Should Looters who steal from mansions in the path of CA fires be prosecuted?
 

On the one hand, looting is against the law

On the other, those homes are about to burn anyway. Why not 'spread the wealth' (I believe that's the proper lefty term of art, I maybe mistaken - perhaps, 'liberating the fruits of capitalist exploitation' may be more appropriate-if a bit dated) by legally allowing looters to steal flat screen TVs, art, sound systems, and other stuff that's covered by insurance anyway?

Besides, looting, like pimping, ain't easy-imagine looting a home that's surrounded by a wildfire.

Where do you stand on this pressing issue?

You could use that same "logic" and defend raping or killing anyone that doesn't evacuate the area.

Stealing is stealing, period. They have no idea if that house is going to burn to the ground or if it will still standing the following day.

I've read reports that people are dressing up like fire crews to go in steal. Fuckers.

Hang 'em by the testicles...

Yes, they should be prosecuted. Just because it was about to be destroyed doesn't mean it isn't theft.

Can an argument be made about social utility?

What's your opinion $5?

A baseball bat to the head is the only answer. I hate those bottom feeder scum thieves

Yes, prosecute them.

No sir you can't.. and no you can't steal peoples shit. What the fuck is wrong you people?

A very strange question. They are marauders so course they must be prosecuted. During WWII, Soviet army and police had a direction to execute them w/o without trial.

Lock them in the house and if it docent burn to the ground with them in it, then they can take what they want. Take the risk get a reward !

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:thumbsup

They could just light the house on fire prophylactically :1orglaugh

They are mentally ill..

Kinda reminds me of those cheesy James Bond flicks from the early 80s where any wannabe car burglar blows up with Bond's car. Now that's what you call an automotive security system. Sure beats the hell out of a car alarm, right?

I hope you're just trolling not really a thief in real life.

If you need a want of something is illegal immoral a just and proper to do you should probably just find something else to do

You know how I know you are mentally ill? Because you think you can rationalize that stealing is the same as rape and murder..

Don't prosecute them shoot em on the way out and leave them there for the next guy to see.
Stealing is stealing.

Stealing is wrong. Unless the good outweighs the bad. If I'm starving and have no money, nobody being generous... I'm stealing some food. Sorry. Cali wildfire? I'm leaving.

Looters should be shot on sight....the end.

You guys always have me scratching my head wondering how in the fuck do your peabrains twist things into something obvious and simple into something that wasn't being said.

The point, which any idiot but two should easily understand is that the law is the law, your property is your property and your rights are your rights, regardless of extenuating circumstances. No one gets to pick and choose just because they decided there is an opportunity to violate the law or someones rights.

Rationally, it makes sense to preserve value that's going to be destroyed otherwise.

Morally, it's still theft of someone else's property.

There nothing to argue here, looters are stealing..damn..

Wow.

My home was flooded for 6 months a few years ago and we had to move out. Yes we had house insurance. Should we have been looted aswell then ??

GFY stupidity never ceases to amaze...

Fuck yes, lock them up.

Obviously, your reading and comprehension skills are on the left side of the bell curve.

This discussion is about MORALITY vs LEGALITY and the SLIDING SCALE (slippery slope?) of JUSTIFICATIONS people come up to excuse SHIT they would not want done to them.

Based on the responses, there are a few glimmers of SITUATIONAL MORALITY / RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE and others here...

As I have mentioned earlier, my view on this is summed up in one phrase: CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

What is the Categorical Imperative?
Assume the ACTION YOU TAKE will be taken by EVERYONE ELSE, would you still take that action???

The problem with "It's going to burn anyway" is that it is just another REHASH of the problematic morality of "If I Don't do it, someone else will..."