4 ms·

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 s

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.
    - ryan_lane 5y ago
      Those people aren't "bad", they're murderers. No one here is arguing that it's OK for people to steal essential parts from cars, just that it's morally reprehensible to kill that person for doing it, if they aren't threatening your life. Livelihood and life are separate things. In the situation someone gets fired for missing a day of work, you should be arguing against the ability for an employer to fire someone for something outside of their control, not for the ability to kill someone for a non-violent act.
    - ruytlm 5y ago
      Imagine you had an employer with some empathy instead of the dystopian employment hellscape that seems to exist in the USA, and your entire justification falls down. When the response to "a thief damaged my car" is "that's shit, what can we do to help make sure you can get to work" instead of "well you're fired then", suddenly there's no real loss, and therefore no reason to be killing thieves. I mean, if you want to go full 'Murica free market, if you lose your livelihood because your car is damaged, it's arguably your own fault for not having insurance. What if instead of a thief stealing a catalytic converter, it's a tree falling on your car? Do you shoot the tree? The only time it's acceptable to use lethal force is to directly protect yourself (and in some circumstances others) from immediate unavoidable harm; and even then it should be a last resort after all other alternatives are exhausted.
    - cozzyd 5y ago
      This seems contrived to me. Cars frequently break down, get flooded, hit deer or other cars, get hit by trees, etc without their owners suddenly becoming destitute. More to the point, if some other driver isn't paying attention and damages your car to the point it's inoperable, are you justified in shooting them? In most cases, they won't face any criminal liability even (perhaps a minor ticket).
      - gretch 5y ago
        Intention matters in our framework of law. "If the driver isn't paying attention" is a key factor and it means that no, you aren't justified. No one accidentally steals a catalytic converter. You have to plan it ahead of time and you need to acquire special tools to do so. This is not a crime of opportunity where maybe you find 100 bucks cash in a wallet on the street and you just grab it. As for the first point... we I don't know how to convince you but those people exist. For us, the privileged software developers, you can dial in to work and submit code remotely. You probably get paid enough and get PTO to take a couple days off work if you can't make it. But there's ppl who are not so fortunate. I don't have examples of ppl who became destitute, but look at this news story where the school faculty by this janitor a car: https://youtu.be/XqyvWqYVHcU https://youtu.be/XqyvWqYVHcU Look at 0:17 where he describes a 4 hour commute with 3 separate bus lines Now if someone was trying to steal this man's catalytic converter, and he shot them. Well of course it would definitely depend on the exact circumstances, letter of the law, and charges pressed, but at a glance I'd say man, I understand it...
tacon 5y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv0iN5J-9mk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv0iN5J-9mk

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.
  - ryan_lane 5y ago
    Those people aren't "bad", they're murderers. No one here is arguing that it's OK for people to steal essential parts from cars, just that it's morally reprehensible to kill that person for doing it, if they aren't threatening your life. Livelihood and life are separate things. In the situation someone gets fired for missing a day of work, you should be arguing against the ability for an employer to fire someone for something outside of their control, not for the ability to kill someone for a non-violent act.
  - ruytlm 5y ago
    Imagine you had an employer with some empathy instead of the dystopian employment hellscape that seems to exist in the USA, and your entire justification falls down. When the response to "a thief damaged my car" is "that's shit, what can we do to help make sure you can get to work" instead of "well you're fired then", suddenly there's no real loss, and therefore no reason to be killing thieves. I mean, if you want to go full 'Murica free market, if you lose your livelihood because your car is damaged, it's arguably your own fault for not having insurance. What if instead of a thief stealing a catalytic converter, it's a tree falling on your car? Do you shoot the tree? The only time it's acceptable to use lethal force is to directly protect yourself (and in some circumstances others) from immediate unavoidable harm; and even then it should be a last resort after all other alternatives are exhausted.
  - cozzyd 5y ago
    This seems contrived to me. Cars frequently break down, get flooded, hit deer or other cars, get hit by trees, etc without their owners suddenly becoming destitute. More to the point, if some other driver isn't paying attention and damages your car to the point it's inoperable, are you justified in shooting them? In most cases, they won't face any criminal liability even (perhaps a minor ticket).
    - gretch 5y ago
      Intention matters in our framework of law. "If the driver isn't paying attention" is a key factor and it means that no, you aren't justified. No one accidentally steals a catalytic converter. You have to plan it ahead of time and you need to acquire special tools to do so. This is not a crime of opportunity where maybe you find 100 bucks cash in a wallet on the street and you just grab it. As for the first point... we I don't know how to convince you but those people exist. For us, the privileged software developers, you can dial in to work and submit code remotely. You probably get paid enough and get PTO to take a couple days off work if you can't make it. But there's ppl who are not so fortunate. I don't have examples of ppl who became destitute, but look at this news story where the school faculty by this janitor a car: https://youtu.be/XqyvWqYVHcU https://youtu.be/XqyvWqYVHcU Look at 0:17 where he describes a 4 hour commute with 3 separate bus lines Now if someone was trying to steal this man's catalytic converter, and he shot them. Well of course it would definitely depend on the exact circumstances, letter of the law, and charges pressed, but at a glance I'd say man, I understand it...

tacon 5y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv0iN5J-9mk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv0iN5J-9mk