5 ms·

Three things - 1. When a person charges you with an industrial hammer, Run. 2. If in case, I over power the person and harm the person. I am liable for the me

Three things - 1. When a person charges you with an industrial hammer, Run. 2. If in case, I over power the person and harm the person. I am liable for the medical bill of the person I harmed. 3. Offices here are most likely insured.

throwaway894345 5y ago
> If in case, I over power the person and harm the person. I am liable for the medical bill of the person I harmed Laws like this seem insane. I'm strongly of the opinion that if you are the one choosing to attack someone else, you accept all risk and responsibility for the encounter. If the victim responds with lethal force in bonafide self-defense, then :shrug:.
- NegativeLatency 5y ago
  Since the original person was only stealing you’ll be the one potentially instigating person on person violence if you stepped in. Stuff especially expensive stuff owned by a business is generally insured (like in the case of the computers here)
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    I think it's unreasonable to expect a victim to assume that the assailant won't harm them. Moreover, the victim has a right to their property and safety--it's insane that we would put people in a situation where they have to choose between loss of property/safety to preserve the safety of our assailant. The assailant has all of the agency in the situation--only the assailant can choose to avert the situation--so the assailant should bear all of the responsibility for the encounter. If they're killed in their enterprise, so be it. Many disingenuously respond to this with some variation of, "but theft doesn't deserve the death penalty!" Of course, I'm not advocating for the death penalty for thieves--defense isn't about justice or sorting out what anyone deserves, it's about preserving one's rights (including one's right to life). How we charge thieves in courts is a different matter.
  - lazide 5y ago
    My guess is the parent poster was assuming the concern with liability was if they were charged by someone with a hammer (unprovoked), and you are assuming the concern with liability was based on stopped the robbery - both seem like pretty legitimate readings. In less populated areas, my experience has been that individuals pretty much have to take responsibility for intervening in things they see - since no one else is around or could be around to do anything in time - or quickly things get out of control in a wider sense. I have property in an area that it’s easily 45 minutes before you could get a police response to a real, active emergency just due to travel time from the station. If you don’t intervene in anything weird, even if it isn’t your property, then the whole area gets a reputation for lawlessness pretty quick and attracts more problems. The attitudes of the local law enforcement generally are friendlier too towards getting more help, as they are well aware of how little they can do without it. They also deal with fewer things like folks itching (or able) to sue, due to it often being poorer areas, and everyone being less up in each other’s faces all the time. In urban environments, there are often dedicated folks nearby (as in a few minutes response time), and everyone tends to be tenser - and the problems are often less ‘help me, I’m stuck in a ditch’ and more ‘semi-insane and/or drunk people getting in a fight in a public place’, and more people have the resources and/or access to lawyers to make things a nasty mess. So in general it IS better to call in the specialists who are used to dealing with it, and stay out of the mess if you can.
- captainredbeard 5y ago
  Only people who have had survival bred out of them disagree with your perspective. In Europe, most of the real men died in WW2 or immigrated.
  - everyone 5y ago
    This actually made me lol "captainredbeard"
    - captainredbeard 5y ago
      Glad to brighten your day. FWIW it's a JOKE downvoters - guess humor was also bred out? :-D
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    online masculinity is so sad and awkward lmao
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  Getting charged for bonafide self-defense is pretty uncommon, unless you're like carrying a gun and executing them after the conflict is over or something like that.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > unless you're like carrying a gun and executing them after the conflict is over or something like that I think that's safely out of bounds of "bonafide self-defense" :)
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      Yes, but it's a substantial proportion of the cases where people were charged. Like the recent case where the guy was shot while they had their hands up and were backing away from the person with the gun.
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        Me: "it's immoral that we charge people for defending themselves" You: "we often charge people for attacking people too" I'm not sure if you think you're rebutting my point, or if you're just going off on an unrelated tangent?
        whimsicalism 5y ago
        Not "we often ... too" but that cases of convicting people for bonafide self-defense are actually very rare and we mostly do it for people who were closer to murder than self-defense.

throwaway894345 5y ago

> If in case, I over power the person and harm the person. I am liable for the medical bill of the person I harmed Laws like this seem insane. I'm strongly of the opinion that if you are the one choosing to attack someone else, you accept all risk and responsibility for the encounter. If the victim responds with lethal force in bonafide self-defense, then :shrug:.

NegativeLatency 5y ago
Since the original person was only stealing you’ll be the one potentially instigating person on person violence if you stepped in. Stuff especially expensive stuff owned by a business is generally insured (like in the case of the computers here)
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  I think it's unreasonable to expect a victim to assume that the assailant won't harm them. Moreover, the victim has a right to their property and safety--it's insane that we would put people in a situation where they have to choose between loss of property/safety to preserve the safety of our assailant. The assailant has all of the agency in the situation--only the assailant can choose to avert the situation--so the assailant should bear all of the responsibility for the encounter. If they're killed in their enterprise, so be it. Many disingenuously respond to this with some variation of, "but theft doesn't deserve the death penalty!" Of course, I'm not advocating for the death penalty for thieves--defense isn't about justice or sorting out what anyone deserves, it's about preserving one's rights (including one's right to life). How we charge thieves in courts is a different matter.
- lazide 5y ago
  My guess is the parent poster was assuming the concern with liability was if they were charged by someone with a hammer (unprovoked), and you are assuming the concern with liability was based on stopped the robbery - both seem like pretty legitimate readings. In less populated areas, my experience has been that individuals pretty much have to take responsibility for intervening in things they see - since no one else is around or could be around to do anything in time - or quickly things get out of control in a wider sense. I have property in an area that it’s easily 45 minutes before you could get a police response to a real, active emergency just due to travel time from the station. If you don’t intervene in anything weird, even if it isn’t your property, then the whole area gets a reputation for lawlessness pretty quick and attracts more problems. The attitudes of the local law enforcement generally are friendlier too towards getting more help, as they are well aware of how little they can do without it. They also deal with fewer things like folks itching (or able) to sue, due to it often being poorer areas, and everyone being less up in each other’s faces all the time. In urban environments, there are often dedicated folks nearby (as in a few minutes response time), and everyone tends to be tenser - and the problems are often less ‘help me, I’m stuck in a ditch’ and more ‘semi-insane and/or drunk people getting in a fight in a public place’, and more people have the resources and/or access to lawyers to make things a nasty mess. So in general it IS better to call in the specialists who are used to dealing with it, and stay out of the mess if you can.
captainredbeard 5y ago
Only people who have had survival bred out of them disagree with your perspective. In Europe, most of the real men died in WW2 or immigrated.
- everyone 5y ago
  This actually made me lol "captainredbeard"
  - captainredbeard 5y ago
    Glad to brighten your day. FWIW it's a JOKE downvoters - guess humor was also bred out? :-D
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  online masculinity is so sad and awkward lmao
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
whimsicalism 5y ago
Getting charged for bonafide self-defense is pretty uncommon, unless you're like carrying a gun and executing them after the conflict is over or something like that.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > unless you're like carrying a gun and executing them after the conflict is over or something like that I think that's safely out of bounds of "bonafide self-defense" :)
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    Yes, but it's a substantial proportion of the cases where people were charged. Like the recent case where the guy was shot while they had their hands up and were backing away from the person with the gun.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      Me: "it's immoral that we charge people for defending themselves" You: "we often charge people for attacking people too" I'm not sure if you think you're rebutting my point, or if you're just going off on an unrelated tangent?
      - whimsicalism 5y ago
        Not "we often ... too" but that cases of convicting people for bonafide self-defense are actually very rare and we mostly do it for people who were closer to murder than self-defense.