Atroxus said:
No, your stance encourages vigilantism. By saying it is okay to shoot someone for theft when there is no immediate threat to anyone's life or well-being, it seems to me that you are saying it is fine for someone to be judge, jury, and executioner for any offense they happen to witness while armed. I don't think any person should have to sit idly by and watch their property be stolen, but at the same time if you plan to mete out "justice" on the spot you may want to make sure the punishment fits the crime or you could very well end up in the same position as Sheets.
Vigilantism is when you gather up some friends (or go it alone) and go after someone you suspect of a crime. Self defense is protecting one's self or well-being from an immediate threat. Stopping a crime against one's self is self defense, not vigilantism. A vigilante is a self-appointed law enforcer. Defense of one's self and/or well being is neither enforcing the law nor meting out justice though there may be laws being broken by the antagonist. Justice is the use of authority to maintain what is just. And, stealing from someone is harmful to the victims well-being.
Kleanbore said:
Well, OK, so it was murder.
I doubt Sheets set out to kill anyone which would negate any claim of murder. Don't forget, he wasn't convicted of murder. He pleaded guilty(stupidly in my opinion) of second-degree manslaughter.
Old Dog said:
This from "Constitution Cowboy" several posts back:
Me said:
I'd say the life of someone who steals is worthless. They are a dreg on society. Those who steal become the slave masters of the victims you mentioned. As for where one might draw the line on such thieves, it is a bright line drawn right there when caught red handed, be it their first theft or their last theft. With luck, their first will be their last. It's one of those cases where zero tolerance makes sense.
Now, how do some of you reconcile attitudes such as this with the position (that this poster has taken numerous times) that everyone -- including, presumably, active thieves and convicted felons as well -- should have the right to legally possess firearms, and that any laws prohibiting such persons from owning guns are "infringements" upon their rights? After all, you've just claimed that the life of a thief is forfeit.
Again, another example of the rampant hypocrisy abounding on the internet.
I didn't say the life of a thief is forfeit.
Here is the reconciliation. It is from the rest of what I've said previously that you omitted. Anyone convicted of a violent crime needs to be kept in prison(if not executed) until that person can be trusted with arms out in society. Once released, that person has the same rights the rest of us have. If he can't be trusted, he should never be released.
kilo729 said:
( It was in the 70s, what charitable organization was going to help a 12~ year old Hispanic girl, and how in the hell is she supposed to get in contact - SHE'S 12~)
Lets see, she was able to find the grocery store. She could have found a church, asked a police officer, asked a fireman, or even
ASKED THE GROCER and I'm sure she would have received all the help she and her siblings needed. Where were her parents? Where were her aunts and uncles? Where were her grandparents? What does the fact that she is Hispanic have to do with it?
I must ask: Did she admit this to you? Was she caught?
kilo729 (I guess from a dictionary) said:
1. To run away, as from trouble or danger:
Hernandez caused whatever "danger" he was in. Hernandez was still in the commission of his crime; running off with his ill gotten gains. Though I don't rightly know, I doubt Sheets would have shot Hernandez if Hernandez had dropped the woofer and hightailed out of there.
kilo729 said:
For one who claims to be a "Constitution Cowboy", you seem to forget a very memorable line from the Declaration(of Independence):
... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ...
That which is endowed can be squandered, a pursuit of happiness can fail, and no one is endowed with a right to steal from another that which they've squandered or failed to achieve for themselves.
NCPatrolAR said:
There is nothing wrong with trying to use means short of lethal force to defend property; but I think killing someone over a subwoofer if excessive.
It isn't about the subwoofer or a candy bar or a loaf of bread. It's about the act of stealing
Joe Demko said:
The .gov efts up on so many other things that I am loathe to give them the power to exact the death penalty.
I agree with you, Joe. It belongs in the purview of the several states anyway. There is no power granted to the Feds in the Constitution to write law making murder a crime let alone the punishment of murder.
There was a reason stealing a man's horse was a hanging offense. In some cases it is a death sentence for the man who has his horse stolen out from under him out in the middle of nowhere. People stealing subwoofers and hubcaps will end up stealing your groceries when the market for subwoofers and hubcaps dries up and they start getting hungry. They are in essence stealing your life. The only use these people have in society is job security for lawyers, prison guards, parole boards, insurance adjusters, half way houses, and those people employed in the NICS.
Woody
Calling the police for property theft is only going to get you a beat cop there to take a statement. Look at the stats for how often victims actually get their stuff back after being robbed or burgled. The odds of getting your stuff back is next to nada. It's maddening to think that people here actually think this is the only reasonable thing to do! Guess I'll have to remain in the minority on this.
