On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 21:11:43 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 10:11:54 +1000, Barry OGrady
said in rec.radio.scanner:

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 22:31:15 GMT, wrote:

Especially the ones who stopped the looting at Walmart and
then occupied the building as a "command station", whence they started
sucking down the supplies "because we don't have any." Nothing short
of looting under color of authority. I'll bet they laid waste the
donut section in the first hour.

The food will go off anyway, so what does it matter if people take food?

Not your choice, though. It's "stolen" until it gets "donated" - and
the only one who can decide when that happens is the legal owner.

You have an overly legalistic definition of what's right if
you think it's OK to let people starve because your goddamned cash
registers can't ring up sales.

Were you ever given the opportunity to play Charles Laughton's
role in Les Miserables? It seems it would be a natural part for you --
no acting required.


Wal-Mart has the legal right to let it all rot if that's what they
want to do.

Not that I'm advocating hoarding, which is what that would be, but
legally they have the right to keep what they own.

And I'll bet that the only "discipline" those cops get is for letting
the public get wind of their looting. They'll probably be told -
unofficially and it never happened, of course - that they should have
shot the TV crew and some civilian and claimed that the "looter" shot
the crew.