Okay. Now that's going far. Looting is just another form of robbery, and most of the time they're not armed, they just run in, take and run out. I do want a harsher response to looting, but execution without trial for theft? What is this Medieval Europe? If you think the police should be able to fire upon looters there are plenty of non-lethal methods. Bean bags, rubber bullets, water cannons ect.
Most of these people are just stupid people having made a stupid decision in the heat of the moment. I don't think that warrants them losing their life.
I don't care. I know some people might not like that idea, but rioters, those who burn and loot SHOULD be shot as far as I am concerned. Letting them get away with it under the guise of 'civil disturbance' is, bluntly, asinine. I have absolutely no problem with people marching in protest, but once it turns violent (hopefully not by the police. If the police start it, yeah, go ahead) then lethal force absolutely should be used. And I know this is going to anger a lot of people here, even if they are minors, blow their asses away. -No one-. Absolutely NO ONE has the right to riot (engage in violence to burn and loot), to steal and/or burn down someone else's livelihood just because that story/house has something the rioters want. The majority of riots end up hurting businesses and people who have -nothing- to do with what the protest is about. They are hurting their own fellow citizens rather than the ones they are, or were, protesting against.
If people want to protest, do it peacefully. The moment it turns violent, I lose all sympathy for the protestors (or the rioters in this case). The stupid decision as you call it, is someone's livelihood and home/shop/story that is looted or burnt to the ground. If it takes a few rioters bleeding out on the ground because they tried to steal and/or burn some place, I'm for it. Peaceful
protest and marches is what I support. Not semi disorganized looting and burning disguised as civil disobedience.