Print

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

[Maximum Spin]

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.

Well, in the immediate situation, there's the part where we live in the middle of the woods and we need cars to do basic things like "buy food and heating fuel so we don't die", and the part where the cost of replacing a car is very probably everything a person here has. But I'm talking more about what comes afterward when the car thief comes back, or tells a friend about the score — and this does happen, we had a rash of robberies by the same people just last year, although not of cars — and, because we lack the will to defend our community, we lose everything. Do you think a dude who gets away with stealing cars won't start thinking about breaking into houses? Because I've seen it happen.

[da_nang]

I would like to point out that by not giving people the option to defend their property, you are effectively enforcing a class system (and in the US, probably an indirectly racist one too) where the poor people will have to suffer more because they have harder time replacing that property. Insurance isn't an option either, since not only do poor people have a harder time affording it but also because some property is irreplaceable.

[Vector]

OK -- I understand about the rural thing. I don't think any member of the middle class should be shooting others in order to defend their shit, which largely seems to be what is happening.

[Doomblade187]

I would like to point out that by not giving people the option to defend their property, you are effectively enforcing a class system (and in the US, probably an indirectly racist one too) where the poor people will have to suffer more because they have harder time replacing that property. Insurance isn't an option either, since not only do poor people have a harder time affording it but also because some property is irreplaceable.

Yes, but vigilante justice is different from self-defense, which is what most home robberies and carjackings are.

That said, we have strayed from the point here. The point was that malice was part of the ICE protocols, as well as their detention centers. (Overcrowding, medical neglect, the sterilizations case)

[Dostoevsky]

While I've generally been avoiding getting into this, I'd like to note that there's a wide range of potential response - this applies both to the hypothetical car-stealer and to the situation at the border. It's not typically a binary choice, and defaulting to an extreme end of punishment is not always the best choice.

In this example, a trespasser has entered your home. You shot them, let's say, in the leg. They're on the floor.

Now what?

Do you send a stronger message to potential trespassers by shooting them again, say, in the other leg?

If I hit the leg by accident the first time, the second time, I would not miss.

I'm not proficient in state self defense laws, but my general understanding is that in many states taking this second shot could net a manslaughter charge at the least. (This doesn't get into what exactly this hypothetical person is doing after taking that first short in the leg, mind, so it depends.)

Shifting over to the immigration example, would it be malice/maliciousness to mount the heads of those caught on pikes along the border fence? Just a little bit of scare tactics, right? (I am not being serious.)

[Vector]

I wanna add that I have personally scared off multiple would-be thieves from my building, some of whom actually made it inside, without use of firearms or calling the police (largely because the police didn't come the first time I called 'em and escalating with a gun makes me more likely to get shot myself; I don't own a firearm). Internet bro-posturing aside, point is that ... there are options ...

I would not feel better about having shot any of those people and, at least in the city, there's better targets (i.e. abandoned buildings) than my home.

(I'll admit that I've started having conversations with my "angry COVID-positive husband" when I'm worried someone has broken in. It's always just been the wind though).

[RedKing]

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.

It's the American Golden Rule -- do unto others before they can do unto you.

[Maximum Spin]

I don't think any member of the middle class should be shooting others in order to defend their shit, which largely seems to be what is happening.

This is an interesting distinction to make to me because I think most people here would consider ourselves part of the middle class. I mean, we own our homes, and many of them have been in families and aren't mortgaged anymore; most of us also have cash reserves or community support (or both) sufficient to absorb small losses, but... a car isn't a small loss, that's more than ten thousand dollars, on top of having to drive into town (ie, get someone to drive you into town because your car was stolen) to get to a used car lot.

I personally tend to have a zero-tolerance approach toward trespassing and property crime in general... when I was a kid (under 10), we had this problem with a certain group of rich townie assholes illegally "camping" in our woods where I was otherwise prone to playing on my own. My mom didn't have a gun, for personal (depression) reasons, so we resorted to systematically dismantling their campsite in such a way as to make it obvious that we knew what they were doing... which mostly didn't deter them. It was really nice when they finally stopped coming back after a few years and I could feel safe in my own house again. I will not accept the assertion that their lives are worth more than that when they're the ones making the choice to put them on the line.

Shifting over to the immigration example, would it be malice/maliciousness to mount the heads of those caught on pikes along the border fence? Just a little bit of scare tactics, right? (I am not being serious.)

I don't understand why it hasn't come across yet that malice is a mental state that depends entirely on your intentions, not your actions. Literally any action could "not be malice" if, for example, you're stupid enough to believe it's a nice thing to do.

I wanna add that I have personally scared off multiple would-be thieves from my building, some of whom actually made it inside, without use of firearms or calling the police (largely because the police didn't come the first time I called 'em and escalating with a gun makes me more likely to get shot myself; I don't own a firearm). Internet bro-posturing aside, point is that ... there are options ...

Yeah but

at least in the city, there's better targets (i.e. abandoned buildings) than my home.

which is to say, the reasons people are breaking into houses in the city are different and the things they're prepared to do in that situation are different. Out here where most homeowners are armed, housebreakers are much, much rarer but much, much less inhibited.

[ChairmanPoo]

I think people are missing a key detail here: it's not so much about defending your property you don't know that the potential intruder won't use violence against you while breaking in. Thus in scenarios where you're forced into a confrontation* I kind of think it's well justified to strike first in order to maximize your survival odds. 
Likewise if you can flee your house without confronting the invader that'd be the better option if it's less risky for yourself.

[RedKing]

Out here where most homeowners are armed, housebreakers are much, much rarer but much, much less inhibited.

Begs the question of why people would live out in rural areas, if you're under siege by hardened cannibal marauders all the time.

[Maximum Spin]

Out here where most homeowners are armed, housebreakers are much, much rarer but much, much less inhibited.

Begs the question of why people would live out in rural areas, if you're under siege by hardened cannibal marauders all the time.

You usually only get, like, one of those a generation.

ETA: Actually, probably not even that. As far as I know, the last time someone's actual house got broken into in my community was before I was born. (It was drugs.) When we have to defend our property, it's virtually always outside the home (eg, outside and in outbuildings)... so it shouldn't surprise you that I don't hold this belief that defense of property is only legitimate against housebreakers.

[Dostoevsky]

Shifting over to the immigration example, would it be malice/maliciousness to mount the heads of those caught on pikes along the border fence? Just a little bit of scare tactics, right? (I am not being serious.)

I don't understand why it hasn't come across yet that malice is a mental state that depends entirely on your intentions, not your actions. Literally any action could "not be malice" if, for example, you're stupid enough to believe it's a nice thing to do.

A fair number of laws (including murder) often have backup definitions (e.g. 'depraved heart') to deal with situations where a person is far beyond the assumed 'reasonable person'. This obviously gets to more philosophical debates that I believe have already occurred here, but I'd personally argue that there's at least some sort of line where putting metaphorical heads on pikes no longer gets the benefit of the doubt.

I think people are missing a key detail here: it's not so much about defending your property you don't know that the potential intruder won't use violence against you while breaking in. Thus in scenarios where you're forced into a confrontation* I kind of think it's well justified to strike first in order to maximize your survival odds. 
Likewise if you can flee your house without confronting the invader that'd be the better option if it's less risky for yourself.

On this point, again there's a wide range of potential response. Making a follow-up shot to ensure a kill is rather different than e.g. a warning shot.

[Maximum Spin]

A fair number of laws (including murder) often have backup definitions (e.g. 'depraved heart') to deal with situations where a person is far beyond the assumed 'reasonable person'. This obviously gets to more philosophical debates that I believe have already occurred here, but I'd personally argue that there's at least some sort of line where putting metaphorical heads on pikes no longer gets the benefit of the doubt.

I mean... "not getting the benefit of the doubt" isn't the same thing as "is defined as malice"...

[Dostoevsky]

That is indeed my point -- 'we' (society, or our laws) often recognize that whether or not a person actively intends malice is not always the determinative question, especially if they're killing people or hurting people in certain ways.

[nenjin]

This is an interesting distinction to make to me because I think most people here would consider ourselves part of the middle class. I mean, we own our homes, and many of them have been in families and aren't mortgaged anymore; most of us also have cash reserves or community support (or both) sufficient to absorb small losses, but... a car isn't a small loss, that's more than ten thousand dollars, on top of having to drive into town (ie, get someone to drive you into town because your car was stolen) to get to a used car lot.

I personally tend to have a zero-tolerance approach toward trespassing and property crime in general... when I was a kid (under 10), we had this problem with a certain group of rich townie assholes illegally "camping" in our woods where I was otherwise prone to playing on my own. My mom didn't have a gun, for personal (depression) reasons, so we resorted to systematically dismantling their campsite in such a way as to make it obvious that we knew what they were doing... which mostly didn't deter them. It was really nice when they finally stopped coming back after a few years and I could feel safe in my own house again. I will not accept the assertion that their lives are worth more than that when they're the ones making the choice to put them on the line.

I lived in the woods too, at one point. Dad has an acreage, we used to have teenagers do this shit on our property all the time.

You know what thought never crossed any of our minds in the whole time we lived there? That shooting them was a viable solution. This was in the deep South, no less. So you can keep telling tales about living in the woods, drug addicts, and what not. I can say from having lived that life, and been around that exact situation where half your neighbors are either meth heads, moonshiners or weed farmers, or all three.....that the need to shoot someone was a complete and total rarity, not a default response to the supposed threat that you might have your car stolen.

And if I had to shoot someone....I sure as hell wouldn't dress it up in an altruistic cloak of "but it's for my neighbors!" The reality is you bought a gun to use it. You think it gives you the right to mete out justice and the definitions of what qualifies for that just manages to get broader, and broader as time goes on. "Oh well if they break into my home." "Oh well if they are stealing from my property." "Oh well if they're on my neighbor's property." "Oh well if they're walking by my property and I don't like the look of 'em....."

Life isn't fair. Shooting people because of it doesn't make it more fair, just more blood-soaked.