DickWanner
Banned
He was the coward first by running away from his crime. Or even committing the crime in the first place for that matter.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
OK here is a topic that should keep us busy.
- Thread starter appraiser
- Start date
1) Whatever your personal morality about thieves and the protection of your property, it's the law in your state that you need to follow.
2) Squeezing the trigger is going to cost you more $$$ than any subwoofer, even if you are lauded as a hero.
3) If this kid had taken cover, or even just dropped prone to make small profile, he might have felt secure enough to wait and see if the BG actually had a gun.
2) Squeezing the trigger is going to cost you more $$$ than any subwoofer, even if you are lauded as a hero.
3) If this kid had taken cover, or even just dropped prone to make small profile, he might have felt secure enough to wait and see if the BG actually had a gun.
![[shocked]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/007.gif "Shocked [shocked]")
I've taken flack from bleeding hearts lambasting me for saying I would shoot an intruder in my house. "No material possession is worth human life!" they would say. Bullcookies! Anything I have worked hard for and is mine is worthy of defending against someone trying to take it from me by theft, deceit, or force.
I don't give a damn how bad things are, how misunderstood they are, or how bad of a childhood they have had. If someone has a need for something, all they have to do is ask. If it is within reason I will likely *give* it to them.
When society starts making excuse for mala in se crimes of varying nature the the right of the criminal WILL supersede the right of the victim. I'm not advocating that you should be able to kill anyone breaking in your car, but if someone is committing a mala in se crime against someone the victim should be given the benefit of the doubt if they take matters to defend themselves or their property. Headshot at 50 yards when the person could not have been a threat? Probably not. Kneeshot? Maybe.![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
I don't give a damn how bad things are, how misunderstood they are, or how bad of a childhood they have had. If someone has a need for something, all they have to do is ask. If it is within reason I will likely *give* it to them.
When society starts making excuse for mala in se crimes of varying nature the the right of the criminal WILL supersede the right of the victim. I'm not advocating that you should be able to kill anyone breaking in your car, but if someone is committing a mala in se crime against someone the victim should be given the benefit of the doubt if they take matters to defend themselves or their property. Headshot at 50 yards when the person could not have been a threat? Probably not. Kneeshot? Maybe.
To the people who think that people should be shot for theft:
What about shoplifting? A kid steals a candy bar from a store, bullet to the head! Or is it just stealing from individuals that merits death? A drunk teenager steals a skateboard that someone left out in his driveway, bullet to the head!
For those of you who have kids, I don't care how well you've raised them, there's a chance that they'll steal something at some point in their life. You think they should be killed for it?
What about shoplifting? A kid steals a candy bar from a store, bullet to the head! Or is it just stealing from individuals that merits death? A drunk teenager steals a skateboard that someone left out in his driveway, bullet to the head!
For those of you who have kids, I don't care how well you've raised them, there's a chance that they'll steal something at some point in their life. You think they should be killed for it?
No, stealing from ME merits death, lol.
I've been thinking about this...I think shoplifting is a little different than breaking into someone's car/home. If I saw someone breaking into my car, I'd be furious...but I can't honestly say I would just grab my gun, run out there and start blasting away...although the scene from American History X is pretty cool...
Now in my home, it's a different story..."Officer I found him in my kitchen with my chef's knife in hand, ready to do God knows what"
SemiAutoSam
Banned
That is a whole different bucket of worms.
IE you don’t hold your home open to people coming to steal your possessions.
The store that a kid might steal a candy bar from is doing that as a business and its a risk they take in operating that business.
The home owner or car owner was broken into and assuming from the sound of the story from the OP the man that was shot broke into his car by force or was a accessory in breaking into his car.
IE you don’t hold your home open to people coming to steal your possessions.
The store that a kid might steal a candy bar from is doing that as a business and its a risk they take in operating that business.
The home owner or car owner was broken into and assuming from the sound of the story from the OP the man that was shot broke into his car by force or was a accessory in breaking into his car.
I've taken flack from bleeding hearts lambasting me for saying I would shoot an intruder in my house. "No material possession is worth human life!" they would say. Bullcookies! Anything I have worked hard for and is mine is worthy of defending against someone trying to take it from me by theft, deceit, or force.
I don't give a damn how bad things are, how misunderstood they are, or how bad of a childhood they have had. If someone has a need for something, all they have to do is ask. If it is within reason I will likely *give* it to them.
When society starts making excuse for mala in se crimes of varying nature the the right of the criminal WILL supersede the right of the victim. I'm not advocating that you should be able to kill anyone breaking in your car, but if someone is committing a mala in se crime against someone the victim should be given the benefit of the doubt if they take matters to defend themselves or their property. Headshot at 50 yards when the person could not have been a threat? Probably not. Kneeshot? Maybe.
+1 to you sir....
![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
Yes, I believe there are people that are so driven by desperation that steal to, say, provide food for their child(ren) and solely only to survive that are stealing for the "right" reasons. That is assuming, of course, that under any type of normal circumstances said individual would never have even considered any type of crime whatsoever.
Obviously that doesn't make what they are doing right or wholly excuse their actions but, in my mind at least, their actions should be looked at while keeping in mind the circumstances surrounding them.
I'll leave you to contemplate the Heinz Dilemma. Read the dilemma, come up with YOUR answer and then compare with the "Possible Answers" to get a better feel for where you are in your life. There's no "right" or "wrong" answer and nobody is better than anyone else for having a different answer. It's just a matter of where someone is in their own life.
For the most part I'll simply have to agree to disagree with some of you on this topic
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 686
- Likes
- 111
Heinz should force feed the druggist his own radium until he chokes. Where does that fit?
All that's great, but this applies to what..... .05% of all tangible property theft?
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Or at least, I haven't exactly seen a rash of thefts where the motive was to get food for their family, or some guy robbing a bank to pay for his wife's cancer treatments, etc.
The reason for this is because even desperate individuals who are otherwise good people consider theft to be close to the absolute last thing they would ever want to do.
-Mike
The Heinz dilemma is an interesting read, but I don't think it applies here. Unless of course the guy stealing the subwoofer had a dying relative who could only be cured by very loud bass.
People rummaging around on your property late at night is a whole different ballgame from some kid stealing a candy bar or a thug teenager stealing your kid's bike from the front yard in broad daylight.
Even the TX laws WRT protecting property with deadly force still have some constraints around its use. (for example, it's really only fully enabled
at night, not during the daytime. )
All of those things mentioned above are theft but the context in which they occurred in influences the severity of the situation.
If my kid stole things from someone's car, I'd say I failed pretty miserably at trying to raise them. Kids should expect asswhoopings and/or death if they steal someone else's property.
-Mike
DickWanner
Banned
How about this then. They can steal your TV to pay for "food". They try to steal mine and they're gonna meet the ugly end of my shotgun loaded with 3.5" 18-pellet 00. Fair enough?Yes, I believe there are people that are so driven by desperation that steal to, say, provide food for their child(ren) and solely only to survive that are stealing for the "right" reasons. That is assuming, of course, that under any type of normal circumstances said individual would never have even considered any type of crime whatsoever.
Obviously that doesn't make what they are doing right or wholly excuse their actions but, in my mind at least, their actions should be looked at while keeping in mind the circumstances surrounding them.
I'll leave you to contemplate the Heinz Dilemma. Read the dilemma, come up with YOUR answer and then compare with the "Possible Answers" to get a better feel for where you are in your life. There's no "right" or "wrong" answer and nobody is better than anyone else for having a different answer. It's just a matter of where someone is in their own life.
For the most part I'll simply have to agree to disagree with some of you on this topic
I completely agree. But why are they different? It seems to me that the difference has a good deal to do with danger or potential danger to the people in the house. So if a person were rummaging through my living room at 2 am, then yeah. But if I saw a person going through my car at night, I'd call the cops. If he approached my home or tried to get inside, that would be the end of that.
But personally, I wouldn't shoot someone for going through my car (where every single thing would be replaced in a a week or two by insurance with a free rental car in the interim). It's just not worth it to me, even if I were legally allowed to do it. And if I didn't have insurance, I probably still wouldn't shoot the person. Even looking at that from a purely economical standpoint, shooting the person (especially in this state) is going to cost me much much more than I would lose in the theft.
I mean no offense, but I doubt that very much. Or at least I suspect that your definition of "within reason" is such that the kind of thing that you'd give isn't the kind of thing that anyone would steal. Obviously, I could be wrong, but you would be a very unique person if I am.
DickWanner
Banned
I don't have a pot to piss in right now. If someone steals my car or busts in to steal my radio or whatever, I could be screwed over. How long would it take for insurance to get me a new car or fix my busted car? Meanwhile I have to travel to school daily and once I month I have to travel to drill. I miss drill and I'm royally screwed. I can't afford rental coverage on my insurance, let alone the deductible because the cops will never get there in time. You think the insurance company just gives out "free rentals" and "free repairs" when the criminal isn't caught?!
F that shit, I'm going out there and that little lazy mother F'er, who thinks he coast through life by stealing from those who work god damn hard to get by, is gonna be sorry he picked my damn car to try to steal or break into or whatever. I far as I see it, he assumed the risks when he decided to do the crime.
And if you have anything to say about that, feel free to give me a written and signed legal document saying you'll front the money for the deductible and my rental while the police "attempt" to find the guy who busted/stole my car.
What the hell is wrong with some of you? You are basically condoning theft! The argument about stealing bread to feed the children is old. If you are that desperate why not 'ask' for it. If I have to give, it's yours.
I catch someone stealing from me it's going to be a very bad day in their family history!
I have had my apartment broken into. I did not sleep well for months. Why should I have to put up with that because some dirtbag wants what I earned?
Gees, the sheep have realy invaded...........
I catch someone stealing from me it's going to be a very bad day in their family history!
I have had my apartment broken into. I did not sleep well for months. Why should I have to put up with that because some dirtbag wants what I earned?
Gees, the sheep have realy invaded...........
Am I really such a minority here because I don't like the idea of killing a man over a stereo? Not wanting to kill over an action and condoning the action are not the same thing. (Yeah, you can say that they basically are, but they're not. There are plenty of things that I don't condone that I wouldn't kill over.)
Apartment invasions are a completely different matter. If someone comes into my home uninvited, they'll have problems (getting shot being the cause of several of them).
How much theft would there be if it was publicly know that the owner could KILL you if they caught you? I am thinking the number of thefts would drop pretty quickly and dramatically.
What lesson does the theif learn now? Get caught, get a slap on the wrist, if that. They have no reason not to be a repeat offender. Nothing happens to them. If they can spend 10 minutes stealing a $300 stereo that they pawn for $30, they are making $180 an hour. No bad money for a slap on the wrist if caught. Now $180/hr with the possibilty of being shot and killed?
You aren't a minority. I don't want to kill anyone for any reason. I just hope they don't put me in the position where I feel I must. Don't steal my stuff, and we'll both be happy.
I certainly understand that mentality. But how many people would drive recklessly if a driver that you cut off could kill you? That logic can be applied to anything that's bad.
No. They aren't the same thing.
You're saying that being able to use deadly force to stop something would make that thing happen less. In that way, they are the same thing. Is stealing the same as cutting someone off in traffic? Of course not.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
I kinda wonder what the outcome would have been like if he got the guy in the knee and held him at gunpoint until the police reached the scene. Then of course you have to worry about the incident in Phoenix where a guy was holding an intruder at gunpoint and a cop shot him in the back 6 times... wait lets think about that, LEO shoots innocent homeowner IN THE BACK _6_ times and gets cleared of any wrong doing, young guy shoots a thief in the head when he thinks he's drawing a pistol and ends up with a felony record and 9 months work release.
If he had shot the guy 6 times maybe he would have gotten off.
If he had shot the guy 6 times maybe he would have gotten off.
Ok. The absurdity of the analogy aside, you're absolutely correct. If someone could legally shoot you for cutting them off in traffic, the instances of that activity would likely lessen.
That in no way means it's a good idea, though, for any number of reasons. So, on the facts of your submission, I absolutely agree. On the applicability of the analogy, though, you're not even playing the same sport.
+1
I think the concept missed by those who cannot fathom the idea of use of deadly force for wanton property theft/destruction is the big picture of what it means to set out to steal someone's property and carry it out...
It means you are violating the "social contract". You are saying that you are not going to abide by the basic concept of civilization that the rest of us observe.
As such, the thinking goes, you are now nothing more than a nuisance animal and a VERY dangerous one at that (since you are willing to do this, what else are you willing to do?)
I can't say I entirely agree with this line of thinking, but neither can I say I entirely disagree... I can say without question that you won't find me shooting someone from behind who is not presenting a threat to me because they are stealing my property...
I wrote a piece along those lines, once. Ironically, it resulted in death threats. It was a long piece, encompassing many areas, but one portion covered this topic using the logic you presented.
In summary, I likened life to a childhood sandbox. As a child, your mother would put you in the sandbox to play with the other children. If you played nicely, you stayed until it was time to leave. If you didn't, the result was often based upon the seriousness of your transgression.
If you took a toy from another kid, your mother would step in, give it back, and warn you. Do it again, she'd step in and punish you. If you did it a third time, or punched a kid, she'd take you out of the sandbox because you've established that you were unable to play by the established rules. You weren't forced to play with the other children. You could have sat there and played in the box alone. However, you can't interfere with THEIR right to play in the box.
The same is true in life. You shouldn't be forced to play with others. You shouldn't be subjected to their "playground rules". However, you shouldn't be permitted to interfere with their enjoyment, either. If you can't play the game of life without leaving others alone or interacting socially, you should forfeit the game.
I read the Heinz Dilemma and yes, that is the sort of area where it is hazier as to whether that makes them a bad person. It is still wrong.
If the druggist thought that anyone who needed the drug could just take it from him he wouldn't have gone to the effort to research and develop the drug. If it cures a fatal disease, there will be a lot of people who will need the drug but won't be able to afford the $2,000 or the $200. So he should just give it to them?
What if the druggist invested his life savings in developing the drug? He should just give it to people who need it if they can't afford it? And if the husband hasn't sold/mortgaged anything he has to raise the money for the drug who is he to steal from the druggist?
This is the slippery slope to socialism my friends. Just because someone needs something doesn't mean they should have it. It's not pretty, but thats how we moved out of the stone ages and ended up with all these life saving innovations!
If the druggist thought that anyone who needed the drug could just take it from him he wouldn't have gone to the effort to research and develop the drug. If it cures a fatal disease, there will be a lot of people who will need the drug but won't be able to afford the $2,000 or the $200. So he should just give it to them?
What if the druggist invested his life savings in developing the drug? He should just give it to people who need it if they can't afford it? And if the husband hasn't sold/mortgaged anything he has to raise the money for the drug who is he to steal from the druggist?
This is the slippery slope to socialism my friends. Just because someone needs something doesn't mean they should have it. It's not pretty, but thats how we moved out of the stone ages and ended up with all these life saving innovations!
