Teen kills elderly woman for $6

[Silenus]

We're not that far away from the Wild West days, and if law enforcement continues to suck ass, we're headed towards armed civilians taking care of business. See, for example, the smart Korean liquor store owners during the "Rodney King" riots (really, the Latasha Harlan riots); the ones that patrolled their stores armed survived; the others got burned out waiting for the cops to get there. Which they never did.

[Melchiah]

Kuya, you're making an assumption about law enforcement, and a pretty bad one at that. American law enforcement pretty much handles vice, assault, and murder. Theft doesn't carry justification for the expense and man hours involved in accumulating evidence like murder does, and I'm not going to get into our hard-on for vice enforcement. If you don't know a name or get a picture, the guy who broke into your house or held you up at the bus stop isn't going to face charges.

Assuming that the cops will handle cases of trespassing/unlawful entry/burglary is pretty naive, to be honest. Sure they'll take a report, and promptly file it away while they work on narcotics busts and murder/missing persons cases.

Do I think human life is expendable or of no value? No, I do not. However, if it were to become commonplace to get shot in the face for breaking in to another person's home, that's a pretty strong deterrent. I think that if you are willing to violate another person, you are taking your life into your own hands, and you should assume the risks that go with it. Long story short, don't be a fucking hoodrat criminal, and no one will shoot you for breaking the law. Seems rather simple to me.

[Boyiee]

Teenagers scare the living shit out of me

[Purrrfect]

Long story short, don't be a fucking hoodrat criminal, and no one will shoot you for breaking the law. Seems rather simple to me.

I support this message.

[jmc]

We're not that far away from the Wild West days, and if law enforcement continues to suck ass, we're headed towards armed civilians taking care of business. See, for example, the smart Korean liquor store owners during the "Rodney King" riots (really, the Latasha Harlan riots); the ones that patrolled their stores armed survived; the others got burned out waiting for the cops to get there. Which they never did.

Now, don't get law enforcement and Court's confused.

I'll just speak from experience here in MA.

Police officer's in boston go out every day, and I read about 4-5 firearm related arrests every day. They also respond to shots fired, B&E's, Assaults and make arrests.

With the court system here in MA, we can bust a kid for illegal possession of a firearm.... only for them to get arrested for Assault & Battery to wit/deadly weapon (shooting) because the court system gave him probation instead of court time.

[Kuya]

This is pure supposition, but wouldn't it be possible that if it became more widespread to kill thieves, the thieves would respond in kind with more aggressive measures in order to get the "job" done?

[Charismatic]

No.

[Melchiah]

This is pure supposition, but wouldn't it be possible that if it became more widespread to kill thieves, the thieves would respond in kind with more aggressive measures in order to get the "job" done?

It would be very difficult(nigh impossible) to actually conduct a social experiment to find out. I am of the opinion that almost every individual has a certain amount of risk assessment circuitry in their brains, and that if the possibility of getting seriously injured or killed by a homeowner for B&E becomes large, then it should outweigh the projected benefits of committing the crime. To most people, their lives are worth more than $500 or $1000 of stolen property. Right now Kuya, in a lot of states you are not permitted by law to use lethal force to protect your property. Where I live, you are permitted lethal force to preserve your own life or the life of another person. The criminals have the law on their side until they try to physically harm you, and I just don't feel like that is right.

[Davricle]

Teenagers scare the living shit out of me

They can care less as long as someone will bleed.

[Kuya]

Let me reiterate, because i don't think some people are thinking this through at all. You are advocating killing thieves; you advocate the execution of thieves; you advocate death for stealing. Can you say you stand for justice, for what's fair, or can you even say you stand for the often misused chant of eye for an eye, when you make it possible for someone to go above and beyond defending themselves or even defending their own property and head off into the territory of vigilantism? How does a person like this even dare say they're just?

[Melchiah]

I see where you are coming from, calm yourself. Your contention is that death is unreasonable as an enforced penalty for petty crime, and I agree with you. What I'm driving at is that the law should not prosecute homeowners who use force, be it lethal or not, to defend their homes or property. Subtle difference, yes, but it is more along the lines of advocating the idea that a criminal is taking his life in his own hands by violating another person's home than it is to advocate a mandatory death penalty for stealing.

The idea I want to get across to a person contemplating a crime is that there is a risk involved, and it is entirely possible if not likely that they might be killed while committing that crime. If the danger of death becomes a greater probability, I think that risk assessment and self preservation would outweigh the desire for a quick 500 bucks for two hour's worth of dishonest labor. Because right now, there pretty much is no risk unless you are stupid. Homeowners can't legally defend their property in manyplaces, so most of them don't even try. There is no risk involved besides some jail time, and that's only if the cops happen to provide enough evidence to bring someone to trial.

[Kuya]

What I'm driving at is that the law should not prosecute homeowners who use force, be it lethal or not, to defend their homes or property.

That wasn't even the point of the two cases i mentioned. The former had a man who wasn't defending his property, but someone elses, and there was nobody inside that home and he knew it, and the latter case the man was not in his home but he saw the kids getting inside, but instead of calling law enforcement he chose to be the executioner in that case. Is it my understanding that neither of these men received anything resembling punishment for escalating a situation and going far beyond to the point that the situation was no longer defense, but an execution.

They weren't defending; they were attacking.

[Charismatic]

Let me reiterate, because i don't think some people are thinking this through at all. You are advocating killing thieves; you advocate the execution of thieves; you advocate death for stealing. Can you say you stand for justice, for what's fair, or can you even say you stand for the often misused chant of eye for an eye, when you make it possible for someone to go above and beyond defending themselves or even defending their own property and head off into the territory of vigilantism? How does a person like this even dare say they're just?

I don't remember saying I stand for any of those things.
That's all just bullshit anyway, I'd rather people not pretend to be for justice and fairness and then turn around and do the things they do.

I'm sure that every single person in this thread has done quite a few things in their lives that were unjust or unfair towards someone else because it benefitted them. They didn't care then but suddenly they are champions of justice.
Give it a rest.

If someone tries to steal my stuff I want to be able to fuck them up. Luckily I live in Texas and I can do just that.

[Kuya]

I wasn't talking to you; go back to spam, troll.

[Melchiah]

That wasn't even the point of the two cases i mentioned. The former had a man who wasn't defending his property, but someone elses, and there was nobody inside that home and he knew it, and the latter case the man was not in his home but he saw the kids getting inside, but instead of calling law enforcement he chose to be the executioner in that case. Is it my understanding that neither of these men received anything resembling punishment for escalating a situation and going far beyond to the point that the situation was no longer defense, but an execution.

They weren't defending; they were attacking.

I'm not really sure how to respond to the first case, I'll have to think on it a bit more.

As for the second case, you are looking at the situation exactly as the law does in places outside of Texas, which is lethal force is only permitted if one's immediate safety is a concern. I do not know the particulars of that case, because we have the word of the kids committing the crime saying they complied with the homeowner and he shot one of them in the back anyway, vs the word of the homeowner.

Personally, I do not feel that you must be in your home to qualify to defend it. That's just ludicrous to me. If the homeowner approached the situation like a police officer and ordered the offenders to comply with a set of directives while he contacted the authorities(which is fine if they don't also have guns) and they did so, then he committed murder if he shot one of them anyway. It seems to me the best thing in that scenario would have been for him to arm himself and call the authorities while monitoring the situation. That method would have the best chance of justice being served and less risk of bloodshed.

But in a world where sociopath teenagers walk into a middle-aged woman's home with the intention of committing violence, the stance you must take is that anyone who walks in uninvited, without announcing their presence is a potential murderer. Profiling? Sure. I'm sorry, but when this kind of thing starts happening, you can't take the time to ask yourself "Does this kid mean me harm, or is he just looking for some food?" I always ring the doorbell when I go to someone's house. When I walk into my friend's houses, I always call out so that they know it's me. Someone who doesn't do those things obviously does not wish to call attention to the fact that they are in the house, which probably means they have less than honorable intentions. Why else be sneaky? This is what I'm driving at about risk assessment. If everyone who broke into a home was automatically assessed as a potential murderer and treated as such, and a few of them ended up in the hospital or a graveyard, the risk of dying becomes a stronger deterrent.

[Kuya]

Your last paragraph is once again irrelevant, because that's not the situation i'm talking about, and as to the situations i mentioned, you avoided forming a solid opinion on it. Do you or do you not think that in the situations where a person actively positions himself in a dangerous situation where neither his life or his property are in danger, but instead chooses to get himself into a dangerous situation where he will no doubt have to defend himself with deadly force, does this person deserve some form of punishment, whether heavy handed or light handed, in order to serve as a deterrence against irresponsible gun owners getting themselves into situations where they will escalate a situation that they didn't have to agitate at all?

I don't know a thing about gun responsibility, the only i can compare this to is my martial arts training, where it was always stressed that you should never go looking for fights or put yourself into dangerous situations. I guess i had assumed that gun owners too would be taught not to get into situations outside of self defense or the defense of someone else's life.

[Charismatic]

My property > Your life

[Kuya]

My property > Your life

Ah, good, the man i mentioned wasn't defending his property so he should be punished. Good thing you agree.

[Charismatic]

I think the Joe Horn dude or whatever his name was... I didn't agree with him, wasn't his stuff and he was obviously just looking to shoot someone.
But the guy who had the kids run in his trailer and steal his snacks, I agree with him.

[eunhye]

Be glad we are in America where there are fair trials(for the most part) for every criminal mind out there. I think in the case of stealing it really depends why. Here's a famous scenario in psych class: A man has a wife who's dieing of cancer. A doctor finds a cure for cancer, but charges an obscene amount of money for it. The man has no money and so he decides to steal it. Was he in the right? Was the young man trespassing in the right? What gives anyone, any right to steal? I feel that when you believe that it is in your right to steal, then you oppose humanity. Since you oppose humanity, your life is meaningless, IMO.