THE DOC 44
Member
If you want the strict ethical answer rather than the emotional then according to philosphical ethics it is wrong to shoot .
Under pragmatic ethics....drill the bum .
Under pragmatic ethics....drill the bum .
Is property important enough to shoot for?
- Thread starter Doug.38PR
- Start date
- Status
Kenneth Lew
Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 534
Yes,
Once you have some punk steal approximately $50,000 worth of personal property and come back for seconds with about $13,000, get caught, thrown in jail, make bond ($2,000), walk free for 6 months, then make a plea bargain for 1 year in a camp cupcake jail. That will change your attitude very quickly.
Once you have some punk steal approximately $50,000 worth of personal property and come back for seconds with about $13,000, get caught, thrown in jail, make bond ($2,000), walk free for 6 months, then make a plea bargain for 1 year in a camp cupcake jail. That will change your attitude very quickly.
I grew up I Maine knowing that the lobstermen and fishermen kept arms on their boats. Granted that many slept there so one could assume that that is his "house" for the night.
I can also appreciate that if he loses his boat, that is, the means with which one provided food for his family's table, (that is, beyond merely stealing his catch for the day); and that too me may be worth defending with deadly force.
cavman
I can also appreciate that if he loses his boat, that is, the means with which one provided food for his family's table, (that is, beyond merely stealing his catch for the day); and that too me may be worth defending with deadly force.
cavman
model 649
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2005
- Messages
- 544
As that Talmudic passage was explained to me, a thief entering a house at night would likely be prepared for a confrontation, knowing there were likely people inside after dark. Thus, the defense was more at the people(or life) involved, rather than any property. A thief entering by day is likely not prepared for confrontation, avoiding people (who are more likely to be away), he is truly seeking only property. Other than fairly narrowly defined circumstances, property is not to be defended with lethal force. The teaching is that "all life is sacred". Life can be defended anytime, anywhere, anyhow, but "things" cannot necessarily be defended as zealously as life. Always seemed pretty straightforward to me. Where's the Rabbi when ya need him?
Josh
Josh
If it were as simple as recording the person on video and going to the police with the evidence then obviously shooting is not warranted. Unfortunately most of us don't have home security cameras or carry a video recorder with us.
And what if the property being stolen simply is so valuable to the owner and he/she decides she can't afford to risk not getting it back? I say it's owner's choice. The thief voided his contract with society by intentionally harming another for personal gain. It's not just about the property, it's about stopping that kind of behavior and sending a message to all the other would-be thieves.
Shoot someone for stealing a newspaper? Maybe with a paintball gun... I wasn't advocating being THAT drastic in the other thread.
Shoot someone for stealing my car that took me 5 years to pay for and will take another 5 to replace? If it weren't for my state laws oh hell yeah.
The punishment the thief faces should be appropriate to the level of harm inflicted. I'm not advocating cutting off someone's hand for stealing an apple from the supermarket. Steal a handgun from a local gun store....you better be good at hiding because that's a five finger punishment in my book.
Think about it like this, is a security guard justified in shooting an obiously unarmed safecracker fleeing with $2 Million in cash?
If the answer to that is yes, then it's OK to shoot the guy stealing your car.
And what if the property being stolen simply is so valuable to the owner and he/she decides she can't afford to risk not getting it back? I say it's owner's choice. The thief voided his contract with society by intentionally harming another for personal gain. It's not just about the property, it's about stopping that kind of behavior and sending a message to all the other would-be thieves.
Shoot someone for stealing a newspaper? Maybe with a paintball gun... I wasn't advocating being THAT drastic in the other thread.
Shoot someone for stealing my car that took me 5 years to pay for and will take another 5 to replace? If it weren't for my state laws oh hell yeah.
The punishment the thief faces should be appropriate to the level of harm inflicted. I'm not advocating cutting off someone's hand for stealing an apple from the supermarket. Steal a handgun from a local gun store....you better be good at hiding because that's a five finger punishment in my book.
Think about it like this, is a security guard justified in shooting an obiously unarmed safecracker fleeing with $2 Million in cash?
If the answer to that is yes, then it's OK to shoot the guy stealing your car.
Thefabulousfink
Member
Theft of easily replacable property? No, I wouldn't shoot. I may be angry enough to wish I had shot but that doesn't make it right.
However, Zundfolge raised an important point:
To think that "petty theft" is just "petty theft" is wrong. These criminals are exhibiting less respect for their fellow man than the people here advocating shooting them. The New Testiment teaches (among other things) that possesions are never as important as people, and it is wrong to take some one's life over simple possesions. However people work hard and save to get the things they have and theives show callous disreguard for others when they steal it.
To down play the violation of social rights that occurs durring a theft is criminal and leads (as leftists want) to the dissolution of individual rights and property. To maintain individualism and self-determination we must condemn any action, no mater how petty, that violates the sanctity of a person and their property.
[\soapbox off]
However, Zundfolge raised an important point:
To think that "petty theft" is just "petty theft" is wrong. These criminals are exhibiting less respect for their fellow man than the people here advocating shooting them. The New Testiment teaches (among other things) that possesions are never as important as people, and it is wrong to take some one's life over simple possesions. However people work hard and save to get the things they have and theives show callous disreguard for others when they steal it.
To down play the violation of social rights that occurs durring a theft is criminal and leads (as leftists want) to the dissolution of individual rights and property. To maintain individualism and self-determination we must condemn any action, no mater how petty, that violates the sanctity of a person and their property.
[\soapbox off]
SigfanUSAF
Member
I did too! I remember a lot of shootouts during lobster and especially scallop season over traps and such. I even remember about once a year, boats would ram each other over territorial disputes! Ayuh, those were the days
Joe Demko
Member
If a man takes your wallet, is it right for you to chase him down, recover your wallet and then demand his as well?
Car Knocker
Member
You didn't work 24 hours a day for 5 years to pay for the car, though. Would it be reasonable to speculate that your net pay for 60 hours a month would cover the car payment? That comes to 3,600 hours. How is taking a thief's life (possibly hundreds of thousands of hours) be appropriate to the harm inflicted to you?
Declaration Day
Member
It depends on the property.
I rely on my truck, mowers, trimmers, blowers and other tools / equipment for my livelihood. Without them, I cannot pay my bills or otherwise provide for my wife and kids. For that reason, I would have no moral dilemma using deadly force to defend those items.
Most of the items inside my home don't fit that bill, but if someone comes inside my home to take anything, they've crossed a different line and the issue becomes one of self-defense.
I don't have much laying around outside my home that can be stolen. I figure if someone decides that the used ($6 when new from Wal-Mart!) plastic chairs on my porch are worth the risk of having a criminal record, well then he needs them much more than I do, and he can have them.
I rely on my truck, mowers, trimmers, blowers and other tools / equipment for my livelihood. Without them, I cannot pay my bills or otherwise provide for my wife and kids. For that reason, I would have no moral dilemma using deadly force to defend those items.
Most of the items inside my home don't fit that bill, but if someone comes inside my home to take anything, they've crossed a different line and the issue becomes one of self-defense.
I don't have much laying around outside my home that can be stolen. I figure if someone decides that the used ($6 when new from Wal-Mart!) plastic chairs on my porch are worth the risk of having a criminal record, well then he needs them much more than I do, and he can have them.
It doesn't matter how long I worked for the car, it' MINE. It's my property, and in a perfect world I'd be under no obligation to give it up without a fight. If that fight involved the death of a thief, so be it. He is a thief, and unless he's also the inventor of the cure for cancer society is better off without him.
And, once again, it's not just about the property. If anything it's more important to send the message that intentionally harmfull actions will be sternly punished.
trainwreck100
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2006
- Messages
- 175
What about cattle thieves? They're taking your livelihood, those cattle are your life, even if they are only $1700 each, it's still your income. It really doesn't matter if it's one or the whole herd, you can only assume they had intentions of taking all you have. That warrants whatever it takes to stop them, if holding the shotgun and waiting for the sheriff does the trick, good...otherwise, you'll have to make some decisions quickly...
Low-Sci
Member
I wouldn't shoot, enraging as it is to be stolen from. And its not as if I wouldn't shoot because the scum who robbed me deserves some sort of protection.
I wouldn't shoot him for me. I don't want any person's death on my hands over material posessions, even if those posessions represent time and money spent by me.
If someone breaks into my house and steals my stereo, I'm not going to shoot him. Not because that's really such a bad thing, practically speaking, but because unfortunately, I believe human life really does have some intrinsic value and that killing isn't to be taken lightly (shooting a man over a stereo is taking it awfully lightly).
I see a world of difference between a person who NEEDS to be killed and a person whom one WANTS to kill. And I refuse to attempt to justify what I want by distorting my values until killing a person over material posessions fits inside my ethical beliefs.
I wouldn't shoot him for me. I don't want any person's death on my hands over material posessions, even if those posessions represent time and money spent by me.
If someone breaks into my house and steals my stereo, I'm not going to shoot him. Not because that's really such a bad thing, practically speaking, but because unfortunately, I believe human life really does have some intrinsic value and that killing isn't to be taken lightly (shooting a man over a stereo is taking it awfully lightly).
I see a world of difference between a person who NEEDS to be killed and a person whom one WANTS to kill. And I refuse to attempt to justify what I want by distorting my values until killing a person over material posessions fits inside my ethical beliefs.
That's very good for you. I wouldn't kill someone for stealing my stereo either. Not because of any personal ethics, but because I have a healthy fear of and respect for God.
I can't say the same for my car though...I love my car, I depend on my car, and I don't think God wants me to be a willing victim.
Forgiveness is divine, but always turning the other cheek makes you the perfect victim.
CSA 357
Member
i will not stand there and let them take my property! im not saying i would shoot them , im not saying wouldnt, cause i dont realy know but they wouldnt have3 a easy day!
mustang 22
Member
All the information out there indicates that underpopulation is not an issue, anywhere, and there is certainly no shortage of these sh--heads who belong to the get something for nothing crowd. When a person makes a conscious decision to violate society's laws and to prey on members of that society, then they need to accept that some folks are going to be willing to defend what is theirs. So, if you fall into that category accept the fact that you could get hurt or worse. If you come into my house, it will be worse.
XLMiguel
Member
What's "life-time" worth??
I'll agree that it's a matter of degree. I wouldn't shoot someone who was stealing to feed his/her family. I wouldn't shoot someone who steals a candybar or a VCR. However, if you come into my house while me & mine are there to steal, you're bought and paid for. If you loot my 401K or steal my identity, your life expectancy could be drastically reduced.
Chew on this - when I was a consultant, one of the metrics we used was 'return on time'. The basic idea was that in most business situations, one can get more physical resources, but time is fleeting, no one gets anymore than their alotted time on Earth, so how do you make the best use of your time (it's another slant of 'opportunity cost). This is more so in life vs. a business situation. In private life, you trade your time for other material resources, so if they're stealing your resources, they're stealing pieces of your life. . . . .
Case study: A few years back some jerk in a hurry cut off a gasoline tanker on the 270 spur of the Capitol Beltway, causing the truck to hit an a bridge abuttment, blocking the beltway for a day and causing months of construction delays. Do the math - Figure 60-80,000 people tied up for anywhere from 4-12 hours that day, plus added commute time for several months for thousands. Include lost productivity, lost jobs, lost opportunity, and all the other crap that happens when you can't get to where you need to be in a timely manner. There are 8760 hours in a year. The clod that caused the fustercluck wasted literally lifetimes and millions in consequential damages on day one, plus more during the time it took to restore the beltway to 'normal' traffic flow (and in DC, 'normal' sucks).
Should he be shot? I think so. Ask anyone who sat in that jam for a day, or enjoyed teh boogeredup commute in teh ensuing months. I know I wouldn't feel bad if he died in the accident (but he didn't). Put him away? I certainly don't want to pay the $35-50K/yr to warehouse his sorryass for the rest of his life in prison. How much of your lifetime is someone allowed to steal before it's time to remove them from society?
Also, in the case of the car thief or major property thief, why does anyone think they only do it once? I'm sure the LEO's here can chimein with the % of crime done by repeat/career criminals. The long term damage to society from career criminals makes a good case for removing them [permanently] at any and every opportunity. I sometimes think petty thieves should be shot for their lack of ambition (at least properly maimed)
The loder I get, the more I believe in rehabilitation through reincarnation.
I'll agree that it's a matter of degree. I wouldn't shoot someone who was stealing to feed his/her family. I wouldn't shoot someone who steals a candybar or a VCR. However, if you come into my house while me & mine are there to steal, you're bought and paid for. If you loot my 401K or steal my identity, your life expectancy could be drastically reduced.
Chew on this - when I was a consultant, one of the metrics we used was 'return on time'. The basic idea was that in most business situations, one can get more physical resources, but time is fleeting, no one gets anymore than their alotted time on Earth, so how do you make the best use of your time (it's another slant of 'opportunity cost). This is more so in life vs. a business situation. In private life, you trade your time for other material resources, so if they're stealing your resources, they're stealing pieces of your life. . . . .
Case study: A few years back some jerk in a hurry cut off a gasoline tanker on the 270 spur of the Capitol Beltway, causing the truck to hit an a bridge abuttment, blocking the beltway for a day and causing months of construction delays. Do the math - Figure 60-80,000 people tied up for anywhere from 4-12 hours that day, plus added commute time for several months for thousands. Include lost productivity, lost jobs, lost opportunity, and all the other crap that happens when you can't get to where you need to be in a timely manner. There are 8760 hours in a year. The clod that caused the fustercluck wasted literally lifetimes and millions in consequential damages on day one, plus more during the time it took to restore the beltway to 'normal' traffic flow (and in DC, 'normal' sucks).
Should he be shot? I think so. Ask anyone who sat in that jam for a day, or enjoyed teh boogeredup commute in teh ensuing months. I know I wouldn't feel bad if he died in the accident (but he didn't). Put him away? I certainly don't want to pay the $35-50K/yr to warehouse his sorryass for the rest of his life in prison. How much of your lifetime is someone allowed to steal before it's time to remove them from society?
Also, in the case of the car thief or major property thief, why does anyone think they only do it once? I'm sure the LEO's here can chimein with the % of crime done by repeat/career criminals. The long term damage to society from career criminals makes a good case for removing them [permanently] at any and every opportunity. I sometimes think petty thieves should be shot for their lack of ambition (at least properly maimed)
The loder I get, the more I believe in rehabilitation through reincarnation.
Last edited:
Joe Demko
Member
So taking his life is restitution for loss of a car?
vmfrantz
Member
That has to be a judgement call at that time. I think you should at least try to restrain them, and if they resist shoot them.
- Status
