Burglar Beaten With His Own Bat. Victim Charged

[QV]

Saw a post on social media somewhere that had the police in Quebec advising the public not to post home security video clips online of thieves stealing packages off doorsteps as it violated that thief's privacy rights.

I am a big supporter of stand your ground laws in other jurisdictions. The sorts of garbage happening in this country where criminals are given the green light to victimize and continue to victimize people is disappointing in the least.

 

[Lumber]

@KevinB @SeaKingTacco @Good2Golf

Just to be clear, I have no qualms about the use of deadly force to protect oneself. A baseball is a deadly weapon; one good swing to the head and you could be done for. If someone just stabbed another patron at the store and you fear that he's about to turn around and stab you? Fill him with lead.

So, lets not confuse what I said as some sort of general aversion to the use of deadly force.

However, yes, if you are in a situation where your life is not in danger (whether actual death or just bodily harm), then I do not feel you have the moral right to take someone else's life, even for your livelihood.

If you sold you house and car and valuable and had your entire life savings all in cash in a bag and someone stole it and was running away, I do not feel you have the legal right to end their life to stop them from getting away.

(now, if this actually happened, I would feel very little sympathy for the thief; FAFO and all, but he didn't need to die)

And less not belabor the argument that "we don't know the whole situation"; you're right, we don't. I'm speaking generally. If the thief was no further threat to the clerk, then he was in the wrong to chase after him and beat him. Lock the door and call the police.

Come work in a jail and please tell us how we rehabilitate them.
Most of them incarcerated are repeat offenders, violent and could give a rats ass about their victims.

Just what does the rehabilitation of thieves have to do with whether it's morally acceptable or not to use excessive force (up to and including deadly force) on a thief when there is no reciprocal threat of deadly force?

 

[Kirkhill]

If you an owner of a small convenience store and you get robbed, every, single day (it is just stuff, right?) to the point where you may lose your business, maybe lose your house and be unable to feed your own family, is it still ”just stuff”?

If someone threatens you with a baseball bat, that is way, way beyond harmless.

If our judicial system actually took crime, punishment and rehabilitation seriously, maybe ordinary people would not suddenly feel like they have to take matters into there own hands.

Maybe the shopkeeper should not have followed the guy out of the store. Or maybe there is more to the story. I’m willing to to give the guy some leeway.

If you are the owner of a small store that stuff that is being stolen is your money that you are using to feed your family. Does the store owner get compensated for the money lost and the food they can't put on the table?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

If you are the owner of a small store that stuff that is being stolen is your money that you are using to feed your family. Does the store owner get compensated for the money lost and the food they can't put on the table?

The standard answer is "you should have insurance"

I prefer the Korean solution:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Because there may be a day where we aren't on the winning side of a conflict, and we'll be deemed to be the criminals who someone else thinks deserve to be punished.

You mean like legal gun owners?

 

[OldSolduer]

@KevinB @SeaKingTacco @Good2Golf

Just to be clear, I have no qualms about the use of deadly force to protect oneself. A baseball is a deadly weapon; one good swing to the head and you could be done for. If someone just stabbed another patron at the store and you fear that he's about to turn around and stab you? Fill him with lead.

So, lets not confuse what I said as some sort of general aversion to the use of deadly force.

However, yes, if you are in a situation where your life is not in danger (whether actual death or just bodily harm), then I do not feel you have the moral right to take someone else's life, even for your livelihood.

If you sold you house and car and valuable and had your entire life savings all in cash in a bag and someone stole it and was running away, I do not feel you have the legal right to end their life to stop them from getting away.

(now, if this actually happened, I would feel very little sympathy for the thief; FAFO and all, but he didn't need to die)

And less not belabor the argument that "we don't know the whole situation"; you're right, we don't. I'm speaking generally. If the thief was no further threat to the clerk, then he was in the wrong to chase after him and beat him. Lock the door and call the police.


Just what does the rehabilitation of thieves have to do with whether it's morally acceptable or not to use excessive force (up to and including deadly force) on a thief when there is no reciprocal threat of deadly force?

Once again note what I said. Repeat violent offenders. Please tell us how you d deal with a situation like that?

Perhaps you think it’s just “stuff” but victims don’t feel that way.

 

[Kirkhill]

I want to be both careful and polite here.

I believe that most people on this site are about as far removed from the world of the small store owner as you can get.

The small store owner does not have a salary. Does not have a pension. Does not have stores to go to draw new clothing when their work clothes wear out. Doesn't get issued the tools they need to earn their living. Doesn't have a security force covering their back. Is under constant threat of punishment if they opt to defend their holdings. Don't get their losses made good.

Everything they have, and everything they will have, comes in through the front door of their store.

It is hard not to take losses of "stuff" personally.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Not to mention for every claim, your insurance gets more expensive and harder to get.

 

[Halifax Tar]

If you an owner of a small convenience store and you get robbed, every, single day (it is just stuff, right?) to the point where you may lose your business, maybe lose your house and be unable to feed your own family, is it still ”just stuff”?

If someone threatens you with a baseball bat, that is way, way beyond harmless.

If our judicial system actually took crime, punishment and rehabilitation seriously, maybe ordinary people would not suddenly feel like they have to take matters into there own hands.

Maybe the shopkeeper should not have followed the guy out of the store. Or maybe there is more to the story. I’m willing to to give the guy some leeway.

The whole post, so well said.

The highlight portion, needs to be righted or its only going to get worse.

 

[mariomike]

Not to mention for every claim, your insurance gets more expensive and harder to get.

Not a lawyer. Would Circle K possibly face financial liability if there is a civil lawsuit?

 

[CountDC]

also lets not forget that insurance usually does not fully compensate. Anyone have insurance that doesn't include a deductible? I filed an insurance claim once, had an adjustor come out, tell me what he was recommending and then the insurance company ignore him. My payment in the end was very little.

 

[Lumber]

It is hard not to take losses of "stuff" personally.

Absolutely. But, that doesn't justify non-judicial killing to defend property.

Should someone else lose their entire life to prevent your life from getting really really hard?

If someone was at the end of their means, and their boss was about to fire them for what they knew was bullshit (read: illegal) reasons, and that losing their job at that moment would destroy their lives, would they be justified in shooting their boss to prevent them from being fired? If the boss in this case really is a crook and is going to fire them for illegal reasons, how is that different from a theif?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Absolutely. But, that doesn't justify non-judicial killing to defend property.

He did not get killed.

 

[Lumber]

He did not get killed.

I'm not referring to the guy in this story, I'm speaking generally.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I'm not referring to the guy in this story, I'm speaking generally.

Got it. Thanks.

 

[Kirkhill]

Absolutely. But, that doesn't justify non-judicial killing to defend property.

Should someone else lose their entire life to prevent your life from getting really really hard?

Frankly, yes. Especially if he or she is threatening my life and violence to my person, or my family's or my customers and relieving me of my livelihood.

Opinions may vary.

I also support the death penalty.

If someone was at the end of their means, and their boss was about to fire them for what they knew was bullshit (read: illegal) reasons, and that losing their job at that moment would destroy their lives, would they be justified in shooting their boss to prevent them from being fired?

Probably not but I would be prepared to listen to arguments.

If the boss in this case really is a crook and is going to fire them for illegal reasons, how is that different from a theif?

I can take the boss to civil court.

 

[Lumber]

Once again note what I said. Repeat violent offenders. Please tell us how you d deal with a situation like that?

Perhaps you think it’s just “stuff” but victims don’t feel that way.

I'm legitimately not sure we are discussing the same thing.

I gave a story about a non-judicial killing of a thief who was not an immediate threat to the person who shot him. I then gave a general opinion that deadly force shouldn't be permissible to defend property.

You then responded to that with:

"Come work in a jail and please tell us how we rehabilitate them.
Most of them incarcerated are repeat offenders, violent and could give a rats ass about their victims."

I was confused because I didn't (and still don't) see what violent, repeat offenders in prison (and their rehabilitation) have to do with whether or not it is morally acceptable to use deadly force to defend property.

The only thing I can infer from what you're saying is something like"

"Because these people are violent and can't be rehabilitated, it is morally acceptable to kill them in response to their committing crimes who's punishments don't otherwise include the death penalty."

Is that your position? If not please clarify the point you are trying to make.

 

[Lumber]

Frankly, yes. Especially if he or she is threatening my life and violence to my person, or my family's or my customers and relieving me of my livelihood.

Opinions may vary.

I also support the death penalty.

I also support the death penalty, but more as a resource saving measure for the crown and not as a punitive function. If we are going to lock someone up for 700 years, why pay $80k a year to keep them incarcerated?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I also support the death penalty, but more as a resource saving measure for the crown and not as a punitive function. If we are going to lock someone up for 700 years, why pay $80k a year to keep them incarcerated?

Because pink pussy hats, social justice warriors and champagne socialists.

 

[OldSolduer]

I'm legitimately not sure we are discussing the same thing.

I gave a story about a non-judicial killing of a thief who was not an immediate threat to the person who shot him. I then gave a general opinion that deadly force shouldn't be permissible to defend property.

You then responded to that with:

"Come work in a jail and please tell us how we rehabilitate them.
Most of them incarcerated are repeat offenders, violent and could give a rats ass about their victims."

I was confused because I didn't (and still don't) see what violent, repeat offenders in prison (and their rehabilitation) have to do with whether or not it is morally acceptable to use deadly force to defend property.

The only thing I can infer from what you're saying is something like"

"Because these people are violent and can't be rehabilitated, it is morally acceptable to kill them in response to their committing crimes who's punishments don't otherwise include the death penalty."

Is that your position? If not please clarify the point you are trying to make.

My position is we have the right to defend ourselves and our “stuff”. What the clerk did will be decided by a judge and jury if the Crown pursues it.

To meekly submit because someone says it’s just “stuff” is an anathema to many of us.

Is that clear enough?