Will it come down to this, you shoplift, we shoot

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Or maybe the people got tired of watching elected officials blatantly and openly break laws to line their pockets with taxpayer money and get away with it they decided that they should be able to just ignore the laws also.
This fish is rotting from the head down.

a reply to: TheRedneck

There is a big difference between theft and a threat to ones family.

I think anyone would defend their family.

But someone running off in the opposite direction to you with some wire is not a threat and does not deserve the death penalty.

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
Depends if you equate some electrical wire to be worth more than a human life and the lives of the people in their families.

I know alot of of americans put no value on human life.

Nothing personal, but, I'm getting sick and tired of the person who is trying to protect their property being accused of not valuing human life. You have that exactly wrong.

The person who is stealing apparently has no value on THEIR life. How about we get it right?

Companies like Lowes put their fear of a lawsuit above their employee's lives. This keeps going on and the criminals will keep getting bolder.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
To me, theft is probably more infuriating than murder (almost). Straight up.

But let's be smart here, people! The use of deadly force against someone who does not pose an imminent threat of grave bodily harm and/or death to one's self or others in the immediate vicinity is a federal crime.

In my opinion that needs to change.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Echo007
Shooting someone for petty thief is too extreme.

Ummm... no, allowing people to loot and pillage without consequence is what is too extreme.

Like the history of white supremacy looting, stealing and murdering?

How about who cares about Lowes....their net worth is $140 billion and change...

a reply to: Vroomfondel

And that is where we went wrong in this country. We started ignoring the smaller crimes in favor of the bigger ones. Some of us knew that letting people get away with the little crimes only makes them bolder and eventually they will move on to bigger crimes.

Exactly right!

That's likely also why we have such a large percentage of the population locked up compared to other countries. Our approach to crime has become less proactive and more reactive; we ignore criminal behavior until it is well past the point of being correctable, then we simply lock someone away. It would have been very easy to nip that beavior in the bud ten years earlier, but we didn't.

It's also why our schools underperform so badly. Little Johnny couldn't get a swat on the butt when he was in first grade, because that was child abuse! Now he's taking swings at teachers, beating up other students, dealing drugs, and in general keeping everyone else from learning anything, and now the only way to stop him is to lock him up... but he's still a minor, so we can't really do that either, can we? Well, not until he kills or maims someone, then we can lock him away in a cell until his little brother Jerry comes along the same life path and needs the cell, then we have to let Johnny out.

We have now created multiple generations of criminals, and still we have bleeding hearts begging for more of the same. Sometimes too little discipline is also too little love.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JIMC5499
Hmm.. must feel similar to how I feel when the lawmakers write laws that fail to provide adequate protection regarding the life and physical well being of the mother and people claim that I am supporting murder if I try to defend the mother's right to the most precious possession we have, our own bodies.

a reply to: musicismagic

We generally...do not...shoot shoplifters...your life is not endangered.

Licensed Concealed Carry
1975-2021 currently

There is an easier solution that does not involve as much loss of life. An armed guard at the door. Their job is to ask nicely if they would please stop stealing. When they proceed to the parking lot and start loading up the stolen goods, the guard is to shoot the radiator and engine of the vehicle. This renders the law breakers unable to get away with the stolen goods, costs them more than the goods are worth and renders them unable to go other places to attempt it again. If they then attempt to attack the guard, they then get shot if necessary.

It is very hard to steal large items using public transport.

a reply to: musicismagic

employees at many chain stores aren’t allowed to stop shoplifters

in Oregon, many jails aren’t taking offenders such as shoplifters

Many of the states and cities are doing nothing against shoplifters. And there is also no threat of jail time. That's the real problem here. And I am sure an employee or store own who shoots a thief will be the one to stand trial in most states.

When is that rally planned in washington anyways.
You know the one that all the radical right wing folks are planning on converging on dc to protest the treatment of those poor "patriots" that stormed the capitol, breaking windows, smearing faces, and beating the heck out of the police, as they tried to help trump steal an election he lost??

originally posted by: game over man
How about who cares about Lowes....their net worth is $140 billion and change...

So that makes theft right? Get real.

As far as who cares, how about the employees of that Lowes? What happens when the cost of theft is too much and the store is shut down costing them their jobs. How about the customers? Ever take a business class. How about "All costs are borne by the consumer"?

a reply to: JIMC5499

Perhaps you're right. However, before that can change something else, which I would absolutely LOVE to see be addressed by the courts, needs to be changed. The courts have danced around this issue for decades, and sooner or later somebody is going to have to do this. And what is it? There needs to be a numerical dollar value placed on a human life.

This one simple thing would absolutely revolutionize so many of these discussions it's unbelievable (i.e. self defense and defense of property, healthcare, damage and injury lawsuit awards, etc., etc. etc. ad nauseum). There is an absolutely massive, colossal, double standard here. The system will break without it.

Example:
a.) Someone should die for stealing a shopping cart of $2,000 worth of stuff.

b.) Someone should get $ 50 bazillion dollars in a wrongful death suit.

So what is it, $2,000 dollars, or $50 bazillion? It can't be both. What is a human life worth?

a reply to: dawnstar

Not getting involver in that one. You would be surprised at my views, but I don't care to air them here. Nothing against your statement.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Up until about 30 years ago, deadly force was allowed to protect "lives and property". As far as the "value of a human life" is concerned, never going to happen as long as we have trial lawyers.

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

There is a big difference between theft and a threat to ones family.

No, sir, there is not.

But someone running off in the opposite direction to you with some wire is not a threat and does not deserve the death penalty.

I agree, but we're not talking about the death penalty here. That's a confusion of the facts. The death penalty is a legal action undertaken when one is so corrupted and so out of control that the only way to protect society is to kill them. We're discussing a confrontation, instigated not by the store owner but by the thief.

An environmental activist who simply wants to pet the pretty cougar isn't deserving of the death penalty either. But that environmental activist still caused the confrontation that will likely land them inside the cougar's belly. That's how confrontations work. The consequences can be more severe than what we expect from legal proceedings. An intelligent person will avoid confrontations that can have unpleasant consequences, not instigate them and then cry that it's so unfair. An intelligent adult will teach the young to avoid such confrontations.

An unenforced law is also actually worse than no law at all. The criminal who gets away with stealing a buggy full of wire (which, I might add, amounts to several thousand dollars and is being stolen to sell, not because they need that wire to live) will soon decide that stealing is easier than commerce. Then, since they are already a thief, it's only a matter of time before they graduate to taking whatever it is they want... including lives. After all, they violated the law before and there were no consequences; why would there be consequences for breaking other laws?

You are advocating a lawless society of might makes right. I don't think that is your intention, but that environmentalist I mentioned didn't intent to be cat chow either.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: game over man
Like the history of white supremacy looting, stealing and murdering?

No clue what your clueless CRT brain is yammering about there...

How about who cares about Lowes....their net worth is $140 billion and change...

Yes, lack of respect for private property laws because... they're rich! - is a typical commie/socialist/fascist ploy.

No thanks.

a reply to: dawnstar

That's proven complete BS, by your own liberal courts!

Plus, you are completely off-topic! What does your statement even remotely have to do with the OP?

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: game over man
How about who cares about Lowes....their net worth is $140 billion and change...

So that makes theft right? Get real.

As far as who cares, how about the employees of that Lowes? What happens when the cost of theft is too much and the store is shut down costing them their jobs. How about the customers? Ever take a business class. How about "All costs are borne by the consumer"?

I said who cares!!!!! I did not stay stealing is good. Are you the one who wants to murder shop lifters in the name of defending Lowes 140 billion net worth?

a reply to: JIMC5499

"Personal Property", not commercial property. And, in many states, that right has been given back (i.e. you can legally use deadly force to defend personal property).