Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

So uh cold-blooded murder isn't great.  People are often allowed to defend property by lethal means (and the ethics of that are... debateable) but it's generally not legal to execute a burglar if you've already stopped them.  (I'm sure there are countries where that's legal, and a lot of places where it's de facto allowed)

Obviously things get confused in an actual situation, maybe the intruder is still threatening, etc etc.  But if someone has controlled the situation and um "finishes" it, that's murder.  People aren't supposed to murder, it's a bit taboo.  Very macho to openly fantasize about, though!

[Dostoevsky]

So we needed a law to specifically say that we need to enforce the law?  Sad.

Worth noting that federal law typically isn't the realm of general policing of topics like murder (yes, there are a fair number of exceptions these days but they are exceptions). There is a federal law against rape in interstate situations and on federal property, but not a general 'you can't do this in the United States' sense thanks to constitutional limitations.

As previously mentioned, it looks like a lot of this bill was improving data collection and tracking.

(I also can't help but be reminded about the impacts of federal cost-benefit analysis on the topic; as part of agency implementation of this law a decade later, they went into the monetary value of preventing prison rape. Not exactly the sort of thing that reads well out loud.)

[Maximum Spin]

(and the ethics of that are... debateable)

If you genuinely believe that, all I can say is, you and I are from two different worlds.

[Rolan7]

I've actually come around a lot on gun ownership and even home defense, there are a lot of harsh realities out there and I lived with a gun owner for most of the last three years.  I don't think it was registered...  I keep meaning to get training and one of my own, but I'm fortunate I don't have a pressing need right now.

I wouldn't shoot at someone for trying to steal my car though.  Even if I don't get it back it's just a substantial part of my wealth, not worth someone's life.  If I needed that car to feed a family, I dunno, I could see that argument.  Property can be a life-and-death matter, but it certainly isn't always.

[Maximum Spin]

I wouldn't shoot at someone for trying to steal my car though.  Even if I don't get it back it's just a substantial part of my wealth, not worth someone's life.  If I needed that car to feed a family, I dunno, I could see that argument.  Property can be a life-and-death matter, but it certainly isn't always.

To me, to not shoot at someone trying to steal my car would basically be an affront to the community. We don't really have anyone else to depend on but each other - letting such a person get away to steal someone else's stuff would be a dick move.

[Kagus]

I'm guessing there's a reason ICE facilities are specifically exempted from the Prison Rape Elimination Act.

Wait, what? I thought detention facilities were included

[nenjin]

I wouldn't shoot at someone for trying to steal my car though.  Even if I don't get it back it's just a substantial part of my wealth, not worth someone's life.  If I needed that car to feed a family, I dunno, I could see that argument.  Property can be a life-and-death matter, but it certainly isn't always.

To me, to not shoot at someone trying to steal my car would basically be an affront to the community. We don't really have anyone else to depend on but each other - letting such a person get away to steal someone else's stuff would be a dick move.

Yes. Cars are worth killing people over. Real service you provide to the community by doing that. Especially in those instances where someone shoots because they think someone is doing something bad. Like being black while walking.

[Dostoevsky]

I'm guessing there's a reason ICE facilities are specifically exempted from the Prison Rape Elimination Act.

Wait, what? I thought detention facilities were included

A quick look is showing me that the original law only applied to Bureau of Prison facilities, but a later Obama rulemaking looped in DHS facilities. But the way it was constructed it only applied to new/renewed/modified contracts, which means it'd take a while (or even forever) to affect private facilities. Don't know if the Trump DHS tried to deregulate that.

[Dunamisdeos]

Remember folks, it's not malice when you choose to hurt people when you have other readily accessible options immediately at hand. You just need to have an excuse to choose that hurt option. That's not sarcasm, that's the definition of malice.

The correct word for leaving children in subhuman conditions as a personal choice is Malevolence. I recommend we all start using the correct terminology out of respect.

And no, your stuff isn't worth another person's life by any metric. My shoes aren't worth another person's life. My car isn't worth another person's life. My house isn't worth another person's life. My life is the only thing that equates to another life. And frankly, it displays a disgusting deficiency of character if I would kill a person to avoid having to go get more stuff. But I guess it explains things that when offered a clear, concrete judgement call on the worth of a human life, you value it lower than an inanimate object.

[Maximum Spin]

And frankly, it displays a disgusting deficiency of character if I would kill a person to avoid having to go get more stuff.

It's not about stuff. It's an iterated game: the alternative to marshalling a decisive defense is the entire community being victimized forever.

To put it in starker terms: Some of my ancestors and distant relatives failed to marshal a decisive defense when outsiders came to their communities to take their stuff, and, as a result, the United States was founded and everyone who was already on the land was disposed of.

[anewaname]

There is only one problem with hurting/maiming/killing a home invader, the local politics...

The first thing that happens is the invader and the invaded are judged for their "community value" where the value is based on local political values and the local political situation. Those values are more important in determining how the law is applied than the law itself. This initial value-assessment of the involved parties is a source of known injustices in historical cases.

---------------------

Stealing often has a cost greater than the items being stolen.
Shooting at someone for stealing often has costs greater than the life of the person being shot at.

[Dunamisdeos]

No man, to put it in starker terms you just killed a man because you value material wealth over human life, and historically that's how the United States was formed to the detriment of the people who were already there.

The solution isn't making sure you get to keep your car at the cost of another man's life, it's valuing human life at a higher price to begin with.

[dragdeler]

-

[Maximum Spin]

The solution isn't making sure you get to keep your car at the cost of another man's life,

it's not about keeping the car, it's about valuing the lives of the other people in my community more than the life of the guy going around victimizing my community.

You're making the whitest argument I've heard in a long damn time. The abstract concept of "human life" is more important to you than the actual human lives of people around me.

[nenjin]

it's not about keeping the car, it's about valuing the lives of the other people in my community more than the life of the guy going around victimizing my community.

What part of stealing a car directly threatens the lives of the people in the community? You didn't say carjacking, which might actually be valid. You just said theft.

What it reads like you mean...is that you value your community member's lives via their property more than an actual human life.

Which brings us back to the beginning.