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.
Imagine a scenario where the authorities at the city and state level were to pass an emergency measure that temporarily legalizes the use of deadly force by homeowners and shopkeepers/businesses, whether it is with firearms or any other weapon (crossbow, for example), once a person attempts to steal.
Imagine that all self-defense laws, stand your ground laws, and Castle Doctrine laws (or restrictions upon them) are temporarily suspended and that the laws which exist in the most gun-friendly states with the strongest pro-Castle Doctrine/pro-stand your ground states are temporarily enacted in said localities.
Imagine also that even prohibitions such as forbidding to shoot a thief in the back are lifted, and that the only condition to ensure the use of deadly force is that the homeowner, shopkeeper, or business has visual contact of the said criminal looting or attempting to loot, whether by being a witness at the moment the crime occurs or is attempted OR via live video feed (secrity cameras).
Imagine also that once this happens, every single shopkeeper, every single homeowner, and every single large business such as Best Buy or Nordstrom or LV or what not, with its armed security guards, shoot at will at every single looter or would-be looter.
Why would such criminals attempt again if they were shot in the leg or their faces grazed, or if they saw their co-looters die?
I've always felt like the only thing many looters/rioters understand is violence. I'm considering that if thieves/looters saw their co-conspirators die, they might think twice. Many might think twice. For individuals who live and die through violence, getting shot might be the only thing that stops them in their tracks. I am in favor of people defending themselves and their property. One of the reasons I've considered what shooting looters/rioters might do. I feel that some individuals, prison time won't be enough to deter them. We have individuals who spend alot of their time IN PRISON and can't function outside of prison.
There is something else I need to mention. Locking up people for rioting/looting isn't all that hard. It's about enforcing the law. On the flip side, I'm willing to bet many criminals have produced children with random people, in some cases unknowingly. Locking up the criminals isn't the hardest part. It's preventing the next generation from becoming criminals, that is the harder part. The fact that we would need armed security for prevent shoplifting and looting, there are deeper problems.
Then do you support them being shot, or being summarily executed via firearms as they do in China, if they were arrested and identified beyond any doubt?
Not like in China. I don't think we should emulate China. I do, however, support business owners shooting looters/rioters to stop said criminals in their tracks.
looters are moving up,from small retail stores to large dept stores,I bet before they loot Nordstrom or Best buy,they must have gone there to scout the place and figure what they want to grab and where is the nearest and safest exit.
This is not good. I'm the type of person who isn't a big impulse shopper. I do like to go to a particular store, scout the item I want to buy, and then go back and buy it later. That item might not be there when I first look. I might wait for the item to go on sale. If thieves are scouting stores out, this is going to be bad. More and more stores are going to take measures that might pass the buck to the law-abiding citizen. What constituted as harmless today could be considered "suspicious behavior" tomorrow, and treated as such. One thing I don't want to do is to have to prove that I'm not a thief.
Good news! Black Lives Matter is calling for a month-long boycott of "white companies'.
The irony of this is too comical.
They should boycott their government assistance for a month. After all, the vast majority of those paying taxes that ultimately go towards that benefit are white tax payers.
They should boycott their government assistance for a month. After all, the vast majority of those paying taxes that ultimately go towards that benefit are white tax payers.
If they were arrested and imprisoned they'd get a different type of government assistance. I'd be all for that.
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.
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.
