snopes.com  


Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Fauxtography

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02 April 2007, 08:54 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,599
Icon02 Katrina looters

Here are some looters making hay in New Orleans during Katrina. Part of the looting and then burning of hundreds of stores during and after the storm. Don't believe the P.C. version from the media! The city came apart at the seams! And it is still a vast shithole!



Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02 April 2007, 10:01 PM
daisys747
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Of course people looted, but a lot of people were also collecting items (food, drinks, clothing) for the shelters. By looking at the pics, I would guess (and I may be wrong) that the first pic shows people collecting items for the shelters, not sure about the second one.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02 April 2007, 10:05 PM
Amigone201's Avatar
Amigone201 Amigone201 is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2005
Location: Islip, NY
Posts: 6,036
Default

What's "the P.C. version?"

And why is P.C. the new dirty word for the right? Do they even know what it means?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02 April 2007, 10:33 PM
snoozn's Avatar
snoozn snoozn is offline
 
Join Date: 09 October 2001
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 920
Default

Doesn't anyone remember the Katrina Skin Color Looting Scale?

It's clear from the skin tone in these two photos that they are all looting!

snoozn
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03 April 2007, 07:19 AM
naharnahekim
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Regardless of one's skin color, what is being taken, or why it's being taken, going into a store that has been abandoned (for whatever reason) and taking merchandise is looting. You might need whatever it is, or you might just want it, but either way, unless you leave some cash or at least an IOU, your still stealing it.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03 April 2007, 11:09 AM
One-Fang's Avatar
One-Fang One-Fang is offline
 
 
Join Date: 02 November 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 1,610
Default

Yes, legally you are. However, there is a world of difference between "I'm taking this food that will go off anyway to feed the hundreds in the shelter who are starving" and "Cool - a big screen TV for free!!"
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03 April 2007, 02:00 PM
Jonny T
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by naharnahekim View Post
Regardless of one's skin color, what is being taken, or why it's being taken, going into a store that has been abandoned (for whatever reason) and taking merchandise is looting. You might need whatever it is, or you might just want it, but either way, unless you leave some cash or at least an IOU, your still stealing it.
it is theft, yes. whether it is wrong is a whole other issue.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03 April 2007, 02:11 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by naharnahekim View Post
Regardless of one's skin color, what is being taken, or why it's being taken, going into a store that has been abandoned (for whatever reason) and taking merchandise is looting. You might need whatever it is, or you might just want it, but either way, unless you leave some cash or at least an IOU, your still stealing it.
Ahh, yes, because those people left in NO during/after Katrina had plenty of resources. After all, that's why they could stay in order to starve, swelter, and rot in the water.

There are times when our perception of "morality" flies out the window. Katrina's aftermath is one of those times. I hope some of those people retained some "luxury" goods. Small recompense for how they were NFBSKed over.


Did some people loot non-essential goods? Sure. I find it hard to judge them for that, though.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03 April 2007, 03:21 PM
Griffin2020
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. View Post
I hope some of those people retained some "luxury" goods. Small recompense for how they were NFBSKed over.


Did some people loot non-essential goods? Sure. I find it hard to judge them for that, though.
Damn that diety for NFBSKing over thos residents of N.O.

Is it unfortunate that more was not done to get more people out of the city before the storm hit? Yes. Is it the city's responsibility to move those people out before the storm? No.


That they deserve the things that they stole ranks right up there with the theory that the government blew up the levees. Oh, wait, you probably believe that, too...
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03 April 2007, 03:35 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffin2020 View Post
Is it unfortunate that more was not done to get more people out of the city before the storm hit? Yes. Is it the city's responsibility to move those people out before the storm? No....
Perhaps not the city's. The government's in general, yep.

If you create a system in which there is widespread dire poverty, you have a moral obligation to address that poverty and tend to those who live in that strata.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffin2020 View Post
That they deserve the things that they stole ranks right up there with the theory that the government blew up the levees. Oh, wait, you probably believe that, too...

Last edited by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.; 03 April 2007 at 03:37 PM. Reason: Because sometimes less is more
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03 April 2007, 03:41 PM
Unklesam
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffin2020 View Post
That they deserve the things that they stole ranks right up there with the theory that the government blew up the levees. Oh, wait, you probably believe that, too...
That is an inappropriate accusation. The response was also inappropriate, but it has been removed. May I suggest you retract in the same fashion.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03 April 2007, 03:49 PM
Jonny T
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffin2020 View Post
Damn that diety for NFBSKing over thos residents of N.O.
That isn't what was meant and you know it.

Quote:
Is it unfortunate that more was not done to get more people out of the city before the storm hit? Yes. Is it the city's responsibility to move those people out before the storm? No.
It is the government's responsibility in the same way it is their responsibility to protect me from danger with the police, save me from fire with the fire department, and get me to hospital with the ambulance service.

Quote:
That they deserve the things that they stole ranks right up there with the theory that the government blew up the levees. Oh, wait, you probably believe that, too...
Apples and oranges. One is a moral value judgement, the other is a conspiracy theory.

Also, you're talking NFBSK.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03 April 2007, 04:48 PM
Griffin2020
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonny T View Post
That isn't what was meant and you know it.

It is the government's responsibility in the same way it is their responsibility to protect me from danger with the police, save me from fire with the fire department, and get me to hospital with the ambulance service.

Apples and oranges. One is a moral value judgement, the other is a conspiracy theory.

Also, you're talking NFBSK.
The city discharged its responsibility by issuing the evacuation order. That the people chose to ignore that order is not the city's fault. Everybody assumed that the storm would not hit the city (and in all actuality, it did not hit the city full-on, if it had, we would not be having this conversation, as there would more than likely not been the 30K survivors that the Coast Guard and other services ended up rescuing).

The city did not cause the poverty that existed/exists in the inner city of NO.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03 April 2007, 04:51 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffin2020 View Post
That the people chose to ignore that order is not the city's fault.
Uh. Yeah. Um. Chose?!? Chose!?! Bull-pucky.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffin2020 View Post
The city did not cause the poverty that existed/exists in the inner city of NO.
And I don't know why you're so set on the city. It's the federal gov't that's getting the most blame, and rightly so. Get off the city kick.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03 April 2007, 05:03 PM
Griffin2020
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. View Post
Uh. Yeah. Um. Chose?!? Chose!?! Bull-pucky.
Yes, CHOSE.
Nobody barricaded them into their homes.


Quote:
And I don't know why you're so set on the city. It's the federal gov't that's getting the most blame, and rightly so. Get off the city kick.
Ridiculous! How is it the federal government's fault? Unless, of course, you are referring to the sense of entitlement that is engendered by the welfare state. If that is the case, then I agree, it is the federal (and state) government's fault.

I still want to know, whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03 April 2007, 05:07 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffin2020 View Post
Yes, CHOSE.
Nobody barricaded them into their homes. .
So, what you are saying is that, prior to Katrina, all those citizens without money and cars were offered money and cars in order to evacuate?

Cite, please.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffin2020 View Post
Ridiculous! How is it the federal government's fault?
Becuase the federal gov't wastes money subsidizing big business and ridiculious wars, while supporting economic policies that condem our citizens and citizens of certain allied nations to poverty, all in the pursuit of the almighty profit margins, mainly because free-market capitalism depends on the dejected and poor as a base for its operations and the stratification of the haves and have-nots as its modus operandi.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03 April 2007, 05:14 PM
Jonny T
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffin2020 View Post
Yes, CHOSE.
Nobody barricaded them into their homes.
So, they chose to stay in the same way I chose not to go to Barbados last weekend for sun, sex and champagne?

Quote:
Ridiculous! How is it the federal government's fault?
Maybe if they'd evacuated people out, using the money given in taxes to the government to protect its people, they would have been able to leave?

Quote:
Unless, of course, you are referring to the sense of entitlement that is engendered by the welfare state. If that is the case, then I agree, it is the federal (and state) government's fault.
Ah, yeah. Not wanting to drown and lose all your belongings. Damn that welfare state and its entitlement complex.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03 April 2007, 05:14 PM
Griffin2020
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. View Post
So, what you are saying is that, prior to Katrina, all those citizens without money and cars were offered money and cars in order to evacuate?
Where there is a will, there is a way. It is not the government's responsibility to provide that anymore than it is the government's responsibility to get me out of bed and in to work every morning. I have to do that all by myself.





Quote:
Becuase the federal gov't wastes money subsidizing big business and ridiculious wars, while supporting economic policies that condem our citizens and citizens of certain allied nations to poverty, all in the pursuit of the almighty profit margins, mainly because free-market capitalism depends on the dejected and poor as a base for its operations and the stratification of the haves and have-nots as its modus operandi.
This from the same person who argued yesterday that it was okay for a company to reduce the balance on a gift card just because it had not been used in a certain period of time. You cannot have it both ways.

Free-market capitalism depends on people who want to go out and bust their asses to make money. And the opportunities to do so are unlimited, it is simply a matter of sweat and initiative.

So, do you believe that the government should equalize wealth, make it so that Bill Gates has no more than Joe Homeless?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03 April 2007, 05:16 PM
Jonny T
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffin2020 View Post
Where there is a will, there is a way. It is not the government's responsibility to provide that anymore than it is the government's responsibility to get me out of bed and in to work every morning. I have to do that all by myself.
As I stated above, it is the government's responsibility to offer me a bare minimum of protection, from crime, from fire, from medical emergency. why is this different?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03 April 2007, 05:19 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffin2020 View Post
Where there is a will, there is a way. It is not the government's responsibility to provide that anymore than it is the government's responsibility to get me out of bed and in to work every morning. I have to do that all by myself.
Again. Not true. For many of those people, there was no way to evacuate. Period.

I think you fail to understand the way that poverty and privilage work.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffin2020 View Post

This from the same person who argued yesterday that it was okay for a company to reduce the balance on a gift card just because it had not been used in a certain period of time. You cannot have it both ways.
No. I didn't say that. Try again.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffin2020 View Post
Free-market capitalism depends on people who want to go out and bust their asses to make money.
And if ass-busting were related to income, it might work. However, capitalism is a system in which ass-busting if you are lower-class most often gets you very little, whereas the lazy privilaged class gets alot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffin2020 View Post
So, do you believe that the government should equalize wealth, make it so that Bill Gates has no more than Joe Homeless?
No. The system should redistribute so that everyone has a minimum standard of life. What you earn, individually, after that, you may keep.

When everyone's needs are met, you can party with the rest.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.