing debris and burying bodies. When the debris is cleared, and the bodies buried, you can start building shelter for your fellow humans. When you’re done, then you can go home.”
I note that both Peggy Noonan and Glenn Reynolds specifically say that they are not talking about taking food and water when saying looters should be shot, and Arthur, while he doesn’t exclude such people, is talking about the rampaging thugs when he gets to specifics, and may just not have been clear.
Martial law and practices like shooting looters are not about protecting physical property from theft. The issue is restoring civil order which has collapsed. In this situation any order by a legitimate authority must be instantly obeyed whether it is about curfews or looting or carrying firearms. The price of disobedience is death.
No doubt in such circumstances innocent people will be shot. What justifies a draconian policy of this sort is the certain knowledge that civil order is vastly preferable to chaos, that many more will die if strong action is not taken.
It is a positive obligation of the state to maintain civil order. Martial law, including shooting looters, may be necessary for the state to perform this duty.
For private citizens to shoot looters on their own initiative is another matter. The rules for self-defense and the defense of others would apply here although concrete situations will not be easy to analyze if civil order in general has collapsed.
Well, if law and order have sufficiently broken down — like, say, Britain after the withdrawal of the legions — private citizens can band together to form such government as they can, and thereby acquire the authority to maintain civil order.