These idiots are arguing to what degree and in what circumstances theft is immoral. They've allowed it as justified in one instance and now find that their arguments against it in other circumstances are weakened. Although I would argue that the emergency workers did not "steal" or "loot." They made use of available resources in order to carry out their critical job of saving lives in an emergnecy.

I live in Atlanta. A hurricane hit S. Carolina and a carpenter friend loaded up a a truck and trailer with his tools, camping gear, every generator he could get his hands on, gas, water, canned goods, and all the lumber he could fit on it, and headed to Charleston for the next 3 months. He made a good profit, some lifelong friends, and nine families had power within a day of the hurricane. He tried the same thing after a Florida hurricane and lost his *ss, because the artificially low prices he could charge there didn't cover the expenses. He was back in two weeks, and Floridians will just have no choice of whether to trade money for time and convenience after their hurricanes.

Stealing has to be moral for socialism to be moral.

The trial demonstrated that Reginald Denny wasn’t the only one whose brain was scrambled, but at least he had an excuse. What possibly could be said about the jurors? Were they born stupid, or did they follow their bliss to attain that status through grad school, persistence and hard work?

The reality is that looting is the lowest form of community breakdown and the height of injustice and oppression. Every person is for themselves and therefore they take what they 'may need at some future point.' So the moral argument flies out the window on two counts: first, stealing is the projection of power over the weakened party and second, hoarding in a time of crisis naturally oppresses the weak by removing resources from the community. If you want to argue with these academic types learn their language.