Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-03-2013, 10:59 AM
 
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,408,773 times
Reputation: 2394

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
You need to call the DA in Whereveitwas, Texas, and inform him/her of your superior understanding of law, because our trigger-happy shopowner is being charged with murder.

2 a**holes. The shoplifter, and the vigilante.



It's called having a sense of proportion. The 2nd amendment says nothing about summary execution of shoplifters. I don't think it was left out by mistake. Do you?
Although the US Constitution does not specifically mention the "execution of shoplifters", your characterization is better put by stating "the defense of property and livelihood". Texas had to arrest him and charge him, but that does not mean he will be convicted. Whether the business owner comes out in a better place after all this (he could be whacked by fellow gang-members) is besides the point. Everyone has a right to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property. That beer - whether priceless or not - was his property and a portion of what constitutes his livelihood. If this becomes acceptable, then so does other forms of thievery such as car theft, jewelry theft, and move it up to white collar crimes. No civilized society can exist when thievery is allowed to go relatively unpunished. The security of property (whether land, home, car, or even your food-stuffs) is an absolute necessity to any civilization.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-03-2013, 11:12 AM
 
46,955 posts, read 25,990,037 times
Reputation: 29443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldawg82 View Post
Although the US Constitution does not specifically mention the "execution of shoplifters", your characterization is better put by stating "the defense of property and livelihood".
Yeah, his livelihood was clearly at risk.

Quote:
Texas had to arrest him and charge him, but that does not mean he will be convicted.
Well, it IS Texas.

Quote:
Whether the business owner comes out in a better place after all this (he could be whacked by fellow gang-members) is besides the point.
He could spend a considerable time in jail.

Quote:
Everyone has a right to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property.
With proportionate force. If a pre-schooler sets about you armed with a rubber duck, you're not entitled to use deadly force.

Quote:
That beer - whether priceless or not - was his property and a portion of what constitutes his livelihood. If this becomes acceptable...
Who the hell argued that it was acceptable? It's the justification for deadly force we're talking about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2013, 11:29 AM
 
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,408,773 times
Reputation: 2394
The leap to a pre-schooler attacking you with a rubber duck is quite extreme. Deadly (or the potential for the outcome to be deadly) force is the only option for an owner. Fighting with him puts the defender of property at physical risk and just allowing the thief to leave and go thru the useless call to the police so they can file a report and do nothing (in their defense, they have bigger fish to fry) is not really an option as the message quickly spreads and your business now has a bull's eye on it. The logical progression of events (from that point) leads to a loss of livelihood. This loss will resonate throughout communities and others will suffer for it. Thieves don't stop stealing just because one business goes out of business. The problem is the thief. It starts and ends with them. If the police want to file charges, then they should file charges against themselves for doing nothing and thus, aiding and abetting in crime. Shooting a thief is harsh, but it is far more of a harsh thing on the community when you do little to stop the thieves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2013, 12:45 PM
 
46,955 posts, read 25,990,037 times
Reputation: 29443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldawg82 View Post
The leap to a pre-schooler attacking you with a rubber duck is quite extreme. Deadly (or the potential for the outcome to be deadly) force is the only option for an owner. Fighting with him puts the defender of property at physical risk and just allowing the thief to leave and go thru the useless call to the police so they can file a report and do nothing (in their defense, they have bigger fish to fry) is not really an option as the message quickly spreads and your business now has a bull's eye on it. The logical progression of events (from that point) leads to a loss of livelihood. This loss will resonate throughout communities and others will suffer for it. Thieves don't stop stealing just because one business goes out of business. The problem is the thief. It starts and ends with them. If the police want to file charges, then they should file charges against themselves for doing nothing and thus, aiding and abetting in crime. Shooting a thief is harsh, but it is far more of a harsh thing on the community when you do little to stop the thieves.
What a sad, sad society you're building for yourself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2013, 08:49 AM
 
17,468 posts, read 12,937,957 times
Reputation: 6764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
You need to call the DA in Whereveitwas, Texas, and inform him/her of your superior understanding of law, because our trigger-happy shopowner is being charged with murder.

2 a**holes. The shoplifter, and the vigilante.



It's called having a sense of proportion. The 2nd amendment says nothing about summary execution of shoplifters. I don't think it was left out by mistake. Do you?
Why don''t you get out there and talk to store owners who fear for their lives just from these very people. Your European style doesn't quite go over in America. It's all about minding a persons own business, the thief had no right to steal from the business owner......who knows what the owner may have done if the guy asked for it rather than stealing it. He lost his life for a few bucks, now who's the idiot?


You must be a Obama supporter.......take from others rather than put your own $$$ forward?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top