Allegedly, the items stolen ranged from tennis shoes to jewelry to weapons to microwaves (CNN, online).

             These acts are an obvious violation of police ethics, and do not cause an ethical dilemma, since there is no conflict between one ethic and another. The oath of an officer is to protect and serve the citizens of their jurisdiction, and to uphold the laws. In this case, the officers involved clearly violated that oath, in that their actions went against not only local, state, and federal laws, but also served not to protect the people of New Orleans, but to instead contribute to their losses. In this way, these officers clearly violated the ethical policy implied by their oath (Walters, 56).

             When police offers were responsible for looting food, water, clothing, and medicine, or did not attempt to stop those stealing these items, however, the result is an ethical dilemma. On one hand, the officers have a duty to protect citizens. These citizens were ravaged by flood and a lack of federal aid, and were without the basic necessities. In this respect, the officers had an ethical professional duty to assist citizens in whatever way possible to ensure their safety and survival.

             On the other hand, however, these officers were professionally responsible for upholding the law, which is clearly against theft of property, be it from a home or a business. In this respect, officers had a responsibility to protect storeowners against theft, and to protect the property of those unable to protect it themselves. By allowing looting to occur, or by participating in it themselves, the officers were clearly violating their professional ethical responsibilities. .

             The result of this duality of ethics is clearly an ethical problem for the officers (Macintyre, 142). Their oath requires them to enforce two competing ethical actions in this situation, both of which had strong positive aspects and strong negative aspects.