Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 61

Thread: Family of armed robber outraged that store clerk shot and killed their brother in self-defense: 'Yes, he's robbing them — oh well!'

  1. Top | #41
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Lots of planets have a North
    Posts
    6,112
    Archived
    5,115
    Total Posts
    11,227
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    In your universe, person A robs person B by saying "pretty please". Meanwhile in the real word threats and violence are used. It is the violence or threat of violence that people respond to with sometimes deadly force. Not the property.

    You think resisting a criminal is a nonsensical premise. You also think defending your own life is defending property.
    Your response relies on the sociopathic libertarian worldview, any threat to your property is necessarily a deadly threat to you.
    Your response relies on the insane worldview, criminals are nice people who never hurt anyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Fortunately, in many parts of the civilized world, burglars and robbers are not automatically assumed to be threats to life. In those parts of the world, something that is foreign to those who value property over life is used- the rule of reason.
    It is not property that the criminals get shot over. It is the threat to life that they use to acquire the property.

  2. Top | #42
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    26,906
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    69,379
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post

    Robbers are by definition a threat. Even if they have no weapon and it's just a strongarm robbery people sometimes die.
    BS.
    Actually he is right. By definition, "robbery" requires force or the threat of force. Theft or stealing does not though.

  3. Top | #43
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    26,906
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    69,379
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronzeage View Post
    There is also quite a bit of evidence that we like to find reasons to shoot people. Starting with this simple common law "castle principle", we get stuff like "stand your ground" laws, which basically make it legal to start an altercation and then shoot the other person when it doesn't go as you expected. Fortunately, STG laws are not widely accepted and quite a few people found themselves in a lot of trouble, after shooting someone. Present case law suggests that a STG defense is more likely to succeed if you are the only surviving witness, and there's no video tape of the incident.
    It's leftist garbage like this that causes the trouble with SYG laws.
    Except in cases where people used it as a reason to create an issue.

    SYG says two things:

    1) You don't have to retreat even if that's a safe option. This isn't that big a deal, the number of times you know retreat to be safe is low.
    The trouble is, the cases where people decide to make a deal of something because they know they are armed and if something happens, they can get away with killing the person. I doubt very much that a significant number of legit self-defense cases led to incarceration, so much as to justify the SYG in the first place.

    I think what's confusing you is if you start an incident...
    That is about it.

  4. Top | #44
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    When one points a weapon at anyone, one is inviting violence. It doesn't mean that any resulting death is not unfortunate. Nor is uncommon for the family of a victim of a shooting (justified or not) to bemoan the death of their relative.

    IMO, the notion that protection of property is a justification for killing a person means that property is more important than life. I find that notion repugnant.
    For me, it’s not the robbery itself that is worthy of death; it’s the immediate threat of a life-ending scenario playing out that captures my attention. It doesn’t matter WHY the gun wielding person is there pointing a gun to one’s head. Statistics may very well demonstrate that acquiescence more often yields a better scenario, but I retain the right of self-preservation and have no qualms in others exercising their right to do as they please when confronted with such a threat.

  5. Top | #45
    Super Moderator Bronzeage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    6,972
    Archived
    7,568
    Total Posts
    14,540
    Rep Power
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronzeage View Post
    There is also quite a bit of evidence that we like to find reasons to shoot people. Starting with this simple common law "castle principle", we get stuff like "stand your ground" laws, which basically make it legal to start an altercation and then shoot the other person when it doesn't go as you expected. Fortunately, STG laws are not widely accepted and quite a few people found themselves in a lot of trouble, after shooting someone. Present case law suggests that a STG defense is more likely to succeed if you are the only surviving witness, and there's no video tape of the incident.
    It's leftist garbage like this that causes the trouble with SYG laws. People believe you and shoot when they aren't allowed to so they get in trouble.

    SYG says two things:

    1) You don't have to retreat even if that's a safe option. This isn't that big a deal, the number of times you know retreat to be safe is low.

    2) It prevents the reflexive arrest of someone claiming self defense. Note that it does not keep them from being later charged, it simply avoids arrest first, ask questions later.

    I think what's confusing you is if you start an incident and then leave and the guy comes after you that you are allowed to defend yourself.
    STG laws exist so that a person who possesses a gun may kill someone when there was an opportunity to avoid doing so. I agree that being arrested for murder might be an inconvenience for some people.

  6. Top | #46
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    16,555
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    58,498
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    When one points a weapon at anyone, one is inviting violence. It doesn't mean that any resulting death is not unfortunate. Nor is uncommon for the family of a victim of a shooting (justified or not) to bemoan the death of their relative.

    IMO, the notion that protection of property is a justification for killing a person means that property is more important than life. I find that notion repugnant.
    For me, it’s not the robbery itself that is worthy of death; it’s the immediate threat of a life-ending scenario playing out that captures my attention. It doesn’t matter WHY the gun wielding person is there pointing a gun to one’s head. Statistics may very well demonstrate that acquiescence more often yields a better scenario, but I retain the right of self-preservation and have no qualms in others exercising their right to do as they please when confronted with such a threat.
    So, you agree with the 1st sent of the post to which you responded. How about the rest of it?

  7. Top | #47
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    16,555
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    58,498
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post

    Robbers are by definition a threat. Even if they have no weapon and it's just a strongarm robbery people sometimes die.
    BS.
    Actually he is right. By definition, "robbery" requires force or the threat of force. Theft or stealing does not though.
    It is not a threat of deadly violence, so he is wrong. Saying I am going to grab the money out of your hand is not a threat of deadly violence.

  8. Top | #48
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    26,906
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    69,379
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Actually he is right. By definition, "robbery" requires force or the threat of force. Theft or stealing does not though.
    It is not a threat of deadly violence, so he is wrong. Saying I am going to grab the money out of your hand is not a threat of deadly violence.
    Does it need to be 'deadly', isn't the threat of physical force enough?

  9. Top | #49
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    16,555
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    58,498
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Actually he is right. By definition, "robbery" requires force or the threat of force. Theft or stealing does not though.
    It is not a threat of deadly violence, so he is wrong. Saying I am going to grab the money out of your hand is not a threat of deadly violence.
    Does it need to be 'deadly', isn't the threat of physical force enough?
    Not to justify a deadly response in my eyes. Moreover, in this thread, at least poster is equating entry into the home with a deadly threat.

  10. Top | #50
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    26,906
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    69,379
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Does it need to be 'deadly', isn't the threat of physical force enough?
    Not to justify a deadly response in my eyes.
    If this is individual judgment, then fine. I thought this was about specifically the definition of "robber".
    Moreover, in this thread, at least poster is equating entry into the home with a deadly threat.
    That road has been over traveled here. It has become a ditch.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •