The Glade 4.0

It is impossible to conduct inventory in the process of being robbed. How the **** am I supposed to know is someone is there to steal my TV, or rape my daughter? How am I supposed to know if they're armed?

If a person has broken into your home, your assumption has to be the worst, since the criminal didn't get your permission to be there, and people do break in for these sorts of things. The fact that the person has broken in to your home defines his character to the point that you know he is a criminal willing to work in an enviroment which requires a degree of fearlessness and willingness to do violence.

Shooting is always justified in these instances. If someone doesn't want to be shot, he shouldn't be breaking into your home.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I've said over and over again that shooting is perfectly fine in cases of robbery. I'm talking about situations where there is no danger to the life or health of anyone, the perpetrator already has the property and is fleeing from you.

Many times, this sort of shooting is reactionary. If someone is fleeing, they have currently been in a hostile situation only moments ago. The duress caused by such an encounter leads, often, to a shooting. Which is fine. Again, don't rob people.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

You really think petty crimes like smash and grab, dine and dash, or stealing gas without paying constitute "hostile situations" where the owner would fear for his life or safety and therefore justify a shooting?

Don't **** rob people.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

None of those situations are robbery.

Don't **** steal.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Stealing is a very hostile act, and it can provoke a strong reaction from others. Don't steal, don't get shot. Don't walk on the highway, don't get run-over... if the shooting happened in the heat of the moment, you can't hold someone criminally liable for that. I think maybe the shooter should be fined, but they should not serve a jail sentence if it was a clear reaction to someone else's crime. Stealing is an act of aggression and I can't fault others too much for reacting in kind.

It's bullshit to fabricate stories that are designed to bias an argument...

All folks who steal are like a guy that takes some retirees social security check, and without it, the poor old woman will starve to death, in a cold dark apartment without her medicine...in the snow, uphill, both ways.

So, X, why do you hate people on a fixed income? Why do you favor the thieves?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

My point is you apparently think someone's life is worth less than a broken finger. Why don't we just give the death penalty to everyone who breaks someone's finger?

I've had my nose broken 3 times by someone's fist. (One was a TKD class, so lets toss that one out) the other two were fights. If I could have prevented my nose being broken, by pulling a gun and shooting my attackers dead, should I have?

Does it change the equation that they were 11 and 16? Does it change the equation that the 16 year old had 7 friends with him?

I should add that both the incidents when I was younger required full reconstructive surgery on my nose as the bones pretty much shattered. I did not sue, though I did press charges in the later case. The result was several lost days for surgery, not to mention medical bills. Neither fight did I have a choice in. (I attempted to disengage and was thrown back into the circle.) It was not a 'voluntary' fight in either case.

Just saw this, thanks.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

There is no discrete barrier between such situations. It is not always obvious when a person's intent has changed from "do whatever I can to steal from my victim" to "get away".

More importantly, why should that person be allowed to just get away when they have already engaged in such behavior?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That's up to you.



I should add that both the incidents when I was younger required full reconstructive surgery on my nose as the bones pretty much shattered. I did not sue, though I did press charges in the later case. The result was several lost days for surgery, not to mention medical bills. Neither fight did I have a choice in. (I attempted to disengage and was thrown back into the circle.) It was not a 'voluntary' fight in either case.[/quote]

It's up to you, or at least should be. I would say, however, that any situation in which you're outnumbered 8-to-1 by people of pretty much any age other than small children, justifies deadly force, especially if you've tried and failed to escape.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That's silly. Of course, the initial example is silly. What the **** kind of situation ever occurs where someone is specifically trying to break your finger, and you know that is the extent of the harm he intends to inflict?

That's the big problem with internet debates on deadly force. They always want to ask if it's "ok" in situations where the person deciding to use it or not has much better knowledge of the situation than is realistic.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The point of hypothetical situations is to eliminate extra variables that would make the decision reasoning and choices more ambiguous.

You ever see someone pose a hypothetical situation where their position wasn't clearly superior?

It's a ruse.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

It was meant to be silly.

I don't believe self defense should ever be criminalized. I believe self defense of your personal property is legitimate too.

So let's say Shaq walks up to some 5 ft tall grandma and says "Give me your hand, I'm going to break your finger." Then the grandma responds with, "No. I have a gun and I will defend myself." If Shaq grabs for her hand, I believe she is completely justified in shooting his ***.

If instead Shaq had said "Give me your purse," I don't think that changes anything. She's still justified in shooting him.

If you want to draw some distinction between robbery and mugging someone, say Shaq walks into her apartment while she's watching TV and says "Excuse me, I'm going to be taking this laptop you have sitting out on the table over here." Again she says something like, "No. I have a gun and I will defend my property." If he still goes for the laptop, I'm fine with her shooting him.

If you're not okay with people using deadly force to defend their property against theft, you're basically saying that if someone comes into your house and wants to steal all your stuff right in front of you, you just have to sit there and take it. Yes, some people are fortunate enough to have the means to defend their property with non-lethal force, but there are many who cannot.

And just to be clear, I don't care about whether or not there is a "threat of force" or if anyone's lives are threatened. If Shaq assures the grandma he is not going to hurt her or her family in any way and gives her letters of reference from his previous victims praising him for not using any force, it doesn't matter.

Heck, I don't care if she's halfway across the world and sees him in her house on her security cam. If she warns him that if he doesn't leave immediately she will activate her defense turret that shoots people, and he still tries to still the laptop, then I'm not going to lock her up for killing his ***.

It all comes back to:

Don't **** steal.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Actually, I think it all comes back to: "Don't **** kill people over minor property crimes, ya sick bastards!"

Of course, ymmv.

If people didn't steal ****, there wouldn't be any need for killin' over people ****' stealin' ****. So, yeah, actually it all comes back to : Don't **** steal.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

All banter aside, what I think it really does come down to is whether or not you think (a) proportionality is a factor in judging the morality of a response to a crime; and (b) killing someone is a proportional response to a pure property crime involving little or no imminent risk of bodily harm. My view is that yes, proportionality matters, and no, deadly force is not a proportional response to a property crime.

What do you think the odds are that folks are going to agree what a "pure property crime" is?

How would you define a "pure property crime" in progress?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Basically, stealing that isn't robbery or burglary and vandalism that doesn't involve a threat of violence against the person.