11 ms·

Noone said anything about sympathy. And lack of sympathy is irrelevant to legal liability.

weberc2 8y ago
Ok, let me spell it out: that the law protects criminals and punishes innocent citizens in such cases is indicative of a problem with the law. And yes, defending your property from theft is categorically "innocent".
- stanleydrew 8y ago
  If your defense against theft ends up killing the thief do you think you shouldn't be liable? The point is that at some point an "innocent" citizen crosses a line and is no longer innocent. We are just debating where the line should be.
  - 49531 8y ago
    Innocence in this sense isn't binary. Is the death penalty issued for thievery?
  - weberc2 8y ago
    > If your defense against theft ends up killing the thief do you think you shouldn't be liable? That depends. Are we talking about a thief who was accidentally killed in a brawl with the property owner (or the troublesome death-by-glitter scenario that some in this thread are so concerned about)? Or a property owner who subdues, binds, and executes the thief? I'm open to arguments that it should be illegal to use lethal force against thieves when it's 100% clear that the thief poses no physical danger to the victim. I also believe that the property owner generally bears responsibility if their traps or other defenses are mistakenly employed against an innocent party. But in general, any injuries a thief incurs during a theft should be his own responsibility, and I'm okay with a world in which thieves live in fear of committing thefts.
    - stanleydrew 8y ago
      It comes down to proportionality. I don't think anyone would disagree that generally stealing is wrong and people who do it in general deserve to face consequences. But the consequences should be proportionate to the crime. I don't think anyone deserves to die for petty theft, regardless of circumstances. It seems like you are suggesting that if someone takes a $50 package off of my front porch, and then I come outside to confront them, and in the altercation this person makes a threatening gesture towards me then I would be within my rights to use lethal force. That seems like a disproportionate escalation to me. Anyway I think we just disagree about some of these proportionality issues. If someone steals something, that doesn't mean they automatically lose all of their rights to life and property simply because in your mind they are now a "criminal".
      - weberc2 8y ago
        Defense is not about punishment. Thieves don’t deserve to die, but it’s okay that it’s a risk they run. As an aside, I see this all the time, usually in conversations about self-defense—“a rapist doesn’t deserve to die”; maybe not but they sure deserve to run the risk and they certainly deserve worse than their victims. At least they have a _choice_.
        stanleydrew 8y ago
        > Thieves don’t deserve to die, but it’s okay that it’s a risk they run. Why is that okay?
        weberc2 8y ago
        Because they have the agency and can trivially choose to forego the risks. Why should thieves be guaranteed safety? What else should we fournish for them? A guaranteed minimum haul? :)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Guest10928391 8y ago
  Booby traps are not "innocent". What happens if you stop responding and paramedics are sent to your property? They get paintballed because they approached your porch at night when there should have been no visitors? What happens if you put a car airbag in a booby trapped package, and someone steals the package and brings it home. Then later that day their child or spouse finds and opens the package not realizing it was stolen. Boooom, an airbag in their face and they're seriously injured. We don't need a world where we're surrounded by booby traps. It's a disaster waiting to happen because there are countless edge cases that people wouldn't consider. We're quickly moving towards a future with door bell cameras and facial recognition software. We also have more parcel lockers showing up in different cities and neighborhoods where you can have packages safely delivered, available for pickup 24/7. These are better alternatives than setting traps.
  - tomjen3 8y ago
    Then the thief would be liable, same as if you commit an illegal act and get somebody shot. Proving things in court is much less efficient, and more likely to harm those who are innocent, than to make sure the crime is punished immediately.
  - cwkoss 8y ago
    "A reasonable person would not suspect glitter to cause bodily injury" seems like a good defense. Setting a trap that can maim is obviously dumb, for the reasons you mention.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    We're not talking about liability when a trap injures an innocent person; of course the innocent person would not be held liable. When a trap injures a thief, the thief should be liable. I agree that traps are a bad idea because I don't trust most people to devise traps that don't harm innocents; however, this is markedly different than the argument that "when a trap hurts a thief, the thief bears no responsibility". Also, the specific scenario we're discussing is a thief getting a bit of glitter in their eye. Anyway, I welcome any advancement that can help deter thieves (and/or make sure they're prosecuted) while protecting innocent bystanders. I'm not convinced pervasive facial recognition software is the key given the privacy concerns, but maybe it's inevitable. However, all of this is orthogonal to the question of who is culpable for injuries incurred by a thief during a theft.
- txcwpalpha 8y ago
  It is absolutely not categorically innocent. I don't know why you think it is.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    It is by definition. You're simply mistaken.
    - txcwpalpha 8y ago
      No, it is not. It is in fact explicitly illegal to do a great many of things, even in defense of your own property.
      - weberc2 8y ago
        It is. “Legal” != “moral”.
        txcwpalpha 8y ago
        The very first sentence of your comment says "the law...". This is a discussion about the law, aka legal issues. Morality is not, and never was, in question. Stop moving the goalposts, it makes you look silly. And just for the hell of it, no, it is not categorically innocent even when talking about morals, either. Morality is, by definition, something that is personal to each person. Therefor there can be no such thing as "categorical innocence", as moral innocence will be different for each person.
        weberc2 8y ago
        We’re debating the morality of the law. My comment is criticizing the law. You’re trying to argue that the law is morally correct based on a legal definition of innocence (and probably also defense). And while each person may have their own opinion about morality, every society in the world has decided that theft is wrong enough to outlaw, so clearly morality isn’t purely subjective (certainly not by definition). Similarly, every society respects an individual’s right to defend themselves (note that “defense” here is defined as some minimal force required to confidently stop an aggressor thereby excluding things like executing an aggressor after he’s been subdued) so clearly this is moral as well. Please don’t accuse me of moving goal posts. It’s clear that I haven’t. If you can’t participate in good faith this conversation is over.
- hyperpape 8y ago
  Proportionality is a thing. I think spraying someone with glitter is fine. Shooting someone in the back would not be innocent.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    To be clear, we were talking about a theif getting a little glitter in their eye; I understand why shooting someone is controversial.
    - txcwpalpha 8y ago
      You understand why shooting someone is controversial, but you don't understand why recklessly causing someone to go blind is controversial?
      - weberc2 8y ago
        This is a silly comment. You're more likely to blind someone with the dust your car kicks up as you drive by them, and such a person would be actually innocent as opposed to our hypothetical vision-impaired thief.
        txcwpalpha 8y ago
        Likelihood of injury is irrelevant. If your actions recklessly caused the injury of another person, you are liable for them, even if there was only a 1 in a trillion chance of it happening. And yes, by the way, if you drive by someone knowing that by doing so you will launch debris towards another person in a manner that could injure them, and your car kicks up a rock and hits that person in the head, you would also be liable. Innocence is also irrelevant, as you do not have the right to injure another person, even if they stole from you.
        cwkoss 8y ago
        I think you're only liable if a "reasonable person" would have expected that result.
- Latty 8y ago
  Trapping is a form of vigilantism and subject to the same problems. What happens when a little kid walking with their parents runs over and picks up the box randomly, and gets show in the eye with a paintball? There is a reason we don't want a society where that kind of thing is OK.

Ok, let me spell it out: that the law protects criminals and punishes innocent citizens in such cases is indicative of a problem with the law. And yes, defending your property from theft is categorically "innocent".

stanleydrew 8y ago
If your defense against theft ends up killing the thief do you think you shouldn't be liable? The point is that at some point an "innocent" citizen crosses a line and is no longer innocent. We are just debating where the line should be.
- 49531 8y ago
  Innocence in this sense isn't binary. Is the death penalty issued for thievery?
- weberc2 8y ago
  > If your defense against theft ends up killing the thief do you think you shouldn't be liable? That depends. Are we talking about a thief who was accidentally killed in a brawl with the property owner (or the troublesome death-by-glitter scenario that some in this thread are so concerned about)? Or a property owner who subdues, binds, and executes the thief? I'm open to arguments that it should be illegal to use lethal force against thieves when it's 100% clear that the thief poses no physical danger to the victim. I also believe that the property owner generally bears responsibility if their traps or other defenses are mistakenly employed against an innocent party. But in general, any injuries a thief incurs during a theft should be his own responsibility, and I'm okay with a world in which thieves live in fear of committing thefts.
  - stanleydrew 8y ago
    It comes down to proportionality. I don't think anyone would disagree that generally stealing is wrong and people who do it in general deserve to face consequences. But the consequences should be proportionate to the crime. I don't think anyone deserves to die for petty theft, regardless of circumstances. It seems like you are suggesting that if someone takes a $50 package off of my front porch, and then I come outside to confront them, and in the altercation this person makes a threatening gesture towards me then I would be within my rights to use lethal force. That seems like a disproportionate escalation to me. Anyway I think we just disagree about some of these proportionality issues. If someone steals something, that doesn't mean they automatically lose all of their rights to life and property simply because in your mind they are now a "criminal".
    - weberc2 8y ago
      Defense is not about punishment. Thieves don’t deserve to die, but it’s okay that it’s a risk they run. As an aside, I see this all the time, usually in conversations about self-defense—“a rapist doesn’t deserve to die”; maybe not but they sure deserve to run the risk and they certainly deserve worse than their victims. At least they have a _choice_.
      - stanleydrew 8y ago
        > Thieves don’t deserve to die, but it’s okay that it’s a risk they run. Why is that okay?
        weberc2 8y ago
        Because they have the agency and can trivially choose to forego the risks. Why should thieves be guaranteed safety? What else should we fournish for them? A guaranteed minimum haul? :)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Guest10928391 8y ago
Booby traps are not "innocent". What happens if you stop responding and paramedics are sent to your property? They get paintballed because they approached your porch at night when there should have been no visitors? What happens if you put a car airbag in a booby trapped package, and someone steals the package and brings it home. Then later that day their child or spouse finds and opens the package not realizing it was stolen. Boooom, an airbag in their face and they're seriously injured. We don't need a world where we're surrounded by booby traps. It's a disaster waiting to happen because there are countless edge cases that people wouldn't consider. We're quickly moving towards a future with door bell cameras and facial recognition software. We also have more parcel lockers showing up in different cities and neighborhoods where you can have packages safely delivered, available for pickup 24/7. These are better alternatives than setting traps.
- tomjen3 8y ago
  Then the thief would be liable, same as if you commit an illegal act and get somebody shot. Proving things in court is much less efficient, and more likely to harm those who are innocent, than to make sure the crime is punished immediately.
- cwkoss 8y ago
  "A reasonable person would not suspect glitter to cause bodily injury" seems like a good defense. Setting a trap that can maim is obviously dumb, for the reasons you mention.
- weberc2 8y ago
  We're not talking about liability when a trap injures an innocent person; of course the innocent person would not be held liable. When a trap injures a thief, the thief should be liable. I agree that traps are a bad idea because I don't trust most people to devise traps that don't harm innocents; however, this is markedly different than the argument that "when a trap hurts a thief, the thief bears no responsibility". Also, the specific scenario we're discussing is a thief getting a bit of glitter in their eye. Anyway, I welcome any advancement that can help deter thieves (and/or make sure they're prosecuted) while protecting innocent bystanders. I'm not convinced pervasive facial recognition software is the key given the privacy concerns, but maybe it's inevitable. However, all of this is orthogonal to the question of who is culpable for injuries incurred by a thief during a theft.
txcwpalpha 8y ago
It is absolutely not categorically innocent. I don't know why you think it is.
- weberc2 8y ago
  It is by definition. You're simply mistaken.
  - txcwpalpha 8y ago
    No, it is not. It is in fact explicitly illegal to do a great many of things, even in defense of your own property.
    - weberc2 8y ago
      It is. “Legal” != “moral”.
      - txcwpalpha 8y ago
        The very first sentence of your comment says "the law...". This is a discussion about the law, aka legal issues. Morality is not, and never was, in question. Stop moving the goalposts, it makes you look silly. And just for the hell of it, no, it is not categorically innocent even when talking about morals, either. Morality is, by definition, something that is personal to each person. Therefor there can be no such thing as "categorical innocence", as moral innocence will be different for each person.
        weberc2 8y ago
        We’re debating the morality of the law. My comment is criticizing the law. You’re trying to argue that the law is morally correct based on a legal definition of innocence (and probably also defense). And while each person may have their own opinion about morality, every society in the world has decided that theft is wrong enough to outlaw, so clearly morality isn’t purely subjective (certainly not by definition). Similarly, every society respects an individual’s right to defend themselves (note that “defense” here is defined as some minimal force required to confidently stop an aggressor thereby excluding things like executing an aggressor after he’s been subdued) so clearly this is moral as well. Please don’t accuse me of moving goal posts. It’s clear that I haven’t. If you can’t participate in good faith this conversation is over.
hyperpape 8y ago
Proportionality is a thing. I think spraying someone with glitter is fine. Shooting someone in the back would not be innocent.
- weberc2 8y ago
  To be clear, we were talking about a theif getting a little glitter in their eye; I understand why shooting someone is controversial.
  - txcwpalpha 8y ago
    You understand why shooting someone is controversial, but you don't understand why recklessly causing someone to go blind is controversial?
    - weberc2 8y ago
      This is a silly comment. You're more likely to blind someone with the dust your car kicks up as you drive by them, and such a person would be actually innocent as opposed to our hypothetical vision-impaired thief.
      - txcwpalpha 8y ago
        Likelihood of injury is irrelevant. If your actions recklessly caused the injury of another person, you are liable for them, even if there was only a 1 in a trillion chance of it happening. And yes, by the way, if you drive by someone knowing that by doing so you will launch debris towards another person in a manner that could injure them, and your car kicks up a rock and hits that person in the head, you would also be liable. Innocence is also irrelevant, as you do not have the right to injure another person, even if they stole from you.
        cwkoss 8y ago
        I think you're only liable if a "reasonable person" would have expected that result.
Latty 8y ago
Trapping is a form of vigilantism and subject to the same problems. What happens when a little kid walking with their parents runs over and picks up the box randomly, and gets show in the eye with a paintball? There is a reason we don't want a society where that kind of thing is OK.