|
On June 30 2011 12:01 Duka08 wrote:
This is actually awesome and hopefully only results in positive things. This was always one of those laws that pissed me the fuck off when applicable. Absolute mockery of an already overwhelmed and often silly justice system.
I don't understand how people like you can actually exist.
So we value property over human life now? It's ok to knife someone for breaking in? You know, this doesn't mean less people will break in, it just means now they will be sure to bring a weapon with them when they do.
|
On July 01 2011 10:44 GreatHate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 12:01 Duka08 wrote:
This is actually awesome and hopefully only results in positive things. This was always one of those laws that pissed me the fuck off when applicable. Absolute mockery of an already overwhelmed and often silly justice system. I don't understand how people like you can actually exist. So we value property over human life now? It's ok to knife someone for breaking in? You know, this doesn't mean less people will break in, it just means now they will be sure to bring a weapon with them when they do.
I don't understand how people like you can actually exist.
So we value life of criminals over property that we spent sweat and blood over? It's not ok to defend your own efforts? You know, that isn't going to mean less people will break in, it just means now they will walk through the front door and back out with your property when they do.
|
On July 01 2011 10:50 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 10:44 GreatHate wrote:On June 30 2011 12:01 Duka08 wrote:
This is actually awesome and hopefully only results in positive things. This was always one of those laws that pissed me the fuck off when applicable. Absolute mockery of an already overwhelmed and often silly justice system. I don't understand how people like you can actually exist. So we value property over human life now? It's ok to knife someone for breaking in? You know, this doesn't mean less people will break in, it just means now they will be sure to bring a weapon with them when they do. I don't understand how people like you can actually exist. So we value life of criminals over property that we spent sweat and blood over? It's not ok to defend your own efforts? You know, that isn't going to mean less people will break in, it just means now they will walk through the front door and back out with your property when they do.
lmao, I don't even think you know what you're arguing. What does this even mean? "You know, that isn't going to mean less people will break in, it just means now they will walk through the front door and back out with your property when they do."
There is a reason every judicial system in the first world follows the principal "Innocent until proven guilty." If you are honestly that paranoid that you feel the need to STAB AND KILL SOMEONE simply because they have something that cost a few dollars, you need to reinspect your life. I wonder how long it will be before a child is killed for breaking into a neighbors cellar and taking some wine, that's justice, right?
Anyone that values property over human life shouldn't be allowed to live themselves, period.
|
On July 01 2011 10:07 ilikejokes wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 10:00 mcc wrote:On July 01 2011 09:11 ilikejokes wrote:On July 01 2011 06:43 mcc wrote:
Well some Europeans countries are much less homogenous than others, and some are pretty close to US yet none of them comes close to US in terms of crime rates. I would actually be interested in knowing if there is even correlation between not being homogenous and crime rates on a country basis. But I am not wholly dismissing this idea as I think there is a lot to it, just that it does not explain the whole difference between "Europe" and US.
My whole post wasn't directed at just you (though I did quote you), more at the thread in general. About the ethnicity thing--I really don't think there is any European country that compares to the United States in terms of diversity. Even the U.K. is just over 85% White British (and over 90% White overall). The homogeneity in Europe stands in stark contrast to the United States where the largest minority is more than 12% of the population. I am not sure that concentrating on race is that useful. I would assume that black American and white American are on average closer culturally than Englishmen and Russian. Netherlands has around 80% Dutch population, Luxembourg is pretty crazy, but also small so let's skip it. But my point was that the difference in homogenity does not correlate well with differences in crime. Yes but Englishmen and Russians don't live in adjacent neighborhoods, and anyway there is less evidence to suggest that whites commit crimes against other whites (or, for that matter, that blacks commit crimes against other blacks, or purples against purples---you get the idea). There is overwhelming evidence that, for whatever reason, when you have situations where people of different races are living in close proximity to each other, crimes are more likely to occur.
Actually they do if the Russians are immigrants in UK. My point was that discounting white ethnicities from your diversity scale is not a good idea. As for the evidence that interracial crimes in close neighbourhoods are more likely to occur ?
On July 01 2011 10:07 ilikejokes wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 10:00 mcc wrote:On July 01 2011 09:11 ilikejokes wrote:Yeah it's kind of strange comparing Scandinavian industrialism to American, as the population of America is about 30 times bigger than Swedens.
However considering companies like Saab (historically), Volvo, Ikea, H&M, fairly good sports rankings all round etc, I wouldn't say that socialistic economics has stopped us from becoming fairly big for our population. I wasn't directly comparing industrialization or anything like that though. Obviously GNP/GDP and whatnot are going to be different because of the drastically different populations. But I don't think that looking at the numbers of universities on a per capita basis would capture what I mean by the United States producing the best university system. The United States has the top-ranked universities in the world. That's not a per-capita thing---it's not like being a bigger country necessarily means you'll have better universities. Just look at China and India, the two countries more populous than the United States. Yes they have good schools, but they are not the top schools in the world. That is what I'm getting at with my talk about academia in the United States. First, comparison should be made on countries with similar level of development when comparing universities, so India and China should not be considered. As for the ranking, it is quite contentious, but I might agree, but only slightly disproportionate to its population. But how is quality of universities linked to crime rates and approach to private property ? The good things I see on US universities would work as well elsewhere if there was enough political/social will and it would work without significantly changing anything else. On the development thing: fine, but then we should only consider the parts of the United States that are as developed as, say, Sweden and the United Kingdom. One point that I didn't expound upon, but probably should have, in my talk about homogeneity was that the economic differences in different parts of the country also result in a certain level of "development disparity." There are parts of the South and the West in the United States that are, for lack of a better term, Third World. But when you talk about the United States being larger than European countries, that very pertinent detail gets lost in the discussion. I don't think the quality of universities is linked to crime rates. It's the diversity that is linked to crime rates. The quality of the universities is linked to attitudes about private property and personal accomplishment, and those qualities are also linked to attitudes about defending your home against intruders (burglars, etc.)
I specifically qualified my statement about the same development as pertaining only the discussion of universities, as their quality is somewhat linked to the amount of funds available. As for the discussion of crime rates the underdeveloped countries are on average worse off then first world countries. When they are not like in the case of US and some undeveloped countries it warrants closer examination and can be used to illustrate some points. Like that size of the country is no necessarily a cause. It actually does not make much sense that size would be a factor. More like population densities if anything of the sort, but maximum is similar in Europe and in US, average I would guess higher in Europe.
How are attitudes about private property linked to quality of universities ? And you think people are not looking for personal accomplishment in other countries as hard as in US ?
|
On July 01 2011 11:07 GreatHate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 10:50 Blasterion wrote:On July 01 2011 10:44 GreatHate wrote:On June 30 2011 12:01 Duka08 wrote:
This is actually awesome and hopefully only results in positive things. This was always one of those laws that pissed me the fuck off when applicable. Absolute mockery of an already overwhelmed and often silly justice system. I don't understand how people like you can actually exist. So we value property over human life now? It's ok to knife someone for breaking in? You know, this doesn't mean less people will break in, it just means now they will be sure to bring a weapon with them when they do. I don't understand how people like you can actually exist. So we value life of criminals over property that we spent sweat and blood over? It's not ok to defend your own efforts? You know, that isn't going to mean less people will break in, it just means now they will walk through the front door and back out with your property when they do. lmao, I don't even think you know what you're arguing. What does this even mean? "You know, that isn't going to mean less people will break in, it just means now they will walk through the front door and back out with your property when they do." There is a reason every judicial system in the first world follows the principal "Innocent until proven guilty." If you are honestly that paranoid that you feel the need to STAB AND KILL SOMEONE simply because they have something that cost a few dollars, you need to reinspect your life. I wonder how long it will be before a child is killed for breaking into a neighbors cellar and taking some wine, that's justice, right? Anyone that values property over human life shouldn't be allowed to live themselves, period.
May I explain again that burglary is entering a home with intent to commit a felony, not stealing some electronics?
You have no idea what burglars are intending to do in your home.
|
I am glad that they are allowing people in England to defend themselves. It is a shame, however, that stabbing does not immediately incapacitate an Intruder. I wish that homeowners would be allowed to have firearms to defend themselves.
|
On July 01 2011 10:44 GreatHate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 12:01 Duka08 wrote:
This is actually awesome and hopefully only results in positive things. This was always one of those laws that pissed me the fuck off when applicable. Absolute mockery of an already overwhelmed and often silly justice system. I don't understand how people like you can actually exist. So we value property over human life now? It's ok to knife someone for breaking in? You know, this doesn't mean less people will break in, it just means now they will be sure to bring a weapon with them when they do.
Its not about human life, it is about crime prevention.
If a burglar knows he can get stabbed and shot freely when robbing a house, it is much more of a deterrent. There will still be break ins, but there will be a portion of criminals who will not break in to a house for this reason.
Also, how do you know they're there to steal your property? They could as likely be there to kill you in which case it isn't a matter of human life vs. material possessions it is a matter of an innocent person's life vs. the life of a criminal.
So glad this doesn't affect me though, I love living in a good neighborhood on a busy road in a secured apartment block.
|
On July 01 2011 10:44 GreatHate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 12:01 Duka08 wrote:
This is actually awesome and hopefully only results in positive things. This was always one of those laws that pissed me the fuck off when applicable. Absolute mockery of an already overwhelmed and often silly justice system. I don't understand how people like you can actually exist. So we value property over human life now? It's ok to knife someone for breaking in? You know, this doesn't mean less people will break in, it just means now they will be sure to bring a weapon with them when they do.
I am amazed at TL's completely blase attitude when it comes to someone breaking into your house.
Yes it's okay to knife someone for breaking in. Burglars are not great people and they are not inside your house to make friends.
Like I said before, I value my property over some asshole that's breaking into my house. The guy is scum and isn't exactly a contributing member to society. I wouldn't kill someone for property though. The threat to me and the rest of my family is the reason I'd knife/shoot someone that's broken into my house.
|
Here in Canada I can remember a story of a man whose house kept getting broken into, and the cops couldn't catch the burglar. So one night the owner heard commotion and waited around a corner with a bat, he hit the guy hard enough to leave him confined to a hospital bed from then on, and had severe brain damage.
The lawyers of the burglar sued the guy and he lost everything. They said that had he killed the guy he would have gotten off scott free because it would have been concluded as self defense. Like the house owner could have said he threatened him or threw a punch or something. But since the guy survived he could testify he hit him blindly.
Crazy if you ask me. I know if someone breaks into my house I have a two foot long metal curl bar thats going to punish the guy from around a corner.
It's not even whether he deserves it or not, it's protecting your own ass from legal bullshit. Im certainly not going to ask the guy whether he intends on just taking stuff or killing me or my family in the process.
|
On July 01 2011 12:34 Rebornlife wrote:
Here in Canada I can remember a story of a man whose house kept getting broken into, and the cops couldn't catch the burglar. So one night the owner heard commotion and waited around a corner with a bat, he hit the guy hard enough to leave him confined to a hospital bed from then on, and had severe brain damage.
The lawyers of the burglar sued the guy and he lost everything. They said that had he killed the guy he would have gotten off scott free because it would have been concluded as self defense. Like the house owner could have said he threatened him or threw a punch or something. But since the guy survived he could testify he hit him blindly.
Crazy if you ask me. I know if someone breaks into my house I have a two foot long metal curl bar thats going to punish the guy from around a corner.
It's not even whether he deserves it or not, it's protecting your own ass from legal bullshit. Im certainly not going to ask the guy whether he intends on just taking stuff or killing me or my family in the process.
That's why never leave the guy alive to testify, If it's a self defense move always go for the kill to prevent stuff like that. If you really HAVE TO perform self defense, You have to be resolved to kill.
|
On June 30 2011 16:19 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 16:01 dogabutila wrote:On June 30 2011 15:16 OsoVega wrote:On June 30 2011 15:05 exog wrote:
Ive thought a bit about house defence. I think knife is a bad option because if you bring it to a chaotic fight in darkness with a stranger it is very possible to have two unfavourable outcomes:
1. He takes the knife and kills you/hurt you bad.
2. You kill him when he stole a bread and go to prison for using excessive force. (A bit dumb example for this thread, but a relevant point in basically every civilized country).
Gun also has many disadvantages, with bullets hurting others through the walls, also see point 2 above. Guns and knives have little "in-between" options, maim or kill is basically random with a stab/shot.
up to me to
I concluded that some form of metal-club should be the best, where you can maintain distance, but be able to bash him bad without killing him. Buckshot generally, won't penetrate a wall but it depends. I would not use FMJ pistol rounds, rifle rounds or slugs to defend my home. You should also train yourself never to shoot without being completely aware of your target and what's behind it, even in stressful situations. Guns do have an in between, the sound of a round being racked into the chamber and your voice. If they aren't running at that point, it is foolish not to shoot to kill them. To me, not killing the person is hardly a concern when my life may be in imminent danger as he is the one who chose to put himself in a threatening position and it is not up to me to take the risk. Your scenario with a bat has an unfavorable outcome too. 1. He kills you. Are we talking about standard fare drywall? Buckshot will go through 6 normal sized sheets easily. If it won't go though drywall it probably shouldnt be relied on to stop a person.... #6 buck can be relied on to incapacitate and never kill through two sheets of normal dry wall.
#6 doesn't meet FBI penetration recommendations. "Never kill" is a bit much. Maybe not likely to, but there are always random occurances and bad luck.
On June 30 2011 16:08 vetinari wrote:
:|
I was refering to one person being armed, and the other unarmed. A 5 year old with a hand gun, and all that.
Fair enough, and I see your point. You still need the will and skill to use it.
On June 30 2011 17:54 Sea_Food wrote:
What if you go searching for the burglar your gun up, then the burglar you did not see, or even a secong burglar you did not know were there kills you because they were afraid? Who then is left to defend your family? Just because you felt your property is worth more than life of a criminal.
Valid point, which is why in america gun owning families generally teach the safe operation of firearms to everybody in the family. Not to mention, you don't get guns taken from you in a high compressed ready. So as long as you train properly and don't do all that movie crap it's not really an issue.
On June 30 2011 18:32 Bleak wrote:
So you wake up, realise that there is a burglar at your home, you grab your gun and move as silently as possible,. You find burglar the sitting room, checking the stuff around. He is not aware of you, his back is turned to you, you don't care he is armed or not and shoot the guy in torso with 4 bullets. Poor bastard dies right there.
Do you think this would constitute a proportional and necessary self defence case?
You'd take a murder charge in my state. If you can see his hands and see that he is not immediately armed you probably need to make an attempt to hold him state dependant. So, no it doesn't.
The proper response here is to put your weapon mounted light on him and say something to the effect of "Don't turn around, I have a gun. Put your hands on top of your head and then put your forehead on the ground. Don't move after that and you can make it out of here alive." Then if he makes any sudden movements or turns towards me I am shooting him. The only way he gets out of there without being shot or caught is if he can somehow run directly away from me and keep his hands clear of his body and never look back.
On July 01 2011 10:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 09:45 Inertia_EU wrote:
If you break into my home, threaten the safety of my family, you leave your human rights at the doorstep. It's as simple as that. No, they're still human. The humanity of a human is a pretty static thing.
You seem determined to assign some value to a 'human' who is determined to give it up.
|
On June 30 2011 12:01 Arishok wrote:
In the US it is legal to shoot intruders un-invited on our property if they are deemed a threat, AFAIK
Personally if someone broke into my house I wouldn't get close enough to them to use a knife, regardless of what was legal or not.
Actually no it is not...If some one breaks into YOUR house and hurts themselves while robbing you, they can actually sue you for damages depending on which state you live in. there are still a few states that do allow you to end a persons life if they are on your property without permission I am pretty sure Texas is the only one for that severe a cause. In the state of Nevada and California if a person Illegally enters your home You can only do 2 things, ask them to leave, and point a gun at them you cannot harm them in any way or you will suffer legal actions against you.
My friend had some one sneak in thru her skylight and well he ended up stabbing himself on her kitchen counter with some small knife he put a lawsuit against her for 30k, and the doctors bill for 30-35 stitches. guess who won that lawsuit. the guy who came into her home at 1 am to rob the place sad isn't it.
I Also knew a couple that have 3 kids(i did not know them well just neighbors from down the street) they shot and crippled a man that entered their home at 3 am to rob them, The father was arrested and ended up server 1 year in prison with another 15 on probation. He is still on probation with 9 years to go.
The only way you would get away with harming the person would be if they had a weapon and threatened your life or one of the family members in your home.
Think me stupid w/e I don't not know all 50 states worth of laws but i know enough from the 7 states i have lived in to know that you cannot actually brandish deadly force on an intruder unless they have threatened you(and i mean with a weapon IE gun or a knife to some ones body simply them holding a knife is not enough they have to take an action against you) or your family in some way.
|
Seems to me that anyone who wants to KILL someone for robbing their house is an angry anti-social person who needs to get some perspective on life. I seriously hope that the people who hold this "shoot first ask questions later" mentality fall victim to it one day.
I'm not saying you shouldn't take a baseball bat to some asshole trying to steal your shit, but to support taking a knife or a gun to them? Your TV, that insurance will cover, is really worth more than this person's life?
|
On July 01 2011 13:40 Nazarid wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 12:01 Arishok wrote:
In the US it is legal to shoot intruders un-invited on our property if they are deemed a threat, AFAIK
Personally if someone broke into my house I wouldn't get close enough to them to use a knife, regardless of what was legal or not. Actually no it is not...If some one breaks into YOUR house and hurts themselves while robbing you, they can actually sue you for damages depending on which state you live in. there are still a few states that do allow you to end a persons life if they are on your property without permission I am pretty sure Texas is the only one for that severe a cause. In the state of Nevada and California if a person Illegally enters your home You can only do 2 things, ask them to leave, and point a gun at them you cannot harm them in any way or you will suffer legal actions against you. My friend had some one sneak in thru her skylight and well he ended up stabbing himself on her kitchen counter with some small knife he put a lawsuit against her for 30k, and the doctors bill for 30-35 stitches. guess who won that lawsuit. the guy who came into her home at 1 am to rob the place sad isn't it. I Also knew a couple that have 3 kids(i did not know them well just neighbors from down the street) they shot and crippled a man that entered their home at 3 am to rob them, The father was arrested and ended up server 1 year in prison with another 15 on probation. He is still on probation with 9 years to go. The only way you would get away with harming the person would be if they had a weapon and threatened your life or one of the family members in your home. Think me stupid w/e I don't not know all 50 states worth of laws but i know enough from the 7 states i have lived in to know that you cannot actually brandish deadly force on an intruder unless they have threatened you or your family in some way.
As twisted as it may sound, it seems that, If you intend on shooting someone or using violence to defend yourself, resolve yourself to kill that person. Half-assing it will only get you sued. So make sure if they ever break in they don't leave. Use more than one swing/ammo if you have to.
On July 01 2011 13:41 GreatHate wrote:
Seems to me that anyone who wants to KILL someone for robbing their house is an angry anti-social person who needs to get some perspective on life. I seriously hope that the people who hold this "shoot first ask questions later" mentality fall victim to it one day.
I'm not saying you shouldn't take a baseball bat to some asshole trying to steal your shit, but to support taking a knife or a gun to them? Your TV, that insurance will cover, is really worth more than this person's life?
Why must you assign humanitarian values to someone who has no intention of upholding the obligations to keep the said value.
|
On July 01 2011 13:41 GreatHate wrote:
Seems to me that anyone who wants to KILL someone for robbing their house is an angry anti-social person who needs to get some perspective on life. I seriously hope that the people who hold this "shoot first ask questions later" mentality fall victim to it one day.
I'm not saying you shouldn't take a baseball bat to some asshole trying to steal your shit, but to support taking a knife or a gun to them? Your TV, that insurance will cover, is really worth more than this person's life?
"I hope people that support murder get murdered!"
I don't understand this logic.
That said, a home invasion isn't always "BREAK IN, TAKE THE TV, RUN LIKE HELL!"
They play out closer to "Break in, go to the TV, find the home owner is home, beat him til the blood stops gushing, continue to take the TV."
|
On July 01 2011 13:41 GreatHate wrote:
Seems to me that anyone who wants to KILL someone for robbing their house is an angry anti-social person who needs to get some perspective on life. I seriously hope that the people who hold this "shoot first ask questions later" mentality fall victim to it one day.
I'm not saying you shouldn't take a baseball bat to some asshole trying to steal your shit, but to support taking a knife or a gun to them? Your TV, that insurance will cover, is really worth more than this person's life?
It isn't about the damn property.
How many times does this need to be said before it's believed?
|
Are you guys really that brainwashed by Fox news that you think a burglar wants something other than your property?
Not to mention, if this Fox news evil murdering criminal reality is true and they really wanted to hurt you, do you think a knife will stop it? I'm honestly baffled that the (apparent) majority of the TL community is this stupid. Property vs Life. This isn't counter strike you angry nerds, people don't respawn. Robbery is so exponentially less offensive and evil than murder, and if you don't understand this I hope someone shoots your brains out because they think you stole their watch.
Self defense laws exist for a reason. If you're in danger then by all means protect yourself. But just because someone walking out of your house with a TV in the middle of the night might scare you, they aren't a danger to your well being. You would need to be a selfish and overall despicable human being to choose ending someone's life over calling the police and your insurance company.
|
On July 01 2011 14:55 GreatHate wrote:
Are you guys really that brainwashed by Fox news that you think a burglar wants something other than your property?
Not to mention, if this Fox news evil murdering criminal reality is true and they really wanted to hurt you, do you think a knife will stop it? I'm honestly baffled that the (apparent) majority of the TL community is this stupid. Property vs Life. This isn't counter strike you angry nerds, people don't respawn. Robbery is so exponentially less offensive and evil than murder, and if you don't understand this I hope someone shoots your brains out because they think you stole their watch.
Self defense laws exist for a reason. If you're in danger then by all means protect yourself. But just because someone walking out of your house with a TV in the middle of the night might scare you, they aren't a danger to your well being. You would need to be a selfish and overall despicable human being to choose ending someone's life over calling the police and your insurance company.
Are you really under the impression that everyone that breaks into your house has the same moral ethics as apparently you do and won't just decide to kill you to protect his identity?
This has absolutely nothing to do with fox news and everything to do with the fact that a strange man BROKE INTO YOUR HOUSE.
For some reason this seems to be Okay for most people. I just don't understand this thought process. I am not willing to gamble my life that a burglar is coming into my house only to steal shit. If he is willing to break into my house in the middle of the night I have no clue what else that person is capable of.
I am not talking about ending someone's life who is running away from my house. However, if he's inside my house, I confront him, and he doesnt proceed to leave the house he just forfeited his life. I am not going to gamble on the possibility that this guy that broke into my house is "nice."
If he dies he shouldn't have broken into my house in the first place really.
|
On July 01 2011 14:55 GreatHate wrote:
Are you guys really that brainwashed by Fox news that you think a burglar wants something other than your property?
Not to mention, if this Fox news evil murdering criminal reality is true and they really wanted to hurt you, do you think a knife will stop it? I'm honestly baffled that the (apparent) majority of the TL community is this stupid. Property vs Life. This isn't counter strike you angry nerds, people don't respawn. Robbery is so exponentially less offensive and evil than murder, and if you don't understand this I hope someone shoots your brains out because they think you stole their watch.
Self defense laws exist for a reason. If you're in danger then by all means protect yourself. But just because someone walking out of your house with a TV in the middle of the night might scare you, they aren't a danger to your well being. You would need to be a selfish and overall despicable human being to choose ending someone's life over calling the police and your insurance company.
You're the angriest nerd in this thread.
How are you supposed to find out their intent? How are you supposed to ask them without surprising them? The last thing I want to do is surprise someone who is potentially dangerous and full of adrenaline.
How are you supposed to know all they want is your TV? What do you do if they start coming towards the bedroom your wife and/or child is in?
If I saw someone leaving my house with my TV I would make sure they couldn't get back in and then call the police. If I see them approaching my son's room I'm going to take action.
Edit: Completely agree with Jayme.
|
On July 01 2011 11:07 GreatHate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 10:50 Blasterion wrote:On July 01 2011 10:44 GreatHate wrote:On June 30 2011 12:01 Duka08 wrote:
This is actually awesome and hopefully only results in positive things. This was always one of those laws that pissed me the fuck off when applicable. Absolute mockery of an already overwhelmed and often silly justice system. I don't understand how people like you can actually exist. So we value property over human life now? It's ok to knife someone for breaking in? You know, this doesn't mean less people will break in, it just means now they will be sure to bring a weapon with them when they do. I don't understand how people like you can actually exist. So we value life of criminals over property that we spent sweat and blood over? It's not ok to defend your own efforts? You know, that isn't going to mean less people will break in, it just means now they will walk through the front door and back out with your property when they do. lmao, I don't even think you know what you're arguing. What does this even mean? "You know, that isn't going to mean less people will break in, it just means now they will walk through the front door and back out with your property when they do." There is a reason every judicial system in the first world follows the principal "Innocent until proven guilty." If you are honestly that paranoid that you feel the need to STAB AND KILL SOMEONE simply because they have something that cost a few dollars, you need to reinspect your life. I wonder how long it will be before a child is killed for breaking into a neighbors cellar and taking some wine, that's justice, right? Anyone that values property over human life shouldn't be allowed to live themselves, period.
This post is incredibly ignorant of context.
I doubt anyone comes into a house and steals a few dollars of things. What he means, obviously, is that if you can't do anything to protect your property simply because the person stealing it is more important, than there will be nothing stopping them. Most people then say "well call the police", but this argument is effectively moot; nobody seems to be aware of the uselessness of the police. It's not like you call 911 and this person will be caught without fail. If you call 911, your stuff is gone, and that person is long gone and there's nothing anyone can do about it at this point. That is the reality.
None of the examples given by anyone trying to protect the human "rights" of criminals has been practical and intelligent. Most of them are simply and completely unrealistic. The criticism for people who support the law is that in exceptional cases, abuse may occur. This is ridiculous and if I have to explain why, then you have no place in a discussion in any kind where logic and consistency are respected.
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't fight, knife, break bottles, hit people with frying pans, or do any type of physically hostile activity very often, and if the law simply permits me to retaliate with same or "reasonable" resistance against a person who has likely done many of these activities often puts me at a huge disadvantage before anything has happened. If you do not agree with most of the people posting, then that is basically the alternative you are proposing.
And about incapacitation. I don't have the skills to incapacitate a criminal inside my house and neither do you. He's going to hear you pick up a frying pan, and I don't know if you've ever been in a fight, buts its very difficult to hit a person in the head, and it's much more difficult to do it with enough force to do damage. Shooting them in the leg? Where in the leg? The kneecap? How are you so confident in your abilities to shoot them pinpoint in a place that won't kill them? You can shoot a person in the leg and still kill them. The incapacitation argument is absurd, and only demonstrates your lack of experience in these situations, thus hindering the pervasiveness of any argument you have.
You're applying unrealistic and impractical ideals in a realistic and practical situation that works within the confines of reality, which is rarely ideal. You're doing so to fulfill a desire to be better than people, to pretend to see more than they do and pretend to be more sensitive to the underlying value of things like humans and a plasma TV, and you're not. You're telling people that they are insensitive and materialistic, you're putting people down and feeling high and mighty, but you are not providing practical solutions to any problems.
Also, "I wonder how long it will be before a child is killed for breaking into a neighbors cellar and taking some wine, that's justice, right?". I don't know any children who like wine, less so that would be willing to break into a cellar in the neighbors house to do so. This statement might make logical sense "ideally", but when you actually apply it in reality, you realize that if it's a neighbor, the person who owns the house will most likely know the child who has broken into his house for some wine, and simply allowing people to protect themselves with any force necessary doesn't mean that every time something happens they're going to shoot them. Lastly, if this ever did occur, it would be horrible, tragic, unfortunate, and an injustice, but it would be extremely rare, as is the case with all counterarguments.
tldr; an imperfect solution is better than no solution. Allowing people to protect themselves will have more pros than cons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
