Print

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

[Agdune]

If we let all robbers get away with whatever they wanted, who would bother working?
The cops would be sticking you up and stealing your wallet for Hel's sake.

and how is that exactly?

[Jreengus]

If we let all robbers get away with whatever they wanted, who would bother working?
The cops would be sticking you up and stealing your wallet for Hel's sake.

I'm not going to reply to this because I don't want to get dragged into this thread, however it's important to me that you realise that right now I'm thinking of plenty of replies and that the sheer stupidity of this annoys me. I will not post in here again.

[LegoLord]

If we let all robbers get away with whatever they wanted, who would bother working?
The cops would be sticking you up and stealing your wallet for Hel's sake.

The robber wouldn't get away with it.  He'd just think he did and get caught later, when it is safer to do so.  This is something thatguy pointed out in his first not-post and why that response deserved thatguy's second not-post.

[Org]

If we let all robbers get away with whatever they wanted, who would bother working?
The cops would be sticking you up and stealing your wallet for Hel's sake.

The robber wouldn't get away with it.  He'd just think he did and get caught later, when it is safer to do so.  This is something thatguy pointed out in his first not-post and why that response deserved thatguy's second not-post.

I agree with Legolord.

And the comment you made, Hawk, was pretty stupid. Really? Everyone would be that corrupt?

[Darkone]

Aquizar, my post consistutes an opinion. From the tone of it, you didn't notice the fact that I also agreed he took it way too far. Threatened is defined well enough- someone is in your house in the middle of the night? Thats pretty threatening to me. Someone starting to rob you? That sounds like threatening livelyhood to me.

[Org]

(on the criticism of the inaluct mute, the situation was compounded by two previous warnings, one for trolling a fanfic thread and one for an anti-gay slur.)

Okay. My fault, because I havent seen those.

What did happen to the Titus Andronicus thread Toady? Was it deleted?

[Strife26]

Despite the fact that Hawkfrost's statement wasn't the best, I have to agree with it to some extent. Thatguyyouknow more or less claimed that blasting someone who is robbing you isn't a valid response, which I don't think stands up to scrutiny.

[LegoLord]

When they say "your money or your life" they would also prefer you choose the prior rather than the latter.

That is what you are supposed to do; comply, report to the cops after he's left, let them take care of it.  He's a robber, not a terrorist - compliance is acceptable when they carry out their plans.  This "shoot or be shot" only applies if you try to defend yourself.  It's really more like "shoot and risk getting shot or comply and have no one die."

[Hawkfrost]

If we let all robbers get away with whatever they wanted, who would bother working?
The cops would be sticking you up and stealing your wallet for Hel's sake.

The robber wouldn't get away with it.  He'd just think he did and get caught later, when it is safer to do so.  This is something thatguy pointed out in his first not-post and why that response deserved thatguy's second not-post.

I was exaggerating, I thought that you guys would catch on.

I was thinking that if everyone is getting away with a crime, even for a short time, then robbers will get more aggressive and numerous.
Lets say the law states that fighting back in a robbery is a crime. Then what is to stop people from mugging you every time you leave the house? The sheer amount of criminals would render the police rather useless in this matter, because they would be busy with another ten dozen similar cases.

I realize I am not in a proper state of mind right now from having one hour of a sleep a night for 2 months, so don't take any of this seriously.

[Agdune]

Decreased resistance increasing aggression? More likley to result in less aggression, as whoever's conducting the mugging/robbery/whatever won't be expecting violence to ensue. Looking on the other hand, if everyone was armed and ready to gun down robbers you'd probably see a great increase in violence as once it became commonplace, most muggers/robbers would just kill any potential threats (Remember, they don't wanna die either) before giving them a chance to react. I know if I were mugging someone (heh) and was expecting them to kill me at any point they'd never get the chance to know I had bad intentions, they'd be killed straight away.

An easy win is a win after all, since they're not looking for a fight, just willing to go through one for the reward. Now it's time for work so I have to again leave a point half-made.

[LegoLord]

That's an interesting point, Agdune.  I can't see any reason to disagree.  It makes sense, really.  Humans do seek the path of least resistance, and if they are expecting a lot of resistance they will compensate in whatever way they can to reduce the resistance.

[Fishersalwaysdie]

The guy killing over robbery is the idiot, especially if the company being robbed has insurance, which most do.  Not the desperate guy trying to survive.

i am sure that will comfort the widows/widowers/brothers/sisters/fathers/mothers/children & family members of innocent working people who were killed on the job by a poor, misunderstood robber...........

hogwash

Ok, I wasn't going to post in this thread but that just goes too far, lets leave aside the fact that you are ignoring the widows/widowers/brothers/sisters/fathers/mothers/children & family members of misguided robbers who needed rehabilitation not a bullet in the brain. When someone commits a standup robbery they don't want to shoot anyone, they aren't stupid they just want some money, hell even if you ignore their demands they are probably more likely to leg it than shoot you (Not advisable) after all the last thing they want is a murder conviction. When you draw a gun however you're now facing someone who's life is in danger and now someone is going to die or get injured. So it's the fault of the idiots who drew a gun that they are dead, all they really had to do was give them what they want claim it back off the insurance wait for the robbers  to go to jail and get a chance to turn their life around. Much preferable to a situation where someones death is garunteed.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

No, this is not a post.

You could consider bullet to the brain the best form of rehabilitation.
If their lives aren't in danger while robbing stores armed, more people will try it, as said, humans seek the path of least resistance. If there is no resistance, the path will be more popular.

[LegoLord]

You could consider bullet to the brain the best form of rehabilitation.
If their lives aren't in danger while robbing stores armed, more people will try it, as said, humans seek the path of least resistance. If there is no resistance, the path will be more popular.

Not if most of the robbers get caught soon after leaving the place they robbed.

[Fishersalwaysdie]

I'm fairly certain most if not all robbers do get caught soon after leaving the place, they will make more attempts if there is no risk of dying.

[Strife26]

When they say "your money or your life" they would also prefer you choose the prior rather than the latter.

That is what you are supposed to do; comply, report to the cops after he's left, let them take care of it.  He's a robber, not a terrorist - compliance is acceptable when they carry out their plans.  This "shoot or be shot" only applies if you try to defend yourself.  It's really more like "shoot and risk getting shot or comply and have no one die."

Try looking "Take a third option" on TV tropes. I'd choose neither. After you give the punk your wallet, what's to stop him from blasting you anyway? Then you can't report him. "Humans take the path of least resistence . . ."