5 ms·

This line of reasoning is insane to me. For the most part, police act as a deterrent against crime, not as an actual barrier. Police tactics are geared toward m

This line of reasoning is insane to me. For the most part, police act as a deterrent against crime, not as an actual barrier. Police tactics are geared toward making them more of a deterrent, making their presence felt by everyone around as much as possible. So calling the police because you've just been robbed is not likely to achieve anything (I've had two cars stolen, and in both cases the police never achieved anything). If police aren't a deterrent from car theft (as carjacking is a pretty common crime), then we are encouraging that behavior by doing nothing and calling the cops. Conversely, if the average person, during an attempted carjacking, opened fire on the attacker, it would be a major deterrent. There would be almost no repeat offenders (I have been shot at, and it is terrifying).

ams6110 8y ago
The police are almost never around to intervene in a crime in progress. They show up in the aftermath and investigate what happened, gather evidence, and eventually may refer a suspect to the prosecutor for charges.
- craftinator 8y ago
  Agreed. Their main value is as a deterrent presence, a chilling effect on criminal conduct. They do gather evidence, etc, but the vast majority of their work is driving around and being seen.
munk-a 8y ago
I mean, the other line of reasoning is insane to me. If you can safely escape a situation why should you risk escalating and possibly getting shot yourself? Report the item as stolen and move on with your life.
- int_19h 8y ago
  Because that requires you to be able to judge whether it's safe for you to escape or not, while under significant stress, and with the consequence of making the wrong choice being your limb or life. And then a bunch of people sitting in a comfortable room will carefully go over the evidence and your statements, and decide whether you decided correctly. And all that solely to spare the attacker the consequences of his choices. I'd rather err on the side of the victim here - they didn't choose to be in that position, they were placed in it by actions of the attacker. Note that this all only applies when the person defending themselves is in a position where they reasonably believe that they're in danger. It's generally not legal to defend your property with lethal force in US, if you are not endangered yourself; the sole exception is Texas.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    Hrm, and yet in this discussion there are quite a few examples of people glorifying defending themselves with a weapon or lethal force. It is romanticized in the US and that's going to tip the balance on whether someone will preserve themselves or attempt to "take justice into their own hands". I think judges are in the position, and have generally proven quite able, to rule on cases where someone was legitimately uncertain if there were other options, but it's also a bit scary how glorified responding with force seems to be.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      In my country of birth, there are quite a few cases where people are convinced on "excessive force used in self-defense" even in situations where they were literally being shot at. So no, it's not at all a given. I'd rather not have that possibility. A more important question is why. We're discussing a situation with a premise that we have already firmly established that the victim was violently attacked, or had a credible threat of the same (if we haven't, then it's not self-defense by legal definition). At that point, why would you accommodate the attacker at the expense of the victim, so long as victim remains threatened (again, if they're no longer threatened, then it's legally not self-defense)? I often hear truisms such as "every life is valuable", but that goes both ways, and there's no way to avoid judging the relative value of victim's life versus the attacker's in this situation. Since it was attacker's choices that create this contradiction in the first place, I believe that they're fully responsible for it - i.e. the victim has no obligations whatsoever to think about the attacker's safety, only about their own and that of bystanders. Which means removing the threat by the most efficient way possible, rather than the most humane towards the attacker. Once attacker is no longer a threat, then considerations of the value of their life etc are back in force, because it's no longer at the expense of danger to someone else.
  - fwip 8y ago
    If somebody tells you "your money or your life," it's pretty obvious that the safer option is to give them the money.
    - 8y ago
- throwaway8879 8y ago
  How about not trying to steal my things? I'm glad to live somewhere where I can react with over-the-top force to defend my possessions.
- wu-ikkyu 8y ago
  Because sometimes you only have seconds or milliseconds to decide how best to potentially save your own life and/or the lives of your family. Sometimes "safely escaping" is not something you have the time or option to even consider. It's simply about the human right to defend one's own life.
- craftinator 8y ago
  Because if you don't do anything, the thief will have their actions validated. That theft will no longer be an isolated, one time occurrence... It will be their new full time job. That means that they are much more likely to end up robbing someone again, be it you, a close relative, a loved one, a person who can't afford to "move on with their life", as you said. I'm trying very hard not to use the word "sheeple" here, but you haven't left me many options. If the average person protects themselves, then the group or community, on average, will be protected.
- craftinator 8y ago
  You mean, "If you think you can safely escape".
patmcc 8y ago
>>Conversely, if the average person, during an attempted carjacking, opened fire on the attacker, it would be a major deterrent. It would also be a major incentive for the carjacker to carry a gun and possibly use it.
- garmaine 8y ago
  Not possibly use it, assuredly use it. They wouldn't hesitate. Why risk themselves by giving the victim a chance to respond, if they're prepared to use deadly force in the first place?
- cgag 8y ago
  Well, bring it on I guess. I can't imagine wanting to live in a world where it's illegal to defend yourself from thieves. I would think the incentive is that they don't want to die for a car or they don't want to commit a crime someone will actually investigate (a murder).
  - wahern 8y ago
    Technically you already do. Most jurisdictions around the world impose a duty to retreat, often quite strictly. The United States is an exception, largely an artifact of our frontier history and Wild West lore. There's a reason why the United States is such a violent country, and one of the most violent where law & order haven't broken down. I'm not saying I disagree with your sentiment that one should be given some liberties in meeting aggression with aggression. It's how I feel, too. (And I'm not shy around guns, FWIW.) But that feeling was nurtured by our violent culture. In most other countries people don't feel a compunction to buy a gun or otherwise arm themselves after being burglarized or carjacked. A predisposition to resort to violence isn't universal, not among developed nations, not even for defense. That took me awhile to wrap my head around, but IME (Ecuador, Mexico, Malaysia) it's true, even in countries with significantly more violent crime than we have.
    - magduf 8y ago
      >There's a reason why the United States is such a violent country, and one of the most violent where law & order haven't broken down. The big problem I see is the easy availability of guns, which has turned into an arms race of sorts. So victims (such as for carjacking, the subject here) have very good reason to fear that attackers are armed with deadly weapons, and so many people want to carry guns themselves to defend against this, and so the criminals carry guns too. In other developed nations, there's generally no easy access to guns, so a victim doesn't have such a large reason to fear for their life. The worst thing they have to worry about is usually being stabbed with a knife, which is generally much more survivable. So these countries generally have much less deadly crime, though they have more petty street crime (pickpocketing or purse-grabbing for instance). Countries where they have more violent crime like Mexico, El Salvador, etc. are ones where law and order really have broken down, and these aren't "developed nations" either; poverty and crime are both rampant there.

ams6110 8y ago

The police are almost never around to intervene in a crime in progress. They show up in the aftermath and investigate what happened, gather evidence, and eventually may refer a suspect to the prosecutor for charges.

craftinator 8y ago
Agreed. Their main value is as a deterrent presence, a chilling effect on criminal conduct. They do gather evidence, etc, but the vast majority of their work is driving around and being seen.

munk-a 8y ago

I mean, the other line of reasoning is insane to me. If you can safely escape a situation why should you risk escalating and possibly getting shot yourself? Report the item as stolen and move on with your life.

int_19h 8y ago
Because that requires you to be able to judge whether it's safe for you to escape or not, while under significant stress, and with the consequence of making the wrong choice being your limb or life. And then a bunch of people sitting in a comfortable room will carefully go over the evidence and your statements, and decide whether you decided correctly. And all that solely to spare the attacker the consequences of his choices. I'd rather err on the side of the victim here - they didn't choose to be in that position, they were placed in it by actions of the attacker. Note that this all only applies when the person defending themselves is in a position where they reasonably believe that they're in danger. It's generally not legal to defend your property with lethal force in US, if you are not endangered yourself; the sole exception is Texas.
- munk-a 8y ago
  Hrm, and yet in this discussion there are quite a few examples of people glorifying defending themselves with a weapon or lethal force. It is romanticized in the US and that's going to tip the balance on whether someone will preserve themselves or attempt to "take justice into their own hands". I think judges are in the position, and have generally proven quite able, to rule on cases where someone was legitimately uncertain if there were other options, but it's also a bit scary how glorified responding with force seems to be.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    In my country of birth, there are quite a few cases where people are convinced on "excessive force used in self-defense" even in situations where they were literally being shot at. So no, it's not at all a given. I'd rather not have that possibility. A more important question is why. We're discussing a situation with a premise that we have already firmly established that the victim was violently attacked, or had a credible threat of the same (if we haven't, then it's not self-defense by legal definition). At that point, why would you accommodate the attacker at the expense of the victim, so long as victim remains threatened (again, if they're no longer threatened, then it's legally not self-defense)? I often hear truisms such as "every life is valuable", but that goes both ways, and there's no way to avoid judging the relative value of victim's life versus the attacker's in this situation. Since it was attacker's choices that create this contradiction in the first place, I believe that they're fully responsible for it - i.e. the victim has no obligations whatsoever to think about the attacker's safety, only about their own and that of bystanders. Which means removing the threat by the most efficient way possible, rather than the most humane towards the attacker. Once attacker is no longer a threat, then considerations of the value of their life etc are back in force, because it's no longer at the expense of danger to someone else.
- fwip 8y ago
  If somebody tells you "your money or your life," it's pretty obvious that the safer option is to give them the money.
  - 8y ago
throwaway8879 8y ago
How about not trying to steal my things? I'm glad to live somewhere where I can react with over-the-top force to defend my possessions.
wu-ikkyu 8y ago
Because sometimes you only have seconds or milliseconds to decide how best to potentially save your own life and/or the lives of your family. Sometimes "safely escaping" is not something you have the time or option to even consider. It's simply about the human right to defend one's own life.
craftinator 8y ago
Because if you don't do anything, the thief will have their actions validated. That theft will no longer be an isolated, one time occurrence... It will be their new full time job. That means that they are much more likely to end up robbing someone again, be it you, a close relative, a loved one, a person who can't afford to "move on with their life", as you said. I'm trying very hard not to use the word "sheeple" here, but you haven't left me many options. If the average person protects themselves, then the group or community, on average, will be protected.
craftinator 8y ago
You mean, "If you think you can safely escape".

patmcc 8y ago

>>Conversely, if the average person, during an attempted carjacking, opened fire on the attacker, it would be a major deterrent. It would also be a major incentive for the carjacker to carry a gun and possibly use it.

garmaine 8y ago
Not possibly use it, assuredly use it. They wouldn't hesitate. Why risk themselves by giving the victim a chance to respond, if they're prepared to use deadly force in the first place?
cgag 8y ago
Well, bring it on I guess. I can't imagine wanting to live in a world where it's illegal to defend yourself from thieves. I would think the incentive is that they don't want to die for a car or they don't want to commit a crime someone will actually investigate (a murder).
- wahern 8y ago
  Technically you already do. Most jurisdictions around the world impose a duty to retreat, often quite strictly. The United States is an exception, largely an artifact of our frontier history and Wild West lore. There's a reason why the United States is such a violent country, and one of the most violent where law & order haven't broken down. I'm not saying I disagree with your sentiment that one should be given some liberties in meeting aggression with aggression. It's how I feel, too. (And I'm not shy around guns, FWIW.) But that feeling was nurtured by our violent culture. In most other countries people don't feel a compunction to buy a gun or otherwise arm themselves after being burglarized or carjacked. A predisposition to resort to violence isn't universal, not among developed nations, not even for defense. That took me awhile to wrap my head around, but IME (Ecuador, Mexico, Malaysia) it's true, even in countries with significantly more violent crime than we have.
  - magduf 8y ago
    >There's a reason why the United States is such a violent country, and one of the most violent where law & order haven't broken down. The big problem I see is the easy availability of guns, which has turned into an arms race of sorts. So victims (such as for carjacking, the subject here) have very good reason to fear that attackers are armed with deadly weapons, and so many people want to carry guns themselves to defend against this, and so the criminals carry guns too. In other developed nations, there's generally no easy access to guns, so a victim doesn't have such a large reason to fear for their life. The worst thing they have to worry about is usually being stabbed with a knife, which is generally much more survivable. So these countries generally have much less deadly crime, though they have more petty street crime (pickpocketing or purse-grabbing for instance). Countries where they have more violent crime like Mexico, El Salvador, etc. are ones where law and order really have broken down, and these aren't "developed nations" either; poverty and crime are both rampant there.