Month: September 2005

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.

As we saw in the first post in this series, the Catechism speaks of the possibility, in situations of urgent necessity, of taking another’s property without it being the sin of stealing.

In the second post in this series, I tried to sketch the general type of situation in which this is licit. I suggested that it occurs when you cannot get what you need by paying for them or through the government or another aid agency. I.e., when you can’t pay and are on your own.

In this post I’d like to talk about what things you are allowed to take in such situations and what other rules there are concerning taking them.

Regarding what one is allowed to take, I think it would be helpful to think of things as falling into three classes:

1. Vital Necessities: These are things that you (or someone under your care) must have in order to live. If you don’t have one of these things, you either will be dead very soon or you are likely to be dead very soon.
2. Practical Necessities: These are things that you (and those under your care) could reasonably be expected to survive without until the crisis is past, but having them will aid you immensely.
3. Non-Necessities: These are things that might be somewhat useful to you (and those under your care) or that you just would like to have.

What goes into each of these three categories depends on who you are and what the circumstances are.

For everybody, a certain amount of food and water is a vital necessity. You will die in short order if you don’t get it. (And you’ll be debilitated before that, further jeopardizing your survival in a crisis.) It is a practical necessity ot have a reserve supply of food and water, so some food and water beyond the vitally necessary amount is also a practical necessity. If you still have more food than that (e.g., enough food to weather the whole crisis without finding more) then lucky you, but that extra amount is a non-necessity.

In much of the world for much of the year, shelter and clothing are practical necessities but not vital necessities for most people. It isn’t pleasant, but it is often possible for people to survive outdoors and naked for significant periods of time if they have to. In other parts of the world, at certain times of the year (e.g., winter), and for certain people, however, shelter and clothing are vital necessities. If one has a large amount of shelter (e.g., a couple of houses or a house and a tent or a very large house) or clothing then past a certain point the shelter or clothing surplus becomes a non-necessity.

Guns and knives are generally practical necessities in an emergency. They can be vital necessities (e.g., if someone is threating your life with one or if you foresee that your life is likely to be threatened by someone). You can also have so many guns and knives that the excess are non-necessities.

Medicine can be anything from a vital necessity to a non-necessity, depending on how much you need it. (Think: heart medicine vs. acne medicine.)

Then there are all kinds of non-necessities, such as books, CDs, video games, color TVs, computers, etc., etc., etc. These can, however, become practical necessities or even vital necessities in specialized circumstances. For example, if an armed man takes your daughter hostage at gunpoint and says, "You go into that BestBuy and get me a color TV or I kill your daughter!" In that case, the color TV is a vital necessity for you (since someone under your care will be killed without it), though it remains a non-necessity for the hostagetaker.

Now: Supposing that you are in a situation where you can’t pay and can’t get what you need from the government or another agency, what can you take without it being theft? I suggest the following:

• You can take what is vitally necessary as long as they are not also vitally necessary for someone else. (For example, if you have no food at all and your neighbor enough food that some of it isn’t vitally necessary for him then you can take from that portion of his food. You must leave him the amount that is vitally necessary for him and those under his care, though.)
• You can take what is practically necessary for you as long as it isn’t vitally or practically necessary for someone else. (For example, you need shelter and your neighbor has a tent in his garage that he’s not planning to use or likely to need to use. You can take the tent).

I’d even go a little further than the Catechism and conjecture that you can take non-necessities in at least one circumstance:

• You can take non-necessities if they have no identifiable owner. (For example, you are walking down a street and find a color TV set sitting in the middle of the street. There is no electronics store nearby. It isn’t clear where the TV came from. The TV is not a vital or urgent necessity to you, but you could use it to barter for something that you do need. You can take the TV.)

Hanging over all of these is also a prudence requirement: You can’t take something if the odds are that more harm than good will come from doing so. There is almost always risk in taking something that doesn’t belong to you, and good to be achieved has to be proportionate to the risk you are assuming.

For example, suppose that you need a gun. It’s a practical necessity, though not a vital one. Your neighbor has a couple of gun cabinets that are full of firearms–more than he and his family can use. Unless you happen to stumble onto one of these gun cabinets when you know that your neighbor isn’t around, it would be very unwise to try to take one of your neighbors guns without his consent. He may shoot you if you try.

Similarly: Suppose you find something in the street that could potentially be identified at some point as stolen merchandise (e.g., by a serial number on it). You’d better weigh the odds of getting caught and punished against the benefit you’ll get by taking this thing.

The above, of course, are considerations that are hard to implement. For one thing, the defitions are vague and hard to apply. How much food is vitally necessary vs. how much is practically necessary vs. how much is non-necessary? I know of no way to objectify that. You’d just have to take your best guess, and people might make different guesses (leading to potentially violent confrontations). That’s the nature of emergencies, though: You just have to do the best you can under the circumstances.

Hopefully, these principles would make it easier to navigate an emergency in a moral manner. I just hope the readers (and myself) never have the misfortune to be in such a situation.

Incidentally, the above principles also only apply to taking things against the will of the owner. If you have his consent or if his consent may be presumed then you can take anything you want. Sometimes asking first is the best way to get what you need–even in a crisis.