"The only area of legality that would concern me would be self defense"
On a fairly related topic, I'm reminded of a story told by friends 40 years ago. They raised Saint Bernards. A police officer had come to their home for something or other and while chatting, they posed the hypothetical question: "What do we do if someone breaks into our backyard." The officer went to the back door, opened it and was met by their male dog. The dog placed both front feet on the door jamb and barked. The officer closed the door, sat at the kitchen table, and lit a cigarette. Seems like he needed 3 matches, but I'm not sure about that point. His advice was "Bury the body and don't tell anyone what happened."

a new book, written by a physician, tells the story of the hospital in new orleans, after katrina, where a large number of patients were found dead. a doctor, and several others, were arrested by state officials but not indicted by local officials.

a great read on several levels.

five days at memorial

Laws may be different in different place. This is no legal advice just a pointer where to look for more.
Around here there would be some fine lines to consider. We have a law that explicitly allows to violate a law in order to save a superior legal item if it is required.
To your example:
If it´s abandoned, it´s free for grabs. However, the store may not be abandoned at all. The owner may intend to come back.
When there are still other people around, you would be expected to ask them first. Your health would have to be at risk if you don´t take the food, just being hungry would not be enough. As you have to pay for the taken goods, you would be expected to do something that shows that you actually intend to do so.
I wouldn´t do it without prior written consent of the owner.

Here in Colorado, if someone enters you house to loot it or whatever, assuming you didn't give them permission, there is nothing (legally) to stop you from shooting them dead (from inside you house that is - you would be on shaky ground shooting into your house from your backyard). You may face moral hurdles, but not legal ones. Because of our "Make My Day" law, you will not face criminal or civil charges. This law is not applicable to your backyard, your driveway, etc. Only INSIDE your PRIMARY RESIDENCE.

The important points of the law are that it must be inside your primary residence (not some rental property that you happen to own), the intruder must not have been invited in, and you must perceive some potential for harm. The "potential for harm" can be as minor as "I thought he might bump into me and knock me against the wall". In other words, pretty much anything will qualify as long as you don't say "I perceived absolutely zero threat or potential for harm. None. Nada." It is also acceptable to shoot if the intruder is running away from you down a hall, and your family members happen to be in a room at the end of the hall. There is potential for harm there, and it qualifies. This is per a lawyer who specializes in firearms related self defense here in my state (I attended a seminar he hosted on the topic).

Each state is different though. I think things are a lot different here than they would be if you lived in NY, NJ, CA, IL, D.C., etc.

The Doctrine of Necessity is a justifiable legal and moral principle if you take something to preserve or protect life. Obviously, if you're taking something from someone that needs it just as much at the time, that's not justifiable. If you actually read interviews of many people after Katrina who were labelled as "looters," notwithstanding the idiots stealing beer and TV's and the like, I think the public would be more sympathetic, or at least understand where many of those people in the stores were coming from. But those stories never came out on the mainstream media.

I know that some people will strenuously disagree with this Doctrine of Necessity, but then again, turn around and heartily agree with justifiably killing someone in self-defense as if "Thou shalt not kill" had some obvious escape clause in it. If killing another human being is not an absolute crime in all cases, then it's not a stretch to think that taking another person's property is not always a hanging offense either.

In many ways, our materialistic society has gradually brainwashed many of us to value property and "things" over human life and dignity. We're not "citizens" anymore, we're often referred to as "consumers" on the news. GW Bush encouraged Americans to go shopping after 9/11. And when 70% of our economy relies on consumption, is it any wonder that "the system" tries to mold our thinking to value "things" most highly above all else?

If the store is unmanned and unlocked and abandoned, just who is going to report you to the authorities?

In most cases you are not going to be able to claim need unless you have gone for weeks without food and really do need it. If the situation lasts that long, I suspect it won't matter to anyone at all.

If you are desperate you might have to do something desperate to stay alive. As long as you don't harm anyone and it really is necessary, my guess is that chances are no one is coming after you.

Here's another example. In my state, generally you cannot defend your property with deadly force. Stopping the commission of a felony, yes, stopping serious bodily injury to yourself or a third party, yes, but if you see someone stealing some canned goods out of your shed in the backyard, you cannot shoot him from the comfort of your porch -- unless you feel like going to jail. (This kind of theft is probably a misdemeanor, right? So you probably can't use the "stopping a felony" argument.)

In a disaster, however, food may be scarce. You may need your shed of canned goods to survive. The thief reduces your chance of survival and puts you at some risk of death, but it's not like he's shooting at you. So I'm not sure that the disaster would change the situation so much that theft during a disaster counts as serious bodily injury. Does that mean you should let the thief run away with your food? It seems that trying to fight hand-to-hand (which seems more like "reasonable force") would be called for, but it would be an extremely bad idea.

I don't suppose there are too many cases of civilians getting tried for things they had to do to survive disasters. This may be a completely unknown area.

Driving through Lubbock, TX the day after Mother's Day in 1970, a friend and I got caught up in one of the worst tornadoes in Texas' history:



We drove so hard to get out of the area that a radiator hose burst. We stopped at a small rural highway service station to buy a new one. The station was open but abandoned. We found the hose that we needed and left what we figured to be enough money to cover the price and a note as to what we were "buying". I was in the Army at the time and had to get back to base in AZ, besides, the station was abandoned because the owner was probably in a storm shelter at the time and I wasn't about to hang around until he returned.

Was it right or wrong of us? I guess only the owner of the station could really say. But, we didn't get our Green Stamps!

I heard one story in which a man stole a school bus and filled it with people getting away from the hurricane. He was praised for it too. I don't know the entire story but what if, in stealing a school bus, he saved that school district one school bus by removing it from the path of destruction?

Jeanette Isabelle

"I heard one story in which a man stole a school bus and filled it with people getting away from the hurricane. He was praised for it too. I don't know the entire story but what if, in stealing a school bus, he saved that school district one school bus by removing it from the path of destruction?"
Then he did more than the then mayor of New Orleans.