Thieves could go free while victim faces jail time

[Zed]

My only objection in this case is the possibility of accidentally shooting nearby innocent people. Otherwise I have zero sympathy for criminals stealing other people hard earned property. If a criminal gets killed when doing crime so be it, at least disposing off his body is cheaper to taxpayers than keeping him in prison for years. If this incident had taken place in some remote farm area with no one else around to accidentally shoot I could only congratulate the old man for making life harder to criminals.

How much dollars should something be worth before an owner can shoot at people who're trying to steal it? 50.000$? 1.000$? 50$? 1$?

I'm going to say that it will depends on how rich the shooter is. Stealing 50k from Donald trump is less damaging than stealing a chicken from a dirt farmer in FamineDroughtistan

Okay, so how much dollars should something cost before Donald Trump gets to shoot somebody stealing it? (Or pay his security to shoot them?) Other than that, how much should something cost before your average Joe gets to shoot somebody stealing it?

[Stofsk]

It shouldn't fucking matter. What should matter is whether reasonable force is used, and whether it's justifiable to use force in the first place.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

It shouldn't fucking matter. What should matter is whether reasonable force is used, and whether it's justifiable to use force in the first place.

And that's the key thing. Reasonable force. Deadly force is reasonable force to protect one's own life. It is not reasonable force when used to protect one's property. You can justify killing someone who intends to deprive you of your life. You cannot justify killing someone who simply wants to deprive you of your big-screen TV.

[Uraniun235]

I am, frankly, astonished that we have inbred, mouth-breathing internet tough guys on the board who value inanimate objects higher than human life.

You've been here since 2002. How could you find it astonishing that some guy on the internet has a low regard for human life?

[Kanastrous]

Maybe this is an idea for a different thread - doubtless someone will point out why it's not much of an idea, at all - but it takes an investment of one's time, and therefore a portion of one's life, to earn the money to buy something. I'm not suggesting that a car is equivalent in value to a human life, but the human who worked to earn the resources to buy and maintain that car has invested a portion of their life into obtaining and maintaining it - a portion of their life that they don't get back if the car is destroyed or stolen.*

This is different from person to person - someone who earns minimum wage obviously has a great deal more of their life's limited time bound up in each dollar they have earned and whatever they buy with that dollar, than someone who inherited a million dollars effort-free. But somehow it doesn't seem quite right to hand-wave away a person's investment in their property that gets stolen: that may not just be a trailer disappearing over the horizon - it might also represent a chunk of the person's life spent, working to afford and maintain it.

YMMV.



*of course if the item in question is insured for its full value, and the insurance pays out, then the time has been compensated...

[General Zod]

Maybe this is an idea for a different thread - doubtless someone will point out why it's not much of an idea, at all - but it takes an investment of one's time, and therefore a portion of one's life, to earn the money to buy something. I'm not suggesting that a car is equivalent in value to a human life, but the human who worked to earn the resources to buy and maintain that car has invested a portion of their life into obtaining and maintaining it - a portion of their life that they don't get back if the car is destroyed or stolen.*

This is different from person to person - someone who earns minimum wage obviously has a great deal more of their life's limited time bound up in each dollar they have earned, and whatever they buy with that dollar, than someone who inherited a million dollars, effort-free. But somehow it doesn't seem quite right to hand-wave away a person's investment in their property that gets stolen: that may not just be a trailer disappearing over the horizon - it might also represent a chunk of the person's life spent, working to afford and maintain it.

YMMV.



*of course if the item in question is insured for its full value, and the insurance pays out, then the time has been compensated...

Which is why we have jail time. A portion doesn't equate to an entire life no matter how much you slice it.

[Kanastrous]

Yes, that's a sensible observation. A slice for a slice, so to speak.

[lance]

The problem with that is that its not restoring what was taken from the victim, its like if I steal a 1000 dollars from you, I get caught and pay a 1000 to the police force.

Zed- I'm not sure, but I'd go with if it has enough to screw that persons life up.
Stealing a 2500 dollar car can lead to inability to get to work, pick up groceries, cause job loss due to you not being able to show up to work, and what ever else.
Stealing a big ass plasma flat screen would be much less damaging in comparison.

I have a question-Can't police shoot at fleeing suspects? How is this different from that?

[General Zod]

I have a question-Can't police shoot at fleeing suspects? How is this different from that?

I don't think the police are allowed to shoot someone who's fleeing willy nilly except under very specific circumstances.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I have a question-Can't police shoot at fleeing suspects? How is this different from that?

I don't think the police are allowed to shoot someone who's fleeing willy nilly except under very specific circumstances.

In order for a cop to shoot a fleeing suspect that cop must have probable cause that the person presents a risk of serious bodily injury or death to people if he escapes. In other words a police officer locates serial killer and that person runs and it becomes obvious that he is probably going to escape then the officer can shoot him in the back.

You better be damn sure though...

[Sky Captain]

Zed- I'm not sure, but I'd go with if it has enough to screw that persons life up.
Stealing a 2500 dollar car can lead to inability to get to work, pick up groceries, cause job loss due to you not being able to show up to work, and what ever else.
Stealing a big ass plasma flat screen would be much less damaging in comparison.

I think I can agree with that. If item being stolen is important to its rightful owner in a way that theft of it could lead to loss of income or cause some other long term trouble then yes the owner should have the right to prevent theft by whatever means he has available including use of potentially deadly force if it don't cause risk to bystanders. For example if a farmer spots a thief driving away his tractor loss of which would lead to him go bankrupt then shooting a thief would be acceptable and the owner should face no legal penalties for that.

If a luxury item like huge flat screen tv is being stolen loss of which wouldn't cause owner to loose the job or some other long term trouble then I would agree shooting a thief might be unnecessary. However if the owner still kills the thief I wouldn't sentence him with anything more than some hefty fine and suspended sentence.

Anyway, yesterday I asked about this issue 7 different people and everyone of them agreed that the owner should have the right to use lethal force to defend his property from theft after appropriate warning is given to thief and he don't comply.

I have a question-Can't police shoot at fleeing suspects? How is this different from that?

At least here police is allowed to use lethal force to stop fleeing criminal as a last ditch effort if it don't cause a risk to bystanders. I think it goes something like that: criminal is running away, policeman yells: Stop, police! If he don't comply policeman yells: Stop or I will shoot! if he still don't comply a warning shot is fired after which policeman is legally allowed to shoot the suspect if he don't stop.

[Twoyboy]

I think I can agree with that. If item being stolen is important to its rightful owner in a way that theft of it could lead to loss of income or cause some other long term trouble then yes the owner should have the right to prevent theft by whatever means he has available including use of potentially deadly force if it don't cause risk to bystanders. For example if a farmer spots a thief driving away his tractor loss of which would lead to him go bankrupt then shooting a thief would be acceptable and the owner should face no legal penalties for that.

Umm, no. If you live in a country where bankruptcy is not a death sentence then this statement is fucking stupid. I'm not sure how Latvia ranks in this, but in the country where this happened, the US, and in Australia where I am, bankruptcy is not only not a death sentence but actually the preferred option out of debt for many people. The punishment is FAR too harsh for the crime.

If a luxury item like huge flat screen tv is being stolen loss of which wouldn't cause owner to loose the job or some other long term trouble then I would agree shooting a thief might be unnecessary. However if the owner still kills the thief I wouldn't sentence him with anything more than some hefty fine and suspended sentence.

What? Are you fucking serious? If someone kills a thief for trying to take off with his luxury item then we should throw the fucking book at him. Your right to a fucking big television does not trump the thief's right to life, no matter what you think of him/her.

Anyway, yesterday I asked about this issue 7 different people and everyone of them agreed that the owner should have the right to use lethal force to defend his property from theft after appropriate warning is given to thief and he don't comply.

Yes, because people are reactionary gimboids. Next time play devil's advocate and challenge them to justify why they think their property rights trump his right to life and see how many actually thought about their position before opening their mouths.

At least here police is allowed to use lethal force to stop fleeing criminal as a last ditch effort if it don't cause a risk to bystanders. I think it goes something like that: criminal is running away, policeman yells: Stop, police! If he don't comply policeman yells: Stop or I will shoot! if he still don't comply a warning shot is fired after which policeman is legally allowed to shoot the suspect if he don't stop.

In Australia the law is as previously mentioned, the police can only shoot a suspect if he/she is considered a lethal threat in some way.

[Kanastrous]

Next time play devil's advocate and challenge them to justify why they think their property rights trump his right to life and see how many actually thought about their position before opening their mouths.

I'll play Devil's Advocate, on that: because their property was purchased with money that represents time spent to earn it, which is a chunk of the owner's life that he will not get back again. That's the fiction under which we operate in a money economy: your time - a chunk of your life that you never get back - is translated into pieces of green paper (well, increasingly, multi-colored paper) which you can then exchange for whatever property it is that you feel you need. When a thief takes that property, he's walking off with a chunk of your life's time - which you never can recover - transmuted into the solid object he's taking. He's stealing something condensed out of your life's time that you never get back, so his life should be on the table, too.

That's the gist of what I'd try, were I playing Devil's Advocate, in that conversation.

But I suspect that really it's more rooted in basic territorialism: What? You're gonna take *my* crap? I'll fucking KILL you! People who feel that way should just be certain to educate themselves on their local laws, and how to groom the scene if necessary to put themselves on the right side of the investigation, after the police arrive. Well, and to avoid the creation of un-groomable scenes, while they're at it.

[Twoyboy]

Next time play devil's advocate and challenge them to justify why they think their property rights trump his right to life and see how many actually thought about their position before opening their mouths.

I'll play Devil's Advocate, on that: because their property was purchased with money that represents time spent to earn it, which is a chunk of the owner's life that he will not get back again. That's the fiction under which we operate in a money economy: your time - a chunk of your life that you never get back - is translated into pieces of green paper (well, increasingly, multi-colored paper) which you can then exchange for whatever property it is that you feel you need. When a thief takes that property, he's walking off with a chunk of your life's time - which you never can recover - transmuted into the solid object he's taking. He's stealing something condensed out of your life's time that you never get back, so his life should be on the table, too.

Except that by stealing a small chunk of your life, fuck even a large chunk of your life, you don't have the right to take all of theirs. And even then, if they stole what you worked your ENTIRE life for, you don't stop existing. Jail time equivalent to the amount of your "time" they took away is a far more appropriate punishment by this exact reasoning, whether you agree with it or not.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Zed- I'm not sure, but I'd go with if it has enough to screw that persons life up.
Stealing a 2500 dollar car can lead to inability to get to work, pick up groceries, cause job loss due to you not being able to show up to work, and what ever else.
Stealing a big ass plasma flat screen would be much less damaging in comparison.

I think I can agree with that. If item being stolen is important to its rightful owner in a way that theft of it could lead to loss of income or cause some other long term trouble then yes the owner should have the right to prevent theft by whatever means he has available including use of potentially deadly force if it don't cause risk to bystanders. For example if a farmer spots a thief driving away his tractor loss of which would lead to him go bankrupt then shooting a thief would be acceptable and the owner should face no legal penalties for that.

How is life in 1810 working out for you? So if you walked off with my only pen and book of stamps, just as I was going to sign all the checks I pay my bills with . . . would I be justified in shooting you in the face for it? I mean, if I don't get those bills in on-time, I'll be out begging in the streets. If you say "but that's just absurd," then my response is "so is murdering someone over a theft."

If a luxury item like huge flat screen tv is being stolen loss of which wouldn't cause owner to loose the job or some other long term trouble then I would agree shooting a thief might be unnecessary. However if the owner still kills the thief I wouldn't sentence him with anything more than some hefty fine and suspended sentence.

It's nice to know there are really people out there with the moral sense of a sociopathic caveman.

Anyway, yesterday I asked about this issue 7 different people and everyone of them agreed that the owner should have the right to use lethal force to defend his property from theft after appropriate warning is given to thief and he don't comply.

Are any of those seven people lawyers, judges, or officers of the peace? If not, then why should I base my valuation on human life on what eight random amoral assholes think?

[Kanastrous]

Jail time equivalent to the amount of your "time" they took away is a far more appropriate punishment by this exact reasoning, whether you agree with it or not.

Except that the thief spending some specified period of time in jail does absolutely nothing at all to compensate what their victim lost. Now, jail plus restitution is a step in that direction: the jail time is (a) punishment (b) takes the thief out of circulation for a while, presumably saving some potential victims the trouble of dealing with that particular person's thievery, which satisfies the larger society's requirements, and the restitution made to the victim of the theft is actually compensatory.

It kind of seems to me that if one buys the whole 'if you kill one person it is as though you have killed the world' thing, then it follows that 'if you take away an hour of one person's life it is as though you have taken the whole thing.' But since I have never bought the first construction, I'm not going to get worked up over trying to advance the second.

I wouldn't call the whole Ah'll KILL thuh thief who takes MAH shit business 'amoral.' There's definitely a morality at work there, it's just one that elevates property concerns to the apex of the morality-pyramid. A distaseful morality, maybe, but still a form of morality, with different standards than the ones we like.

[Sarevok]

Except that by stealing a small chunk of your life, fuck even a large chunk of your life, you don't have the right to take all of theirs. And even then, if they stole what you worked your ENTIRE life for, you don't stop existing. Jail time equivalent to the amount of your "time" they took away is a far more appropriate punishment by this exact reasoning, whether you agree with it or not.

Sanctity of thieves lives is irrelevant here. What matters is how do you recover lost property. Say someone runs off with your expensive TV. How do you get it back if the police never catch them ? I can let people walk away with my possessions but only the bizarre utopia where the government will ship me an exact same replacement by next morning. Mind you I am not talking about shooting someone for stealing a pen. You can just buy another pen. But when someone runs off with something you had to save money for months, it is a serious loss to your life because you cant replace it.

[Twoyboy]

Jail time equivalent to the amount of your "time" they took away is a far more appropriate punishment by this exact reasoning, whether you agree with it or not.

Except that the thief spending some specified period of time in jail does absolutely nothing at all to compensate what their victim lost. Now, jail plus restitution is a step in that direction: the jail time is (a) punishment (b) takes the thief out of circulation for a while, presumably saving some potential victims the trouble of dealing with that particular person's thievery, which satisfies the larger society's requirements, and the restitution made to the victim of the theft is actually compensatory.

Sanctity of thieves lives is irrelevant here. What matters is how do you recover lost property. Say someone runs off with your expensive TV. How do you get it back if the police never catch them ? I can let people walk away with my possessions but only the bizarre utopia where the government will ship me an exact same replacement by next morning. Mind you I am not talking about shooting someone for stealing a pen. You can just buy another pen. But when someone runs off with something you had to save money for months, it is a serious loss to your life because you cant replace it.

I didn't say it was a perfect punishment, I said that by the logic given above it was an apt punishment. Ie they take something which you invested some of your life to get, then they invest some of their life back for it. No mention was made in the above argument about preventing theft by shooting.

But now it has been, we're right back where we started. You want my stuff, I don't want you to take my stuff. So I kill you. I have now said, my property is worth more than your life. There's no two ways about it. Life at work is still life, life in bankruptcy is still life, shit life in jail is still life.

And don't give me the fucking "what if it wasn't insured?" shit. If you honestly believe it was worth more than that man's life, or as the argument is being made, it's worth a significant portion of your life, why the fuck didn't you care enough to insure it?

[Kanastrous]

Don't discount the emotional character of the argument - it's not about a TV being worth a thief's life, it's about MY TV being worth the thief's life. If you see what I mean.

[Coyote]

A few things to bear in mind that are on the periphery and not directly addressed:

Recovering stolen vehicles typically happens after the vehicle is parked. But if someone is stealing a trailer, are they really just going to joyride with a trailer behind them for a few hours, then leave it in a back lot somewhere? People steal a trailer because they want/need a trailer. It's probably not coming back.

The two thieves are illegals. That, no doubt, adds to the ire directed against them. They were also being observed as possible participants in a "stolen property ring" that was operating in the area... and, the old man said that people have been coming onto his property and he couldn't afford a fence.

So you have an area that is apparantly undergoing a crime wave of theft, an old man who has been victimized numerous times, and he is too poor to afford a fence-- probably, in his mind, making him desperate to protect what property he has. The lack of action on the theft ring probably means he doesn't expect much help from the cops, and he probably doesn't have much by way of insurance. He's trying to move away from the property but can't find a buyer.

I agree that none of these justifies shooting at fleeing suspects, true, but it makes his motivations for angry/frustrated confrontation understandable, if not justifiable.

[Twoyboy]

Don't discount the emotional character of the argument - it's not about a TV being worth a thief's life, it's about MY TV being worth the thief's life. If you see what I mean.

So true. And when the media decide to sensationalise it, it will probably be OUR TV, just to get the viewers involved.

[Soontir C'boath]

I think I can agree with that. If item being stolen is important to its rightful owner in a way that theft of it could lead to loss of income or cause some other long term trouble then yes the owner should have the right to prevent theft by whatever means he has available including use of potentially deadly force if it don't cause risk to bystanders. For example if a farmer spots a thief driving away his tractor loss of which would lead to him go bankrupt then shooting a thief would be acceptable and the owner should face no legal penalties for that.

Umm, no. If you live in a country where bankruptcy is not a death sentence then this statement is fucking stupid. I'm not sure how Latvia ranks in this, but in the country where this happened, the US, and in Australia where I am, bankruptcy is not only not a death sentence but actually the preferred option out of debt for many people. The punishment is FAR too harsh for the crime.

It may not be a death sentence but it may bring a significant decline in the quality of life the person will be able to enjoy which I presume people with the "shoot'em attidude" holds. It's their own life they are worried about and they are not going to care about the thieves' lives who tries to cause such a decline.

[Twoyboy]

Coyote and Soontir raise another point, how come we know so much about the background of the theft victim, and nothing of the shooting victim. For all we know he could have been turfed out onto the streets from an unhappy home and forced to live a life of crime to survive. Maybe he steals during the week and works children's charities on weekends.

Unlikely, I know, but I bet not many people who have cried at the plight of the trailer owner have even asked.

[Hillary]

the old man said that people have been coming onto his property and he couldn't afford a fence.

But he could afford a gun and live ammo.

[Kanastrous]

C'mon, be slightly reasonable. You can acquire a firearm and ammunition for a great deal less than the cost of fencing even a small property.

In the US, anyway.