Nah, we'd just end up thinning out the gene pool and people would have more respect for others, because being a dick would have consequences. Instead you can now be one and nothing happens, which in turn requires everyone to be dicks.
Perhaps, or we just decend into a post apocolyptic-type world where it's survival of the fittest, and people use the excuse of acting to their own moral compass to further their own hednoistic goals, like amassing power.
Enforcement of morals or civility cannot be done by police. You have to be raised that way and have a personal compass of right and wrong. If you don't, then you're just blindly following someone else's morals because you're too weak to stand on your own.
I abasloutely agree the police *shouldn't* be enforcing morality (however, they can and they do--see the title of MGL Ch. 272), but let's remember when I say laws, I'm not refering soley to the police. I'm also refering to the tort system that exists to right wrongs when replacable items can be replaced with money. I recognize not all property (such as a pet) can be replaced this way, but it is still a system available for this purpose.
As for the destruction of property vs theft, I fail to see a difference. If someone breaks into my house and starts trashing it I still shoot them. Destruction of property is theft, theft of the time required for me to earn said property. See Martlet's post above.
Factual difference? Agreed, not really. Legal difference? Quite possibly. That's my point.
Theft is very specific. If the legislature wanted to make sure the destruction of property would be a basis for protecting such property with deadly force, whay didn't they say so? At least, that's a question the court will have to ask.
I assumed you are an LEO of some sort. By posting with a nickname OfficeObie59 I would guess you are an officer of the law, Jewish and probably ~ 52 years old.
Apparently you've never listened to the radio on Thanksgiving.
You made a very clear statement that is is illegal under our societys' law to use lethal force to protect property. Your "name" and your previous statements are part of the context in which your comments are read.
YOU brought your profession into it by your own choice of what and how to represent yourself.
It's a username with over 5,000 forum posts across the internet, and I use it to be consistent. Still, I would expect my posts to be read for what they say, not what you assume you think I mean because of what I do for a living.
That aside, my point there was at no time did I ever make a comment about me
enforcing laws, which puts a whole different spin on what we're talking about. I took your statement as an implication that I would act upon those judgments in an official capacity, which I find quite insulting. It suggests you believe I wouldn't have the ability to separate my own value judgments from actions I perform under the public trust, which I take very seriously.
If that's not the case, I'm still wondering what my profession had to do with my posts up until that point.
The animal is a cow and this takes place in India. The ONE cop in Mumbai that isn't Hindu is about to tase a cow for some very good reason that I can't imagine right now.
Life is cheap there and cows are sacred.
Is the crowd watching this right to mob the officer and kill him, father to several children?
In my judgment of their morals? Nope, that's brutal.
However, that cop lives in a Hindu society where social norms and values of holding cows sacred had influenced by that religion has shaped the laws. I still disagree that a mob would be thr proper way for any society to enact whatever crazy form of justice they believe in. Again, nation of laws, not of men.
