11 ms·

Or, alternatively, thieves could decide to not try and steal catalytic converters knowing they could get shot for it at no legal repercussion for the owner. If

Or, alternatively, thieves could decide to not try and steal catalytic converters knowing they could get shot for it at no legal repercussion for the owner. If you gamble with your life, you're bound to lose eventually, and I just struggle to feel sympathy for those who knowingly ruin their own lives with full conscience of the consequences. I have the right to defend my property.

arcticbull 5y ago
Another vote for failed state anarchy. Where all did you grow up and go to school if you don’t mind, I’m building a list of no-go zones.
- 0x0nyandesu 5y ago
  Oy vey go away. Move to Europe if you don't like it. Your anarchy is my justice
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Ah yes Europe famously the only place on earth you can’t unload a clip and murder someone for stealing the catalytic converter out of your Ford truck lol. Absolutely embarrassing. Think of all the failure that went into someone making this statement with a straight face. Federal, state, local, moral. Just wow. “Your anarchy is my justice” is the rallying cry of every criminal out there. The state losing its monopoly on violence is the definition of a failed state. Other places you’re welcome to murder people for stealing from you are likely Somalia, parts of El Salvador, the Sudan, Western Sahara and uh, I want to say cartel controlled states in Mexico. Not exactly sterling examples of well run areas. Even there it’s due to absence of state control, not outright abdication.
capableweb 5y ago
It doesn't worry you that people could misuse the law? For example, shooting someone to death first, then placing them under their car, and that way get away with murder?
- sodality2 5y ago
  That can happen anyway. Place them in your house and say they broke in
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - capableweb 5y ago
    You're not joking, apparently it's legal to shot people to death if they've entered your home. Learned something new today. I don't understand it all, but certainly puts the new law into perspective and apparently what I was thinking about wouldn't be a problem.
    - johnisgood 5y ago
      Invite them over to your house without anyone knowing about this, then shoot them. Would it work?
      - defen 5y ago
        People keep coming up with these fanciful scenarios because they don't like the idea of being able to shoot intruders, but think about that for a second. You're positing that a person wants to kill a random person they don't know, but also wants to do it in the loudest, messiest way that absolutely guarantees a police investigation. And the outcome, if their brilliant little scheme fails, is the death penalty.
        8note 5y ago
        A similar scheme has worked for Rittenhouse
        defen 5y ago
        There's no point in arguing about the facts of the Rittenhouse case, because everyone has seen all the video and decided where they stand on the issue. Arguing about it will only lead to a flamewar. So let's posit that you are 100% correct - Rittenhouse went there with the explicit goal of shooting people, killed multiple people, and was not convicted of any crime. Do you think anyone looks at that scenario and thinks "and it was totally worth it, I want to do that too"? He's going to be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life. He's 18 and effectively has no chance of living a normal life unless he moves to another country and disappears. He very easily could have been killed by skateboard guy, or knocked out by jump kick guy and beaten to death, or shot by Grosskreutz.
cto_of_antifa 5y ago
That's your ethical call to make, at the end of the day - but I think putting property above human life shows a distinct lack of empathy.
cseleborg 5y ago
So you come out of Walmart somewhere in Texas, having bought a black sports bag. As you pass by a car, you notice your shoelace is untied, so you get down and tie it. Coming up, you lose your balance a little and put your hand on the car. At that moment, the owner of that car comes, sees you coming up a little clumsily from underneath their car with a big black bag, thinks "damn, he's stealing my catalytic converter" and shoots you dead. See the problem? You weren't stealing anything. They just thought you did. In most other places on earth, if you were really unlucky, you'd get arrested and put on trial, until it became clear that you really didn't do anything wrong. In Texas, apparently, instant game over is an acceptable outcome. Sure, the shooter would also get in trouble, but that's not going to help your spouse and children, is it? Edit: typo
johnisgood 5y ago
Where do we draw the line, really? Probably not at catalytic converters.
8note 5y ago
My the law prescribes what punishments are correct for property damage. Its not something that will give them a firing squad when convicted, so you shouldn't be acting as a firing squad yourself
- esyir 5y ago
  The social contact granting the state it's monopoly on violence is contingent on its execution of its duty, herein being the enforcement of law.
- pandaman 5y ago
  Stopping a crime in progress is not a punishment. We have different measures to stop crime happening now and to punish a crime that happened in the past. E.g. a punishment for an assault is not death either but you are still entitled to defend yourself from one with deadly force. This is because we, as society, place higher importance on preventing the crime than on punishing the criminal post factum. You are free to disagree and not exercise deadly force or any force at all and submit to the criminals, it's your choice.

arcticbull 5y ago

Another vote for failed state anarchy. Where all did you grow up and go to school if you don’t mind, I’m building a list of no-go zones.

0x0nyandesu 5y ago
Oy vey go away. Move to Europe if you don't like it. Your anarchy is my justice
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Ah yes Europe famously the only place on earth you can’t unload a clip and murder someone for stealing the catalytic converter out of your Ford truck lol. Absolutely embarrassing. Think of all the failure that went into someone making this statement with a straight face. Federal, state, local, moral. Just wow. “Your anarchy is my justice” is the rallying cry of every criminal out there. The state losing its monopoly on violence is the definition of a failed state. Other places you’re welcome to murder people for stealing from you are likely Somalia, parts of El Salvador, the Sudan, Western Sahara and uh, I want to say cartel controlled states in Mexico. Not exactly sterling examples of well run areas. Even there it’s due to absence of state control, not outright abdication.

capableweb 5y ago

It doesn't worry you that people could misuse the law? For example, shooting someone to death first, then placing them under their car, and that way get away with murder?

sodality2 5y ago
That can happen anyway. Place them in your house and say they broke in
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- capableweb 5y ago
  You're not joking, apparently it's legal to shot people to death if they've entered your home. Learned something new today. I don't understand it all, but certainly puts the new law into perspective and apparently what I was thinking about wouldn't be a problem.
  - johnisgood 5y ago
    Invite them over to your house without anyone knowing about this, then shoot them. Would it work?
    - defen 5y ago
      People keep coming up with these fanciful scenarios because they don't like the idea of being able to shoot intruders, but think about that for a second. You're positing that a person wants to kill a random person they don't know, but also wants to do it in the loudest, messiest way that absolutely guarantees a police investigation. And the outcome, if their brilliant little scheme fails, is the death penalty.
      - 8note 5y ago
        A similar scheme has worked for Rittenhouse
        defen 5y ago
        There's no point in arguing about the facts of the Rittenhouse case, because everyone has seen all the video and decided where they stand on the issue. Arguing about it will only lead to a flamewar. So let's posit that you are 100% correct - Rittenhouse went there with the explicit goal of shooting people, killed multiple people, and was not convicted of any crime. Do you think anyone looks at that scenario and thinks "and it was totally worth it, I want to do that too"? He's going to be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life. He's 18 and effectively has no chance of living a normal life unless he moves to another country and disappears. He very easily could have been killed by skateboard guy, or knocked out by jump kick guy and beaten to death, or shot by Grosskreutz.

cto_of_antifa 5y ago

That's your ethical call to make, at the end of the day - but I think putting property above human life shows a distinct lack of empathy.

cseleborg 5y ago

So you come out of Walmart somewhere in Texas, having bought a black sports bag. As you pass by a car, you notice your shoelace is untied, so you get down and tie it. Coming up, you lose your balance a little and put your hand on the car. At that moment, the owner of that car comes, sees you coming up a little clumsily from underneath their car with a big black bag, thinks "damn, he's stealing my catalytic converter" and shoots you dead. See the problem? You weren't stealing anything. They just thought you did. In most other places on earth, if you were really unlucky, you'd get arrested and put on trial, until it became clear that you really didn't do anything wrong. In Texas, apparently, instant game over is an acceptable outcome. Sure, the shooter would also get in trouble, but that's not going to help your spouse and children, is it? Edit: typo

johnisgood 5y ago

Where do we draw the line, really? Probably not at catalytic converters.

8note 5y ago

My the law prescribes what punishments are correct for property damage. Its not something that will give them a firing squad when convicted, so you shouldn't be acting as a firing squad yourself

esyir 5y ago
The social contact granting the state it's monopoly on violence is contingent on its execution of its duty, herein being the enforcement of law.
pandaman 5y ago
Stopping a crime in progress is not a punishment. We have different measures to stop crime happening now and to punish a crime that happened in the past. E.g. a punishment for an assault is not death either but you are still entitled to defend yourself from one with deadly force. This is because we, as society, place higher importance on preventing the crime than on punishing the criminal post factum. You are free to disagree and not exercise deadly force or any force at all and submit to the criminals, it's your choice.