Zimmerman Verdict

[jaimehlers]

I disagree with what you say to neopagan if what you're saying applies to everyone.

The principle applies to everyone, whether or not you care about your own life.

Take me for an example: I don't care about me at all. Don't care if I live or die. I see that it's just the way things are. However, if I lived with someone, then I'd protect them as much as I could with my life. If I didn't live with anybody then I would attempt to protect my stuff. Whether I could replace it or not is irrelevant. It's like a fire. If a fire started in my home unknowingly, I would try to save as much of my property as I could. Why wouldn't I toward an intruder? My life (whether I cared or not about it) would still be at stake.

Let me put this to you in very stark terms - if you die trying to retrieve your replaceable property, then what good would it be to you?  You have to be alive for that property to be of any use to you.  I suppose you could argue you were rescuing it for your next-of-kin, whoever that was.  But how do you think your next-of-kin would feel if you died because of some piece of property?  How much do you think that would console them, when you were gone from their life - forever?

By dying over some object, you would do permanent harm to the people who care about you.  Preventable harm, for that matter, since you didn't have to run back into that burning building, or confront that armed robber, because of something you own.  So whether you care about your own life, you have an obligation to protect it for the sake of others who do care about it, assuming you are serious about protecting them from harm.

[epidemic]

I disagree with what you say to neopagan if what you're saying applies to everyone.

The principle applies to everyone, whether or not you care about your own life.

Take me for an example: I don't care about me at all. Don't care if I live or die. I see that it's just the way things are. However, if I lived with someone, then I'd protect them as much as I could with my life. If I didn't live with anybody then I would attempt to protect my stuff. Whether I could replace it or not is irrelevant. It's like a fire. If a fire started in my home unknowingly, I would try to save as much of my property as I could. Why wouldn't I toward an intruder? My life (whether I cared or not about it) would still be at stake.

Let me put this to you in very stark terms - if you die trying to retrieve your replaceable property, then what good would it be to you?  You have to be alive for that property to be of any use to you.  I suppose you could argue you were rescuing it for your next-of-kin, whoever that was.  But how do you think your next-of-kin would feel if you died because of some piece of property?  How much do you think that would console them, when you were gone from their life - forever?

By dying over some object, you would do permanent harm to the people who care about you.  Preventable harm, for that matter, since you didn't have to run back into that burning building, or confront that armed robber, because of something you own.  So whether you care about your own life, you have an obligation to protect it for the sake of others who do care about it, assuming you are serious about protecting them from harm.

People keep saying would I die for  posessions.   whether I chase a thief or not is really a choice I make consciously.  But whether I choose to chase them or shoot them I do not expect to die.  When I draw my weapon to stop a thief I really dont expect to die.

I tend to not want to kill someone over a rubber ball but there is a principle of the thing at work here that might well factor in.

That person does not know if the car they stole from me was the car use to get to work to pay for my mother chemo,  they don't know if by steeling it I might lose my job.  Thieves in texas risk their life when they steal and I am not entirely against that.  I am in favor of stand your ground laws but fleeing theif is a little further than I would choose. 

I should not be forced by law to retreat to the furthers portion of the house in hopes the thief will take my shit and leave.   It is not my job to run away on my property in my house.  When you show up in my house I have no idea you will do while in there.  As soon as I get the drop on you I am gonna take you out.  I don't see why I should end up in court over same.  If you attempt to steal my car, or rob me I don't know you are planning to let me go when you have what you want.  You forfeit your right to life to my judgement when you rob me.

[LoriPinkAngel]

Hi Lori.  I think you missed my post.  http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25192.msg568039.html#msg568039

Could you please respond?  In the case I was talking about a man took the radio out of a parked car with no one in it.  The owner chased the thief and stabbed him to death. 
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_133

That is ridiculous.  A criminal robbed a criminal.  And why do I assume guy #2 is a criminal?  Because you generally would inform the police if you were robbed.   You would let someone know, somehow that you injured somebody, rather than deny involvement.

Do you think that is justice?  Is this what you want society to look like?

It is not justice under the law but I guess getting killed on the job is an occupational hazard of choosing a life of crime.  I would prefer a society where guys aren't running around with bags of stolen radios. 

[jaimehlers]

People keep saying would I die for  posessions.   whether I chase a thief or not is really a choice I make consciously.  But whether I choose to chase them or shoot them I do not expect to die.  When I draw my weapon to stop a thief I really dont expect to die.

Then perhaps you should start thinking about it, rather than making shortsighted assumptions.  I seriously doubt you've ever actually been in a situation where you actually drew a weapon to stop a thief, or pursued a thief, or whatever - if you had, you wouldn't be so blithe about it.

I tend to not want to kill someone over a rubber ball but there is a principle of the thing at work here that might well factor in.

Sure, I understand, you don't like it when someone steals your stuff.  I don't know that anyone does.  I'm certainly not saying that it's okay for someone to steal from you, or that you shouldn't try to stop a robber if you can do so.  But possessions aren't worth a life, period.  They aren't worth your life, and certainly not worth taking someone else's life either.

That person does not know if the car they stole from me was the car use to get to work to pay for my mother chemo,  they don't know if by steeling it I might lose my job.  Thieves in texas risk their life when they steal and I am not entirely against that.  I am in favor of stand your ground laws but fleeing theif is a little further than I would choose.

And you don't know why they might have stolen your radio, or your car, or some other object in your possession.  Besides, there's insurance to help with things like that.  For example, comprehensive car insurance covers you against theft and vandalism.  A far more effective solution than attempting to chase down and kill someone for daring to steal your car, or its radio.

I should not be forced by law to retreat to the furthers portion of the house in hopes the thief will take my shit and leave.

You also shouldn't have the option to commit murder to prevent someone from, as you say, taking your shit and leaving (especially if, say, you weren't at home at the time, or if they broke into your car and stole your radio - or stole the car itself, for that matter).

It is not my job to run away on my property in my house.  When you show up in my house I have no idea you will do while in there.  As soon as I get the drop on you I am gonna take you out.  I don't see why I should end up in court over same.  If you attempt to steal my car, or rob me I don't know you are planning to let me go when you have what you want.  You forfeit your right to life to my judgement when you rob me.

Maybe you should catch up from the last time you posted in this thread, before you write other posts in it.  If you had, you would have seen that I acknowledged that if someone is breaking into your house while you're there, that falls under defending your life rather than your property.  Most thieves are smart enough to investigate a house they're planning on robbing beforehand, and they generally won't bother trying to rob an occupied house.  That means if someone is trying to break into an occupied house, that they know is occupied, it's probably because they want to do something to the residents.

[LoriPinkAngel]

That person does not know if the car they stole from me was the car use to get to work to pay for my mother chemo,  they don't know if by steeling it I might lose my job.  Thieves in texas risk their life when they steal and I am not entirely against that.  I am in favor of stand your ground laws but fleeing theif is a little further than I would choose. 

On the day of Hurricaine Sandy, I called all my homecare patients to announce I was visiting them and about what time, called my office to let them know I should be able to make my visits and made some admin type calls.  The storm was expected to hit my area around 3pm and I expected to be done right around then.  When I went out to my car I found the passenger window smashed, my GPS stolen and my nursing bag with my stethoscope, BP cuff and about $400 assorted wound care and other medical supplies (which I keep in my car ready to go under a blanket) missing.  By now it was about 10:30.  I had no time to wait for the incompetent police so I could get a report to submit to insurance, I had to stick on a plastic bag, call my employer on my cell and rush straight to the nearest glass repair place, knowing a plastic bag repair job would not withstand the hurricane that was coming in a couple hours.  So one criminal asshole inconvenienced me, all my patients, my employer, my coworkers who had to fill in for me at the last minute, and the glass people who although they did get additional business, had to rush it at the last minute for a 3+ year old GPS and some medical crap with no resale value.  Plus this unscheduled absence from my job and the stress from the theft and replacing all my things was part of the downfall which led to the ultimate tear in the relationship with my employer which could have been the difference between me staying there in a less strenuous position and leaving.  So these seemingly simple crimes have butterfly effects.

[jaimehlers]

That's certainly a doozy, Lori.  However, if you had seen the person fleeing from your vehicle, would you have attempted to chase them down and get your stuff back?  Or would you have saved those details for the police and instead focused on getting things fixed up as best you could?

[LoriPinkAngel]

Well, did you see the post where I described my idiotic self confronting the home intruder?

 

I think "in the moment" rationale is hardly ever rational. What one believes now may not be the outcome in-the-moment.

You won't really know until you're in the moment. Therefore one is just playing in hypotheticals in this moment.

-Nam

It is true that you don't know what you'll do until you're in the moment.  Once my son & I were playing at the computer when my son said "Mom, someone is coming in our house"  Now, the smart thing to do, especially in my neighborhood, would have been to call 911 & take my son & run out the back door.  But apparently my fight or flight mechanism is seriously impaired because I went stomping up to the intruder with my hands on my hips and said "Excuse me, what the f*ck do you think you are doing?" He froze and said "I think I have the wrong house" and turned around and left.  I said "You're goddamn right you have the wrong house!" and slammed the door behind him.  Well, it turned out he really did have the wrong house, as my neighbor explained when he came over and apologized for his cousin...  Lucky for me he was not an armed creep.

My common sense can be defective at times...  If I were leaving for work I someone were fleeing with my stuff?  Well, I would not be armed or really on my own turf to be "standing my ground" or having the balls (or physicality) to take chase but I think I would definitely scream and yell some very foul stuff.

[jaimehlers]

Of course I did.  But that was a different situation; you were confronting someone who was trying to enter your home, with your children present. What I asked was whether you would have tried to chase down someone who was in the act of fleeing from your car with some stuff that had been stolen from it.

[epidemic]

I really don't care why they are stealing my stuff, it is really irrelevant.  Yes they could be stealing for their sick child.  But that is the risk you take in your line of work as a thief.  If a smoke jumper is killed in a forest fire I feel bad for him but that is the life he chose.

I have the right to my stuff, if I confront you and I end up shooting you as you retreat I really feel that you set the wheels in motion for your own demise.  I guess the bigger question is would you jail someone for shooting a fleeing thief,  would you take him away from his family and friends because he responded to a theft more aggressively than you would have? 

Personally I don't think said person is a threat to the community for dispatching a thief.  I would punish him with a fine for disturbing the peace with his loud gun and for littering leaving a trash (dead body) in the street. 


I really do have a problem with shooting a fleeing thief.  Generally speaking I would not shoot a fleeing thief, but I can see where in the heat of the moment where someone might and I don't feel that person should be jailed for it.

[DumpsterFire]

A fleeing suspect represents no physical threat, and shooting someone who is running away is never justifiable[1]. One cannot, by definition, "stand one's ground" while in pursuit.

I find it pretty shocking that many on this forum seem to think otherwise.

1.	unless they're running away with your child under their arm or something

[jaimehlers]

I really don't care why they are stealing my stuff, it is really irrelevant.  Yes they could be stealing for their sick child.  But that is the risk you take in your line of work as a thief.  If a smoke jumper is killed in a forest fire I feel bad for him but that is the life he chose.

Difference being that you didn't go out and shoot the guy.

I have the right to my stuff, if I confront you and I end up shooting you as you retreat I really feel that you set the wheels in motion for your own demise.  I guess the bigger question is would you jail someone for shooting a fleeing thief,  would you take him away from his family and friends because he responded to a theft more aggressively than you would have?

Your right to your property does not give you the right to commit murder.  It absolutely does not, under any circumstances, and to argue otherwise opens the door to them justifying killing you based on some right of theirs.

Personally I don't think said person is a threat to the community for dispatching a thief.  I would punish him with a fine for disturbing the peace with his loud gun and for littering leaving a trash (dead body) in the street.

Fortunately, you are not in charge of dispensing punishments, and I hope you never are if this even comes close to your real feelings on the matter.

I really do have a problem with shooting a fleeing thief.  Generally speaking I would not shoot a fleeing thief, but I can see where in the heat of the moment where someone might and I don't feel that person should be jailed for it.

I can understand how "in the heat of the moment" works, but that does not mean that they should be given carte blanche for murdering another human being.  Or given a slap on the wrist and let go.

[screwtape]

I really don't care ...
I feel bad... but
I have the right...
I really feel that... 
Personally I don't think...
I would...
I really do ...
I can see... 
I don't feel...

Bold mine.  You have shared your feeling and opinions, but you have not made much of a case as to why anyone should agree with you.  You have not given a rational explanation as to why, in a nation where we have laws, police and a guarantee to due process, you support vigilante execution for people accused of theft.

I guess the bigger question is would you jail someone for shooting a fleeing thief,  would you take him away from his family and friends because he responded to a theft more aggressively than you would have? 

That is a bit of a mischaracterization, but yes, I would. 

I bet you would like some justification for that.

[jaimehlers]

I guess the bigger question is would you jail someone for shooting a fleeing thief,  would you take him away from his family and friends because he responded to a theft more aggressively than you would have?

This merits a further response.

Yes, I absolutely would seek to have someone who committed murder jailed.  I don't care if they just randomly pulled out a gun and shot someone down on the street or if they were chasing a fleeing man they thought was a thief.  Even if they actually witnessed the thief[1], that doesn't justify taking the law into their own hands.  Or, to put it another way, if the other person does not deserve due process, why do you?

The only time I would not is if they were acting in defense of themselves or another. - defense or recovery of property does not count.  And even then, due process should still be observed - that is, they should be tried in a court of law and the evidence examined.

1.	assuming it was a theft

[epidemic]

I guess the bigger question is would you jail someone for shooting a fleeing thief,  would you take him away from his family and friends because he responded to a theft more aggressively than you would have?

This merits a further response.

Yes, I absolutely would seek to have someone who committed murder jailed.  I don't care if they just randomly pulled out a gun and shot someone down on the street or if they were chasing a fleeing man they thought was a thief.  Even if they actually witnessed the thief[1], that doesn't justify taking the law into their own hands.  Or, to put it another way, if the other person does not deserve due process, why do you?

The only time I would not is if they were acting in defense of themselves or another. - defense or recovery of property does not count.  And even then, due process should still be observed - that is, they should be tried in a court of law and the evidence examined.

1.	assuming it was a theft

Due process is for when the police get their hands on them   As for murder, in texas they have not comitted murder, they killed someone within the law. 

You don't care if someone simply pulled a gun on someone for no reason or shot them for stealing?  So you feel it is exactly the same to kill someone for being completely innocent as to kill someone for a transgression.

I think most laws are to protect us from people who pose a danger to us.  I feel a person who randomly shoots someone is far more a danger to myself and my family than someone who kills people for stealing. 

Again I personally would not take this course of action but I definitely would want to consider the mitigating factors before punishing the killer.  first and formost I like to know if they pose a danger to society.   

[jaimehlers]

Due process is for when the police get their hands on them   As for murder, in texas they have not comitted murder, they killed someone within the law.

So, then, you don't deserve due process?  Because that's what you're saying by declaring that it's okay for someone to kill someone else they thought was committing a crime and get away with it.  You're saying that you're perfectly okay with someone else pulling out his gun and shooting you because he thought you were committing a crime, whether or not you actually were.  You know how we tell whether that actually was happening?  Due process.

You don't care if someone simply pulled a gun on someone for no reason or shot them for stealing?  So you feel it is exactly the same to kill someone for being completely innocent as to kill someone for a transgression.

Of course it isn't exactly the same.  But it is not a meaningful difference, either.  You can't unkill someone, which means if you were wrong, you can't do anything about it.  And that is why it is wrong to kill someone who you thought was committing a crime - because you aren't an arbiter of justice.

I think most laws are to protect us from people who pose a danger to us.  I feel a person who randomly shoots someone is far more a danger to myself and my family than someone who kills people for stealing.

Someone who is willing to kill someone else for any reason save to protect lives is a danger to a lawful society, because they are taking the law into their own hands[1].  And as such, they deserve to be removed from it (such as being put in jail) or else rendered incapable of further endangering it.

Again I personally would not take this course of action but I definitely would want to consider the mitigating factors before punishing the killer.  first and formost I like to know if they pose a danger to society.

And as I just got done saying, such people do pose a danger to society, because their actions imperil it.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my life to be in the hands of someone who thinks that it's okay to shoot people to death for committing crimes - and who then starts deciding what constitutes a crime.  So I'm implacably opposed to this kind of vigilante justice.

1.

And thus deciding for the entire society whether a person deserves to live or die, rather than abiding by the rules of that society; that forces other people to start doing so as well to protect themselves from the vigilantes, and thus society starts to break down.  The only ones who benefit from this are the ones who were breaking the law in the first place.

[LoriPinkAngel]

Vigilanteism is a dangerous thing.  I think that part of it is vengeance.  But part of it is frustration.  When people think that the law breakers and criminals are getting away with everything.  They feel powerless.  They complain and nothing is done about it.  And then they start to take the law in to their own hands.  I am not condoning it.  I am just saying that I understand it.

[Anfauglir]

You don't care if someone simply pulled a gun on someone for no reason or shot them for stealing?  So you feel it is exactly the same to kill someone for being completely innocent as to kill someone for a transgression.

I think most laws are to protect us from people who pose a danger to us.  I feel a person who randomly shoots someone is far more a danger to myself and my family than someone who kills people for stealing. 

In the immediate, yes.  Of course a random shooter is more dangerous, because he is chaotic and unpredictable.  But the odds are that will only happen ONCE. 

With the "I shot his 'cos I thought he was stealing", there is a greater chance it will happen again, because he has a defence for his actions.  It means that - potentially - he can shoot someone, then claim 'I thought he was a thief' as defence.  And will likely be in a position to do it again.

Moreover, that defence makes it possible for others to kill at random, and use the same defence; or to fully belief they are justified, and kill.  And that makes life MORE dangerous for me and my family as you are increasing the chance that people will shoot for a perceived minor transgression.

So I would agree that accepting that people can legitimately kill people for stealing is more dangerous than people who kill at random.  The latter figure is unlikely to chance up or down.  The former figure can fluctuate, based on our responses to it.

Consider also this.  I go somewhere to buy a used TV.  I pay, and leave the house - through the back way, because the size of the TV makes it easier.  The neighbour comes home, in time to see a stranger emerging from the back way of the next door house clutching a TV.  He thinks "thief", and goes for his gun.  I, concerned with juggling a heavy TV, suddenly see a stranger pointing a gun at me.

In that position, I would feel FAR happier if I knew that "I thought he was a thief" was NOT going to be accepted in court as justification for shooting me dead.

[screwtape]

I feel a person who randomly shoots someone is far more a danger to myself and my family than someone who kills people for stealing. 

"Random" shooters are very rare.  If we have a society where people get shot shoot people for stealing and other crimes, rather than call the police, then we created an environment where mainly untrained idiots have license to shoot at people any time, any place.  This is much more dangerous to everyone.  In the most recent gunfail - #33 - it includes an armed man who chased after a thief in the middle of the night.  The armed man, not the thief, was shot by another home owner.  Hurray for responsible gun owners.

[epidemic]

In the immediate, yes.  Of course a random shooter is more dangerous, because he is chaotic and unpredictable.  But the odds are that will only happen ONCE. 

With the "I shot his 'cos I thought he was stealing", there is a greater chance it will happen again, because he has a defence for his actions.  It means that - potentially - he can shoot someone, then claim 'I thought he was a thief' as defence.  And will likely be in a position to do it again.

So it is your contention that in Texas we have a person who will escallate the number of people they shoot for theft?  Well considering that the law as been in place for a while do you see someone going around all charles bronson on thieves?  I see some possibility of it, can you cite any cases where one person is now shooting multiple thieves in multiple incidents?

 I also think the "I thought he was a thief" statement is prejudicial.  No you don't shoot someone for thinking they are a thief.  In texas you may shoot someone WHO IS a thief.

Moreover, that defence makes it possible for others to kill at random, and use the same defence; or to fully belief they are justified, and kill.  And that makes life MORE dangerous for me and my family as you are increasing the chance that people will shoot for a perceived minor transgression.

Possibly if by minor transgression you mean that your family is caught stealing.

So I would agree that accepting that people can legitimately kill people for stealing is more dangerous than people who kill at random.  The latter figure is unlikely to chance up or down.  The former figure can fluctuate, based on our responses to it.

It seems to be self limiting because there is not a rash of people killing for petty theft.  Whilst there are many murders for other reasons such as robbery, rape, and just because someone needed killin by random unjustified killing.  This is the law of the land in Texas and does not seem to indicate the problems you are claiming.

Consider also this.  I go somewhere to buy a used TV.  I pay, and leave the house - through the back way, because the size of the TV makes it easier.  The neighbour comes home, in time to see a stranger emerging from the back way of the next door house clutching a TV.  He thinks "thief", and goes for his gun.  I, concerned with juggling a heavy TV, suddenly see a stranger pointing a gun at me.

  I do not remember if the law allows you to protect other peoples property.

In that position, I would feel FAR happier if I knew that "I thought he was a thief" was NOT going to be accepted in court as justification for shooting me dead.

I don't know if that is a problem being that i can not recall if the law allows me to shoot you for stealing other peoples property.  It also would be actionable if they did shoot at you, killing you or not, because you had a relationship with the former owner of the TV and as such they are liable for killing you unjustifiably.  At best manslaughter.

[epidemic]

I feel a person who randomly shoots someone is far more a danger to myself and my family than someone who kills people for stealing. 

"Random" shooters are very rare.  If we have a society where people get shot shoot people for stealing and other crimes, rather than call the police, then we created an environment where mainly untrained idiots have license to shoot at people any time, any place.  This is much more dangerous to everyone.  In the most recent gunfail - #33 - it includes an armed man who chased after a thief in the middle of the night.  The armed man, not the thief, was shot by another home owner.  Hurray for responsible gun owners.

Random shooters are pretty rare.   But shooters who have no justification for shooting the victim are plentiful.  I only chose random shooter for my example.  I would of course include in that people who shoot me for my stuff, robbery as well as rape, and other unjustified crimes where the victim has not trangressed in any way against the attacker.



BTW I am not a huge proponent of the law,  I just happen to feel that I would not want to jail someone for defending themselves or their property.   Do I feel that shooting someone in the back as they flee is a good idea?  I would not do it, but I am not terribly against it either.

[jaimehlers]

So it is your contention that in Texas we have a person who will escallate the number of people they shoot for theft?  Well considering that the law as been in place for a while do you see someone going around all charles bronson on thieves?  I see some possibility of it, can you cite any cases where one person is now shooting multiple thieves in multiple incidents?

And just how many people have actually shot thieves in Texas?  That's what counts here, not the mere existence of the law.  If there's only been a handful of them, then the law is not currently having an effect - people are not paying attention to it.  But if there's been hundreds of people shooting thieves and suspected thieves, then it's a serious problem.

I also think the "I thought he was a thief" statement is prejudicial.  No you don't shoot someone for thinking they are a thief.  In texas you may shoot someone WHO IS a thief.

And who determines that?  The person who pulls out the gun and shoots.  In other words, yes they are shooting people they think are thieves.  And as screwtape's example showed, it's entirely possible to shoot the wrong person in an incident like that.  Saying, "well, the law only says you can shoot someone who is a thief" is missing the point.  It's the actions of people that matter, not the literal text of the law.

Possibly if by minor transgression you mean that your family is caught stealing.

That is so much kuso, and I think you know it.  What he meant is someone shooting one of your family members for a perceived transgression.  What makes you think that everyone who takes advantage of that law will be the kind of person who carefully makes sure that they've got everything straight before they pull out their gun and start shooting at a suspect?

It seems to be self limiting because there is not a rash of people killing for petty theft.  Whilst there are many murders for other reasons such as robbery, rape, and just because someone needed killin by random unjustified killing.  This is the law of the land in Texas and does not seem to indicate the problems you are claiming.

Get enough of these laws in place - and more importantly, enough people taking advantage of them - and you will get people shooting other people over petty theft.

I do not remember if the law allows you to protect other peoples property.

You can be sure that there will be people who interpret it that way no matter what the law actually says.

I don't know if that is a problem being that i can not recall if the law allows me to shoot you for stealing other peoples property.  It also would be actionable if they did shoot at you, killing you or not, because you had a relationship with the former owner of the TV and as such they are liable for killing you unjustifiably.  At best manslaughter.

Do you honestly think that people is going to spend a lot of time considering whether the law allows them to shoot a suspected thief who's absconding with someone else's property?  Most people follow the "better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" rule, as in, it's better to do something and maybe get in trouble over it afterward, than to ask about it first and get told not to.

Yeah, it would probably be actionable.  But that won't help a person who was shot and killed, or shot and permanently injured.  You can't give them back their life, and you can't necessarily give them back their health.  Not only that, but then you have the potential for a firefight between suspected thief and wannabe vigilante, where both of them could end up dead or injured.  What's the point of that?

[epidemic]

So it is your contention that in Texas we have a person who will escallate the number of people they shoot for theft?  Well considering that the law as been in place for a while do you see someone going around all charles bronson on thieves?  I see some possibility of it, can you cite any cases where one person is now shooting multiple thieves in multiple incidents?

And just how many people have actually shot thieves in Texas?  That's what counts here, not the mere existence of the law.  If there's only been a handful of them, then the law is not currently having an effect - people are not paying attention to it.  But if there's been hundreds of people shooting thieves and suspected thieves, then it's a serious problem.

I also think the "I thought he was a thief" statement is prejudicial.  No you don't shoot someone for thinking they are a thief.  In texas you may shoot someone WHO IS a thief.

And who determines that?  The person who pulls out the gun and shoots.  In other words, yes they are shooting people they think are thieves.  And as screwtape's example showed, it's entirely possible to shoot the wrong person in an incident like that.  Saying, "well, the law only says you can shoot someone who is a thief" is missing the point.  It's the actions of people that matter, not the literal text of the law.

Possibly if by minor transgression you mean that your family is caught stealing.

That is so much kuso, and I think you know it.  What he meant is someone shooting one of your family members for a perceived transgression.  What makes you think that everyone who takes advantage of that law will be the kind of person who carefully makes sure that they've got everything straight before they pull out their gun and start shooting at a suspect?

It seems to be self limiting because there is not a rash of people killing for petty theft.  Whilst there are many murders for other reasons such as robbery, rape, and just because someone needed killin by random unjustified killing.  This is the law of the land in Texas and does not seem to indicate the problems you are claiming.

Get enough of these laws in place - and more importantly, enough people taking advantage of them - and you will get people shooting other people over petty theft.

I do not remember if the law allows you to protect other peoples property.

You can be sure that there will be people who interpret it that way no matter what the law actually says.

I don't know if that is a problem being that i can not recall if the law allows me to shoot you for stealing other peoples property.  It also would be actionable if they did shoot at you, killing you or not, because you had a relationship with the former owner of the TV and as such they are liable for killing you unjustifiably.  At best manslaughter.

Do you honestly think that people is going to spend a lot of time considering whether the law allows them to shoot a suspected thief who's absconding with someone else's property?  Most people follow the "better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" rule, as in, it's better to do something and maybe get in trouble over it afterward, than to ask about it first and get told not to.

Yeah, it would probably be actionable.  But that won't help a person who was shot and killed, or shot and permanently injured.  You can't give them back their life, and you can't necessarily give them back their health.

You have alot of what if's,  what if someone interprets the law wrong??? 

Well that applies to self defense as well.   So do we not make a law for the people who inappropriatly interperet it, you can no longer use deadly force in defense of your life because someone may interpret the law wrong? 

"Oh he said something bad about my momma"  so I beat him to death in defense of my mamma.  No!!!! we throw him in jail for being a dumbass and killing him for something that was not self defense.

"Oh I thought he was stealing a TV from my neighbor"  so I shot him to death in defense of my neighbors TV.  We throw him in jail for being a dumbass and killing someone who was not stealing.

Not only that, but then you have the potential for a firefight between suspected thief and wannabe vigilante, where both of them could end up dead or injured.  What's the point of that?

That is a judgment call of the victim.  Do I feel my TV is worth this risk.  Just like self defense, do I think this guy is really gonna hurt me, will my actions result in worse situation?  Or will he holster his gun, turn tail and run once i give him my shit.  Or will this rapist stop at just rape or have a change of heart if I don't pull out my gun and shoot him.

[jaimehlers]

You have alot of what if's,  what if someone interprets the law wrong??? 

Well that applies to self defense as well.   So do we not make a law for the people who inappropriatly interperet it, you can no longer use deadly force in defense of your life because someone may interpret the law wrong?

I keep bringing up what-ifs because you need to think about them when you're making a law, or talking about a law for that matter.  And you're not thinking about them.  You're basically saying you're okay with a law that gives a license to kill in order to prevent (perceived) property theft.  And when other people bring up the problems with such a law, you blithely handwave them away by saying things like "well, if they interpret it wrong, then they'll get punished for it."  Fat lot of good that does the person who got killed!  Fat lot of good it does their family, who now have to deal with their loss!

That is the point here which you just keep refusing to see.  When you kill someone, it's permanent.  You can't bring them back to life.  But you can return or replace stolen property.  So why do you think it's justifiable to kill someone - to take their life, which can't ever be returned to them - in order to stop a theft - property which can be returned or at worst replaced?  And it's even worse than that, because you're being inconsistent.  According to you, a victim has the right to kill someone because they are sure someone is stealing their property, but a bystander doesn't even if they are equally sure someone is stealing another person's property.  Similarly, a thief doesn't deserve due process - to be punished by the legal system - if the victim gets to them first.  But if they kill the wrong person, or someone who was innocent, then they deserve due process - to be punished by the legal system.  Why, because the real victim isn't alive to dish out his own punishment?

Giving a person the right to kill someone else is not just, not even when acting in presumed self-defense.  It's just that when you're in imminent danger of being killed, and the only way to prevent it is to kill your attacker, then it's acceptable.  But it's still not just.

"Oh he said something bad about my momma"  so I beat him to death in defense of my mamma.  No!!!! we throw him in jail for being a dumbass and killing him for something that was not self defense.

"Oh I thought he was stealing a TV from my neighbor"  so I shot him to death in defense of my neighbors TV.  We throw him in jail for being a dumbass and killing someone who was not stealing.

Hey, thanks for the examples.  Mind if I borrow them?

"Oh, he was slandering me, so I shot him to death to defend my good name."  "Oh, he was stealing my TV, so I shot him to death to keep him from getting away with it."  Neither of these are even remotely acceptable excuses to justify killing someone.  In both cases, the shooter was being a dumbass who deserves to be thrown in prison.

That is a judgment call of the victim.  Do I feel my TV is worth this risk.  Just like self defense, do I think this guy is really gonna hurt me, will my actions result in worse situation?  Or will he holster his gun, turn tail and run once i give him my shit.  Or will this rapist stop at just rape or have a change of heart if I don't pull out my gun and shoot him.

It is not even remotely close to self-defense, in any way, shape or form, to shoot someone over a television, or some other piece of replaceable property.  So your example here is totally worthless.

For that matter, your attempt to compare theft to rape is abhorrent.  Rape is an attack on a person - not a theft of their property.

[LoriPinkAngel]

Just like self defense, do I think this guy is really gonna hurt me, will my actions result in worse situation?  Or will he holster his gun, turn tail and run once i give him my shit.  Or will this rapist stop at just rape or have a change of heart if I don't pull out my gun and shoot him.

Here's my dilemma.  I could be described as a "pretty little blonde."  So on the surface defending myself against a direct attack of a "legitimate" rapist with a gun would seem justified, by non teabaggers, I suppose.  But I am also a combat trained military veteran who, when my rotator cuff does not resemble ground beef, has some serious self defense skills.  So, would my military background be held against me if I were to shoot my attacker?  Would a prosecutor say I should have delivered a well-placed throat punch or blow to the jugular instead?  And what if the aforementioned blows resulted in serious injury or death to my attacker?  Am I at fault for using deadly force?

[Nam]

I disagree with what you say to neopagan if what you're saying applies to everyone.

The principle applies to everyone, whether or not you care about your own life.

Take me for an example: I don't care about me at all. Don't care if I live or die. I see that it's just the way things are. However, if I lived with someone, then I'd protect them as much as I could with my life. If I didn't live with anybody then I would attempt to protect my stuff. Whether I could replace it or not is irrelevant. It's like a fire. If a fire started in my home unknowingly, I would try to save as much of my property as I could. Why wouldn't I toward an intruder? My life (whether I cared or not about it) would still be at stake.

Let me put this to you in very stark terms - if you die trying to retrieve your replaceable property, then what good would it be to you?  You have to be alive for that property to be of any use to you.  I suppose you could argue you were rescuing it for your next-of-kin, whoever that was.  But how do you think your next-of-kin would feel if you died because of some piece of property?  How much do you think that would console them, when you were gone from their life - forever?

By dying over some object, you would do permanent harm to the people who care about you.  Preventable harm, for that matter, since you didn't have to run back into that burning building, or confront that armed robber, because of something you own.  So whether you care about your own life, you have an obligation to protect it for the sake of others who do care about it, assuming you are serious about protecting them from harm.

I'm sorry, how are things replaceable to those who aren't able to replace them? Because I couldn't do it. Took me a lifetime to get my possessions, I don't have another lifetime to get them all back. And I doubt many other people do as well.

Insurance companies aren't going to replace those things especially if you can't afford to pay for the high cost of insurance. Police rarely recover all stolen property, and there's no guarantee you'll get the stuff back anyway, or in the condition it was in in the first place.

If a fire takes it, you'll most likely never see it again.

Just because you believe everything is replaceable, it isn't. Hell, even for many of us: our homes are irreplaceable.

That's how some homeless people become homeless.

-Nam

[jaimehlers]

No offense, Nam, but that's not valid reasoning.  Sure, if your house burns down, you won't be able to recover that house...but you can get a replacement house (or, at least, residence).  If someone steals your TV, you may not recover the TV, but you can get a replacement TV.  So on and so forth.  And please, don't try to tell me that a person can't replace something that's lost or destroyed.  Because that's silly.  They certainly can replace it.  Whether they're willing to take the necessary actions to do so is a different story.

And while it's true that there are sentimental items that aren't easily replaceable (such as heirlooms), it's the sentiment that matters, not the item itself.  So while I would be less likely to condemn someone for acting irrationally because of an heirloom, I still don't consider it a justifiable reason to kill the other person.  Because you can neither recover nor replace a lost life.

[Nam]

A replacement house? How? Oh, that magical insurance I don't have and can't afford because it costs too much. Try living in a poor man's world, perhaps you'll see more clearly.

Get a new house. Thanks for the laugh.

-Nam

[jaimehlers]

A replacement house? How? Oh, that magical insurance I don't have and can't afford because it costs too much. Try living in a poor man's world, perhaps you'll see more clearly.

Get a new house. Thanks for the laugh.

Oh, please, Nam, get over yourself and start thinking.

I know that it's not as simple as snapping your fingers and wishing for a new house.  But unless you're on your deathbed, there's nothing stopping you from picking up the pieces and beginning again.

I don't even own a house.  I have tens of thousands of dollars in debt (mostly student loans), at least twice my yearly income.  If the house I'm renting (with roommates) had a fire, practically everything I own would be lost.  I live paycheck to paycheck.

But you know what?  If something of mine were stolen or destroyed, I'd deal with it and move on.  And I could eventually replace it.  So could you, if you ever got over that pessimistic attitude of yours.  But if you died, that would be the end of it.

That's why I value my life more than my possessions.  You might disagree, but it wouldn't change the facts - your life is what allows you to get those possessions, and as long as you have it, you can get them back.

[epidemic]

That is the point here which you just keep refusing to see.  When you kill someone, it's permanent.  You can't bring them back to life. 

So when I kill someone it is permanent?  Are you sure ? 

Umm, that is the point that is why I killed him to make it permanent.   Yes i do see the point, and I do not really feel compelled to grieve the loss of the thief.

You also keep saying the "perceived" thief.  Dude you better be more sure that it is not just a perception before you shoot them or you are going away for a long time.

Again this has been the law of the land for some time...  Can you show me the pattern where this is becoming a vigilanty nation with the bodies of innocent people thought to be thieves piled like cordwood at the side of the road?