There was a thread in GAL awhile back and I mentioned hearing the audio on ebaumsworld.com of some guy who gunned down two men on his front lawn. They just finished breaking into his neighbors house. He was on the phone to the 911 operator the whole time. Someone posted a interview with the guy at his house with who I presume was a local news station. Can’t remember if he was charged or not. The neighborhood was very upper class as well. Funny part was he told the operator “I don’t even like my neighbors but this shit has got to stop”.
[quote]TxCASH wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote][/quote]
I would recommend a dobermans or a German Shepard, as actual APBT’s have a tendency to be stolen when people break in. I one dog stolen two times out of my front yard.[/quote]
Well that doesnt sound typical of a pitbull. My dad and uncle both owned pitbulls and i can tell you that if an unfamiliar person stepped onto the property without being escorted by my dad or uncle or some other familiar face to the dog, he would get torn to peices. Even i had to make my presence known by calling the dogs’ names before i opened the front door, as i didnt want them to think i was an intruder.[/quote]
I do not think you were dealing with a well bred dog. If you have ever read about or dealt with actually American Pit Bull Terriers you would know that they are one of the gentlest dogs when it comes to people; there is a difference between human and animal aggression. If I ever owned a pit bull that showed human aggression, I would cull him as soon as I got the chance.
Seventy pound pit bulls, that is way too heavy for a dog of that kind, you likely had a mixed breed dog. Only have I seen one dog, which was on camera from back in the day, that could hold his weight at 74 lbs, most dogs that heavy run out of energy too fast. And I’m glad, for the sake of your dad’s dog, that I was not around back then. Many a dog has been stopped by me.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]hedo wrote:
[quote]clip11 wrote:
If you caught someone stealing your car or breaking into your garage, is it the right thing to do to shoot them, even if you just injured them? And i dont mean right as in “legal” I mean as in right or wrong.[/quote]
From a legal standpoint it depends where you live and if your state has adopted the castle doctrine.
Is it the right thing to do. The answer is no. You shouldn’t kill a man over an object he is stealing out of your car or garage. Perfectly fine to investigate with a gun and if the man tries to attack you while your running him off the situation changes.
Never use lethal force unless you intend to kill someone. Few have the skill to wound and not to kill. Too fine a line.[/quote]
I disagree. I don’t think it’s that cut and dry. If someone was out at my place (the middle of nowhere) I’d probably shoot him. Especially if it’s dark and I would have trouble seeing a weapon.
Second, it’s reasonable to assume someone committing such crimes will commit crimes in the future. If you shoot them it’s reasonable to assume you are preventing more than just one crime. And it’s not a stretch to assume some of those crimes would be violent. You might prevent a woman from getting mugged in the future (or rapped or just generally assaulted), and that is justifiable in my book.[/quote]
How is it reasonable to assume that? Because they commit one they commit a bunch, that justification that any released felon should be shot as soon as he comes out of jail because he might commit another crime.
One crime is not a future crime, therefore stopping him from committing one crime is not stopping future crimes because we do not know if he’ll commit another crime.
However you can say, that protecting your private property is your right, therefore shooting someone who is stealing your property, is your right.
In Arizona, shooting someone is illegal. However, I go on the basis that I have full rights to my private property, and I can do as I wish with my private property unless I am committing some kind of aggression on someone’s private property, then they have the right to protect their private property just as I do.
- If I have the full rights to my private property.
- Part of my rights is protecting it at all costs, as long as it does not hurt anyone besides the one committing the aggression on my private property.
- That means it is right, if I choose so, to shoot someone down for stealing my private property.[/quote]
You might want to read up on crime statistics. I make the un-PC distinction of stereotyping a person committing a crime as a criminal. The ods are on my side.[/quote]
Does not matter what the statistics say, you cannot claim logically you are preventing crimes in the future by killing someone, they won’t accept it in court is what I am saying. However, as I said if you are saying that you are protecting your property you have more of a chance.
There is a difference because that could be an immediate effect, however if someone robs your house you cannot say, without a shadow of doubt, that they will rob a house in the next day, or even next week.
I do not care about PC, I am talking logic here. You cannot make a logical argument that would justify killing someone because they are going to commit a future crime. That is the same illogical statement you could use for standing outside a prison as the criminal offenders come out after serving their sentence and shooting them there as they stand and claiming you are preventing future crime. Does not work.
However, if you say that since you have the right to private property, which includes you and your family’s safety, you can then make the logical argument that you were merely protecting your right to your private property.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]hedo wrote:
[quote]clip11 wrote:
If you caught someone stealing your car or breaking into your garage, is it the right thing to do to shoot them, even if you just injured them? And i dont mean right as in “legal” I mean as in right or wrong.[/quote]
From a legal standpoint it depends where you live and if your state has adopted the castle doctrine.
Is it the right thing to do. The answer is no. You shouldn’t kill a man over an object he is stealing out of your car or garage. Perfectly fine to investigate with a gun and if the man tries to attack you while your running him off the situation changes.
Never use lethal force unless you intend to kill someone. Few have the skill to wound and not to kill. Too fine a line.[/quote]
I disagree. I don’t think it’s that cut and dry. If someone was out at my place (the middle of nowhere) I’d probably shoot him. Especially if it’s dark and I would have trouble seeing a weapon.
Second, it’s reasonable to assume someone committing such crimes will commit crimes in the future. If you shoot them it’s reasonable to assume you are preventing more than just one crime. And it’s not a stretch to assume some of those crimes would be violent. You might prevent a woman from getting mugged in the future (or rapped or just generally assaulted), and that is justifiable in my book.[/quote]
How is it reasonable to assume that? Because they commit one they commit a bunch, that justification that any released felon should be shot as soon as he comes out of jail because he might commit another crime.
One crime is not a future crime, therefore stopping him from committing one crime is not stopping future crimes because we do not know if he’ll commit another crime.
However you can say, that protecting your private property is your right, therefore shooting someone who is stealing your property, is your right.
In Arizona, shooting someone is illegal. However, I go on the basis that I have full rights to my private property, and I can do as I wish with my private property unless I am committing some kind of aggression on someone’s private property, then they have the right to protect their private property just as I do.
- If I have the full rights to my private property.
- Part of my rights is protecting it at all costs, as long as it does not hurt anyone besides the one committing the aggression on my private property.
- That means it is right, if I choose so, to shoot someone down for stealing my private property.[/quote]
You might want to read up on crime statistics. I make the un-PC distinction of stereotyping a person committing a crime as a criminal. The ods are on my side.[/quote]
Does not matter what the statistics say, you cannot claim logically you are preventing crimes in the future by killing someone, they won’t accept it in court is what I am saying. However, as I said if you are saying that you are protecting your property you have more of a chance.
[/quote]
I’m talking about moral, not legal justification. And yes, you can include ridding the world of a bad person in a moral argument.
The logically, you cannot claim without a shadow of a doubt that the guy is robbing you. Maybe he is only going to borrow in and bring back your car detailed with a full tank of gas. ODS are, the guy has committed and will commit many more crimes. So, morally, I treat them as such.
I’m not saying kill someone to prevent a future crime. I’m saying the probability of stopping future crimes is something that should be factored in.
Though it’s interesting to note that if you did shoot prisons coming out, you would indeed prevent a large portion of crime.
[quote]
However, if you say that since you have the right to private property, which includes you and your family’s safety, you can then make the logical argument that you were merely protecting your right to your private property.[/quote]
Yes, I agree that catching someone in the act is necessary to a decision to fire on them. That doesn’t mean that you must ignore other factors.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]hedo wrote:
[quote]clip11 wrote:
If you caught someone stealing your car or breaking into your garage, is it the right thing to do to shoot them, even if you just injured them? And i dont mean right as in “legal” I mean as in right or wrong.[/quote]
From a legal standpoint it depends where you live and if your state has adopted the castle doctrine.
Is it the right thing to do. The answer is no. You shouldn’t kill a man over an object he is stealing out of your car or garage. Perfectly fine to investigate with a gun and if the man tries to attack you while your running him off the situation changes.
Never use lethal force unless you intend to kill someone. Few have the skill to wound and not to kill. Too fine a line.[/quote]
I disagree. I don’t think it’s that cut and dry. If someone was out at my place (the middle of nowhere) I’d probably shoot him. Especially if it’s dark and I would have trouble seeing a weapon.
Second, it’s reasonable to assume someone committing such crimes will commit crimes in the future. If you shoot them it’s reasonable to assume you are preventing more than just one crime. And it’s not a stretch to assume some of those crimes would be violent. You might prevent a woman from getting mugged in the future (or rapped or just generally assaulted), and that is justifiable in my book.[/quote]
How is it reasonable to assume that? Because they commit one they commit a bunch, that justification that any released felon should be shot as soon as he comes out of jail because he might commit another crime.
One crime is not a future crime, therefore stopping him from committing one crime is not stopping future crimes because we do not know if he’ll commit another crime.
However you can say, that protecting your private property is your right, therefore shooting someone who is stealing your property, is your right.
In Arizona, shooting someone is illegal. However, I go on the basis that I have full rights to my private property, and I can do as I wish with my private property unless I am committing some kind of aggression on someone’s private property, then they have the right to protect their private property just as I do.
- If I have the full rights to my private property.
- Part of my rights is protecting it at all costs, as long as it does not hurt anyone besides the one committing the aggression on my private property.
- That means it is right, if I choose so, to shoot someone down for stealing my private property.[/quote]
You might want to read up on crime statistics. I make the un-PC distinction of stereotyping a person committing a crime as a criminal. The ods are on my side.[/quote]
Does not matter what the statistics say, you cannot claim logically you are preventing crimes in the future by killing someone, they won’t accept it in court is what I am saying. However, as I said if you are saying that you are protecting your property you have more of a chance.
[/quote]
I’m talking about moral, not legal justification. And yes, you can include ridding the world of a bad person in a moral argument.[/quote]
So am I, you cannot make a moral argument either that you are ridding the world of a bad person, I guess you can if you are the likes of Hitler, Stalin, &C. However, killing someone unless in case of immediate self-defense cannot be morally justified.
[quote]
The logically, you cannot claim without a shadow of a doubt that the guy is robbing you. Maybe he is only going to borrow in and bring back your car detailed with a full tank of gas. ODS are, the guy has committed and will commit many more crimes. So, morally, I treat them as such.[/quote]
If he is on your property without permission, you can logically assume he is making a aggressive move on your private property.
You cannot prove, unless you were there, that he has committed many crimes, and second you cannot prove, unless you have some way of seeing the future, that he will commit many more crimes. Logically, or morally (you have to use logic with morality), you are still not justified by the idea that ‘he will commit future crimes so it needs to be factored in.’ Since you have no way of looking at the future.[quote]
I’m not saying kill someone to prevent a future crime. I’m saying the probability of stopping future crimes is something that should be factored in.[/quote]
No it should not, since you cannot possibly see the future and know for certain he will commit future crimes beyond the one that he is caught in.[quote]
Though it’s interesting to note that if you did shoot prisons coming out, you would indeed prevent a large portion of crime.[/quote]
Yet you would shoot innocent people as they have paid for their crimes, I guess you could shoot MaximusB if you want and claim you are preventing future crimes, since he went to prison. Go ahead big boy, see what MB would think about that logic when he has been in prison.
[quote]
[quote]
However, if you say that since you have the right to private property, which includes you and your family’s safety, you can then make the logical argument that you were merely protecting your right to your private property.[/quote]
Yes, I agree that catching someone in the act is necessary to a decision to fire on them. That doesn’t mean that you must ignore other factors.[/quote]
What other factors, unless you know the person or have a crystal ball that allows you to see the ball, there is no other factors besides he is an aggressor on your private property.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I disagree. I don’t think it’s that cut and dry. If someone was out at my place (the middle of nowhere) I’d probably shoot him. Especially if it’s dark and I would have trouble seeing a weapon.
Second, it’s reasonable to assume someone committing such crimes will commit crimes in the future. If you shoot them it’s reasonable to assume you are preventing more than just one crime. And it’s not a stretch to assume some of those crimes would be violent. You might prevent a woman from getting mugged in the future (or rapped or just generally assaulted), and that is justifiable in my book.[/quote]
If you’re justifying it by saying you’re preventing future crimes, then you are not defending yourself, you’re just being a vigilante and assuming the role of law enforcement.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT I WILL SHOOT SOMEONE BECAUSE I THINK THEY MIGHT COMMIT MORE CRIMES.
I am saying that I definitely consider it. The argument that you can’t because you don’t have a crystal ball is asinine. Technically you don’t know someone is stealing until they have already taken your property and then never return it. Are you suggesting that I wait to see what exactly they do with my property before I call them a thief? hell no. I find some stranger sitting in my car I’m going to assume he’s stealing it. If you want to wait to see if he hot wires it and drives off, that’s your prerogative.
If I see sceezy looking guy pointing a pistol at a couple in a dark alley, I’m going to assume he intends them harm. You may want to wait to see if he really intends harm, I’m not.
For you to think that I can’t factor in common sense probabilities of outcomes into my moral judgments IS RETARDED.
I personally am going to weigh his life vs. my property + the probability of him harming me and mine + the probability of him stealing others property + the probability of him harming other innocent people.
Why the hell can’t I factor in the likelihood of him hurting other innocent people?
Even the legal system (your exiting prisoners) makes this distinction. Repeat offenders are treated differently. Its why there are parole officers and halfway houses. The legal system factors in the unequivocal fact that a person who is willing to perpetuate one crime is generally willing to commit multiple ones. Once you’ve committed a crime you legally no longer receive the benefit of the doubt. It’s why we keep people’s criminal records. Do you think we should expunge records upon the completion of every prison term? Do you think that once people get out, they shouldn’t be monitored? Do you think we shouldn’t prevent pedophiles from moving in next to an elementary school? After all, they paid their dept and you can’t treat them like that will commit another crime because you don’t have a crystal ball. Dumb. Just plain dumb.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I AM NOT SAYING THAT I WILL SHOOT SOMEONE BECAUSE I THINK THEY MIGHT COMMIT MORE CRIMES.
Why the hell can’t I factor in the likelihood of him hurting other innocent people?
[/quote]
56% of felons who commit violent crimes are repeat offenders.
I say go ahead and shoot the motherfucker
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TxCASH wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote][/quote]
I would recommend a dobermans or a German Shepard, as actual APBT’s have a tendency to be stolen when people break in. I one dog stolen two times out of my front yard.[/quote]
Well that doesnt sound typical of a pitbull. My dad and uncle both owned pitbulls and i can tell you that if an unfamiliar person stepped onto the property without being escorted by my dad or uncle or some other familiar face to the dog, he would get torn to peices. Even i had to make my presence known by calling the dogs’ names before i opened the front door, as i didnt want them to think i was an intruder.
Oh and my dad’s 70lb pitbull killed many dogs twice his size, including dobermanns and german shepherds. Before you all get alarmed, it wasnt a dog-fighting ring haha, just some run-ins with other dogs who unfortunately werent on leashes when my dad took the dog for walks in the park[/quote]
That’s messed up. If you aren’t making that shit up, I’d say that dog should be put down. You have to announce yourself to the dog to avoid attack? This dog attacks and kills dogs while on a leash, beyond the control of the owner?
Sounds like you’re full of shit to me. I’m willing to bet a dog like that would have already been put down.[/quote]
He lived in a shady neighborhood. It was a guard dog. It served its purpose. Why would you put it down for doing what its meant to do? And about it killing other dogs while on a leash… if your dog was getting attacked by another dog, wouldn’t you drop the leash and let the dog defend himself?
And unfortunately my dad decided to kill the dog the day my little brother was born. Great dog but i wouldn’t trust any dog around infants
Property is a part of my life. To gain my property I had to work, it took time and effort. I am proud of what I achieved. Not to mention time is probably the most important thing in life, since it’s our main limitation.
If you take it away without my consent, you take away a piece of my life, which is an attack.
So if you attack my property, you attack my life. As a consequence you die.
I hate people trying to act holy and get on their high horse saying we shouldn’t be so materialistic and care about money.
Note: I am NOT talking about the legal part of the question, only the moral part.
As I understand the legal issue depends on the state and whether it has the “castle doctrine.”
Just to give a perspective from the other side – I’m not a thief, of course, but I have accidentally trespassed on somebody’s land while I was out for a run. (There’s a lot of woods and trails and the demarcations aren’t obvious.) The owner had a guard dog; it started barking, scared the shit out of me, and I got out of there. But I’m glad that I wasn’t in a state where I could have been shot on sight for a mistake. Or “torn to pieces.”
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
As I understand the legal issue depends on the state and whether it has the “castle doctrine.”
Just to give a perspective from the other side – I’m not a thief, of course, but I have accidentally trespassed on somebody’s land while I was out for a run. (There’s a lot of woods and trails and the demarcations aren’t obvious.) The owner had a guard dog; it started barking, scared the shit out of me, and I got out of there. But I’m glad that I wasn’t in a state where I could have been shot on sight for a mistake. Or “torn to pieces.”[/quote]
If that were the case it would have been pretty obvious you posed no threat to life or property.
But you probably still would have had me greet you with a loaded shotgun in hand.
You have to remember, that where I’m living, having a random person show up in the middle of the night outside my house scares the shit out of me too. Just seeing a car drive down to the end of my road and turn around makes me nervous.
I’m not going to speak to the legal side of the question.
Morally, if you come into my house, at night, you either require an ambulance or you are about to.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I AM NOT SAYING THAT I WILL SHOOT SOMEONE BECAUSE I THINK THEY MIGHT COMMIT MORE CRIMES.
I am saying that I definitely consider it. The argument that you can’t because you don’t have a crystal ball is asinine. Technically you don’t know someone is stealing until they have already taken your property and then never return it. Are you suggesting that I wait to see what exactly they do with my property before I call them a thief? hell no. I find some stranger sitting in my car I’m going to assume he’s stealing it. If you want to wait to see if he hot wires it and drives off, that’s your prerogative.
If I see sceezy looking guy pointing a pistol at a couple in a dark alley, I’m going to assume he intends them harm. You may want to wait to see if he really intends harm, I’m not.
For you to think that I can’t factor in common sense probabilities of outcomes into my moral judgments IS RETARDED.
I personally am going to weigh his life vs. my property + the probability of him harming me and mine + the probability of him stealing others property + the probability of him harming other innocent people.
Why the hell can’t I factor in the likelihood of him hurting other innocent people?
Even the legal system (your exiting prisoners) makes this distinction. Repeat offenders are treated differently. Its why there are parole officers and halfway houses. The legal system factors in the unequivocal fact that a person who is willing to perpetuate one crime is generally willing to commit multiple ones. Once you’ve committed a crime you legally no longer receive the benefit of the doubt. It’s why we keep people’s criminal records. Do you think we should expunge records upon the completion of every prison term? Do you think that once people get out, they shouldn’t be monitored? Do you think we shouldn’t prevent pedophiles from moving in next to an elementary school? After all, they paid their dept and you can’t treat them like that will commit another crime because you don’t have a crystal ball. Dumb. Just plain dumb.[/quote]
It is not something to consider, fact. Fact, if someone is in your car without your permission they are an aggressor to your private property shoot til lock.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I AM NOT SAYING THAT I WILL SHOOT SOMEONE BECAUSE I THINK THEY MIGHT COMMIT MORE CRIMES.
I am saying that I definitely consider it. The argument that you can’t because you don’t have a crystal ball is asinine. Technically you don’t know someone is stealing until they have already taken your property and then never return it. Are you suggesting that I wait to see what exactly they do with my property before I call them a thief? hell no. I find some stranger sitting in my car I’m going to assume he’s stealing it. If you want to wait to see if he hot wires it and drives off, that’s your prerogative.
If I see sceezy looking guy pointing a pistol at a couple in a dark alley, I’m going to assume he intends them harm. You may want to wait to see if he really intends harm, I’m not.
For you to think that I can’t factor in common sense probabilities of outcomes into my moral judgments IS RETARDED.
I personally am going to weigh his life vs. my property + the probability of him harming me and mine + the probability of him stealing others property + the probability of him harming other innocent people.
Why the hell can’t I factor in the likelihood of him hurting other innocent people?
Even the legal system (your exiting prisoners) makes this distinction. Repeat offenders are treated differently. Its why there are parole officers and halfway houses. The legal system factors in the unequivocal fact that a person who is willing to perpetuate one crime is generally willing to commit multiple ones. Once you’ve committed a crime you legally no longer receive the benefit of the doubt. It’s why we keep people’s criminal records. Do you think we should expunge records upon the completion of every prison term? Do you think that once people get out, they shouldn’t be monitored? Do you think we shouldn’t prevent pedophiles from moving in next to an elementary school? After all, they paid their dept and you can’t treat them like that will commit another crime because you don’t have a crystal ball. Dumb. Just plain dumb.[/quote]
It is not something to consider, fact. Fact, if someone is in your car without your permission they are an aggressor to your private property shoot til lock.[/quote]
Why are you assuming they are after your property. Maybe they got in the wrong car. maybe his family is being held hostage and he was ordered to steal a car or watch his kids die. You are making assumptions too.
So you disagree with the people who are considering whether or not the think the guy poses a physical threat to them and their loved ones?
Say that if you let him go there is a 50% chance he will end up hurting someone. Give me a good reason why a moral argument would not consider that?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I AM NOT SAYING THAT I WILL SHOOT SOMEONE BECAUSE I THINK THEY MIGHT COMMIT MORE CRIMES.
I am saying that I definitely consider it. The argument that you can’t because you don’t have a crystal ball is asinine. Technically you don’t know someone is stealing until they have already taken your property and then never return it. Are you suggesting that I wait to see what exactly they do with my property before I call them a thief? hell no. I find some stranger sitting in my car I’m going to assume he’s stealing it. If you want to wait to see if he hot wires it and drives off, that’s your prerogative.
If I see sceezy looking guy pointing a pistol at a couple in a dark alley, I’m going to assume he intends them harm. You may want to wait to see if he really intends harm, I’m not.
For you to think that I can’t factor in common sense probabilities of outcomes into my moral judgments IS RETARDED.
I personally am going to weigh his life vs. my property + the probability of him harming me and mine + the probability of him stealing others property + the probability of him harming other innocent people.
Why the hell can’t I factor in the likelihood of him hurting other innocent people?
Even the legal system (your exiting prisoners) makes this distinction. Repeat offenders are treated differently. Its why there are parole officers and halfway houses. The legal system factors in the unequivocal fact that a person who is willing to perpetuate one crime is generally willing to commit multiple ones. Once you’ve committed a crime you legally no longer receive the benefit of the doubt. It’s why we keep people’s criminal records. Do you think we should expunge records upon the completion of every prison term? Do you think that once people get out, they shouldn’t be monitored? Do you think we shouldn’t prevent pedophiles from moving in next to an elementary school? After all, they paid their dept and you can’t treat them like that will commit another crime because you don’t have a crystal ball. Dumb. Just plain dumb.[/quote]
It is not something to consider, fact. Fact, if someone is in your car without your permission they are an aggressor to your private property shoot til lock.[/quote]
Why are you assuming they are after your property. Maybe they got in the wrong car. maybe his family is being held hostage and he was ordered to steal a car or watch his kids die. You are making assumptions too.
So you disagree with the people who are considering whether or not the think the guy poses a physical threat to them and their loved ones?
Say that if you let him go there is a 50% chance he will end up hurting someone. Give me a good reason why a moral argument would not consider that?[/quote]
Because there is no possible way to know if he will commit another crime.
I am not assuming they are after my property, I can see they are making an aggressive movement on my private property, which only takes them using it without permission.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I AM NOT SAYING THAT I WILL SHOOT SOMEONE BECAUSE I THINK THEY MIGHT COMMIT MORE CRIMES.
I am saying that I definitely consider it. The argument that you can’t because you don’t have a crystal ball is asinine. Technically you don’t know someone is stealing until they have already taken your property and then never return it. Are you suggesting that I wait to see what exactly they do with my property before I call them a thief? hell no. I find some stranger sitting in my car I’m going to assume he’s stealing it. If you want to wait to see if he hot wires it and drives off, that’s your prerogative.
If I see sceezy looking guy pointing a pistol at a couple in a dark alley, I’m going to assume he intends them harm. You may want to wait to see if he really intends harm, I’m not.
For you to think that I can’t factor in common sense probabilities of outcomes into my moral judgments IS RETARDED.
I personally am going to weigh his life vs. my property + the probability of him harming me and mine + the probability of him stealing others property + the probability of him harming other innocent people.
Why the hell can’t I factor in the likelihood of him hurting other innocent people?
Even the legal system (your exiting prisoners) makes this distinction. Repeat offenders are treated differently. Its why there are parole officers and halfway houses. The legal system factors in the unequivocal fact that a person who is willing to perpetuate one crime is generally willing to commit multiple ones. Once you’ve committed a crime you legally no longer receive the benefit of the doubt. It’s why we keep people’s criminal records. Do you think we should expunge records upon the completion of every prison term? Do you think that once people get out, they shouldn’t be monitored? Do you think we shouldn’t prevent pedophiles from moving in next to an elementary school? After all, they paid their dept and you can’t treat them like that will commit another crime because you don’t have a crystal ball. Dumb. Just plain dumb.[/quote]
It is not something to consider, fact. Fact, if someone is in your car without your permission they are an aggressor to your private property shoot til lock.[/quote]
Why are you assuming they are after your property. Maybe they got in the wrong car. maybe his family is being held hostage and he was ordered to steal a car or watch his kids die. You are making assumptions too.
So you disagree with the people who are considering whether or not the think the guy poses a physical threat to them and their loved ones?
Say that if you let him go there is a 50% chance he will end up hurting someone. Give me a good reason why a moral argument would not consider that?[/quote]
Because there is no possible way to know if he will commit another crime.
I am not assuming they are after my property, I can see they are making an aggressive movement on my private property, which only takes them using it without permission.[/quote]
So you disagree with the entire judicial system?
How do you know if isn’t one of the scenarios i listed previously with the guy getting in your car? You don’t have a crystal ball. Who the hell do you think you are to judge what someone is doing without letting knowing absolutely? I don’t even think you honestly believe what you are saying at this point. You aren’t that dumb. You also keep skipping my points and repeating the same thing I’ve disproved by multiple examples.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
As I understand the legal issue depends on the state and whether it has the “castle doctrine.”
Just to give a perspective from the other side – I’m not a thief, of course, but I have accidentally trespassed on somebody’s land while I was out for a run. (There’s a lot of woods and trails and the demarcations aren’t obvious.) The owner had a guard dog; it started barking, scared the shit out of me, and I got out of there. But I’m glad that I wasn’t in a state where I could have been shot on sight for a mistake. Or “torn to pieces.”[/quote]
If that were the case it would have been pretty obvious you posed no threat to life or property.
But you probably still would have had me greet you with a loaded shotgun in hand.
You have to remember, that where I’m living, having a random person show up in the middle of the night outside my house scares the shit out of me too. Just seeing a car drive down to the end of my road and turn around makes me nervous.[/quote]
Why, out of curiosity? High crime rate? Just low traffic in general? is it common that people who drive past your house are up to no good?
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
As I understand the legal issue depends on the state and whether it has the “castle doctrine.”
Just to give a perspective from the other side – I’m not a thief, of course, but I have accidentally trespassed on somebody’s land while I was out for a run. (There’s a lot of woods and trails and the demarcations aren’t obvious.) The owner had a guard dog; it started barking, scared the shit out of me, and I got out of there. But I’m glad that I wasn’t in a state where I could have been shot on sight for a mistake. Or “torn to pieces.”[/quote]
If that were the case it would have been pretty obvious you posed no threat to life or property.
But you probably still would have had me greet you with a loaded shotgun in hand.
You have to remember, that where I’m living, having a random person show up in the middle of the night outside my house scares the shit out of me too. Just seeing a car drive down to the end of my road and turn around makes me nervous.[/quote]
Why, out of curiosity? High crime rate? Just low traffic in general? is it common that people who drive past your house are up to no good?[/quote]
I live in the middle of a 600 acre farm on a dead end road with only a couple of houses. someone would have to accidentally drive 3 miles down my road, open a cattle gate and drive up my half mile drive way to get to my house.
I had a redneck guy in a truck pull up to my house one night and I propped up my shotgun beside the door before I opened it and yelled at him to ask what he wanted. He claimed he was looking for someone that lived on my street. It made me more than a little nervous, especially when he started being an asshole about it.