What are the legal and illegal ways to intentionally kill another human being?

[wez]

The folks down in that area know all about white collar crime - ENRON

 

Welfare case slave masters wearing suits and ties... Hahahahahaha

 

 

It's funny because it's true.

 

 

And we worry about rotten 6 year olds smashing pumpkins.... We get what we deserve.

[RegisteredAndEducated]

So what about the white collar theives who do exponentially more damage in the terms of dollars and people affected? Firing squad for Martha Stewert?

 

Yes. Firing squad or hanging.

[Guest sheik-yerbouti]

So what about the white collar theives who do exponentially more damage in the terms of dollars and people affected? Firing squad for Martha Stewert?

 

White collar thieves dont tend to rape, torture and kill. Burglars do sometimes. Hero Joe was probably not 100% sure that his neighbour had gone out. The neighbour may have been getting a savage beating.

 

I would be happy to have a neighbour such as Hero Joe. A guy who knows what need to be done, and puts his friends and neighbours high on his totem pole.

 

Who the hell would want some lilly livered, hand wringing liberal arsehole for a neighbour ?

[timesjoke]

These men were married with children... probably desperate for money to support their families, that doesn't make their crime any less of an offense, but it doesn't indicate the pattern of people on drugs. I'm sure the autopsy will probably confirm this either way.

 

So people with kids cannot do drugs?

 

Ever hear of crack babies?

 

Drugged up or not, these were hardened criminals who had no problem breaking into someone's home and robbing them. Even the 911 operator told Joe that if he went out there he would get shot so clearly even the 911 operator thought it likely these criminals had guns.

 

No, that would be up to the police to do. The dispatcher indicated they were in the area... he could run all he wants... if they were in the area, the guy wasn't getting away. Considering the sound of officers voices just SECONDS (less then a minute) after the shots were fired could be heard. I would even speculate the old man saw the cops coming and fired anyway. If they were there THAT FAST after he had fired that first shot, your not gonna convince me that the second person would have gotten away had he not fired.

 

 

When Joe came back to the phone, he told the dispacher what he did, why do that if he saw cops comming?

 

Obviously he was acting under the belief that the criminals were going to get away if he did not act. Even the 911 dispacher assumed the robbers had guns so it was reasonable for Joe to believe he had a good chance of getting shot if he stopped them and that cause fear, fear he overcame to act in spite of his fear, as all heros do.

 

 

I believe Joe deserves a medal.

[ImWithStupid]

White collar thieves dont tend to rape, torture and kill. Burglars do sometimes. Hero Joe was probably not 100% sure that his neighbour had gone out. The neighbour may have been getting a savage beating.

 

Then why is he and his lawyer now saying that his neighbor asked him to keep an eye on his place while he was gone. A neighbor, that Mr. Horn said on the recording, he didn't really know them and didn't know if they were home.

 

I think I know why his lawyer is lying. Probably because one of the requirements to protect a third party property, under Texas law, is that you have been asked to by the third party.

 

? 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person

is justified in using force or deadly force against another to

protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,

under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the

actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force

or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

 

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection

of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third

person's land or property; or

© the third person whose land or property he

uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,

or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

 

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, ? 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.

Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, ? 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

 

Ooops.

[timesjoke]

Could there not be an implied request under a reasonable standard?

 

 

Let me give you a couple examples:

 

You are choking on some meat, you cannot breath, I notice your distress and must decide if I am to help you. Do I assume you would want me to assist you because of your evident need or do I mind my own buisness until you clearly say you want my help?

 

 

 

Your wife is getting raped, I see the attack and must decide if I am to assist her. Do I assume my assistance is desired and take action or do I mind my own business and let things happen as they happen because I am scared of being sued or charged with a crime?

 

 

 

Any reasonable neighbor would want you to keep an eye on their property and to assist with stopping robbers, not sit on your porch with a bag of popcorn watching the show.

[ImWithStupid]

Could there not be an implied request under a reasonable standard?

 

 

Let me give you a couple examples:

 

You are choking on some meat, you cannot breath, I notice your distress and must decide if I am to help you. Do I assume you would want me to assist you because of your evident need or do I mind my own buisness until you clearly say you want my help?

 

This is a situation to assist someone in distress, not someone's stuff in distress. If you ever see my tv choking on a piece of meat, feel free to ignore it.

 

Your wife is getting raped, I see the attack and must decide if I am to assist her. Do I assume my assistance is desired and take action or do I mind my own business and let things happen as they happen because I am scared of being sued or charged with a crime?

 

Under the self defense laws, where defense of others is applied, most allow you to do what you think the victim would be able to do themselves if possible.

 

Any reasonable neighbor would want you to keep an eye on their property and to assist with stopping robbers, not sit on your porch with a bag of popcorn watching the show.

 

In the Texas law, the word "requested" is in there. Self defense or good samaritan laws, render aid laws don't need that.

[Guest sheik-yerbouti]

Then why is he and his lawyer now saying that his neighbor asked him to keep an eye on his place while he was gone. A neighbor, that Mr. Horn said on the recording, he didn't really know them and didn't know if they were home.

 

Quite possibly because this story is unfolding, and more and more is coming out as we should expect.

 

Like Joe, it would not matter to me whether I knew the neighbours well or not. I would intervene to try and apprehend, or at worst frighten the burglars into flight.

 

I think I know why his lawyer is lying. Probably because one of the requirements to protect a third party property, under Texas law, is that you have been asked to by the third party.

 

You do not know that Joe's lawyer is lying. You choose to believe it because it supports your viewpoint.

 

I do not need to wait and be asked to keep an eye out for criminals by my neighbours. All good citizens are doing this already. What a silly law you mention.

[ImWithStupid]

You do not know that Joe's lawyer is lying. You choose to believe it because it supports your viewpoint.

 

I do not need to wait and be asked to keep an eye out for criminals by my neighbours. All good citizens are doing this already. What a silly law you mention.

 

His lawyer is saying that Joe was asked to watch the house while the neighbor was gone, in an attempt to comply with the requirements, under Texas law, for defense of third party property. On the recording Joe says that he doesn't know if his neighbor is home or not, and that he doesn't really know him. If he was asked to watch the property while the neighbor was gone, wouldn't he know if someone was home.

 

Sounds like a lawyer lying to me.

[timesjoke]

This is a situation to assist someone in distress, not someone's stuff in distress. If you ever see my tv choking on a piece of meat, feel free to ignore it.

 

It is the same thing, we are talking about when it is reasonable to assume that your assistance is wanted.

 

 

 

Under the self defense laws, where defense of others is applied, most allow you to do what you think the victim would be able to do themselves if possible.

 

Most women could not fend off an attacker like this and my example clearly shows that so again, if I saw your wife being raped, should I "assume" that my help is wanted and stop the attack or should I mind my own buisness and let things unfold as the criminal wants it to?

 

 

In the Texas law, the word "requested" is in there. Self defense or good samaritan laws, render aid laws don't need that.

 

I am clearly talking about when it is reasonable to assume your aid is requested by another person, nice dodge attempt but clearly you want to avoid that point.

 

 

Any "reasonable" person would want his neighbors to keep an eye out for his property.

 

 

I would think it would be difficult to convict anyone who was taking out trash like this but in Texas, it would ba a horrible waste of taxpayer money to try to take this case to court, a jury will not find him guilty.

 

 

 

But I must say, I am always astonished when I see people like you defend criminals, maybe that is why we have so many of them.

[ImWithStupid]

It is the same thing, we are talking about when it is reasonable to assume that your assistance is wanted.

 

No. One is saving a life, the other is taking a life to protect "stuff".

 

Most women could not fend off an attacker like this and my example clearly shows that so again, if I saw your wife being raped, should I "assume" that my help is wanted and stop the attack or should I mind my own buisness and let things unfold as the criminal wants it to?

 

That is what I said. My point is you would be justified to do to the attacker what the victim would be able to do. That is in most if not all, self defense/defense of other statutes in the US.

 

I am clearly talking about when it is reasonable to assume your aid is requested by another person, nice dodge attempt but clearly you want to avoid that point.

 

 

Any "reasonable" person would want his neighbors to keep an eye out for his property.

 

I wasn't dodging anything. I was saying that the law says, you have to be requested to protect the property by your neighbor. You can't just assume there is a request.

 

I would think it would be difficult to convict anyone who was taking out trash like this but in Texas, it would ba a horrible waste of taxpayer money to try to take this case to court, a jury will not find him guilty.

 

I'm not, nor have I ever said that I think this guy should be charged for a crime. I just said that when laws are put on the books, media reports that you can use lethal force to protect property, they use headlines like, "New Law Allows Lethal Force to Defend Property, then you get morons who don't read what is necessary in the article and think, hey I can shoot someone stealing a bike.

 

But I must say, I am always astonished when I see people like you defend criminals, maybe that is why we have so many of them.

 

I have never once defended these guys. In fact my very first post on the topic in the other thread, I said this.

 

I too think he did the world a favor, but I think he could be in trouble for his actions.

 

I never said I wanted him to get in trouble, nor did I say the guys were innocent people. I just think in this situation, he should have stayed in his home and let the police handle it.

 

My personal beliefs are that defending property (STUFF) is not worth taking a life. I personally know several people who have criminal pasts who have gone on to be very productive members of the community, who volunteer regularly, and have good jobs and families. They had committed some property crimes, including burglary, theft, and some drug crimes. One person that I'm talking about had even stolen my $2,500 stereo system from my vehicle. I never would have even thought of killing the person, even if I had caught them stealing it. Stuff is not worth killing for. (IMO)

[timesjoke]

No. One is saving a life, the other is taking a life to protect "stuff".

 

It is the same thing, you just refuse to admit it.

 

Let's consider someone who makes his living on his computer, the thieves steal his computer, his insurance has a 1,000 dollar deductable and he cannot afford to buy another computer and losses his job, his family loses their home and everything falls apart for him because some criminal was too lazy to go get a job.

 

Every action has a domino effect and one robber causes millions of dollars of damage and creats fear in the hearts for everyone. Think of the little girl that forever is scared to sleep after a bugler breaks into her home, you have no idea of the harm these kinds of scum cause.

 

 

That is what I said. My point is you would be justified to do to the attacker what the victim would be able to do. That is in most if not all, self defense/defense of other statutes in the US.

 

No, the person could not defend themselves, to assist her I must do more then she was able to do, but you still avoided the question, I asked you if you "wanted" me to assume my help was wanted, try answering that question.

 

I wasn't dodging anything. I was saying that the law says, you have to be requested to protect the property by your neighbor. You can't just assume there is a request.

 

You did dodge it and you still are, my question to you was based on the real world, not any law written in a book. I asked you if there was any time a person's request can be "assumed".

 

You have never answered that question, it is really a yes or no answer, I don;t know why you are fighting it so hard.

 

 

I'm not, nor have I ever said that I think this guy should be charged for a crime. I just said that when laws are put on the books, media reports that you can use lethal force to protect property, they use headlines like, "New Law Allows Lethal Force to Defend Property, then you get morons who don't read what is necessary in the article and think, hey I can shoot someone stealing a bike.

 

You imply that the robbers are victims, that is enough to show you support them over the guy who stopped "criminals".

 

 

I never said I wanted him to get in trouble, nor did I say the guys were innocent people. I just think in this situation, he should have stayed in his home and let the police handle it.

 

The police were not there at the time he acted.

 

In his mind the criminals were getting away, he took action.

 

The criminals were stopped for a change, did you know most home robberies go unsolved? That the criminals tend to get away with it?

 

My personal beliefs are that defending property (STUFF) is not worth taking a life. I personally know several people who have criminal pasts who have gone on to be very productive members of the community, who volunteer regularly, and have good jobs and families. They had committed some property crimes, including burglary, theft, and some drug crimes. One person that I'm talking about had even stolen my $2,500 stereo system from my vehicle. I never would have even thought of killing the person, even if I had caught them stealing it. Stuff is not worth killing for. (IMO)

 

A criminal can never make up for the crimes they do. One robbery will cost millions in a domino effect of increased insurance premiums, tax money spent on cops, jails, trials, etc...

 

I have no pitty for criminals, they are all scum and are just lazy. I do not think they should all be killed, but if they die committing a criminal act, I will never feel bad for them, they had a choice, the victims of their crimes had no choice.

 

 

You are defending criminals even if just a little, you don't want criminals to face the fruits of their actions, while I do.

 

 

Another old saying "You made your bed, now lay in it".

 

(In this case coffin)

[hugo]

They are now claiming that the neighbor was Hero Joe's Dad.

[phreakwars]

Here's another twist... the people he shot were hispanic... DID THEY EVEN SPEAK ENGLISH ?? Would they have been able to comprehend him telling them not to move or he would shoot?

.

.

[timesjoke]

Here's another twist... the people he shot were hispanic... DID THEY EVEN SPEAK ENGLISH ?? Would they have been able to comprehend him telling them not to move or he would shoot?

 

 

To be honest, who cares?

 

 

If they could not understand him saying it in english they would not understand english speaking police either.

 

If I go to Russia and get shot because I don't understand a Russian warning, who's fault is it for my lack of understanding?

[Guest sheik-yerbouti]

Here's another twist... the people he shot were hispanic... DID THEY EVEN SPEAK ENGLISH ?? Would they have been able to comprehend him telling them not to move or he would shoot?

.

.

 

Are you sure? I think I read that they were blacks

[ImWithStupid]

It is the same thing, you just refuse to admit it.

 

Let's consider someone who makes his living on his computer, the thieves steal his computer, his insurance has a 1,000 dollar deductable and he cannot afford to buy another computer and losses his job, his family loses their home and everything falls apart for him because some criminal was too lazy to go get a job.

 

And the bicycle messenger should shoot the guy, who steals his bike, and the bum should be able to stab the person who steals his bag of aluminum cans, and the dog walker should be able to kill anyone who tries to steal their leash. It could affect their livelihood.

 

Every action has a domino effect and one robber causes millions of dollars of damage and creates fear in the hearts for everyone. Think of the little girl that forever is scared to sleep after a burglar breaks into her home, you have no idea of the harm these kinds of scum cause.

 

You have no idea what I know of this. You presume that because I don't think that killing someone over stuff I don't know what it's like to be a victim.

 

No, the person could not defend themselves, to assist her I must do more then she was able to do, but you still avoided the question, I asked you if you "wanted" me to assume my help was wanted, try answering that question.

 

You again missed my point. Defense of others means you can do to the offender what the victim is LEGALLY allowed to do to defend themselves, in case they aren't able to and you are in a position to do so.

 

You did dodge it and you still are, my question to you was based on the real world, not any law written in a book. I asked you if there was any time a person's request can be "assumed".

 

You have never answered that question, it is really a yes or no answer, I don;t know why you are fighting it so hard.

 

My whole argument is that the guy may be in trouble for what he did. It doesn't matter if you assume it, the law says they have to "request" it.

 

 

You imply that the robbers are victims, that is enough to show you support them over the guy who stopped "criminals".

 

No, again you are assuming. I imply the guy could be in trouble, not that I want him in trouble or that I viewed the criminals were victims.

 

The police were not there at the time he acted.

 

You don't know that. He was back on the phone with the operator about 10 seconds after the 3rd shot. At that time the operator said that plain clothed cops were on the scene and he didn't want the guy to shoot them.

 

In his mind the criminals were getting away, he took action.

 

The criminals were stopped for a change, did you know most home robberies go unsolved? That the criminals tend to get away with it?

 

With stuff. Whoopee.

 

A criminal can never make up for the crimes they do. One robbery will cost millions in a domino effect of increased insurance premiums, tax money spent on cops, jails, trials, etc...

 

I guess I feel people can reform. Most don't but they can. I suppose we can chalk it up the my Christian beliefs.

 

I have no pitty for criminals, they are all scum and are just lazy. I do not think they should all be killed, but if they die committing a criminal act, I will never feel bad for them, they had a choice, the victims of their crimes had no choice.

 

You are defending criminals even if just a little, you don't want criminals to face the fruits of their actions, while I do.

 

I don't have pity for criminals, I just think the penalty should match the crime. A life for stuff isn't equal.

 

As for criminals facing the fruits of their actions, a judge can't give the death penalty for property crimes in a court of law, why should we allow it on the streets. This was Pasadena, TX 2007 not Dodge City, KS, 1885.

[Old Salt]

Are you sure? I think I read that they were blacks

I was thinking they were blacks, too.

[timesjoke]

And the bicycle messenger should shoot the guy, who steals his bike, and the bum should be able to stab the person who steals his bag of aluminum cans, and the dog walker should be able to kill anyone who tries to steal their leash. It could affect their livelihood.

 

Sure, why not?

 

Why is it you guys only feel bad for the criminals?

 

Victims of crimes like this are severely damaged, most of these criminals never get busted and if they are, they never pay any restitution to repay the victim back.

 

 

You have no idea what I know of this. You presume that because I don't think that killing someone over stuff I don't know what it's like to be a victim.

 

I do know you are justifying letting criminals get away if the alternative may kill them. You are saying it is okay for innocent people to pay billions of "extra" dollars every year for goods and services because of criminals because you feel that is better than killing them.

 

 

You again missed my point. Defense of others means you can do to the offender what the victim is LEGALLY allowed to do to defend themselves, in case they aren't able to and you are in a position to do so.

 

I know your point, but my point was that for me to take action, I must go further into violence to stop the attack, possibly even kill the attacker. My point as I have asked and you dodged several times now is should I "assume" that my actions are wanted "by her" and assist her or should I mind my own buisness.

 

Who cares about written laws, they can change from day to day but in reality, do you want a world where people assume their assistance is wanted to stop crime or do you want a world where people refuse to get involved because someone will disect their every action after the fact?

 

 

My whole argument is that the guy may be in trouble for what he did. It doesn't matter if you assume it, the law says they have to "request" it.

 

Plese,

 

Stop dodging the darn question, it is really very easy but you keep dodging it.

 

I asked you if it is ever reasonable to "assume" your help is wanted in life or do you want a world where you can never take action to help strangers?

 

No, again you are assuming. I imply the guy could be in trouble, not that I want him in trouble or that I viewed the criminals were victims.

 

You did try to support the criminals and condemn the hero, you might not have been excessive about it but you definately show support for letting criminals get away.

 

 

You don't know that. He was back on the phone with the operator about 10 seconds after the 3rd shot. At that time the operator said that plain clothed cops were on the scene and he didn't want the guy to shoot them.

 

I do know that, if cops were there, they would have most likely shot him because there would be no way for them to know if he was a burgler or anyone else, all they would have seen is one man shootimg two men, they would have acted, so clearly there were no cops on the scene.

 

With stuff. Whoopee.

 

Then why not give away all your stuff?

 

If you gave away all your income and items, maybe there would be no need for crimonals to steal from anyone else and being as you don't feel personal property has a value greater than a crimonals life, feel free to gove your items to save lives.

 

 

Or is it you just care about other people's stuff?

 

I guess I feel people can reform. Most don't but they can. I suppose we can chalk it up the my Christian beliefs.

 

Oh bull, I am a Christian also and being Christian does not mean you must ignore a person's nature or not take action to stop crime.

 

No amount of internal change can repay society for the harm done by just one robbery, much less the majority that never get busted.

 

 

I don't have pity for criminals, I just think the penalty should match the crime. A life for stuff isn't equal.

 

That depends on the situation. You are dying and need to get to a hospital, you go outside and your car was stolen, you die.

 

This is an extreme example but a theft can lead to many domino effects including a confrontation with homeowners. A guy willing to take that level of risk knows there is a chance someone can get killed during a home invasion so clearly, they have deadly intent.

 

 

As for criminals facing the fruits of their actions, a judge can't give the death penalty for property crimes in a court of law, why should we allow it on the streets. This was Pasadena, TX 2007 not Dodge City, KS, 1885.

 

Who knows more about the damage done to a community for a theft than those that live in the community?

 

You cannot argue against the deterrent factor.

 

Look around the world and see where the highest crime rates appear, in the Countries with the softest legal systems that treat the criminals like the victims.

 

 

Now look around at the places with the lowest crime rates, in the more hardcore criminal systems where criminals are given massive punnishments.

 

 

The FBI would call that a clue.

[ImWithStupid]

Sure, why not?

 

Why is it you guys only feel bad for the criminals?

 

Victims of crimes like this are severely damaged, most of these criminals never get busted and if they are, they never pay any restitution to repay the victim back.

 

 

 

 

I do know you are justifying letting criminals get away if the alternative may kill them. You are saying it is okay for innocent people to pay billions of "extra" dollars every year for goods and services because of criminals because you feel that is better than killing them.

 

 

 

 

I know your point, but my point was that for me to take action, I must go further into violence to stop the attack, possibly even kill the attacker. My point as I have asked and you dodged several times now is should I "assume" that my actions are wanted "by her" and assist her or should I mind my own buisness.

 

Who cares about written laws, they can change from day to day but in reality, do you want a world where people assume their assistance is wanted to stop crime or do you want a world where people refuse to get involved because someone will disect their every action after the fact?

 

 

 

 

Plese,

 

Stop dodging the darn question, it is really very easy but you keep dodging it.

 

I asked you if it is ever reasonable to "assume" your help is wanted in life or do you want a world where you can never take action to help strangers?

 

 

 

You did try to support the criminals and condemn the hero, you might not have been excessive about it but you definately show support for letting criminals get away.

 

 

 

 

I do know that, if cops were there, they would have most likely shot him because there would be no way for them to know if he was a burgler or anyone else, all they would have seen is one man shootimg two men, they would have acted, so clearly there were no cops on the scene.

 

 

 

Then why not give away all your stuff?

 

If you gave away all your income and items, maybe there would be no need for crimonals to steal from anyone else and being as you don't feel personal property has a value greater than a crimonals life, feel free to gove your items to save lives.

 

 

Or is it you just care about other people's stuff?

 

 

 

Oh bull, I am a Christian also and being Christian does not mean you must ignore a person's nature or not take action to stop crime.

 

No amount of internal change can repay society for the harm done by just one robbery, much less the majority that never get busted.

 

 

 

 

That depends on the situation. You are dying and need to get to a hospital, you go outside and your car was stolen, you die.

 

This is an extreme example but a theft can lead to many domino effects including a confrontation with homeowners. A guy willing to take that level of risk knows there is a chance someone can get killed during a home invasion so clearly, they have deadly intent.

 

 

 

 

Who knows more about the damage done to a community for a theft than those that live in the community?

 

You cannot argue against the deterrent factor.

 

Look around the world and see where the highest crime rates appear, in the Countries with the softest legal systems that treat the criminals like the victims.

 

 

Now look around at the places with the lowest crime rates, in the more hardcore criminal systems where criminals are given massive punnishments.

 

 

The FBI would call that a clue.

 

I definitely think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I am never going to waiver on my opinion that "Stuff isn't worth a life", and even thought I feel some of your "What if" situations are far fetched and we could what if all day long, back and forth, you aren't going to change your opinion. I respect your view, but don't agree with it.

[hugo]

They were black and hispanic. I am pretty certain they could both speak English.

[ImWithStupid]

They were black and hispanic. I am pretty certain they could both speak English.

 

Not anymore. but at least the tv is ok.

[RegisteredAndEducated]

Not anymore. but at least the tv is ok.

 

That's all that really matters.

[timesjoke]

I definitely think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I am never going to waiver on my opinion that "Stuff isn't worth a life", and even thought I feel some of your "What if" situations are far fetched and we could what if all day long, back and forth, you aren't going to change your opinion. I respect your view, but don't agree with it.

 

And I see you still dodged the question, how you can claim to not be siding with criminals when you can't even answer a simple question asked three times is beyond me.

 

 

 

I admit a couple of my examples were looking at the extreme side of things but it is very common to have a confrontation between robbers and victims, these situations are very dangerious and can lead to severe harm or death happening. These criminals know this and still do it so they obviously don;t care if they cause grevious harm, how do you deal with people so far gone to the criminal edge?

 

 

The only people with the choice to stop the domino effect is the criminals, everyone else is simply "reacting" to what the criminal does, how do we stop criminals from being criminals in your let them get away with everything world?

 

 

Again, why not flood society with your stuff being as you don't care about the things you worked hard for and maybe that will make all criminals happy and they stop stealing from the rest of us who do care about our belongings.

 

 

Not anymore. but at least the tv is ok.

 

As it should be, why should the TV be harmed just to protect criminals?

 

Criminals have a choice to not be criminals, the TV had no choice.

[ImWithStupid]

And I see you still dodged the question, how you can claim to not be siding with criminals when you can't even answer a simple question asked three times is beyond me.

 

 

 

I admit a couple of my examples were looking at the extreme side of things but it is very common to have a confrontation between robbers and victims, these situations are very dangerious and can lead to severe harm or death happening. These criminals know this and still do it so they obviously don;t care if they cause grevious harm, how do you deal with people so far gone to the criminal edge?

 

 

The only people with the choice to stop the domino effect is the criminals, everyone else is simply "reacting" to what the criminal does, how do we stop criminals from being criminals in your let them get away with everything world?

 

 

Again, why not flood society with your stuff being as you don't care about the things you worked hard for and maybe that will make all criminals happy and they stop stealing from the rest of us who do care about our belongings.

 

As it should be, why should the TV be harmed just to protect criminals?

 

Criminals have a choice to not be criminals, the TV had no choice.

 

I have come to realize that you have trouble understanding when a question is answered, so I am only going to do this one last time.

 

There is a huge, huge, gigantic, enormous difference in the defense of someone being beaten, raped, or murdered and someone's tv, dvd player, or stereo being stolen.

 

It is safe to assume that the average person might risk safety of themselves or others to assist someONE being assaulted, raped or murdered. It is not safe to assume that someone should risk safety of themselves or others to assist someTHING from being stolen.

 

Things don't get hurt physically or psychologically, nor can they die. Things can always be replaced. Your analogies of what ifs are ridiculous to say the least. I could easily counter with what if the guy you killed for stealing a cart of cans was going to stab the guy who was about to mug and murder me, a law abiding citizen, the next day but since you killed the can theif, I was murdered for my watch or tennis shoes. We can what if all day long. I could counter any what if you come up with but it is far fetched and ridiculous.

 

If you are so concerned with crime that effects monetary things like theft and insurance problems, you are definitely targeting those feelings to the wrong place if you are focusing on the street level theft. The biggest effects on economic cost redirection are medical and property claims that are fraudulent or employee theft at department stores and retailers, credit card theft, identity theft, not to mention the huge white collar crime. If you really want to effect the redirected costs to the average person, then you need to shoot those who commit white collar crimes. The street level person is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of cost commited by these other criminals.

 

As for my STUFF, I assure you that I don't have that much stuff. I don't even carry rental insurance, as I am divorced and my money goes to support my exwife who doesn't work, goes to school, lives in a better place then I do and drives better cars (plural) then I do.

 

So come take the little crap I have. I doubt I'd miss it.