Great job correcting the record, I couldn't believe so many people believed that people should be able to defend their home from criminals! This really was the best way to deal with people that disagree with a moderator's opinion
There is a good amount of people who disagree with defending property with deadly force. To them I always like to say it was the criminal who decided their life was worth less than what was in that house. Not the property owner.
why wouldn't it? having a gun around increases the chance of someone dying even if that person is himself. or someone else that lives with the gunowner.
No it increases the chance of dying from a gun almost entirely because of suicide by gun but people will commit suicide using other methods if they don't have a gun
Regardless there's an obvious distinction between suicides, accidental, and homicide gun deaths and conflating them so you get a positive correlation is dishonest, if guns are correlated with suicide then just show that graph and argue from that position, don't lump them all together so you can argue guns are correlated with "gun deaths"
little Billy is a lot more likely to actually kill himself if he has access to a gun. otherwise he'll just do some dumbass method like slitting his wrists and will just end up with a few scars
"gun deaths" is pretty general. I don't see why suicide wouldnt fall under there by default
I know the gun deaths category is general, in fact I was saying it's too general. I'm saying it's dishonest use the positive correlation between guns and gun deaths to argue against guns because that correlation is almost entirely due to suicides. If you're arguing against guns then just use the correlation between guns and suicides. The use of "gun deaths" is interpreted very differently because people assume that homicides and accidental deaths are a significant part of it.
I still think the increased risk of a suicide would be an argument against, however I agree that most people tend to think homicide when they hear a stat like that and have a different emotional response
Suicide rates are just as high for places without guns or easy reach of guns like Japan, the UK etc. People just find other methods. NOT using a gun to kill yourself if you had one and wanted too is pretty stupid.
If gun= sucide the US should have a much higher suicide rate, but we don't.
In some states, inserting yourself into the zone of danger defeats the the self-defense defense. Entering a home so that you can defend it with deadly force is (in saner jurisdictions) a contradiction -- the castle doctrine only means that you can't be expected to retreat from your home. If you're not already in the home, that logic doesn't work.
Texas, and maybe one or two other places, specifically allows defense of property with deadly force. That's fine if that's how Texans want to live. It wont affect me because I'll never live there.
many people do not think theft is a crime punishable by death. shit, even the more intense islamic systems only cut off your hand. you want to be more draconic than shariah law?
you're right, delegating the roles of judge, jury, and executioner to any jackass with a firearm who thinks the shoes you're carrying look like his is so much better. excellent ideas, tenouttaten, you should def be a legislator
That's not what I'm advocating, if someone murders someone that isn't stealing from them then you charge them with murder same as anyone else, I'm saying that people have the right to defend their property with deadly force, you want to imprison this woman for shooting a burglar that had probably robbed her house before? You're the unjust one bro
you either let some people get robbed without murderous recourse or you let anyone who is concerned for their property blast people away. i guess both suck man or wait no one of those is way more stupider than the other
You're acting like I'm saying people should be allowed to shoot anyone with no discretion, I'm not, I'm saying people should be allowed to defend their property from burglars, if someone exercises poor judgement and shoots an innocent person the they should be charged
but murdering someone who is stealing from you is ok... cuz they're a thief... good to know next time my sister takes my sweater i can stab her repeatedly
You should be able to shoot a burglar that breaks into your home and steals stuff. You'd be okay just watching someone make off with your stuff when you have a gun in the glove box, and you know that the police won't do shit to get your stuff back? I don't understand why you guys have no empathy for the person being burglarized and so much for the burglar. What other recourse does the person getting robbed have?
Obviously none of this applies to house guest or house mates so don't stab your sister
You'd be okay just watching someone make off with your stuff when you have a gun in the glove box, and you know that the police won't do shit to get your stuff back?
Yes because a) I'm a lot more fucking likely to die if I intervene and b) my things can be replaced.
What other recourse does the person getting robbed have?
The police, and locks. You know, like in civilized society.
if someone stole my car that would suck and be a massive, huge, ginormous pain in the ass and set me back thousands of dollars. that would suck if someone got robbed. but that doesn't give them the right to literally kill someone. stuff is stuff and can be replaced ultimately. i'm not sure if you know what "death"is or what "killing someone" entails but it means that person is no longer alive and never will be ever again, just so we're clear.
delegating the roles of judge, jury, and executioner to any jackass with a firearm who thinks the shoes you're carrying look like his is so much better.
If you're illegally in his house in the middle of the night while carrying said shoes, he's probably right.
I really like this too, the way it utilizes a certain fallacy that most people are not aware of in their thinking to cause a targeted clash in core values (rape is the worst! guns are the worst!) for immense butthurt.
The thing is, Rie, that we have two completely different standards for what's acceptable to prevent a crime and what's acceptable to punish a crime. And we are right in this, obviously.
And the next time you try to win an argument about what's morally allowable to prevent a crime by appealing to things we consider morally allowable as punishments, I want you to remember this meme picture.
Rape hasn't been discussed until you brought it up.
No one has asserted any anti-gun claims. I'm not an owner and never intend to own one, but I'm not against gun ownership.
We are specifically talking about a person who is in a position of safety making a conscious decision to enter an unsafe area, and then using a rule that allows her to kill another human being.
I have said a) outside of Texas, this could very well be murder because the self-defense doctrine (even castle doctrine) do not apply. I have said I"m OK with Texas having the laws it has.
I have said that I do not believe deadly force is justified to defend property.
You are intentionally using an inflammatory idea (that I don't even disagree with, which is just fucking baffling) to attack a straw man that hasn't been presented -- even by implication -- in this thread.
that's a good point. i had never considered how i would never approve of capital punishment for a rapist, but a rapist getting murdered to prevent the act is more acceptable to me. i mean, i'd prefer nonlethal force but obviously it's more palatable than just allowing the rape. highly relatable to what i was saying here. i was mostly memeing about the comparison to shariah and what not, but i think you have a great point.
Because no amount of property is worth a human life. You can get new stuff. Hey, you do you. I don't oppose reasonable application of SYG or castle doctrine where appropriate, and I'm not bleeding for the dead burglar.
But entering a dangerous situation for the purpose of applying the self defense doctrine is not something that the law or our culture should encourage or defend. You don't get to create the circumstances that you will later claim justified the taking of life.
I'm not advocating just self defense but property defense, if they have invaded your home and are making off with your shit you have the right to shoot them without the state imprisoning you. There's more to it than just trading property for life, shooting a criminal who has violated your right to security and property is justified, and the shooter doesn't create the situation, that's victim blaming, the burglar does. If the burglar never stole than there would be no situation, thus the burglar created the situation.
I'm not advocating just self defense but property defense
Yes, we know. That's exactly what the previous guy was talking about ffs.
There's a big difference between some black woman living in the inner city for whom this kind of shit is likely a weekly occurrence, and some suburban white-bread Barney Fife type with a concealed carry license who has just a small enough dick that they feel like less of a man if they don't shoot the burglar making off with their television.
But this is all meaningless because people who rob suburbs don't do so while the goddamn residents are home. The shit you see in that video is some crackhead type shit. That burglar is a desperate motherfucker looking for his fix. If you don't live in a shitty urban ghetto, then you won't ever encounter a home burglar. If you do actually manage to fuck yourself into a situation in which you're facing a burglar, then you
On top of all of this, if you shoot a person in the back as they're running off with your shit, then you are a murderer. If you feel the need to kill someone over some cheap shit from Asia while you are not in immediate danger, then that's not self-defense, that's murder.
Seriously, I don't understand what the fuck is wrong with people like you. I say this as a CCL holder living in Texas.
You want to put a woman in jail for defending her property from a burglar.
When did I ever say I thought she should go to jail?
If burglars don't want to get shot then don't burgle it's that simple
If you had bothered reading my response then you'd see that my point was about context, which weighs heavily on how a court determines these kinds of situations.
I'm not surprised you're also the kind of person who just blindly regurgitates their original point when they can't produce a coherent response.
When did I ever say I thought she should go to jail?
You said what she did should be illegal, and I know you were arguing about context I'm saying in the context of someone shooting a burglar to defend their property that they shouldn't be imprisoned, in the context of someone exercising poor judgement and shooting an innocent person I feel they should be charged.
I didn't realize she had shot him while he fled when I first posted that.
And I know you were arguing about context I'm saying in the context of someone shooting a burglar to defend their property that they shouldn't be imprisoned, in the context of someone exercising poor judgement and shooting an innocent person I feel they should be charged.
That's not context. That's the opposite of context. You've stripped the entire situation of context and reduced it to a laughably simplistic dichotomy.
You're the one ignoring context she lived in a poor neighborhood so the police response times would have been shit, she'd been burgled before, poor people don't insure their stuff for burglary, and having something like a laptop or car stolen can be a catastrophe for poor people, they have the right to defend their stuff
Come on, man. This is straight from the comment I posted not 20 minutes ago:
There's a big difference between some black woman living in the inner city for whom this kind of shit is likely a weekly occurrence, and some suburban white-bread Barney Fife type with a concealed carry license who has just a small enough dick that they feel like less of a man if they don't shoot the burglar making off with their television.
What you are in effect doing by punishing the people that protect their property from criminals is protecting the criminals because you know and the criminals know that as long as they do their deeds while the owners aren't home and they don't target connected/rich houses then they will probably never be caught by police and in the off chance they're caught by a homeowner they can simply run away with the knowledge that they are protected by the law
the criminals know that as long as they do their deeds while the owners aren't home and they don't target connected/rich houses then they will probably never be caught by police
Let me give you some more advice: these guys are the kinds of criminals that are most likely to get caught because they're stupid/high/shortsighted enough to rob a house while someone's still inside it.
they can simply run away with the knowledge that they are protected by the law
Well, except for the fact that they'll be thrown in prison for burglary.
I doubt you'll listen, but I would highly recommend you take a look at No Nonsense Self Defense because you seem like the kind of person who needs a dose of reality. The site looks like a shitty Geocities page from the late 90s but its actually full of very insightful material about the nature of criminality and civilian violence. The Criminal Mindset page describes what I have been talking about in terms of the kind of criminal that conducts burglaries like the guy in the submitted thread who got shot.
they're stupid/high/shortsighted enough to rob a house while someone's still inside it
We weren't talking about people that rob a house that still has someone inside it! The resident in that case is absolutely allowed to shoot the intruder then.
I said that if burglars rob poor houses with no one home they will likely not be caught by the police and if the owner happens to come home during their robbery then they can safely flee if you impose a law against owners protecting their property, this makes burglary a relatively safe prospect which is not something society should do.
And I'm reiterating my points because you're the one talking past me, you brought up some completely different case of a burglar entering an occupied home and then you referenced some self defense/criminology course which is barely relavent
Stealing was a death sentence for numerous reasons, but to say it was only because the victims could die that it was enforced is ludicrous. It was enforced to enforce the rules and create a deterrent to potential thieves. Due to the belief in deities it just meant a quicker route to hell, a just punishment.
Redemption and the protection of criminals is a modern and liberal/christian thing.
but to say it was only because the victims could die that it was enforced is ludicrous
It was enforced because it was the law. It was decided that death would be the consequence because of the severity of the crime's effects on the victim. A death sentence is only one of many choices when it comes to criminal consequences, all of which act as deterrents, although to lesser extents.
suburban white-bred Barney Fife type
Any criminal stealing from one of those would also be a suburban white-bread Barney Fife type. I don't see the problem here. Irregardless I don't fair well to your generalisation of hicks.
As for poor areas, having lived in a poor black one for an extended period of time, defence of self and property is pretty much a neccesity since the police are useless. And I really mean useless. They're a deterrent, they can't actively protect you or your property. If you lack the physical means to do so, a gun is an adequate power and range multiplier.
My property is worth more to Mr than another burglar statistic, Sue me.
Any criminal stealing from one of those would also be a suburban white-bread Barney Fife type.
They might be white, but they certainly would not be the same, by any means.
As for poor areas, having lived in a poor black one for an extended period of time, defence of self and property is pretty much a neccesity since the police are useless. And I really mean useless. They're a deterrent, they can't actively protect you or your property. If you lack the physical means to do so, a gun is an adequate power and range multiplier.
Would you shoot a fleeing man in the back? That's a bit different then waking up to find someone in your house and shooting them on sight.
My property is worth more to me than another burglar statistic, sue me.
Then that's between you, the courts, and your conscience.
OK. I don't agree one tiny little bit, but that's the law in TX so I'm not going to get all uptight about it.
That "this is victim blaming" canard fails for the same reason it always does. It is possible that both people were acting in a criminally stupid manner at the same time.
The law should not encourage or allow a person to insert themselves into a dangerous situation and then claim necessity or defense of property when their actions result in the loss of life. That's my opinion anyway. I know it's not universal, am not accusing anyone of being wrong or immoral. I get it. I just don't agree.
In the end situations which end in an actually firearm being used on someone are so rare that it's nearly impossible to prepare mentally for it. I live in TX and own a firearm and know when and when I cannot use it. That said would I use it outside of having to defend my life? Possibly no, possibly yes. It's impossible to determine until it happens, but I'm glad the laws are the way they are.
I couldn't imagine having to go to trial over shooting someone for breaking into your home due to a "duty to retreat." Since if that happened to me I would definitely shoot them since I'm not caring about the law but personal protection.
For a number of unrelated reasons, I always have insurance (renter's or homeowner's).
I'll get my shit back, or get reimbursed for it. I want the person to not steal from me, but I'm not willing to kill to stop it. Even if I had a gun, I'd leave the house if that opportunity presented itself, and call the police from the next block over.
A couple things that might play different: I have no kids (have a wife, but she feels the way I do). Plus, in the last 15 years I've moved an average of just under once a year. I don't get attached to things or places, I guess. I understand that other people do, and I'm not trying to be critical of that. Just trying to explain why I have no fucks to give if you really want my xbox, computer, shitty stainless steel flatware. Fake gold cufflinks, etc.
The only qualifier to this is (having grown & spent most of my life within 15 miles of a major fault line) in an earthquake or other disaster, abandoning your home might be fatal. That's the only time I could see myself giving a shit about the castle doctrine.
I wouldn't get so damn aggravated over this topic if people just treated it with the same gravity as you and the other guy did. It's the cavalier and certain attitude that people on the internet adopt about using a gun in a home invasion situation (which, like you noted, is exceedingly rare) that pisses me off.
In the common case where the police are unlikely to catch the criminal much less return what the burglar stole, what recourse do you have? Do you expect people to simply let the burglars freely take their stuff? Is that moral? Why do you sympathize so much with these burglars rather than those whose stuff is being stolen? Suppose a poor friend had a laptop that he'd saved for two months to purchase and it was important to his livelihood would you think less of him for shooting a burglar that was making off with it?
Solemn contemplation about the injustice you have endured.
Do you expect people to simply let the burglars freely take their stuff? Is that moral?
Yes, and yes again, at least from the point of view of the burgled. Even Jesus said so, though he's not my bag.
Suppose a poor friend had a laptop that he'd saved for two months to purchase and it was important to his livelihood would you think less of him for shooting a burglar that was making off with it?
Would I think less of someone who valued his fucking laptop worth a couple hundred over the life of a human being? Fuck yes, and I would think a lot less of anyone who thought differently.
Yes that is absolutely important, the right to property is a cornerstone of society and we shouldn't have laws that allow burglar's to to safely violate that
It's not just about the Xbox it's about the principle and society, if a burglar is free to rob you once chances are they'll do it again later which is what happened in the linked thread, people have the right to defend their property without being imprisoned or called a psychopath, if burglar's don't want to get shot then they shouldn't steal stuff. With the laws you're advocating for burglars would be able to rob people with impunity because in many places the police are useless. Is that just?
That's why we have crime scene investigation. You sound like you just really wanna shoot someone, I would think you would feel solidarity with criminals considering you're all insane. It's not that hard to murder someone you know, you don't have to wait for a burglar to give you a "legal" opportunity.
lol, crime scene investigation, do you think they'll dust for prints!? This is what happens if you're lucky, the police will ask you if you know who stole from you, you'll say no and then nothing will happen. Gosh liberals certainly have a lot of faith in police when it suits they're agenda!
On the other hand, one could argue that civilians should be better than criminals. Which would involve not killing people in cold blood because they're running away with your stuff.
when you expect better behaviour you generally reward it or punish the opposite
Yes but not here because people have the right to protect their property, I declare it a right because I think it is, sorry, any law you make prohibiting/punishing someone that's protecting their property from burglars is now infringing that right
I hope to be in the "phoon" position when I get chalked. My friends will post it on facebook! Win-win!
(I really don't understand why people get offended by me not being eager to go all yosemite sam the first chance I get to legally slaughter another human being. I sleep at night, unarmed, with no fear that this is ever going to happen. And the odds are in my favor that this will always be a successful strategy.)
Because no amount of property is worth a human life.
Some human life is worth very little. Also, property isn't just stuff. It represents time spent earning money to pay for it. Time that you will never get back.
Are you suggesting that women are property? While I have a hard time believing the Brady campaign actually created this, rape isn't relevant to the discussion we're having.
I would never expect a woman not to shoot someone attempting to rape her.
I think that it's pretty obvious that they are not, if we are discussing it in the framework where the rape has already happened and we are thinking about the punishment, for example.
But there are other frameworks, like when you can take the life of a rapist to prevent rape. Then it sounds hella more justified. Because yeah, while 30 seconds or even an hour of suffering is not equal to taking a human life in abstract, shooting a person intending to inflict that on you seems reasonable.
Same with property, I think. Someone stole a bunch of your stuff -- OK, that happened, you don't find and kill them and if the police finds them they aren't executed, that would be unjustified.
But if they are in the process of stealing your shit, I think that you're way more justified in shooting them dead to prevent the crime from happening.
Also, "any amount", really? What if it's an amount sufficient to save some little girl from cancer?
I'm OK if you disagree, as long as you understand my argument. This is complicated stuff and I for one don't have the right answer. It would be nice if you admitted that you don't have the right answer either, so what's worth what in particular is just, like, your opinion.
You are trivializing the reason why rape is a heinous crime by fatuously equating it to the loss of labor time expended to create the money to purchase stuff.
And no, I'm not wavering from "no property is worth a human life", so it doesn't matter if they're in the process of stealing it or baking cookies.
I'm not talking about a person inside my house who may do me harm if I don't act. The situation in the OP is that a woman inserted herself into a dangerous situation. You keep ignoring this and searching for yet more fatuous straw arguments
In another comment, another poster said it was justified to kill someone fleeing with your property. Likewise, with no life at stake, the property itself isn't enough.
to save a little girl from cancer
Jeesus fucking christ already. Still searching for straws. This is also not relevant to the discussion at hand. This isn't a comparative ethics class. "Hey, I'll give you a million dollars worth of things you can sell to give that little girl the surgery she needs, if you klill that guy over there who is no threat to you." JFC.
feels good knowing gun control fags are fighting a losing battle
anyone that would put the safety of their life or their shit solely in the hands of their local government is either a privileged whitey or just a retard
Fine, that's a fine decision to make for yourself, but I'm absolutely not okay with society imprisoning someone for defending their property from burglars, people have the right to defend their property and the government should not infringe it
If someone trespasses on to your lawn and steals a garden gnome, would that warrant a bullet to the back?
If it's about the breaking and entering thing if some kid hit a baseball through your window and broke in trying to get it back, does that kid deserve to die?
Not being allowed to shoot people who steal TVs isn't legalizing burglary, it's just about keeping responses proportionate to the crime.
Shoplifting is illegal. How outrageous would it be if stores were allowed to blast anyone caught stealing? The "if they didn't want to die they shouldn't have done it" defense would look retarded.
145 comments
n/a SnapshillBot 2017-01-08
I can take a 9-inch dildo up my butt, because I'm an adult and I solve my own problems
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
u/doug3465 u/DrJulianBashir u/relic2279
Great job correcting the record, I couldn't believe so many people believed that people should be able to defend their home from criminals! This really was the best way to deal with people that disagree with a moderator's opinion
n/a polddit 2017-01-08
Every. Single. Time.
n/a Deutschbag_ 2017-01-08
One might even say, he didn't do anything.
n/a 80BAIT08 2017-01-08
HE WENT CHURCH
n/a Dial_A_Dragon 2017-01-08
IT WAS A BOOK
n/a friendly_neonazi 2017-01-08
Black accountability is rarer than hen's teeth.
n/a headasplodes 2017-01-08
Why are gunfags so retarded?
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
Deterrence, people need to know they're likely to get shot if they invade a gun owners home
n/a satanismyhomeboy 2017-01-08
Or live in one
n/a bytewake 2017-01-08
this thrill just makes you feel so alive
until you're not
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
That's a myth unless you include suicide
n/a bytewake 2017-01-08
tbh I think that's a fair inclusion
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
why?
n/a bytewake 2017-01-08
why wouldn't it? having a gun around increases the chance of someone dying even if that person is himself. or someone else that lives with the gunowner.
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
No it increases the chance of dying from a gun almost entirely because of suicide by gun but people will commit suicide using other methods if they don't have a gun
n/a bytewake 2017-01-08
not nearly as likely:
http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/statistics-most-lethal-methods
they're more likely to try some ineffective method and survive and get help/be hospitalized
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
It's the best method in terms of agony at least
Regardless there's an obvious distinction between suicides, accidental, and homicide gun deaths and conflating them so you get a positive correlation is dishonest, if guns are correlated with suicide then just show that graph and argue from that position, don't lump them all together so you can argue guns are correlated with "gun deaths"
n/a bytewake 2017-01-08
little Billy is a lot more likely to actually kill himself if he has access to a gun. otherwise he'll just do some dumbass method like slitting his wrists and will just end up with a few scars
"gun deaths" is pretty general. I don't see why suicide wouldnt fall under there by default
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
I know the gun deaths category is general, in fact I was saying it's too general. I'm saying it's dishonest use the positive correlation between guns and gun deaths to argue against guns because that correlation is almost entirely due to suicides. If you're arguing against guns then just use the correlation between guns and suicides. The use of "gun deaths" is interpreted very differently because people assume that homicides and accidental deaths are a significant part of it.
n/a bytewake 2017-01-08
I still think the increased risk of a suicide would be an argument against, however I agree that most people tend to think homicide when they hear a stat like that and have a different emotional response
n/a omg_cow 2017-01-08
Ban tall bridges, they give a higher chance of eventual suicide than pills.
n/a squarefaces 2017-01-08
You know you're thirteen when you make the "because we can't prevent some dangers we shouldn't prevent any of them" arguement.
n/a omg_cow 2017-01-08
I think I'll let people choose what dangers they want to be around, thanks though.
I'm 5 btw, you're thinking a bit high.
n/a Chicup 2017-01-08
Suicide rates are just as high for places without guns or easy reach of guns like Japan, the UK etc. People just find other methods. NOT using a gun to kill yourself if you had one and wanted too is pretty stupid.
If gun= sucide the US should have a much higher suicide rate, but we don't.
n/a shitsfuckedupalot 2017-01-08
Some people just like killin'
n/a UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-01-08
Thug life...oh, wait...
n/a taterbizkit 2017-01-08
In some states, inserting yourself into the zone of danger defeats the the self-defense defense. Entering a home so that you can defend it with deadly force is (in saner jurisdictions) a contradiction -- the castle doctrine only means that you can't be expected to retreat from your home. If you're not already in the home, that logic doesn't work.
Texas, and maybe one or two other places, specifically allows defense of property with deadly force. That's fine if that's how Texans want to live. It wont affect me because I'll never live there.
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
What's your problem with someone shooting a burglar that's escaping with their stuff?
n/a riemann1413 2017-01-08
many people don't like the idea of some 8th grade educated yokel with a handcannon weighing someone's life against their vcr.
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
then don't take that yokel's vcr?
n/a shitlordcaligula 2017-01-08
Back up. You lost me there.
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
WHOA WHOA WHOA PUT THE GUN DOWN BUDDY!
n/a shitlordcaligula 2017-01-08
This old thing? It's not even loaded. I like to throw it against the wall from time to time.
n/a riemann1413 2017-01-08
many people do not think theft is a crime punishable by death. shit, even the more intense islamic systems only cut off your hand. you want to be more draconic than shariah law?
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
There's a distinction between society issuing a punishment vs someone protecting their property from criminals
n/a riemann1413 2017-01-08
you're right, delegating the roles of judge, jury, and executioner to any jackass with a firearm who thinks the shoes you're carrying look like his is so much better. excellent ideas, tenouttaten, you should def be a legislator
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
That's not what I'm advocating, if someone murders someone that isn't stealing from them then you charge them with murder same as anyone else, I'm saying that people have the right to defend their property with deadly force, you want to imprison this woman for shooting a burglar that had probably robbed her house before? You're the unjust one bro
n/a riemann1413 2017-01-08
you either let some people get robbed without murderous recourse or you let anyone who is concerned for their property blast people away. i guess both suck man or wait no one of those is way more stupider than the other
n/a FuckURedditor 2017-01-08
Ah, such impassioned defenses of being a pair of total pussies.
n/a riemann1413 2017-01-08
oh yes that's right you're the dude who typed out that rant about how you're a "real sociopath, not just playacting"
we're all v impressed, v manly, v alpha
n/a WithoutAComma 2017-01-08
He's not even a sociopath. He wishes he was a sociopath. In reality he's a garden variety bitter misanthrope.
n/a squarefaces 2017-01-08
I LOVE VIOLENCE I HAVE BEEN TO JAIL NOTICE ME INTERNET
n/a UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-01-08
It's just too easy to spot the teenagers/young adults when this topic comes up.
n/a riemann1413 2017-01-08
those stupid high minded and idealist children!
agreeing with the majority of jurisdictions that lethal force is an inappropriate response to threats towards property. what a bunch of dreamers!
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
You're acting like I'm saying people should be allowed to shoot anyone with no discretion, I'm not, I'm saying people should be allowed to defend their property from burglars, if someone exercises poor judgement and shoots an innocent person the they should be charged
n/a friendly_neonazi 2017-01-08
You seem to forget that "robbers" also like to murder and rape people. If I find you in my house, I will kill you.
n/a bleepis 2017-01-08
but murdering someone who is stealing from you is ok... cuz they're a thief... good to know next time my sister takes my sweater i can stab her repeatedly
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
You should be able to shoot a burglar that breaks into your home and steals stuff. You'd be okay just watching someone make off with your stuff when you have a gun in the glove box, and you know that the police won't do shit to get your stuff back? I don't understand why you guys have no empathy for the person being burglarized and so much for the burglar. What other recourse does the person getting robbed have?
Obviously none of this applies to house guest or house mates so don't stab your sister
n/a TheMauveHand 2017-01-08
Yes because a) I'm a lot more fucking likely to die if I intervene and b) my things can be replaced.
The police, and locks. You know, like in civilized society.
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
In many places the police and locks don't do shit, and what about the case where you're not more likely to die?
n/a TheMauveHand 2017-01-08
Do you live in some alternate universe where deadbolt locks don't work?
No such case exists.
n/a Clark_Savage_Jr 2017-01-08
Any sort of lock will just keep a man honest. It won't stop someone determined to get in.
n/a bleepis 2017-01-08
if someone stole my car that would suck and be a massive, huge, ginormous pain in the ass and set me back thousands of dollars. that would suck if someone got robbed. but that doesn't give them the right to literally kill someone. stuff is stuff and can be replaced ultimately. i'm not sure if you know what "death"is or what "killing someone" entails but it means that person is no longer alive and never will be ever again, just so we're clear.
n/a Richtoffens_Ghost 2017-01-08
If you're illegally in his house in the middle of the night while carrying said shoes, he's probably right.
n/a bytewake 2017-01-08
are you gonna pop little Jimmy in his ass when he takes off with your lunchbox?
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
as censored Ice Cube said,
my Jimmy runs deep, so deep put her butt to sleep
n/a bytewake 2017-01-08
logic checks out. fuck Jimmy
n/a bytewake 2017-01-08
y tho?
n/a riemann1413 2017-01-08
because most of us don't have a dakimakura or xbox as the only thing on this earth keeping us from committing suicide
n/a bytewake 2017-01-08
TIL what that is
thanks /u/riemann1488
n/a Works_of_memercy 2017-01-08
http://i.imgur.com/59z2wDv.jpg
n/a riemann1413 2017-01-08
i like this. i'm gonna hang it up in the officen maybe make a tshirt
n/a Works_of_memercy 2017-01-08
I really like this too, the way it utilizes a certain fallacy that most people are not aware of in their thinking to cause a targeted clash in core values (rape is the worst! guns are the worst!) for immense butthurt.
The thing is, Rie, that we have two completely different standards for what's acceptable to prevent a crime and what's acceptable to punish a crime. And we are right in this, obviously.
And the next time you try to win an argument about what's morally allowable to prevent a crime by appealing to things we consider morally allowable as punishments, I want you to remember this meme picture.
Here's a bonus one just for you: http://i.imgur.com/gpnCVZr.jpg
n/a taterbizkit 2017-01-08
These memes are not relevant to the discussion.
Rape hasn't been discussed until you brought it up.
No one has asserted any anti-gun claims. I'm not an owner and never intend to own one, but I'm not against gun ownership.
We are specifically talking about a person who is in a position of safety making a conscious decision to enter an unsafe area, and then using a rule that allows her to kill another human being.
I have said a) outside of Texas, this could very well be murder because the self-defense doctrine (even castle doctrine) do not apply. I have said I"m OK with Texas having the laws it has.
I have said that I do not believe deadly force is justified to defend property.
You are intentionally using an inflammatory idea (that I don't even disagree with, which is just fucking baffling) to attack a straw man that hasn't been presented -- even by implication -- in this thread.
n/a Works_of_memercy 2017-01-08
replied in the other thread.
n/a riemann1413 2017-01-08
that's a good point. i had never considered how i would never approve of capital punishment for a rapist, but a rapist getting murdered to prevent the act is more acceptable to me. i mean, i'd prefer nonlethal force but obviously it's more palatable than just allowing the rape. highly relatable to what i was saying here. i was mostly memeing about the comparison to shariah and what not, but i think you have a great point.
https://niceme.me
n/a FuckURedditor 2017-01-08
And that's why most of the country won't elect those people.
n/a UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-01-08
n/a taterbizkit 2017-01-08
Because no amount of property is worth a human life. You can get new stuff. Hey, you do you. I don't oppose reasonable application of SYG or castle doctrine where appropriate, and I'm not bleeding for the dead burglar.
But entering a dangerous situation for the purpose of applying the self defense doctrine is not something that the law or our culture should encourage or defend. You don't get to create the circumstances that you will later claim justified the taking of life.
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
I'm not advocating just self defense but property defense, if they have invaded your home and are making off with your shit you have the right to shoot them without the state imprisoning you. There's more to it than just trading property for life, shooting a criminal who has violated your right to security and property is justified, and the shooter doesn't create the situation, that's victim blaming, the burglar does. If the burglar never stole than there would be no situation, thus the burglar created the situation.
n/a UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-01-08
Yes, we know. That's exactly what the previous guy was talking about ffs.
There's a big difference between some black woman living in the inner city for whom this kind of shit is likely a weekly occurrence, and some suburban white-bread Barney Fife type with a concealed carry license who has just a small enough dick that they feel like less of a man if they don't shoot the burglar making off with their television.
But this is all meaningless because people who rob suburbs don't do so while the goddamn residents are home. The shit you see in that video is some crackhead type shit. That burglar is a desperate motherfucker looking for his fix. If you don't live in a shitty urban ghetto, then you won't ever encounter a home burglar. If you do actually manage to fuck yourself into a situation in which you're facing a burglar, then you
On top of all of this, if you shoot a person in the back as they're running off with your shit, then you are a murderer. If you feel the need to kill someone over some cheap shit from Asia while you are not in immediate danger, then that's not self-defense, that's murder.
Seriously, I don't understand what the fuck is wrong with people like you. I say this as a CCL holder living in Texas.
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
You want to put a woman in jail for defending her property from a burglar. If you burglars don't want to get shot then don't burgle it's that simple
n/a UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-01-08
When did I ever say I thought she should go to jail?
If you had bothered reading my response then you'd see that my point was about context, which weighs heavily on how a court determines these kinds of situations.
I'm not surprised you're also the kind of person who just blindly regurgitates their original point when they can't produce a coherent response.
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
You said what she did should be illegal, and I know you were arguing about context I'm saying in the context of someone shooting a burglar to defend their property that they shouldn't be imprisoned, in the context of someone exercising poor judgement and shooting an innocent person I feel they should be charged.
n/a UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-01-08
I didn't realize she had shot him while he fled when I first posted that.
That's not context. That's the opposite of context. You've stripped the entire situation of context and reduced it to a laughably simplistic dichotomy.
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
You're the one ignoring context she lived in a poor neighborhood so the police response times would have been shit, she'd been burgled before, poor people don't insure their stuff for burglary, and having something like a laptop or car stolen can be a catastrophe for poor people, they have the right to defend their stuff
n/a UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-01-08
Come on, man. This is straight from the comment I posted not 20 minutes ago:
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
There isn't that big of a difference if it's okay in one case it's okay in the other, the burglar should not burgle their stuff.
Since you implied you're okay with some people shooting burglars if they're poor enough how would you like courts to determine that
n/a UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-01-08
I never meant to imply that I was okay with this.
I'm not going to make a "ruling" based on YouTube videos and some cursory Googling.
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
What you are in effect doing by punishing the people that protect their property from criminals is protecting the criminals because you know and the criminals know that as long as they do their deeds while the owners aren't home and they don't target connected/rich houses then they will probably never be caught by police and in the off chance they're caught by a homeowner they can simply run away with the knowledge that they are protected by the law
n/a UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-01-08
You're just talking past me at this point.
Let me give you some more advice: these guys are the kinds of criminals that are most likely to get caught because they're stupid/high/shortsighted enough to rob a house while someone's still inside it.
Well, except for the fact that they'll be thrown in prison for burglary.
I doubt you'll listen, but I would highly recommend you take a look at No Nonsense Self Defense because you seem like the kind of person who needs a dose of reality. The site looks like a shitty Geocities page from the late 90s but its actually full of very insightful material about the nature of criminality and civilian violence. The Criminal Mindset page describes what I have been talking about in terms of the kind of criminal that conducts burglaries like the guy in the submitted thread who got shot.
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
We weren't talking about people that rob a house that still has someone inside it! The resident in that case is absolutely allowed to shoot the intruder then.
I said that if burglars rob poor houses with no one home they will likely not be caught by the police and if the owner happens to come home during their robbery then they can safely flee if you impose a law against owners protecting their property, this makes burglary a relatively safe prospect which is not something society should do.
And I'm reiterating my points because you're the one talking past me, you brought up some completely different case of a burglar entering an occupied home and then you referenced some self defense/criminology course which is barely relavent
n/a omg_cow 2017-01-08
Stealing was a death sentence for numerous reasons, but to say it was only because the victims could die that it was enforced is ludicrous. It was enforced to enforce the rules and create a deterrent to potential thieves. Due to the belief in deities it just meant a quicker route to hell, a just punishment.
Redemption and the protection of criminals is a modern and liberal/christian thing.
n/a UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-01-08
It was enforced because it was the law. It was decided that death would be the consequence because of the severity of the crime's effects on the victim. A death sentence is only one of many choices when it comes to criminal consequences, all of which act as deterrents, although to lesser extents.
n/a omg_cow 2017-01-08
As for poor areas, having lived in a poor black one for an extended period of time, defence of self and property is pretty much a neccesity since the police are useless. And I really mean useless. They're a deterrent, they can't actively protect you or your property. If you lack the physical means to do so, a gun is an adequate power and range multiplier.
My property is worth more to Mr than another burglar statistic, Sue me.
n/a UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-01-08
They might be white, but they certainly would not be the same, by any means.
Would you shoot a fleeing man in the back? That's a bit different then waking up to find someone in your house and shooting them on sight.
Then that's between you, the courts, and your conscience.
n/a omg_cow 2017-01-08
Fleeing Fleeing with my property
Depends.
n/a taterbizkit 2017-01-08
OK. I don't agree one tiny little bit, but that's the law in TX so I'm not going to get all uptight about it.
That "this is victim blaming" canard fails for the same reason it always does. It is possible that both people were acting in a criminally stupid manner at the same time.
The law should not encourage or allow a person to insert themselves into a dangerous situation and then claim necessity or defense of property when their actions result in the loss of life. That's my opinion anyway. I know it's not universal, am not accusing anyone of being wrong or immoral. I get it. I just don't agree.
n/a selfiereflection 2017-01-08
In the end situations which end in an actually firearm being used on someone are so rare that it's nearly impossible to prepare mentally for it. I live in TX and own a firearm and know when and when I cannot use it. That said would I use it outside of having to defend my life? Possibly no, possibly yes. It's impossible to determine until it happens, but I'm glad the laws are the way they are.
I couldn't imagine having to go to trial over shooting someone for breaking into your home due to a "duty to retreat." Since if that happened to me I would definitely shoot them since I'm not caring about the law but personal protection.
n/a taterbizkit 2017-01-08
I don't mind the "no duty to retreat" if you're already inside the house when you become aware of the intruder.
I do mind it when you enter the house knowing that a burglar is inside.
n/a selfiereflection 2017-01-08
Eh, I guess so. Still though it would be hard to just let some thug steal my shit without at least confronting them.
n/a taterbizkit 2017-01-08
For a number of unrelated reasons, I always have insurance (renter's or homeowner's).
I'll get my shit back, or get reimbursed for it. I want the person to not steal from me, but I'm not willing to kill to stop it. Even if I had a gun, I'd leave the house if that opportunity presented itself, and call the police from the next block over.
A couple things that might play different: I have no kids (have a wife, but she feels the way I do). Plus, in the last 15 years I've moved an average of just under once a year. I don't get attached to things or places, I guess. I understand that other people do, and I'm not trying to be critical of that. Just trying to explain why I have no fucks to give if you really want my xbox, computer, shitty stainless steel flatware. Fake gold cufflinks, etc.
The only qualifier to this is (having grown & spent most of my life within 15 miles of a major fault line) in an earthquake or other disaster, abandoning your home might be fatal. That's the only time I could see myself giving a shit about the castle doctrine.
n/a UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-01-08
I wouldn't get so damn aggravated over this topic if people just treated it with the same gravity as you and the other guy did. It's the cavalier and certain attitude that people on the internet adopt about using a gun in a home invasion situation (which, like you noted, is exceedingly rare) that pisses me off.
n/a TheMauveHand 2017-01-08
No, you don't. Neither moral nor legal.
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
In the common case where the police are unlikely to catch the criminal much less return what the burglar stole, what recourse do you have? Do you expect people to simply let the burglars freely take their stuff? Is that moral? Why do you sympathize so much with these burglars rather than those whose stuff is being stolen? Suppose a poor friend had a laptop that he'd saved for two months to purchase and it was important to his livelihood would you think less of him for shooting a burglar that was making off with it?
n/a TheMauveHand 2017-01-08
Solemn contemplation about the injustice you have endured.
Yes, and yes again, at least from the point of view of the burgled. Even Jesus said so, though he's not my bag.
Would I think less of someone who valued his fucking laptop worth a couple hundred over the life of a human being? Fuck yes, and I would think a lot less of anyone who thought differently.
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
?
He spoke against vengeance but I don't think he spoke against protecting your stuff
n/a TheMauveHand 2017-01-08
Turn the other cheek? Give all your belongings to the poor? Read your Bible, man...
n/a Clark_Savage_Jr 2017-01-08
That's about insults.
Keyword is "Give".
I think I'm comfortable holding myself to the standard of not stealing things from people.
n/a TheMauveHand 2017-01-08
I bet Jesus is a letter-of-the-law sort of person...
n/a IAMGODDESSOFCATSAMA 2017-01-08
Well what's important is you didn't lose any of your precious belongings.
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
Yes that is absolutely important, the right to property is a cornerstone of society and we shouldn't have laws that allow burglar's to to safely violate that
n/a IAMGODDESSOFCATSAMA 2017-01-08
That was supposed to be sarcastic but since you're a psychopath, you actually think keeping your Xbox is more important than someone's life.
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
It's not just about the Xbox it's about the principle and society, if a burglar is free to rob you once chances are they'll do it again later which is what happened in the linked thread, people have the right to defend their property without being imprisoned or called a psychopath, if burglar's don't want to get shot then they shouldn't steal stuff. With the laws you're advocating for burglars would be able to rob people with impunity because in many places the police are useless. Is that just?
n/a IAMGODDESSOFCATSAMA 2017-01-08
The burglar will go to jail. Are we talking about Somalia or America?
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
How would the burglar go to jail? Will they wait there for 30 minutes while the police arrive knowing that you aren't allowed to shoot them?
n/a IAMGODDESSOFCATSAMA 2017-01-08
That's why we have crime scene investigation. You sound like you just really wanna shoot someone, I would think you would feel solidarity with criminals considering you're all insane. It's not that hard to murder someone you know, you don't have to wait for a burglar to give you a "legal" opportunity.
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
lol, crime scene investigation, do you think they'll dust for prints!? This is what happens if you're lucky, the police will ask you if you know who stole from you, you'll say no and then nothing will happen. Gosh liberals certainly have a lot of faith in police when it suits they're agenda!
n/a IAMGODDESSOFCATSAMA 2017-01-08
I wonder why you're not refuting that you just want to murder someone, hmm...
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
I don't want to murder someone
I wonder why you're not checking your privelage
n/a IAMGODDESSOFCATSAMA 2017-01-08
That's not very convincing. Tell me, why do you want to shoot a burglar so much? How many have you shot so far?
n/a Satafly 2017-01-08
On the other hand, one could argue that civilians should be better than criminals. Which would involve not killing people in cold blood because they're running away with your stuff.
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
Sure, as long as you don't take away their right to do that if they so choose
n/a Satafly 2017-01-08
No you see, when you expect better behaviour you generally reward it or punish the opposite.
Something isn't a 'right' just because you think it is. Even in states where castle doctrine is legal, it's not considered a right.
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
Yes but not here because people have the right to protect their property, I declare it a right because I think it is, sorry, any law you make prohibiting/punishing someone that's protecting their property from burglars is now infringing that right
n/a Satafly 2017-01-08
That's cool. I'm not against infringing upon random, made-up rights.
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
It's not random and all rights are made up
n/a Satafly 2017-01-08
Yes, that's why I added random. And you're kinda right, it's not random. It's just archaic and barbaric.
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
How so? It's not might makes right, it's burglary is harmful and it's right that the victims of it should be able to stop it
n/a Richtoffens_Ghost 2017-01-08
Why are you lefties always so convinced that some scumfuck criminal's life is worth so much?
n/a thajugganuat 2017-01-08
What about my hope diamond or my great grandmothers ring?
n/a UmbrellaResearchCorp 2017-01-08
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What a bitch mentality.
n/a taterbizkit 2017-01-08
I'll be a bitch rather than take pleasure in killing.
n/a squarefaces 2017-01-08
That's why people steal from you.
n/a taterbizkit 2017-01-08
Hasn't happened yet :-/
n/a UmbrellaResearchCorp 2017-01-08
You'll make a nice chalk outline.
n/a taterbizkit 2017-01-08
I hope to be in the "phoon" position when I get chalked. My friends will post it on facebook! Win-win!
(I really don't understand why people get offended by me not being eager to go all yosemite sam the first chance I get to legally slaughter another human being. I sleep at night, unarmed, with no fear that this is ever going to happen. And the odds are in my favor that this will always be a successful strategy.)
n/a friendly_neonazi 2017-01-08
Some human life is worth very little. Also, property isn't just stuff. It represents time spent earning money to pay for it. Time that you will never get back.
n/a taterbizkit 2017-01-08
Unless you have insurance. Then you get it back, mostly.
n/a Works_of_memercy 2017-01-08
http://i.imgur.com/59z2wDv.jpg
n/a taterbizkit 2017-01-08
Are you suggesting that women are property? While I have a hard time believing the Brady campaign actually created this, rape isn't relevant to the discussion we're having.
I would never expect a woman not to shoot someone attempting to rape her.
n/a Works_of_memercy 2017-01-08
https://www.reddit.com/r/Drama/comments/5motnn/rvideos_nukes_thread_celebrating_death_of_black/dc6bd6v/?context=3
n/a taterbizkit 2017-01-08
Do you feel like discussing things? Or are you just going to keep posting irrelevant shit to attack a strawman I've never endorsed?
n/a Works_of_memercy 2017-01-08
You said,
This felt to me as making the same (fallacious) argument as those fake trolling adverts.
Would you say that 30 seconds of rape are worth a human life?
I think that it's pretty obvious that they are not, if we are discussing it in the framework where the rape has already happened and we are thinking about the punishment, for example.
But there are other frameworks, like when you can take the life of a rapist to prevent rape. Then it sounds hella more justified. Because yeah, while 30 seconds or even an hour of suffering is not equal to taking a human life in abstract, shooting a person intending to inflict that on you seems reasonable.
Same with property, I think. Someone stole a bunch of your stuff -- OK, that happened, you don't find and kill them and if the police finds them they aren't executed, that would be unjustified.
But if they are in the process of stealing your shit, I think that you're way more justified in shooting them dead to prevent the crime from happening.
Also, "any amount", really? What if it's an amount sufficient to save some little girl from cancer?
I'm OK if you disagree, as long as you understand my argument. This is complicated stuff and I for one don't have the right answer. It would be nice if you admitted that you don't have the right answer either, so what's worth what in particular is just, like, your opinion.
n/a taterbizkit 2017-01-08
You are trivializing the reason why rape is a heinous crime by fatuously equating it to the loss of labor time expended to create the money to purchase stuff.
And no, I'm not wavering from "no property is worth a human life", so it doesn't matter if they're in the process of stealing it or baking cookies.
I'm not talking about a person inside my house who may do me harm if I don't act. The situation in the OP is that a woman inserted herself into a dangerous situation. You keep ignoring this and searching for yet more fatuous straw arguments
In another comment, another poster said it was justified to kill someone fleeing with your property. Likewise, with no life at stake, the property itself isn't enough.
Jeesus fucking christ already. Still searching for straws. This is also not relevant to the discussion at hand. This isn't a comparative ethics class. "Hey, I'll give you a million dollars worth of things you can sell to give that little girl the surgery she needs, if you klill that guy over there who is no threat to you." JFC.
n/a Chicup 2017-01-08
Because I'm not a thief...
n/a taterbizkit 2017-01-08
I don't know... you look kind of shifty to me.
n/a FuckURedditor 2017-01-08
ITT: Rie jerking into the popcorn, as always, turning this place into a less fun SRD
n/a merqury26 2017-01-08
still more fun than SRD
n/a GingerPow 2017-01-08
LMAO at Ameritards thinking that they're not the exception in thinking that random hicks > Justice system
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
It's better than Eurotrash thinking of Sharia Courts/No-Go Zones > Justice System
n/a WithoutAComma 2017-01-08
ITT people who disagree with me T_T
n/a squarefaces 2017-01-08
*people with degrees who disagree with me
n/a accounttttt 2017-01-08
feels good knowing gun control fags are fighting a losing battle
anyone that would put the safety of their life or their shit solely in the hands of their local government is either a privileged whitey or just a retard
n/a squarefaces 2017-01-08
It's way more likely when "local government" means your hunting club and your cousins who graduated HS.
n/a bleasehalb 2017-01-08
In the case where it's just property loss, shooting would be murder.
In the case where you have a credible reason to fear for your life, shooting is reasonable.
A TV isn't worth killing someone over but burglaries are often accompanied by the threat of lethal force.
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-08
Fine, that's a fine decision to make for yourself, but I'm absolutely not okay with society imprisoning someone for defending their property from burglars, people have the right to defend their property and the government should not infringe it
n/a bleasehalb 2017-01-08
If someone trespasses on to your lawn and steals a garden gnome, would that warrant a bullet to the back?
If it's about the breaking and entering thing if some kid hit a baseball through your window and broke in trying to get it back, does that kid deserve to die?
Not being allowed to shoot people who steal TVs isn't legalizing burglary, it's just about keeping responses proportionate to the crime.
Shoplifting is illegal. How outrageous would it be if stores were allowed to blast anyone caught stealing? The "if they didn't want to die they shouldn't have done it" defense would look retarded.