27 ms·

Huh only in America it might be considered OK to execute a person for a theft of an automative part. Its like - there is someone committing a nonviolent felony

by seer 5y ago

Huh only in America it might be considered OK to execute a person for a theft of an automative part. Its like - there is someone committing a nonviolent felony of stealing a minor part from your car, and now you are deputized to be judge jury and executioner and can perform a quick public execution, for your convenience… I mean I get it sucks very hard to have something being stolen from you _in front of your eyes_ but does this justify an execution? Isn’t that why we have monopoly on violence and for that matter insurance? I’ve had stuff like that stolen from me, by a member of my country’s repressed minority, and it was in front of my eyes, I was sleeping when the act was committed, right next to me, so I guess my life was also in danger. I woke up just as they were making their escape. I did have the urge to chase them down true, but never in my dreams have I thought these lives were beyond redemption and I have the right to execute them then and there, and I would live happy afterwards… How does the moral calculous work for Americans? Genuinely curious. Is it “something bad is being done to me, I am therefore justified to use any means necessary” kind of thing, or there is something else/more?

treeman79 5y ago
San Francisco is becoming the poster child for what happens when you decriminalize / remove consequences for theft.
- SyzygistSix 5y ago
  I think the lawlessness in San Francisco is more the poster child for what happens when we treat people as disposable.
  - treeman79 5y ago
    https://www.hoover.org/research/only-san-francisco-61000-tents-and-350000-public-toilets https://www.hoover.org/research/only-san-francisco-61000-ten... SF is spending 100k per homeless person. It’s not going well. What’s the correct amount of caring?
    - SyzygistSix 5y ago
      It's not about the amount, which I agree is both ridiculous and yet still ineffective once someone becomes homeless and addicted. It's about when intervention is effective, which is most certainly before they become homeless. How is every other Western country managing to not have nearly the amount of homeless people and drug addicts as we do? Maybe start by doing what they do?
      - areyousure 5y ago
        In case anyone is curious, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeless_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeless_... appears to list 15 OECD countries as having a higher homeless rate than the United States: New Zealand, Germany, United Kingdom, Australia, France, Luxembourg, Greece, Sweden, Mexico, Latvia, Israel, Austria, Czechia, Netherlands, Slovenia.
MarkMarine 5y ago
A lot of men who’ve never been to combat like to imagine themselves as John Wick, and look for opportunities to execute what they’ve been practicing. There is such a reverence for the military here, and these men have the subconscious hope that they can spring into action with their gun, prove they are “men” and save the day. That overweighs the thought about someone else’s value. To answer your question, these people don’t think about what the other person would think or feel, or what their life is worth. They only think of themselves and their experience.
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  A lot of us also know how to diffuse a situation using the threat of lethal force without actually using lethal force. (I don't, which is why I'm not a concealed carry holder.) Don't go to Texas and steal stuff, and you won't get shot. I don't really have sympathy for crime rings being executed by vigilantes for stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property.
  - throwaway5752 5y ago
    What inevitably happens when this is legalized is an individual without law enforcement background or training but with a gun ends styling themselves as a neighborhood watch and killing an innocent person (usually non-white, who in this case might be working on their own car). This prominently happened with Arbery and Martin. People have looked beyond fearmongering at these policies, and unbiased research (which is why it is banned from being federally funded) always shows castle doctrine / other stand-your-ground laws are not a net benefit to reducing crime and lead to avoidable deaths of innocent people (https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/stand-your-ground.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/stand-your...)
    - gretch 5y ago
      Yeah those people who do that are bad and shouldn’t do that. Just like the thieves are bad and shouldn’t do that. It’s not one extreme or the other. I have no idea why it’s “inevitable”. I own a gun and I haven’t mentally devolved into the Punisher yet. Imagine you live in a rural area where things are far apart. Someone breaks your car, and now you can’t get to work. And if you don’t show up for work, now you’re fired. And now you don’t have income, so now you might lose your house or miss meals. Asking that person to have sympathy for the thief is asking for a lot.
xwdv 5y ago
A great American once said an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. The justification is that the person committing the crime has little to no value in civilized society and should be killed off, because the chances of the thief being caught are very low, so one only has a moment to carry out justice and create a deterrent to future thieves. In a country like America where people are very sensitive to property rights, theft is far more heinous than in other countries. If you’ve ever had anything stolen here and reported it to police, you’ll be frustrated when all you get is a shrug and a promise that they will “investigate”, which basically means do nothing. People get tired of that and take matters into their own hands.
MadeThisToReply 5y ago
For starters, here's the relevant part of Texas penal code which GP mentioned. You can read the whole thing, it's very short: https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_9.42 https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_9.... IANAL, but it seems you can shoot someone in Texas for stealing your catalytic convertor if you "reasonably believe the deadly force is immediately necessary" and the catalytic convertor "cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."
- NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
  It also requires that "the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury." So not only must deadly force be the only option to keep the property, but you've got to believe that if you tried something other than deadly force you'd be seriously injured or killed.
rackjack 5y ago
I think the logic is something like this: People who do wrong should be punished. Otherwise, they will continue to do wrong. The wrongdoers, most likely, aren't going get prosecuted by the relevant government officials and the police aren't going to investigate. The best way I have to punish them and prevent further crimes upon the area in which I and my friends and family live and work is to use a gun, as this is quick, highly punishing, can be explained by self-defense, and used with minimal danger to myself.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Nursie 5y ago
  Right, so not a single consideration that you're taking the life of another human being.
mgraczyk 5y ago
As someone who grew up in Texas and is generally in favor of these sorts of "use of deadly force" prosecution defenses, I think I can at least articulate the motivations in a way that makes more sense, even if it's not convincing. Many Texans conceptualize government and state uses of force (ie prosecution that can lead to imprisonment) as restrictions on their rights. This "negative rights" conceptualization is pretty common in the US, but especially common in Texas. In the specific case of using deadly force to prevent somebody from stealing your property at night, the idea is something like the following. Absent any government intervention, you have a "property right" which allows you to prevent the thief from taking the property. In some cases, the balance of public policy concerns should lean in favor of government restrictions on this property right, to protect potentially innocent people or to prevent nonviolent criminals from dying, or to sustain an orderly justice system without vigilantes. However, many Texans believe that the government should not intervene in this case because the restriction on an individual's right to protect his/her property is more important than the other policy goals. Like I said, this is just my attempt to articulate the way I'd guess many Texans feel about this. I don't necessarily agree with all of the above.
- today20201014 5y ago
  > Many Texans conceptualize government and state uses of force (ie prosecution that can lead to imprisonment) as restrictions on their rights. This "negative rights" conceptualization is pretty common in the US, but especially common in Texas So, the government/state has guaranteed a negative right to life, i.e. citizens are prohibited from actions that deprive someone's right to life, and in order to enforce this prohibition, citizens are deprived of their right to arbitrarily commit violence to each other, while the government/state has a monopoly. Where does our right to arbitrarily commit violence come from? Is it just a "natural right"?
  - qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
    What's wrong with choosing rights democratically?
    - 5y ago
foxrider 5y ago
I am not american, but I really wish it was legal to shoot thieves where I live. I see no moral issues with that act - it's really simple to justify. First - why should I value life of someone who's actively robbing me? In my mind, the moment they attack my rights, including my property rights - I don't owe any moral consideration to them anymore, they broke the social contract with me, and I'm going to use anything at my disposal to stop them. Second - if it's generally accepted that if you're gonna steal something you are putting your life on the line - that means people would think twice before stealing something from other people. You should fear for your life if you're going to try and violate other's rights, and I doubt there would be as many people keen on stealing something valued at 100$ by betting their lives on it. And finally, when you're getting robbed it damages you. It's not even about the thing itself getting stolen, but more about the fact that the sanctity of your belongings vanishes and a bit of trust you had for others vanishes with it. Ask anyone who ever got mugged or had their house broken into - it's hard to feel safe after that happens to you once, ever. I really don't think that someone who's a victim of an ongoing crime should ever stop and think about the criminal committing it as someone worthy of moral consideration at all.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- plantain 5y ago
  What gives you the right to make a life-ending determination?
  - qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
    This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
    - twojacobtwo 5y ago
      > to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend oneself against an intruder Perhaps only one place (Texas) uses this to justify regaining possession of property, which is what the GP was talking about. Also: > At most the Castle Doctrine is an affirmative defense for individuals inevitably charged with criminal homicide, not a permission or pretext to commit homicide.
mod 5y ago
> How does the moral calculous work for Americans? Genuinely curious. Is it “something bad is being done to me, I am therefore justified to use any means necessary” kind of thing, or there is something else/more? Generally speaking, it works just like it works everywhere else--we don't execute people on the street. We sometimes have the legal grounds to use lethal force in defense of our safety or that of our property (rarely, but apparently in Texas), and we very rarely choose to actually use it. Intrinsic morals don't have a whole lot to do with laws.
- scotty79 5y ago
  > We sometimes have the legal grounds to use lethal force in defense of our safety or that of our property (rarely, but apparently in Texas), and we very rarely choose to actually use it. That's not how it works in most first world places. You can't murder a person to protect property.
  - Nasrudith 5y ago
    It is still defense of life in robbery cases. Robbery is potentially lethal violence or the threat of violence to get what they want. That is what justifies self-defense.
    - scotty79 5y ago
      When life or health is threatened it's understandable, but if just the property is threatened? In most first world country you are not allowed to go out of your way with intention to kill the offender.
  - NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
    The parent made this exact point.
  - go_blue_13 5y ago
    By definition, it isn't murder
DuskStar 5y ago
The pithy response is that it's not me deciding that your life is worth less than my stuff, it's you deciding that and me agreeing.
- anamax 5y ago
  Actually, the thief is saying "your stuff is worth more to me than your life."
- batrat 5y ago
  This. It's not like "i have nothing to eat, I'm gonna steal some catalytic converters".
barbacoa 5y ago
>How does the moral calculous work for Americans? Genuinely curious. Is it “something bad is being done to me, I am therefore justified to use any means necessary” kind of thing, or there is something else/more? In the USA there is what in known as the castle doctrine. If someone tries to break into your home you may defend your home no different than a lord defending a castle. Pouring boiling oil on their soldiers scaling your walls ... Or more appropriately the modern equivalent action with your AR-15. Texas goes one step further, they allow you to use force to protect your property from nightime theft or criminal mischief. It's not about retaliation, it's a matter of protecting what is your property.
- jdkee 5y ago
  There is a deterrent effect against property crimes due to widespread firearm ownership. See https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=law_and_economics https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...
- conductr 5y ago
  I’m a life long Texan. I’d agree with it being about property and it one’s right to protect at all means. In a sense, we feel it’s a Wild West mentality. We shouldn’t have to wait for cops to come, much of the state is rural and out of reach of first responders, or reasonable response times. I’m not sure most people would actually shoot someone outside their house, doing minor property damage/theft but they would pull their gun if they had one (many of us do) and it could escalate from there. However, saying that, I recall when I was a kid it was legal to shoot someone just for stepping on your real estate property (or was widely believed if not current law). I recall “exploring” in rural areas and being encountered with people with rifles telling us to “get off their land”. Usually with a “next time I won’t ask, shoot first” type comment. If I was an adult/POC, it could have gone any direction. I personally don’t like to agree with these laws, but I don’t see any reduction of crime and I’d like the ability to protect my home and property without having to think about whether I’d become a criminal if I did have to use my weapon.
yeetaccount2 5y ago
Well if you walk to your car and someone is stealing the CC they often have an armed accomplice. Should you not have the right to get in your car because someone else is implying violence? And if you want to get in your car, and they’re going to potentially kill you for it, don’t you also have the right to defend yourself? Would someone (say, a lone woman in a dark parking lot) be unreasonable for assuming violence was imminent if she walked to her car and found people stealing the CC from her car? I’d have a hard time blaming her if she shot them both on sight, even if they were unarmed.
Spooky23 5y ago
Most people don’t think like this in America or anywhere. It’s a vocal minority of fanatics and marginal personalities that has disproportionate influence due to political dysfunction. After the civil rights era, southern democrats were politically isolated and ended up in a coalition with western resource people (oil, big agriculture, etc). This coalition ended up as this thing that focuses on a few key, hardened issues like “low taxes”, abortion and guns. Nobody likes taxes, but the farmers and the resource people hate taxes as it is just an overhead. So you end up with these weird scenarios where small farmers passionately support a platform that puts them out of business. Guns are another similar issue. Gun companies made a FUD business model in the 90s about the “government is taking your guns” that was very impactful on rural folk and eventually became a mainstream thing. When you architect a political movement around fear and grievance, you create a culture of aggrieved people who thing “they” are coming to get them.
yholio 5y ago
You are drastically underestimating the level of danger a criminal presents. First of all, they are ready to damage your property to the point where it puts your life in imminent danger. A car without the converter might still drive, maybe with a light on the dashboard and a loud noise, while ejecting hot exhaust gases under the passenger section and straight towards the fuel tank. Some diesel cars periodically inject unburned fuel to clean the filter at temperature over 900K. A fire in the passenger section is a distinct possibility, but imagine even just the panic response of someone who thinks they are on fire while running on the freeway. So whoever is interfering with the safety of your car already has little regard for your life. Secondly, they are risking a long prison sentence for something that's worth a few days of unskilled labor. So they have decided they won't even spare a few days of their life for the value they can steal in 10 minutes - let alone years in prison. If caught in the act, they will most certainly not put their tools down and say "Oh, you got me, darn, I guess we need to call the police now". They are by definition ready for violence, and they WILL use force against whomever attempts to retain them. So a law abiding individual has a choice between confronting a violent criminal, by all accounts ready to kill them, and not protecting their property. It's a violent blackmail, and one solution, unless we want everybody's catalitic converter to be stolen, is to balance the violence disequilibrium and make it much more riskier for the thieves.
- cozzyd 5y ago
  Ok, but if you see someone steal your catalytic converter (which you must in order to be in a position to shoot them...), you know it's gone so there's no danger of a fire on the freeway or whatever.
  - option_greek 5y ago
    He is saying that to establish the mindset of the theif.
- satori99 5y ago
  There is another choice; Just file a claim and let your insurance take care of it. Insurance companies can lobby for political or policing changes if it becomes a significant problem for them -- just like they already do for a plethora of other reasons. Sure, it's a hassle being inconvenienced by a disabled vehicle, but having to deal with the image of some kids brains splattered all over your driveway is inconvenient too, and maybe for much longer. Investigative resources can be devoted to following the illegal supply chain and prosecuting those who either run or purchase from illegal smelters. We could also recognise that many of the actual thieves may be junkies funding a fix, and treat their condition as a medical problem rather than criminal one. And then we wouldn't have to execute anyone.
R0b0t1 5y ago
How will you prevent people who want to steal from stealing? Closure rates on theft cases is low to nonexistent.
- teamonkey 5y ago
  Does it prevent stealing? Are there fewer catalytic converter thefts in the US than elsewhere, per capita?
  - NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
    I think the relevant comparison is Texas, not the U.S.
- ryan_lane 5y ago
  Why do people steal? Address the motivation to steal and the rates will drop.
  - esyir 5y ago
    Because it's an easy way to acquire resources. And a low-risk one, in your punishment free world too. Look at SF, where crime rings will happily walk straight into a store, scoop things off the shelves and walk out with nary a care. People like to talk about desperation, and "they're just poor", but this is very much not the reality. SF again, the crime isn't from some down on their luck guy trying to get his next meal, it's organized crime. There will always exist people who will happily and without remorse take from others for their own benefit. The motivation here is always the same. Getting shit without having to work for it. The disincentive is similarly the same. Risk-reward balance. The motivation? The risk is negligible and the reward is large. Either reduce the reward or increase the risk, or both.
    - ryan_lane 5y ago
      In countries with good social safety nets, crime like this is relatively non-existent. Organized crime's recruits are the poor, who see it as a more reliable way of making a living wage, when alternatives for doing so don't exist. Take the Japanese Yakuza as an example. Japan's still enforcement of laws against the Yakuza definitely helped reduce their membership, but if you look at why they're failing to recruit, it's not due to law enforcement, it's because people are looking at the risk/reward: the Yakuza doesn't have a retirement plan, health insurance, etc. Combined with the risk of jail, it keeps the recruitment lower. They're so desperate at this point that they're targeting the homeless for recruitment. Without the financial side of the equation, law enforcement simply doesn't matter. If you can make a living wage through crime, but can't without crime, you'll have more people joining criminal organizations, regardless of the risk. Do we need laws to be enforced? Of course; I don't know why you think I want the world to be punishment-free. But we also need to fix our social issues for that to be at all effective.
0x737368 5y ago
I swear, HN is so goddamned soft. It's not that Americans don't value the lives of thieves - it's that thieves don't value their lives over catalytic converters. To reach the final stage of your soyboy beta cuck transformation, please also make sure to try and "understand the feelings" of the thief as they steal your property in front of you and praise them for their bravery of standing up to the hardships of life. Then post on Twitter how you're a big supporter of the downtrodden and this is your way to add fairness and balance to the universe.
NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
Generalizing about "America" usually doesn't work. It's a huge country, both in terms of land area (about the size of Europe) and population (about half of Europe). Politically, it's much closer to Europe in terms of heterogeneity than most people assume. It's like a spectrum: on the one hand we have countries like Singapore, where all the laws and the people they apply to are the same pretty much anywhere you go, and on the other hand we have loose multi-national confederations like the E.U. where laws change significantly, but there are some generalities. A U.S. state is much more like a country in the E.U. than the U.S. is like a country in the E.U. Further, there are huge differences in the makeup of populations in different parts of the United States, in terms of economic stratification, ethnicity, race, education, and most importantly local culture.
sequel_database 5y ago
Chase them down and suck their dick and give them $100
Aloha 5y ago
The going theory is, I wouldn't be making that choice, the thief and the people of the state did by passing a law allowing me to use deadly force to stop thief. If I used deadly force without catching them in the act I would be subject to trial and criminal sanction. These thefts mostly effect poorer people who are least able to absorb the loss, for someone of my income, it's an inconvenience, for a poor person, it may knock them back down the economic ladder. Something to note, the US existed in a space for much of its existence particularly out here in the West, where the nearest law enforcement might be hours away, where I am in my county, the county seat is a half a days ride by horse - and our county is a PLSS county, so its not particularly large, they get larger - because of that, we have a permissive culture in allowing people to defend themselves and their property from others, because once its gone, you will likely never get it back again. This only changed with the invention of the automobile and the two way radio, but the culture was formed before that, and culture adapts to technology slowly.
jimmaswell 5y ago
I love it. Let the streets be bathed in their blood. Maybe I'll move to Texas someday.
booblik 5y ago
Driving without a converter is incredibly polluting and should be considered a crime against humanity, so stealing them should definitely be a serious crime and not just stealing an “autopart”
- trasz 5y ago
  As is driving a SUV with a converter, in most cases.
throwaway6734 5y ago
I don't think lethal force should be used in the case of theft like this, but I support it for any kind of home invasion/breaking and entering.
King-Aaron 5y ago
The amount of people here justifying murder as an appropriate response to petty theft is staggering.
esyir 5y ago
Not American, but I've really liked this one line I've heard. "Property and freedom are the past and future of a human life" People invest nontrivial amounts of their life into the acquisition of property. The theft of property is a theft of that proportion of their life. All you need is a sufficient punitive multiplier to said theft, or a sufficiently valuable item stolen, before lethal force becomes an option in said moral calculus. Where I am, theft is punished severely, thus I see no need to take things into my own hands. The social contract is that the state handles such crime, and in response citizens forgo vigilantism. If repeated thefts of my property were met with no response, or a consistently ineffective response, you'd probably see a very different reaction from me.
gamerDude 5y ago
I think it has to do with the idea that someone who does a bad thing is a bad person and we don't want bad people in our society. As opposed to, someone who does a bad thing is a person in a bad situation and society should help them.
hippich 5y ago
I did not read all responses, perhaps someone mentioned it already... It is not about execution or killing someone. In fact, the very first thing I was taught in the CHL class - never think about shooting someone as killing someone, but rather as "stopping them". In the court, such a small detail of intent will matter. The idea of letting shooting someone who is stealing at night is again - stopping them, because otherwise in nighttime it will be nearly impossible to find them (hence limitation of night time). I don't hear many cases like that. It is certainly not widespread. People are given a right, but not a requirement to stop criminals stealing property.
jemfinch 5y ago
> Huh only in America it might be considered OK to execute a person for a theft of an automative part. This is a peculiarity of Texas property law. It would not be legal in the other 49 states. It's a relic of cattle rustling in the 19th century, when the population density of Texas was too low to properly police and its primary industry required more protection than could be afforded by local law enforcement.
- genewitch 5y ago
  15 or 16 States have "strong" castle laws, and a further 6 or so have defense of home but not car. That's more than a third. Texas and Florida have the strongest, such as shielding from civil liability and such.
Mirioron 5y ago
How about people just don't steal? A thief deprives somebody else of opportunities. If somebody steals your catalytic converter and you need to be on time for a job you're going to be screwed at the job and you will have to replace that stolen property. I don't understand how people can just handwave away this stuff. I would genuinely rather have my arm broken than my bike/phone stolen. My arm will heal in a few weeks, but my bike won't.
- cozzyd 5y ago
  But you can buy a used bike for less than $50 and typically your homeowners/renters insurance will cover it (and a stolen phone) anyway (though typically with a deductible).
  - Mirioron 5y ago
    >But you can buy a used bike for less than $50 Yeah, I wonder where that used bike came from. Some other poor sod had his bike stolen. >and typically your homeowners/renters insurance will cover it (and a stolen phone) anyway If it does and if the insurance pays out. You're still out the deductible and anything you had on the phone. Even now I don't think I would hand over my phone to a thief.
- TrackerFF 5y ago
  Thieves are not one big homogeneous population, consisting of lazy ne'er-do-well people that simply don't feel like working - it's incredibly complex. Yes - there's organized crime, where theft is basically just part of their business, but on the other hand you've got junkies, desperate poor people, people that are marginalized and completely locked out of the workforce, etc. I think the Opioid epidemic is a shining example of how companies can legally turn normal citizens into addicts, and down the road into full-blown junkies. Then you get all the problems with petty crime, that's related to this lifestyle. One of many examples where profits trumps human life, and where the criminal justice system has to deal with the aftermath.
omegaham 5y ago
Just piling on, the big thing that I note is that it's not just stuff for the poorer people in society. It's their livelihood. If you screw up someone's car, you are taking away their ability to get to work, to drive their kids to daycare, and so on. I'm privileged enough that if someone puts my car out of service, I can swear gratuitously, call my boss to tell him that I'll be late to work, and get a rental while my insurance handles my car. As frustrated as I might be, it's not a life-and-death situation for me. By contrast, Jimbo the night-shift line cook at Waffle House has significantly less margin for error. If he doesn't show up to work, he at best doesn't get paid and at worst gets fired. If he gets fired, he's now behind on his rent, plus he has to fix his car with money he doesn't have. He might need to take out a payday loan, or sell something important, or borrow money from family who is just as poor as he is. With this in mind, I'm not going to say that Jimbo is morally justified in whacking a criddler who's messing with his car, but I'm not going to say he's not, either. You see the same thing in action with immigrant-owned bodegas. It's just entries on a spreadsheet to Walgreens and CVS, but that's rent and food to Mr. and Mrs. Kim's family, and it's not surprising that they're significantly more inclined toward the shotgun-and-bat approach to loss prevention.
- SyzygistSix 5y ago
  He might even resort to stealing catalytic converters to get by.
- tjr225 5y ago
  I’m pretty sure any car equipped with a catalytic converter is still perfectly drivable if the catalytic converter is removed.
  - jxramos 5y ago
    this is absolutely true, when you startup your car it will become immediately obvious because the engine exhaust sounds will be tremendous. Basically all those exhaust strokes of the engine pour out directly to the atmosphere never making their way to the muffler which muffles their sounds.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
no_time 5y ago
>Huh only in America it might be considered OK to execute a person for a theft of an automative part. I'm not american but I agree with his views. Being the victim of a break-in, I want nothing more than to cave in the fucker's skull with a metal rod to this day. These people will continue to get away with it ad infinitum unless someone teaches them a lesson. It makes me so irrationally angry that it's among the top 3 issues when I'm voting. If the police won't do anything about this issue who will?
zerocount 5y ago
First off, no one is getting executed. It's not a case of I capture you stealing from me and make you stand still while I shoot you in the head. As for intruding into my house, you are going to be killed if I see you. I have a 13 year old daughter to protect and there is no debating why you are in my house uninvited. How do you feel that your lack of action with an intruder may have emboldened the criminal to do it again? Maybe next time the home owner gets hurt, raped, killed, or has to watch a loved one get hurt, raped, or killed. I respect that you see things differently than I do, but you come across as someone who does not respect other's views and would restrict those if possible.
slowhand09 5y ago
Regarding "moral calculus"... I would never condone killing someone for stealing. From another perspective, why should you value the life of a person more than said person values his own, e.g. why would I value your life, as clearly you value it less than you do the parts on my car, or items in my house? When society permits people to hold you hostage via your "superior morals", so they can take advantage of you, your work, your family etc, isn't this a major breakdown? Consider the (stupid IMHO) duty to retreat laws in some places. You are locked inside your safe place, your home, or your car, likely with your family. A person decides they want your property, or possibly your life. And these laws require you to retreat, to possibly vacate your home or car, pulling your family out of harms way if you can. Because these bad people are what? Misguided?
- agensaequivocum 5y ago
  I don't believe (except maybe DC) any US state requires you to retreat from your domicile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
  - slowhand09 5y ago
    From your source: 12 states impose a duty to retreat when one can do so with absolute safety: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. New York, however, does not require retreat when one is threatened with robbery, burglary, kidnapping, or sexual assault. No mention of domicile in this text.
    - agensaequivocum 5y ago
      It may not say in that specific spot. The map, however, does indicate what I said. Looking specifically into, for example, Wisconsin: > If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies: > 1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring. > 2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/4... Edit: Also New York: > (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is: > (i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or PEN 35.15 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/35.15 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/35.15
bacchusracine 5y ago
>Huh only in America it might be considered OK to execute a person for a theft of an automative part. We used to hang horse thieves and for the same reason. Theft of someone's transportation is a serious matter. It's not about the theft itself, or the 'auto parts' it's about depriving someone of their ability to be employed. To feed their families and themselves. To maintain their residence. These are not small things. Try to take these from another and there is a common law right to stop that theft by force if necessary. Choices have consequences.
no-s 5y ago
> How does the moral calculous work for Americans? Genuinely curious. Is it “something bad is being done to me, I am therefore justified to use any means necessary” kind of thing, or there is something else/more? In some sense, it’s implicit in the concept of self-defense. As others have pointed out, property crime is not automatically a victimless crime. You aren’t really obligated to execute criminals in the commission of a such crime. The purpose of the law is mainly to preclude an uninformed assessment (or malicious assumption by a prosecutor) of e.g. “she was just stealing a catalytic converter, she didn’t mean any harm” which implicitly excludes the exposure of harm to the property owner, whether immediate or consequent. The perpetrator is actually a predator, an outlaw who views others as prey and imagines an entitlement to theft. We put up with outlaws to a certain degree for "minor crimes", but the specific law is founded on the the premise that the outlaw predator is significantly ill-intentioned and potentially violent. The assumption is the thief is committing a crime with potentially serious consequences to the victim or proximate others. It’s not always obvious in the moment that such a criminal attempting a disengagement is incapable of or has no intent of further harming the victim. There are capital crimes where it is obviously clear that great harm is prevented by killing the perpetrator caught in the act, but predators are willing to push the boundaries to obscure the issue for other crimes. Thus the people of the State of Texas (from whom government authority flows) decided to clarify it. With respect to the benefit to society, diminishing the class of people who prey upon others specifically when they’re caught in harmful acts is often viewed in Texas (and by many Americans) as a social good and moral responsibility. You are not obligated to participate if you think it repugnant, but obviously predators caught in the act can’t be relied upon to be bound by your concerns, or sense of morality, or by laws.
agensaequivocum 5y ago
I carry a gun everyday just as I carry my wallet. I would not shoot someone in this situation. If you shoot someone who is simply under your car, you will be arrested and most likely go to jail. It does depend on your state but generally you will have trouble if you do not have a legitimate fear for your life. You may have justification to hold him a gun point (again depending on the state).
timbo1642 5y ago
Dont sit here and lie to yourself. These people are professional career criminals. They are horrible people and have stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars and they have committed a million other crimes. Don't want to get shot? Don't commit a crime because the police aren't going to do jack shit. THEY SHOULD NOT COME ONTO YOUR PROPERTY. Stop protecting criminals

by seer 5y ago

treeman79 5y ago

San Francisco is becoming the poster child for what happens when you decriminalize / remove consequences for theft.

SyzygistSix 5y ago
I think the lawlessness in San Francisco is more the poster child for what happens when we treat people as disposable.
- treeman79 5y ago
  https://www.hoover.org/research/only-san-francisco-61000-tents-and-350000-public-toilets https://www.hoover.org/research/only-san-francisco-61000-ten... SF is spending 100k per homeless person. It’s not going well. What’s the correct amount of caring?
  - SyzygistSix 5y ago
    It's not about the amount, which I agree is both ridiculous and yet still ineffective once someone becomes homeless and addicted. It's about when intervention is effective, which is most certainly before they become homeless. How is every other Western country managing to not have nearly the amount of homeless people and drug addicts as we do? Maybe start by doing what they do?
    - areyousure 5y ago
      In case anyone is curious, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeless_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeless_... appears to list 15 OECD countries as having a higher homeless rate than the United States: New Zealand, Germany, United Kingdom, Australia, France, Luxembourg, Greece, Sweden, Mexico, Latvia, Israel, Austria, Czechia, Netherlands, Slovenia.

MarkMarine 5y ago

A lot of men who’ve never been to combat like to imagine themselves as John Wick, and look for opportunities to execute what they’ve been practicing. There is such a reverence for the military here, and these men have the subconscious hope that they can spring into action with their gun, prove they are “men” and save the day. That overweighs the thought about someone else’s value. To answer your question, these people don’t think about what the other person would think or feel, or what their life is worth. They only think of themselves and their experience.

sillysaurusx 5y ago
A lot of us also know how to diffuse a situation using the threat of lethal force without actually using lethal force. (I don't, which is why I'm not a concealed carry holder.) Don't go to Texas and steal stuff, and you won't get shot. I don't really have sympathy for crime rings being executed by vigilantes for stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property.
- throwaway5752 5y ago
  What inevitably happens when this is legalized is an individual without law enforcement background or training but with a gun ends styling themselves as a neighborhood watch and killing an innocent person (usually non-white, who in this case might be working on their own car). This prominently happened with Arbery and Martin. People have looked beyond fearmongering at these policies, and unbiased research (which is why it is banned from being federally funded) always shows castle doctrine / other stand-your-ground laws are not a net benefit to reducing crime and lead to avoidable deaths of innocent people (https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/stand-your-ground.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/stand-your...)
  - gretch 5y ago
    Yeah those people who do that are bad and shouldn’t do that. Just like the thieves are bad and shouldn’t do that. It’s not one extreme or the other. I have no idea why it’s “inevitable”. I own a gun and I haven’t mentally devolved into the Punisher yet. Imagine you live in a rural area where things are far apart. Someone breaks your car, and now you can’t get to work. And if you don’t show up for work, now you’re fired. And now you don’t have income, so now you might lose your house or miss meals. Asking that person to have sympathy for the thief is asking for a lot.

xwdv 5y ago

A great American once said an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. The justification is that the person committing the crime has little to no value in civilized society and should be killed off, because the chances of the thief being caught are very low, so one only has a moment to carry out justice and create a deterrent to future thieves. In a country like America where people are very sensitive to property rights, theft is far more heinous than in other countries. If you’ve ever had anything stolen here and reported it to police, you’ll be frustrated when all you get is a shrug and a promise that they will “investigate”, which basically means do nothing. People get tired of that and take matters into their own hands.

MadeThisToReply 5y ago

For starters, here's the relevant part of Texas penal code which GP mentioned. You can read the whole thing, it's very short: https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_9.42 https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_9.... IANAL, but it seems you can shoot someone in Texas for stealing your catalytic convertor if you "reasonably believe the deadly force is immediately necessary" and the catalytic convertor "cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."

NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
It also requires that "the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury." So not only must deadly force be the only option to keep the property, but you've got to believe that if you tried something other than deadly force you'd be seriously injured or killed.

rackjack 5y ago

I think the logic is something like this: People who do wrong should be punished. Otherwise, they will continue to do wrong. The wrongdoers, most likely, aren't going get prosecuted by the relevant government officials and the police aren't going to investigate. The best way I have to punish them and prevent further crimes upon the area in which I and my friends and family live and work is to use a gun, as this is quick, highly punishing, can be explained by self-defense, and used with minimal danger to myself.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Nursie 5y ago
Right, so not a single consideration that you're taking the life of another human being.

mgraczyk 5y ago

As someone who grew up in Texas and is generally in favor of these sorts of "use of deadly force" prosecution defenses, I think I can at least articulate the motivations in a way that makes more sense, even if it's not convincing. Many Texans conceptualize government and state uses of force (ie prosecution that can lead to imprisonment) as restrictions on their rights. This "negative rights" conceptualization is pretty common in the US, but especially common in Texas. In the specific case of using deadly force to prevent somebody from stealing your property at night, the idea is something like the following. Absent any government intervention, you have a "property right" which allows you to prevent the thief from taking the property. In some cases, the balance of public policy concerns should lean in favor of government restrictions on this property right, to protect potentially innocent people or to prevent nonviolent criminals from dying, or to sustain an orderly justice system without vigilantes. However, many Texans believe that the government should not intervene in this case because the restriction on an individual's right to protect his/her property is more important than the other policy goals. Like I said, this is just my attempt to articulate the way I'd guess many Texans feel about this. I don't necessarily agree with all of the above.

today20201014 5y ago
> Many Texans conceptualize government and state uses of force (ie prosecution that can lead to imprisonment) as restrictions on their rights. This "negative rights" conceptualization is pretty common in the US, but especially common in Texas So, the government/state has guaranteed a negative right to life, i.e. citizens are prohibited from actions that deprive someone's right to life, and in order to enforce this prohibition, citizens are deprived of their right to arbitrarily commit violence to each other, while the government/state has a monopoly. Where does our right to arbitrarily commit violence come from? Is it just a "natural right"?
- qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
  What's wrong with choosing rights democratically?
  - 5y ago

foxrider 5y ago

I am not american, but I really wish it was legal to shoot thieves where I live. I see no moral issues with that act - it's really simple to justify. First - why should I value life of someone who's actively robbing me? In my mind, the moment they attack my rights, including my property rights - I don't owe any moral consideration to them anymore, they broke the social contract with me, and I'm going to use anything at my disposal to stop them. Second - if it's generally accepted that if you're gonna steal something you are putting your life on the line - that means people would think twice before stealing something from other people. You should fear for your life if you're going to try and violate other's rights, and I doubt there would be as many people keen on stealing something valued at 100$ by betting their lives on it. And finally, when you're getting robbed it damages you. It's not even about the thing itself getting stolen, but more about the fact that the sanctity of your belongings vanishes and a bit of trust you had for others vanishes with it. Ask anyone who ever got mugged or had their house broken into - it's hard to feel safe after that happens to you once, ever. I really don't think that someone who's a victim of an ongoing crime should ever stop and think about the criminal committing it as someone worthy of moral consideration at all.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
plantain 5y ago
What gives you the right to make a life-ending determination?
- qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
  This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
  - twojacobtwo 5y ago
    > to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend oneself against an intruder Perhaps only one place (Texas) uses this to justify regaining possession of property, which is what the GP was talking about. Also: > At most the Castle Doctrine is an affirmative defense for individuals inevitably charged with criminal homicide, not a permission or pretext to commit homicide.

mod 5y ago

> How does the moral calculous work for Americans? Genuinely curious. Is it “something bad is being done to me, I am therefore justified to use any means necessary” kind of thing, or there is something else/more? Generally speaking, it works just like it works everywhere else--we don't execute people on the street. We sometimes have the legal grounds to use lethal force in defense of our safety or that of our property (rarely, but apparently in Texas), and we very rarely choose to actually use it. Intrinsic morals don't have a whole lot to do with laws.

scotty79 5y ago
> We sometimes have the legal grounds to use lethal force in defense of our safety or that of our property (rarely, but apparently in Texas), and we very rarely choose to actually use it. That's not how it works in most first world places. You can't murder a person to protect property.
- Nasrudith 5y ago
  It is still defense of life in robbery cases. Robbery is potentially lethal violence or the threat of violence to get what they want. That is what justifies self-defense.
  - scotty79 5y ago
    When life or health is threatened it's understandable, but if just the property is threatened? In most first world country you are not allowed to go out of your way with intention to kill the offender.
- NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
  The parent made this exact point.
- go_blue_13 5y ago
  By definition, it isn't murder

DuskStar 5y ago

The pithy response is that it's not me deciding that your life is worth less than my stuff, it's you deciding that and me agreeing.

anamax 5y ago
Actually, the thief is saying "your stuff is worth more to me than your life."
batrat 5y ago
This. It's not like "i have nothing to eat, I'm gonna steal some catalytic converters".

barbacoa 5y ago

>How does the moral calculous work for Americans? Genuinely curious. Is it “something bad is being done to me, I am therefore justified to use any means necessary” kind of thing, or there is something else/more? In the USA there is what in known as the castle doctrine. If someone tries to break into your home you may defend your home no different than a lord defending a castle. Pouring boiling oil on their soldiers scaling your walls ... Or more appropriately the modern equivalent action with your AR-15. Texas goes one step further, they allow you to use force to protect your property from nightime theft or criminal mischief. It's not about retaliation, it's a matter of protecting what is your property.

jdkee 5y ago
There is a deterrent effect against property crimes due to widespread firearm ownership. See https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=law_and_economics https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...
conductr 5y ago
I’m a life long Texan. I’d agree with it being about property and it one’s right to protect at all means. In a sense, we feel it’s a Wild West mentality. We shouldn’t have to wait for cops to come, much of the state is rural and out of reach of first responders, or reasonable response times. I’m not sure most people would actually shoot someone outside their house, doing minor property damage/theft but they would pull their gun if they had one (many of us do) and it could escalate from there. However, saying that, I recall when I was a kid it was legal to shoot someone just for stepping on your real estate property (or was widely believed if not current law). I recall “exploring” in rural areas and being encountered with people with rifles telling us to “get off their land”. Usually with a “next time I won’t ask, shoot first” type comment. If I was an adult/POC, it could have gone any direction. I personally don’t like to agree with these laws, but I don’t see any reduction of crime and I’d like the ability to protect my home and property without having to think about whether I’d become a criminal if I did have to use my weapon.

yeetaccount2 5y ago

Well if you walk to your car and someone is stealing the CC they often have an armed accomplice. Should you not have the right to get in your car because someone else is implying violence? And if you want to get in your car, and they’re going to potentially kill you for it, don’t you also have the right to defend yourself? Would someone (say, a lone woman in a dark parking lot) be unreasonable for assuming violence was imminent if she walked to her car and found people stealing the CC from her car? I’d have a hard time blaming her if she shot them both on sight, even if they were unarmed.

Spooky23 5y ago

Most people don’t think like this in America or anywhere. It’s a vocal minority of fanatics and marginal personalities that has disproportionate influence due to political dysfunction. After the civil rights era, southern democrats were politically isolated and ended up in a coalition with western resource people (oil, big agriculture, etc). This coalition ended up as this thing that focuses on a few key, hardened issues like “low taxes”, abortion and guns. Nobody likes taxes, but the farmers and the resource people hate taxes as it is just an overhead. So you end up with these weird scenarios where small farmers passionately support a platform that puts them out of business. Guns are another similar issue. Gun companies made a FUD business model in the 90s about the “government is taking your guns” that was very impactful on rural folk and eventually became a mainstream thing. When you architect a political movement around fear and grievance, you create a culture of aggrieved people who thing “they” are coming to get them.

yholio 5y ago

You are drastically underestimating the level of danger a criminal presents. First of all, they are ready to damage your property to the point where it puts your life in imminent danger. A car without the converter might still drive, maybe with a light on the dashboard and a loud noise, while ejecting hot exhaust gases under the passenger section and straight towards the fuel tank. Some diesel cars periodically inject unburned fuel to clean the filter at temperature over 900K. A fire in the passenger section is a distinct possibility, but imagine even just the panic response of someone who thinks they are on fire while running on the freeway. So whoever is interfering with the safety of your car already has little regard for your life. Secondly, they are risking a long prison sentence for something that's worth a few days of unskilled labor. So they have decided they won't even spare a few days of their life for the value they can steal in 10 minutes - let alone years in prison. If caught in the act, they will most certainly not put their tools down and say "Oh, you got me, darn, I guess we need to call the police now". They are by definition ready for violence, and they WILL use force against whomever attempts to retain them. So a law abiding individual has a choice between confronting a violent criminal, by all accounts ready to kill them, and not protecting their property. It's a violent blackmail, and one solution, unless we want everybody's catalitic converter to be stolen, is to balance the violence disequilibrium and make it much more riskier for the thieves.

cozzyd 5y ago
Ok, but if you see someone steal your catalytic converter (which you must in order to be in a position to shoot them...), you know it's gone so there's no danger of a fire on the freeway or whatever.
- option_greek 5y ago
  He is saying that to establish the mindset of the theif.
satori99 5y ago
There is another choice; Just file a claim and let your insurance take care of it. Insurance companies can lobby for political or policing changes if it becomes a significant problem for them -- just like they already do for a plethora of other reasons. Sure, it's a hassle being inconvenienced by a disabled vehicle, but having to deal with the image of some kids brains splattered all over your driveway is inconvenient too, and maybe for much longer. Investigative resources can be devoted to following the illegal supply chain and prosecuting those who either run or purchase from illegal smelters. We could also recognise that many of the actual thieves may be junkies funding a fix, and treat their condition as a medical problem rather than criminal one. And then we wouldn't have to execute anyone.

R0b0t1 5y ago

How will you prevent people who want to steal from stealing? Closure rates on theft cases is low to nonexistent.

teamonkey 5y ago
Does it prevent stealing? Are there fewer catalytic converter thefts in the US than elsewhere, per capita?
- NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
  I think the relevant comparison is Texas, not the U.S.
ryan_lane 5y ago
Why do people steal? Address the motivation to steal and the rates will drop.
- esyir 5y ago
  Because it's an easy way to acquire resources. And a low-risk one, in your punishment free world too. Look at SF, where crime rings will happily walk straight into a store, scoop things off the shelves and walk out with nary a care. People like to talk about desperation, and "they're just poor", but this is very much not the reality. SF again, the crime isn't from some down on their luck guy trying to get his next meal, it's organized crime. There will always exist people who will happily and without remorse take from others for their own benefit. The motivation here is always the same. Getting shit without having to work for it. The disincentive is similarly the same. Risk-reward balance. The motivation? The risk is negligible and the reward is large. Either reduce the reward or increase the risk, or both.
  - ryan_lane 5y ago
    In countries with good social safety nets, crime like this is relatively non-existent. Organized crime's recruits are the poor, who see it as a more reliable way of making a living wage, when alternatives for doing so don't exist. Take the Japanese Yakuza as an example. Japan's still enforcement of laws against the Yakuza definitely helped reduce their membership, but if you look at why they're failing to recruit, it's not due to law enforcement, it's because people are looking at the risk/reward: the Yakuza doesn't have a retirement plan, health insurance, etc. Combined with the risk of jail, it keeps the recruitment lower. They're so desperate at this point that they're targeting the homeless for recruitment. Without the financial side of the equation, law enforcement simply doesn't matter. If you can make a living wage through crime, but can't without crime, you'll have more people joining criminal organizations, regardless of the risk. Do we need laws to be enforced? Of course; I don't know why you think I want the world to be punishment-free. But we also need to fix our social issues for that to be at all effective.

0x737368 5y ago

I swear, HN is so goddamned soft. It's not that Americans don't value the lives of thieves - it's that thieves don't value their lives over catalytic converters. To reach the final stage of your soyboy beta cuck transformation, please also make sure to try and "understand the feelings" of the thief as they steal your property in front of you and praise them for their bravery of standing up to the hardships of life. Then post on Twitter how you're a big supporter of the downtrodden and this is your way to add fairness and balance to the universe.

NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago

Generalizing about "America" usually doesn't work. It's a huge country, both in terms of land area (about the size of Europe) and population (about half of Europe). Politically, it's much closer to Europe in terms of heterogeneity than most people assume. It's like a spectrum: on the one hand we have countries like Singapore, where all the laws and the people they apply to are the same pretty much anywhere you go, and on the other hand we have loose multi-national confederations like the E.U. where laws change significantly, but there are some generalities. A U.S. state is much more like a country in the E.U. than the U.S. is like a country in the E.U. Further, there are huge differences in the makeup of populations in different parts of the United States, in terms of economic stratification, ethnicity, race, education, and most importantly local culture.

sequel_database 5y ago

Chase them down and suck their dick and give them $100

Aloha 5y ago

The going theory is, I wouldn't be making that choice, the thief and the people of the state did by passing a law allowing me to use deadly force to stop thief. If I used deadly force without catching them in the act I would be subject to trial and criminal sanction. These thefts mostly effect poorer people who are least able to absorb the loss, for someone of my income, it's an inconvenience, for a poor person, it may knock them back down the economic ladder. Something to note, the US existed in a space for much of its existence particularly out here in the West, where the nearest law enforcement might be hours away, where I am in my county, the county seat is a half a days ride by horse - and our county is a PLSS county, so its not particularly large, they get larger - because of that, we have a permissive culture in allowing people to defend themselves and their property from others, because once its gone, you will likely never get it back again. This only changed with the invention of the automobile and the two way radio, but the culture was formed before that, and culture adapts to technology slowly.

jimmaswell 5y ago

I love it. Let the streets be bathed in their blood. Maybe I'll move to Texas someday.

booblik 5y ago

Driving without a converter is incredibly polluting and should be considered a crime against humanity, so stealing them should definitely be a serious crime and not just stealing an “autopart”

trasz 5y ago
As is driving a SUV with a converter, in most cases.

throwaway6734 5y ago

I don't think lethal force should be used in the case of theft like this, but I support it for any kind of home invasion/breaking and entering.

King-Aaron 5y ago

The amount of people here justifying murder as an appropriate response to petty theft is staggering.

esyir 5y ago

Not American, but I've really liked this one line I've heard. "Property and freedom are the past and future of a human life" People invest nontrivial amounts of their life into the acquisition of property. The theft of property is a theft of that proportion of their life. All you need is a sufficient punitive multiplier to said theft, or a sufficiently valuable item stolen, before lethal force becomes an option in said moral calculus. Where I am, theft is punished severely, thus I see no need to take things into my own hands. The social contract is that the state handles such crime, and in response citizens forgo vigilantism. If repeated thefts of my property were met with no response, or a consistently ineffective response, you'd probably see a very different reaction from me.

gamerDude 5y ago

I think it has to do with the idea that someone who does a bad thing is a bad person and we don't want bad people in our society. As opposed to, someone who does a bad thing is a person in a bad situation and society should help them.

hippich 5y ago

I did not read all responses, perhaps someone mentioned it already... It is not about execution or killing someone. In fact, the very first thing I was taught in the CHL class - never think about shooting someone as killing someone, but rather as "stopping them". In the court, such a small detail of intent will matter. The idea of letting shooting someone who is stealing at night is again - stopping them, because otherwise in nighttime it will be nearly impossible to find them (hence limitation of night time). I don't hear many cases like that. It is certainly not widespread. People are given a right, but not a requirement to stop criminals stealing property.

jemfinch 5y ago

> Huh only in America it might be considered OK to execute a person for a theft of an automative part. This is a peculiarity of Texas property law. It would not be legal in the other 49 states. It's a relic of cattle rustling in the 19th century, when the population density of Texas was too low to properly police and its primary industry required more protection than could be afforded by local law enforcement.

genewitch 5y ago
15 or 16 States have "strong" castle laws, and a further 6 or so have defense of home but not car. That's more than a third. Texas and Florida have the strongest, such as shielding from civil liability and such.

Mirioron 5y ago

How about people just don't steal? A thief deprives somebody else of opportunities. If somebody steals your catalytic converter and you need to be on time for a job you're going to be screwed at the job and you will have to replace that stolen property. I don't understand how people can just handwave away this stuff. I would genuinely rather have my arm broken than my bike/phone stolen. My arm will heal in a few weeks, but my bike won't.

cozzyd 5y ago
But you can buy a used bike for less than $50 and typically your homeowners/renters insurance will cover it (and a stolen phone) anyway (though typically with a deductible).
- Mirioron 5y ago
  >But you can buy a used bike for less than $50 Yeah, I wonder where that used bike came from. Some other poor sod had his bike stolen. >and typically your homeowners/renters insurance will cover it (and a stolen phone) anyway If it does and if the insurance pays out. You're still out the deductible and anything you had on the phone. Even now I don't think I would hand over my phone to a thief.
TrackerFF 5y ago
Thieves are not one big homogeneous population, consisting of lazy ne'er-do-well people that simply don't feel like working - it's incredibly complex. Yes - there's organized crime, where theft is basically just part of their business, but on the other hand you've got junkies, desperate poor people, people that are marginalized and completely locked out of the workforce, etc. I think the Opioid epidemic is a shining example of how companies can legally turn normal citizens into addicts, and down the road into full-blown junkies. Then you get all the problems with petty crime, that's related to this lifestyle. One of many examples where profits trumps human life, and where the criminal justice system has to deal with the aftermath.

omegaham 5y ago

Just piling on, the big thing that I note is that it's not just stuff for the poorer people in society. It's their livelihood. If you screw up someone's car, you are taking away their ability to get to work, to drive their kids to daycare, and so on. I'm privileged enough that if someone puts my car out of service, I can swear gratuitously, call my boss to tell him that I'll be late to work, and get a rental while my insurance handles my car. As frustrated as I might be, it's not a life-and-death situation for me. By contrast, Jimbo the night-shift line cook at Waffle House has significantly less margin for error. If he doesn't show up to work, he at best doesn't get paid and at worst gets fired. If he gets fired, he's now behind on his rent, plus he has to fix his car with money he doesn't have. He might need to take out a payday loan, or sell something important, or borrow money from family who is just as poor as he is. With this in mind, I'm not going to say that Jimbo is morally justified in whacking a criddler who's messing with his car, but I'm not going to say he's not, either. You see the same thing in action with immigrant-owned bodegas. It's just entries on a spreadsheet to Walgreens and CVS, but that's rent and food to Mr. and Mrs. Kim's family, and it's not surprising that they're significantly more inclined toward the shotgun-and-bat approach to loss prevention.

SyzygistSix 5y ago
He might even resort to stealing catalytic converters to get by.
tjr225 5y ago
I’m pretty sure any car equipped with a catalytic converter is still perfectly drivable if the catalytic converter is removed.
- jxramos 5y ago
  this is absolutely true, when you startup your car it will become immediately obvious because the engine exhaust sounds will be tremendous. Basically all those exhaust strokes of the engine pour out directly to the atmosphere never making their way to the muffler which muffles their sounds.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

no_time 5y ago

>Huh only in America it might be considered OK to execute a person for a theft of an automative part. I'm not american but I agree with his views. Being the victim of a break-in, I want nothing more than to cave in the fucker's skull with a metal rod to this day. These people will continue to get away with it ad infinitum unless someone teaches them a lesson. It makes me so irrationally angry that it's among the top 3 issues when I'm voting. If the police won't do anything about this issue who will?

zerocount 5y ago

First off, no one is getting executed. It's not a case of I capture you stealing from me and make you stand still while I shoot you in the head. As for intruding into my house, you are going to be killed if I see you. I have a 13 year old daughter to protect and there is no debating why you are in my house uninvited. How do you feel that your lack of action with an intruder may have emboldened the criminal to do it again? Maybe next time the home owner gets hurt, raped, killed, or has to watch a loved one get hurt, raped, or killed. I respect that you see things differently than I do, but you come across as someone who does not respect other's views and would restrict those if possible.

slowhand09 5y ago

Regarding "moral calculus"... I would never condone killing someone for stealing. From another perspective, why should you value the life of a person more than said person values his own, e.g. why would I value your life, as clearly you value it less than you do the parts on my car, or items in my house? When society permits people to hold you hostage via your "superior morals", so they can take advantage of you, your work, your family etc, isn't this a major breakdown? Consider the (stupid IMHO) duty to retreat laws in some places. You are locked inside your safe place, your home, or your car, likely with your family. A person decides they want your property, or possibly your life. And these laws require you to retreat, to possibly vacate your home or car, pulling your family out of harms way if you can. Because these bad people are what? Misguided?

agensaequivocum 5y ago
I don't believe (except maybe DC) any US state requires you to retreat from your domicile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
- slowhand09 5y ago
  From your source: 12 states impose a duty to retreat when one can do so with absolute safety: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. New York, however, does not require retreat when one is threatened with robbery, burglary, kidnapping, or sexual assault. No mention of domicile in this text.
  - agensaequivocum 5y ago
    It may not say in that specific spot. The map, however, does indicate what I said. Looking specifically into, for example, Wisconsin: > If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies: > 1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring. > 2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/4... Edit: Also New York: > (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is: > (i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or PEN 35.15 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/35.15 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/35.15

bacchusracine 5y ago

>Huh only in America it might be considered OK to execute a person for a theft of an automative part. We used to hang horse thieves and for the same reason. Theft of someone's transportation is a serious matter. It's not about the theft itself, or the 'auto parts' it's about depriving someone of their ability to be employed. To feed their families and themselves. To maintain their residence. These are not small things. Try to take these from another and there is a common law right to stop that theft by force if necessary. Choices have consequences.

no-s 5y ago

> How does the moral calculous work for Americans? Genuinely curious. Is it “something bad is being done to me, I am therefore justified to use any means necessary” kind of thing, or there is something else/more? In some sense, it’s implicit in the concept of self-defense. As others have pointed out, property crime is not automatically a victimless crime. You aren’t really obligated to execute criminals in the commission of a such crime. The purpose of the law is mainly to preclude an uninformed assessment (or malicious assumption by a prosecutor) of e.g. “she was just stealing a catalytic converter, she didn’t mean any harm” which implicitly excludes the exposure of harm to the property owner, whether immediate or consequent. The perpetrator is actually a predator, an outlaw who views others as prey and imagines an entitlement to theft. We put up with outlaws to a certain degree for "minor crimes", but the specific law is founded on the the premise that the outlaw predator is significantly ill-intentioned and potentially violent. The assumption is the thief is committing a crime with potentially serious consequences to the victim or proximate others. It’s not always obvious in the moment that such a criminal attempting a disengagement is incapable of or has no intent of further harming the victim. There are capital crimes where it is obviously clear that great harm is prevented by killing the perpetrator caught in the act, but predators are willing to push the boundaries to obscure the issue for other crimes. Thus the people of the State of Texas (from whom government authority flows) decided to clarify it. With respect to the benefit to society, diminishing the class of people who prey upon others specifically when they’re caught in harmful acts is often viewed in Texas (and by many Americans) as a social good and moral responsibility. You are not obligated to participate if you think it repugnant, but obviously predators caught in the act can’t be relied upon to be bound by your concerns, or sense of morality, or by laws.

agensaequivocum 5y ago

I carry a gun everyday just as I carry my wallet. I would not shoot someone in this situation. If you shoot someone who is simply under your car, you will be arrested and most likely go to jail. It does depend on your state but generally you will have trouble if you do not have a legitimate fear for your life. You may have justification to hold him a gun point (again depending on the state).

timbo1642 5y ago

Dont sit here and lie to yourself. These people are professional career criminals. They are horrible people and have stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars and they have committed a million other crimes. Don't want to get shot? Don't commit a crime because the police aren't going to do jack shit. THEY SHOULD NOT COME ONTO YOUR PROPERTY. Stop protecting criminals