18 ms·

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 - wh

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.
  - cmac2992 5y ago
    How can the castle doctrine possibly be applied to most catalytic converter thefts???
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Typically, the laws governing one’s jurisdiction.
  - plantain 5y ago
    I'm asking on a moral level.
    - Viliam1234 5y ago
      If human lives are valuable, then I suppose the same also applies to my own life. If a hostile stranger appeared at night in my house, I would take his life to protect mine. Yes, the entire situation is regretful, but it was his choice to make it happen, not mine. I wouldn't kill a person over stealing a candy from me, or trespassing on my lawn.
    - chii 5y ago
      morality is subjective; there's no universal morality. That's why laws exist - to make clear what is acceptable to do, and what is not.
- foxrider 5y ago
  I think that you have the right to protect your rights at all costs. If your rights are being violated it's OK to reclaim it by returning the favor. If you don't believe it then there's a discussion to be had about if you even have any rights to begin with or if these are just privileges granted to you by the others.
  - ketzo 5y ago
    But surely there are degrees to this? I mean, if someone tall sits in front of you at the movies, they are violating your right to full viewership of the movie. If you get cut off in traffic, your rights are being violated. Where is the line? Why is property theft deserving of the end of a human life?
    - foxrider 5y ago
      I think you're confusing rights with something else here. I'm specifically talking about natural rights, and I don't know if you're trying to steer the dialog into "what is a right" or just have a wrong idea, but I am not interested in philosophy or deconstruction of well established concepts
      - uoaei 5y ago
        And who is it that gets to draw the boundary around "natural rights"? The point being that humans defining natural rights goes against the concept of "natural". The entire exercise is a catch-22. Funny how in each case where this comes up, natural rights always means something different. Almost as if the term is consistently used retroactively to justify extreme measures rather than to inform people of their rights per se.
        Dracophoenix 5y ago
        A natural right is a right that you are born with. Rights aren't defined prescriptively in the way that you imply. They're enumerated and acknowledged. Not granted.
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  What gives you the right to make a life-ending determination? The perpetrator delegated it to me when he chose to break into my house. If you want to argue that human life has inherent value that can't be voluntarily given up, such that it's never right for me to take someone's life in defense of my property, the arguments in favor of that seem to be religious in nature. They don't always begin that way, but ultimately you have to back up your opinion with something objective if you want to convince me that I'm in the wrong. Basically you'd need to cite a higher authority in order to change my mind, and then proceed to convince me that the authority (a) exists; and (b) backs up your position. Unless there's an argument I've overlooked, which is always possible. Are there other points of view on this, that don't boil down to either appeals to emotion or appeals to a mysteriously-absent higher moral authority? (Yes, there's the philosophical argument that the state should have a monopoly on violence, but that has the same flaws as the original argument, and can't always be applied in the heat of the moment.)
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    You are assuming a right to property (along the same lines as your argument about people assuming inherent value).
    - CamperBob2 5y ago
      Not necessarily. In a home-invasion situation, the only person who really knows what's going on is the burglar. I have to assume that he doesn't just want my stuff, he wants to harm me or my family. It's unreasonable to require me to trust the intruder's good faith. These things aren't exactly negotiated in advance.
      - maxerickson 5y ago
        As used there, the word 'invasion' assumes property rights exist.
        CamperBob2 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pcwalton 5y ago
It's not that simple. Otherwise it would be legal to shoot someone for walking on your lawn (also a violation of property rights).
- userbinator 5y ago
  I've seen signs saying "trespassers will be shot", and never felt the need to test them. The fact that the shooter was doing something illegal doesn't change the possibility that you may no longer be alive.
  - beenBoutIT 5y ago
    Unless it's posted on government land this type of warning just tells you that you're in the vicinity of white trash.
    - Eelongate 5y ago
      The person who shoots you being judged to be "white trash" won't bring you back from the dead. Don't test those signs in America if you value your life.
      - perth 5y ago
        Unless you bring a 6-shooter gun too, then it can be a public wild-west shootout at high-noon like the good old days.
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      Why would you make such an arbitrary distinction between government and "white trash" posting signage that states "Any trespassers will be shot"?
      - beenBoutIT 5y ago
        After using any type of force, lethal or otherwise against a trespasser that type of sign would be used against the owner in court to their detriment. There's a requirement for "no trespassing" signs to be posted around property but the "will be shot" verbiage could be construed as premeditation since non government land owners aren't allowed to kill trespassers merely for the act of trespassing itself. It literally suggests that the property owner is waiting to shoot anyone who trespasses, which isn't kosher. Trespassing on government land such as a military base could result in the trespasser being shot accidentally or otherwise and there are typically warning signs posted that will say things like "Use of deadly force authorized".
dougSF70 5y ago
The problem with this approach are those cases where it is not clear cut. The consequences of being wrong outweigh the benefits of being right. And have you ever taken someone's life before? It is not to be taken lightly and will no doubt haunt the shooter for many years. And for what, because someone stole $1000, $100, $10 or $1? If you are comfortable putting a value on someone's life and ending it with a bullet without remorse, that would make you a sociopath or a psychopath.
- foxrider 5y ago
  Yeah, if it's not clear cut - don't shoot anyone. I'm talking about people who are in the process of the crime when you caught them as it happened, not about some kind of vigilante track-them-down. As for shooting someone - I haven't, and I hope I'll never have to, but I can't imagine feeling remorseful for stopping a crime against myself. Yeah 10$ is pushing it, but as I've said - it's more about the violation than the actual value here. I have no idea what someone is trying to steal from the car, but just breaking into it is enough.
  - ketzo 5y ago
    To be clear: the idea of someone breaking into your car is enough to justify ending a human life?
    - foxrider 5y ago
      Not the idea, but the act, if I'm going to be pedantic. If the law would've been on my side and I would've seen my car broken into with someone in there, I would not hesitate to use lethal force at that point.
      - ketzo 5y ago
        Wow, okay, I guess we are just on fundamentally different pages. That is, quite frankly, sickening to me. I cannot imagine valuing human life – any human life – so lowly.
coryrc 5y ago
This is the problem with our police not investigating property crime. If you could trust society will stop these people in short order, then there will be less crime and the chance of this happening will be low, and you'll just feel especially unlucky. But I live in an area with high property crime and the police do nothing about it, as desired by the local government representatives. That's a recipe for vigilantism.
- wincy 5y ago
  In the US they’re far too busy prosecuting people for having a gram of cocaine on them to have time to prosecute people stealing catalytic converters and actually hurting someone.
  - Lucasoato 5y ago
    Maybe because they're selling catalytic converters to buy cocaine?
  - coryrc 5y ago
    Most of the people around here doing these property crimes are illegal drug addicts. Seattle does not prosecute drug crimes.
    - passerby1 5y ago
      Do you mean being drug adict in Seattle makes a person immune to (at least some of the) law?
      - swearwolf 5y ago
        It does end up working that way in practice, though it’s not quite as straightforward as that. What’s really happening is that courts are very backed up, jails are full, and judges release most people on their own recognizance within about 72 hours of the crime. They still have to go to court for that crime…eventually, but in the mean time, there’s nothing to stop them from going right back at it when they get released. There are people who have been arrested dozens upon dozens of times, and by now must have a list of court hearings a mile long, but they keep getting put back out on the street while they await their hearing. So in effect, at least for now, they are immune to prosecution.
Smoosh 5y ago
Same here, I went to my local convenience store the other day, and the cashier short changed me by 5 cents. So I took out my gun and shot her in the face. I mean - this was totally justified since they broke the social contract and stole from me.
- seattle_spring 5y ago
  Holy strawman.
andybak 5y ago
> First - why should I value life of someone who's actively robbing me? Jesus Christ. You're actually arguing that killing someone for theft is a reasonable and proportionate response? That is a dangerous and unhinged statement and I roundly condemn you for saying it.
- shard972 5y ago
  also is the law of the land, you being morally offended doesn't change that
- Eelongate 5y ago
  All you've done here is reiterate what he said and insult him for thinking it. That's not even remotely persuasive.
  - quadrangle 5y ago
    The person above wasn't making a reasoned persuasive argument, they were making a moral assertion. The purpose wasn't to insult someone nor to convince them. It was just an expression of moral outrage.
    - Eelongate 5y ago
      That's precisely what I pointed out.
      - pasquinelli 5y ago
        cool
      - quadrangle 5y ago
        Yes, but your comment reads as if you were giving feedback. Implication is that the intent was or should be persuasion, and you saying it's failing at that. Anyway, I don't think "I condemn you for X" is an insult of the normal sort where it's ad hominem, even though it would be better and less ad hominem as "I condemn the idea" (as opposed to the person).
King-Aaron 5y ago
You want to shoot someone for stealing a Catalytic converter? I pull mine off and throw them in the bin lol
rlpb 5y ago
You see someone under your car, shoot them dead, and it turns out to be a teenager who was crawling after their pet cat. It doesn't matter what happens to you after this. The child is dead. And the killing of that child was encouraged by your hypothetical "legal to shoot thieves" law. Barring that law would have saved that child's life.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Eelongate 5y ago
  Coaxing a cat with a cordless angle grinder? Your hypothetical concern might seem plausible the way you've written it, sparse on descriptive details, but in real life there is a lot more information to consider that will almost certainly disambiguate the situation. > your hypothetical "legal to shoot thieves" law. Not hypothetical in Texas. So if you've got any real examples of teenagers looking for cats under cars getting shot, by all means trot them out.
  - pcwalton 5y ago
    A quick Google search for [child killed because mistaken for thief] brings up this 2017 case in Alabama: https://www.wjhl.com/news/family-22-year-old-mistaken-as-thief-killed-by-father-in-alabama/ https://www.wjhl.com/news/family-22-year-old-mistaken-as-thi... In this case the killer was indicted and pleaded guilty to manslaughter: https://www.cullmantribune.com/2019/10/24/cullman-county-father-pleads-guilty-to-manslaughter-in-2017-shooting-death-of-son/ https://www.cullmantribune.com/2019/10/24/cullman-county-fat... Because it's obviously not legal to murder your own son even if you think they're a thief.
    - lowkey_ 5y ago
      The court seems to be doing its job then. I could cite many examples of justified shootings due to the stand-your-ground statute in Texas, and there are a few examples that are unjustified. In the unjustified cases, the shooter is found guilty. That's how the system functions: by shooting, you are certain enough that the individual is committing a crime that you are willing to go to jail if incorrect. It's certainly better than the alternative found in other states, where people are tried and found guilty for defending themselves, their loved ones, and their property.
bhaha 5y ago
>broke the social contract with me not how the social contract works. Read Rousseau's "Du Contract Social", or just ask à french person if they think stealing deserves death I mean come on guys this is pathetic, like HN is known for meticulously breaking down people's arguments point by point line by line, explaining each logical fallacy and you believed it would be okay to dive into justifying death of people... it sounds like you are sad about something personal
- nfw2 5y ago
  France didn’t invent social contracts like Newton didn’t invent gravity. All societies have had implicit social contracts
  - perth 5y ago
    It just happens that Texas society's social contract is public execution and plastic bags.
  - pasquinelli 5y ago
    yeah, and just like earth can't decide its gravity field, a society can't decide its social contract.
- Eelongate 5y ago
  Texans decide for themselves what their social contract is. Texan law is not dictated by the French.
  - bhaha 5y ago
    the person I am replying to is not even from Texas, yet here you are, Texan I assume, inserting yourself into someone else's conversation. Why?
  - redanddead 5y ago
    It is, actually https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=articles&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=50306 https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=articles&Te.... Further reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonization_of_Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonization_of_Texas
Nursie 5y ago
> In my mind, the moment they attack my rights, including my property rights - I don't owe any moral consideration to them anymore Wow, seriously? No proportionality at all, no consideration of any mitigating factors that may be present, just simply "they broke my property rights so their life is forfeit". I'm glad that in general society has moved on from such crude ideas of justice. I've been mugged, and I've had my house broken into. Yes, it's shit. In neither case did I think anyone should die for it.
- paranoidrobot 5y ago
  You've said the things I wanted to say, but much more succinctly. Killing someone is something you can't undo. Even if you truly believe that someone's life is forfeit for stealing something of yours, there's no time given for evaluating the facts. A split second decision, a bad judgement call, and you find out that the person you shot and killed, is actually some innocent bystander running to get away from the robber. Maybe they are the person robbing you, but your shots hit someone else who's in their own house.
- analog31 5y ago
  Indeed, letting individuals decide who does and doesn't deserve to live, is how we end up with endless blood feuds. "They killed my brother so their life is forfeit." I've read a saying that a government is an entity with a "monopoly on violence." I think that however imperfect it is, giving the government this monopoly means that there's an objective process for deciding who deserves to live, and who doesn't. Personal satisfaction as a criterion is always going to produce outcomes that are massively disproportionate, and will simply shift the dissatisfaction to someone else.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gibs0ns 5y ago
Super weird mental gymnastics you got going on there. Hope you find love, and you don't kill them because they cross you.
pasquinelli 5y ago
> 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. what they'll think twice about is making sure you're not around when they steal your stuff, either by not being at home or not being alive. and i have bad news for you, the aggressor has the advantage.
ornornor 5y ago
> 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. For how well that works, see: - drug related crime in countries where it’s a death sentence - militarized police forces and the overall outcome for society - effects on crime levels in US states where such a crime is a capital offense vs states where it isn’t All this does is raise the stakes and people committing the crimes resort to more violent means of committing the crime/avoid capture. While it might feel good to know you’d be allowed to kill a thief, it won’t stop it from happening. It’ll just make it that much more dangerous to be around when that crime happens and more likely to get shot as a result.
- esyir 5y ago
  Well, regarding drug crime, you can look at singapore.
  - ornornor 5y ago
    They also have programs to tackle drug addiction. The effects can't be attributed solely on the death penalty when trafficking. If that worked, we'd have no murders in US states where it yields death penalty.
    - esyir 5y ago
      >The effects can't be attributed solely on the death penalty when trafficking Sure, everything is multimodal. But likelihood of getting caught (consistency of enforcement) and penalty size can both mediate the incentive. I'm not sure why everyone likes to boil it down to "PENALTIES DON'T WORK ONLY SOCIAL PROGRAMS".
TrackerFF 5y ago
If you (or anyone else) see no moral issue with killing someone over petty theft of a catalytic converter, which insurance should cover, I'd say there's a non-insignificant probability you suffer from some kind of antisocial personality disorder. I'm not saying this to attack your character - I'm just saying that normal and well-adjusted people do not think that way.
andrei_says_ 5y ago
It’s a bit more complicated in practice though. Are you saying you’ll be OK shooting a mother stealing a loaf of bread for her kids? What about a child stealing a loaf of bread? What about the neighbor who likes your wife and decides to shoot you and then plant his wallet in your pocket? Vigilante justice is not the answer.
- blitzar 5y ago
  > It’s a bit more complicated in practice though. What if the person had a gun pointed at the head of your child, finger on the trigger, ready to go. What if they had already shot one of your children in the head? Do you use the gun in your hand then? Or is it not the answer?
  - andrei_says_ 5y ago
    I replied to a comment about executing thieves. Not sure if any my examples match any of yours.
- tsol 5y ago
  Besides, vigilante justice is breaking the social contract. He's committing the same problem and therfore by his own logic subject to the same treatment
lovich 5y ago
If that’s the case can we shoot at companies? Over my life I have had thousands of dollars stolen from me in the form of stolen wages or services paid for but not rendered, but I feel like no one in this thread arguing for shooting of thieves would be fine with me shooting up the local Fedex because they lost my package and refused to reimburse me
seer 5y ago
Thank you for the response, so many interesting points. I’ll try to address most of those from my viewpoint, and why I think the current solutions US are attempting are not effective, but comments like this help me understand other peoples’ point of view so they are really valuable. So here we go. The way I think about it its perfectly fine to use a bit of force to protect yourself, a little bit of thrashing of the thief will make him reconsider their actions. What I find weird is the execution bit. We condemn public beheadings and hangings in places like Singapore, but think its totally ok if our neighbors does it? Is our neighbor wiser than a whole state + the legal system? If you shoot him dead, first of all there is little lesson learned, as there is noone to lean from. Yeah somebody else might hear about it, but how much will it affect them? The stats from the US are quite clear that deterrence does not actually happen, and other more lenient policies can be more effective. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel just copy some of the more successful societies. I’d imagine a thief who gets a beating, some punishment and a path of redemption will be a hugely more influential to future thiefs as it will act both as a deterrent and a guide. Being dead doesn’t seem to be teaching anyone, or at least thats what the stats show us. You are totally right about the emotions of being mugged, or live in a house that’s been broken into. Both have happened to me (though maybe on a much lower scale than what I see is the norm in the us). But to be honest I don’t _really_ want to punish the person for that. What I want is for that to never happen to me again. Punishment is just a tool for that to happen, and I believe a very blunt and ineffective at that. I want to leave in a society where stuff like that just doesn’t happen. And we have plenty of examples of more effective solutions. I’m not aware of any state that’s “solved” it, but I think more than half of the world are “better” based on objective stats and talking to people who live in those societies (highly subjective based on my experiences). Funny thing - where I live you are not aloud to take someone’s life even in self defense, if your home is being robbed. E.g. if you wake up to someone in your house going through your things and shoot him with your shotgun you will be charged with murder. With mitigating circumstances, but still murder. Its only when your own life is threatened are you allowed to defend yourself. Lots of people dislike this, but its actually surprisingly safe to live here, so I guess its effective. For example, nobody has pulled _any_ weapon on me in my entire life (35 years) and I’ve never seen a drawn gun outside of a range. And I’m pretty happy that the chances of someone ending my life on purpose (or even accidentally) are astronomically low, I kinda like living.
tsol 5y ago
>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. Well then you've just broken the social contract. Since Hammurabi created the first written rule of law(at least this was taught growing up, but I believe they've found earlier tablets since) society generally agrees that an eye for an eye is the rule. The most you can do to an offender while being morally justified is the equivalent. Except in the case there's a proximate threat to your life, of course, owing to the fact that dead people can't get justice. If you kill someone for stealing, off to prison you go. To put it into terms similar to yours-- why should I value the life of someone who broke the social contract as well as the law? The death of a man shakes me more than the theft of a catalytic converter, and the second you kill a man in my country you are affecting me far more than some common thief. Now you're making my family feel unsafe

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.
- cmac2992 5y ago
  How can the castle doctrine possibly be applied to most catalytic converter thefts???
lotsofpulp 5y ago
Typically, the laws governing one’s jurisdiction.
- plantain 5y ago
  I'm asking on a moral level.
  - Viliam1234 5y ago
    If human lives are valuable, then I suppose the same also applies to my own life. If a hostile stranger appeared at night in my house, I would take his life to protect mine. Yes, the entire situation is regretful, but it was his choice to make it happen, not mine. I wouldn't kill a person over stealing a candy from me, or trespassing on my lawn.
  - chii 5y ago
    morality is subjective; there's no universal morality. That's why laws exist - to make clear what is acceptable to do, and what is not.
foxrider 5y ago
I think that you have the right to protect your rights at all costs. If your rights are being violated it's OK to reclaim it by returning the favor. If you don't believe it then there's a discussion to be had about if you even have any rights to begin with or if these are just privileges granted to you by the others.
- ketzo 5y ago
  But surely there are degrees to this? I mean, if someone tall sits in front of you at the movies, they are violating your right to full viewership of the movie. If you get cut off in traffic, your rights are being violated. Where is the line? Why is property theft deserving of the end of a human life?
  - foxrider 5y ago
    I think you're confusing rights with something else here. I'm specifically talking about natural rights, and I don't know if you're trying to steer the dialog into "what is a right" or just have a wrong idea, but I am not interested in philosophy or deconstruction of well established concepts
    - uoaei 5y ago
      And who is it that gets to draw the boundary around "natural rights"? The point being that humans defining natural rights goes against the concept of "natural". The entire exercise is a catch-22. Funny how in each case where this comes up, natural rights always means something different. Almost as if the term is consistently used retroactively to justify extreme measures rather than to inform people of their rights per se.
      - Dracophoenix 5y ago
        A natural right is a right that you are born with. Rights aren't defined prescriptively in the way that you imply. They're enumerated and acknowledged. Not granted.
CamperBob2 5y ago
What gives you the right to make a life-ending determination? The perpetrator delegated it to me when he chose to break into my house. If you want to argue that human life has inherent value that can't be voluntarily given up, such that it's never right for me to take someone's life in defense of my property, the arguments in favor of that seem to be religious in nature. They don't always begin that way, but ultimately you have to back up your opinion with something objective if you want to convince me that I'm in the wrong. Basically you'd need to cite a higher authority in order to change my mind, and then proceed to convince me that the authority (a) exists; and (b) backs up your position. Unless there's an argument I've overlooked, which is always possible. Are there other points of view on this, that don't boil down to either appeals to emotion or appeals to a mysteriously-absent higher moral authority? (Yes, there's the philosophical argument that the state should have a monopoly on violence, but that has the same flaws as the original argument, and can't always be applied in the heat of the moment.)
- maxerickson 5y ago
  You are assuming a right to property (along the same lines as your argument about people assuming inherent value).
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    Not necessarily. In a home-invasion situation, the only person who really knows what's going on is the burglar. I have to assume that he doesn't just want my stuff, he wants to harm me or my family. It's unreasonable to require me to trust the intruder's good faith. These things aren't exactly negotiated in advance.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      As used there, the word 'invasion' assumes property rights exist.
      - CamperBob2 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

pcwalton 5y ago

It's not that simple. Otherwise it would be legal to shoot someone for walking on your lawn (also a violation of property rights).

userbinator 5y ago
I've seen signs saying "trespassers will be shot", and never felt the need to test them. The fact that the shooter was doing something illegal doesn't change the possibility that you may no longer be alive.
- beenBoutIT 5y ago
  Unless it's posted on government land this type of warning just tells you that you're in the vicinity of white trash.
  - Eelongate 5y ago
    The person who shoots you being judged to be "white trash" won't bring you back from the dead. Don't test those signs in America if you value your life.
    - perth 5y ago
      Unless you bring a 6-shooter gun too, then it can be a public wild-west shootout at high-noon like the good old days.
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    Why would you make such an arbitrary distinction between government and "white trash" posting signage that states "Any trespassers will be shot"?
    - beenBoutIT 5y ago
      After using any type of force, lethal or otherwise against a trespasser that type of sign would be used against the owner in court to their detriment. There's a requirement for "no trespassing" signs to be posted around property but the "will be shot" verbiage could be construed as premeditation since non government land owners aren't allowed to kill trespassers merely for the act of trespassing itself. It literally suggests that the property owner is waiting to shoot anyone who trespasses, which isn't kosher. Trespassing on government land such as a military base could result in the trespasser being shot accidentally or otherwise and there are typically warning signs posted that will say things like "Use of deadly force authorized".

dougSF70 5y ago

The problem with this approach are those cases where it is not clear cut. The consequences of being wrong outweigh the benefits of being right. And have you ever taken someone's life before? It is not to be taken lightly and will no doubt haunt the shooter for many years. And for what, because someone stole $1000, $100, $10 or $1? If you are comfortable putting a value on someone's life and ending it with a bullet without remorse, that would make you a sociopath or a psychopath.

foxrider 5y ago
Yeah, if it's not clear cut - don't shoot anyone. I'm talking about people who are in the process of the crime when you caught them as it happened, not about some kind of vigilante track-them-down. As for shooting someone - I haven't, and I hope I'll never have to, but I can't imagine feeling remorseful for stopping a crime against myself. Yeah 10$ is pushing it, but as I've said - it's more about the violation than the actual value here. I have no idea what someone is trying to steal from the car, but just breaking into it is enough.
- ketzo 5y ago
  To be clear: the idea of someone breaking into your car is enough to justify ending a human life?
  - foxrider 5y ago
    Not the idea, but the act, if I'm going to be pedantic. If the law would've been on my side and I would've seen my car broken into with someone in there, I would not hesitate to use lethal force at that point.
    - ketzo 5y ago
      Wow, okay, I guess we are just on fundamentally different pages. That is, quite frankly, sickening to me. I cannot imagine valuing human life – any human life – so lowly.

coryrc 5y ago

This is the problem with our police not investigating property crime. If you could trust society will stop these people in short order, then there will be less crime and the chance of this happening will be low, and you'll just feel especially unlucky. But I live in an area with high property crime and the police do nothing about it, as desired by the local government representatives. That's a recipe for vigilantism.

wincy 5y ago
In the US they’re far too busy prosecuting people for having a gram of cocaine on them to have time to prosecute people stealing catalytic converters and actually hurting someone.
- Lucasoato 5y ago
  Maybe because they're selling catalytic converters to buy cocaine?
- coryrc 5y ago
  Most of the people around here doing these property crimes are illegal drug addicts. Seattle does not prosecute drug crimes.
  - passerby1 5y ago
    Do you mean being drug adict in Seattle makes a person immune to (at least some of the) law?
    - swearwolf 5y ago
      It does end up working that way in practice, though it’s not quite as straightforward as that. What’s really happening is that courts are very backed up, jails are full, and judges release most people on their own recognizance within about 72 hours of the crime. They still have to go to court for that crime…eventually, but in the mean time, there’s nothing to stop them from going right back at it when they get released. There are people who have been arrested dozens upon dozens of times, and by now must have a list of court hearings a mile long, but they keep getting put back out on the street while they await their hearing. So in effect, at least for now, they are immune to prosecution.

Smoosh 5y ago

Same here, I went to my local convenience store the other day, and the cashier short changed me by 5 cents. So I took out my gun and shot her in the face. I mean - this was totally justified since they broke the social contract and stole from me.

seattle_spring 5y ago
Holy strawman.

andybak 5y ago

> First - why should I value life of someone who's actively robbing me? Jesus Christ. You're actually arguing that killing someone for theft is a reasonable and proportionate response? That is a dangerous and unhinged statement and I roundly condemn you for saying it.

shard972 5y ago
also is the law of the land, you being morally offended doesn't change that
Eelongate 5y ago
All you've done here is reiterate what he said and insult him for thinking it. That's not even remotely persuasive.
- quadrangle 5y ago
  The person above wasn't making a reasoned persuasive argument, they were making a moral assertion. The purpose wasn't to insult someone nor to convince them. It was just an expression of moral outrage.
  - Eelongate 5y ago
    That's precisely what I pointed out.
    - pasquinelli 5y ago
      cool
    - quadrangle 5y ago
      Yes, but your comment reads as if you were giving feedback. Implication is that the intent was or should be persuasion, and you saying it's failing at that. Anyway, I don't think "I condemn you for X" is an insult of the normal sort where it's ad hominem, even though it would be better and less ad hominem as "I condemn the idea" (as opposed to the person).

King-Aaron 5y ago

You want to shoot someone for stealing a Catalytic converter? I pull mine off and throw them in the bin lol

rlpb 5y ago

You see someone under your car, shoot them dead, and it turns out to be a teenager who was crawling after their pet cat. It doesn't matter what happens to you after this. The child is dead. And the killing of that child was encouraged by your hypothetical "legal to shoot thieves" law. Barring that law would have saved that child's life.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Eelongate 5y ago
Coaxing a cat with a cordless angle grinder? Your hypothetical concern might seem plausible the way you've written it, sparse on descriptive details, but in real life there is a lot more information to consider that will almost certainly disambiguate the situation. > your hypothetical "legal to shoot thieves" law. Not hypothetical in Texas. So if you've got any real examples of teenagers looking for cats under cars getting shot, by all means trot them out.
- pcwalton 5y ago
  A quick Google search for [child killed because mistaken for thief] brings up this 2017 case in Alabama: https://www.wjhl.com/news/family-22-year-old-mistaken-as-thief-killed-by-father-in-alabama/ https://www.wjhl.com/news/family-22-year-old-mistaken-as-thi... In this case the killer was indicted and pleaded guilty to manslaughter: https://www.cullmantribune.com/2019/10/24/cullman-county-father-pleads-guilty-to-manslaughter-in-2017-shooting-death-of-son/ https://www.cullmantribune.com/2019/10/24/cullman-county-fat... Because it's obviously not legal to murder your own son even if you think they're a thief.
  - lowkey_ 5y ago
    The court seems to be doing its job then. I could cite many examples of justified shootings due to the stand-your-ground statute in Texas, and there are a few examples that are unjustified. In the unjustified cases, the shooter is found guilty. That's how the system functions: by shooting, you are certain enough that the individual is committing a crime that you are willing to go to jail if incorrect. It's certainly better than the alternative found in other states, where people are tried and found guilty for defending themselves, their loved ones, and their property.

bhaha 5y ago

>broke the social contract with me not how the social contract works. Read Rousseau's "Du Contract Social", or just ask à french person if they think stealing deserves death I mean come on guys this is pathetic, like HN is known for meticulously breaking down people's arguments point by point line by line, explaining each logical fallacy and you believed it would be okay to dive into justifying death of people... it sounds like you are sad about something personal

nfw2 5y ago
France didn’t invent social contracts like Newton didn’t invent gravity. All societies have had implicit social contracts
- perth 5y ago
  It just happens that Texas society's social contract is public execution and plastic bags.
- pasquinelli 5y ago
  yeah, and just like earth can't decide its gravity field, a society can't decide its social contract.
Eelongate 5y ago
Texans decide for themselves what their social contract is. Texan law is not dictated by the French.
- bhaha 5y ago
  the person I am replying to is not even from Texas, yet here you are, Texan I assume, inserting yourself into someone else's conversation. Why?
- redanddead 5y ago
  It is, actually https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=articles&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=50306 https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=articles&Te.... Further reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonization_of_Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonization_of_Texas

Nursie 5y ago

> In my mind, the moment they attack my rights, including my property rights - I don't owe any moral consideration to them anymore Wow, seriously? No proportionality at all, no consideration of any mitigating factors that may be present, just simply "they broke my property rights so their life is forfeit". I'm glad that in general society has moved on from such crude ideas of justice. I've been mugged, and I've had my house broken into. Yes, it's shit. In neither case did I think anyone should die for it.

paranoidrobot 5y ago
You've said the things I wanted to say, but much more succinctly. Killing someone is something you can't undo. Even if you truly believe that someone's life is forfeit for stealing something of yours, there's no time given for evaluating the facts. A split second decision, a bad judgement call, and you find out that the person you shot and killed, is actually some innocent bystander running to get away from the robber. Maybe they are the person robbing you, but your shots hit someone else who's in their own house.
analog31 5y ago
Indeed, letting individuals decide who does and doesn't deserve to live, is how we end up with endless blood feuds. "They killed my brother so their life is forfeit." I've read a saying that a government is an entity with a "monopoly on violence." I think that however imperfect it is, giving the government this monopoly means that there's an objective process for deciding who deserves to live, and who doesn't. Personal satisfaction as a criterion is always going to produce outcomes that are massively disproportionate, and will simply shift the dissatisfaction to someone else.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

gibs0ns 5y ago

Super weird mental gymnastics you got going on there. Hope you find love, and you don't kill them because they cross you.

pasquinelli 5y ago

> 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. what they'll think twice about is making sure you're not around when they steal your stuff, either by not being at home or not being alive. and i have bad news for you, the aggressor has the advantage.

ornornor 5y ago

> 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. For how well that works, see: - drug related crime in countries where it’s a death sentence - militarized police forces and the overall outcome for society - effects on crime levels in US states where such a crime is a capital offense vs states where it isn’t All this does is raise the stakes and people committing the crimes resort to more violent means of committing the crime/avoid capture. While it might feel good to know you’d be allowed to kill a thief, it won’t stop it from happening. It’ll just make it that much more dangerous to be around when that crime happens and more likely to get shot as a result.

esyir 5y ago
Well, regarding drug crime, you can look at singapore.
- ornornor 5y ago
  They also have programs to tackle drug addiction. The effects can't be attributed solely on the death penalty when trafficking. If that worked, we'd have no murders in US states where it yields death penalty.
  - esyir 5y ago
    >The effects can't be attributed solely on the death penalty when trafficking Sure, everything is multimodal. But likelihood of getting caught (consistency of enforcement) and penalty size can both mediate the incentive. I'm not sure why everyone likes to boil it down to "PENALTIES DON'T WORK ONLY SOCIAL PROGRAMS".

TrackerFF 5y ago

If you (or anyone else) see no moral issue with killing someone over petty theft of a catalytic converter, which insurance should cover, I'd say there's a non-insignificant probability you suffer from some kind of antisocial personality disorder. I'm not saying this to attack your character - I'm just saying that normal and well-adjusted people do not think that way.

andrei_says_ 5y ago

It’s a bit more complicated in practice though. Are you saying you’ll be OK shooting a mother stealing a loaf of bread for her kids? What about a child stealing a loaf of bread? What about the neighbor who likes your wife and decides to shoot you and then plant his wallet in your pocket? Vigilante justice is not the answer.

blitzar 5y ago
> It’s a bit more complicated in practice though. What if the person had a gun pointed at the head of your child, finger on the trigger, ready to go. What if they had already shot one of your children in the head? Do you use the gun in your hand then? Or is it not the answer?
- andrei_says_ 5y ago
  I replied to a comment about executing thieves. Not sure if any my examples match any of yours.
tsol 5y ago
Besides, vigilante justice is breaking the social contract. He's committing the same problem and therfore by his own logic subject to the same treatment

lovich 5y ago

If that’s the case can we shoot at companies? Over my life I have had thousands of dollars stolen from me in the form of stolen wages or services paid for but not rendered, but I feel like no one in this thread arguing for shooting of thieves would be fine with me shooting up the local Fedex because they lost my package and refused to reimburse me

seer 5y ago

Thank you for the response, so many interesting points. I’ll try to address most of those from my viewpoint, and why I think the current solutions US are attempting are not effective, but comments like this help me understand other peoples’ point of view so they are really valuable. So here we go. The way I think about it its perfectly fine to use a bit of force to protect yourself, a little bit of thrashing of the thief will make him reconsider their actions. What I find weird is the execution bit. We condemn public beheadings and hangings in places like Singapore, but think its totally ok if our neighbors does it? Is our neighbor wiser than a whole state + the legal system? If you shoot him dead, first of all there is little lesson learned, as there is noone to lean from. Yeah somebody else might hear about it, but how much will it affect them? The stats from the US are quite clear that deterrence does not actually happen, and other more lenient policies can be more effective. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel just copy some of the more successful societies. I’d imagine a thief who gets a beating, some punishment and a path of redemption will be a hugely more influential to future thiefs as it will act both as a deterrent and a guide. Being dead doesn’t seem to be teaching anyone, or at least thats what the stats show us. You are totally right about the emotions of being mugged, or live in a house that’s been broken into. Both have happened to me (though maybe on a much lower scale than what I see is the norm in the us). But to be honest I don’t _really_ want to punish the person for that. What I want is for that to never happen to me again. Punishment is just a tool for that to happen, and I believe a very blunt and ineffective at that. I want to leave in a society where stuff like that just doesn’t happen. And we have plenty of examples of more effective solutions. I’m not aware of any state that’s “solved” it, but I think more than half of the world are “better” based on objective stats and talking to people who live in those societies (highly subjective based on my experiences). Funny thing - where I live you are not aloud to take someone’s life even in self defense, if your home is being robbed. E.g. if you wake up to someone in your house going through your things and shoot him with your shotgun you will be charged with murder. With mitigating circumstances, but still murder. Its only when your own life is threatened are you allowed to defend yourself. Lots of people dislike this, but its actually surprisingly safe to live here, so I guess its effective. For example, nobody has pulled _any_ weapon on me in my entire life (35 years) and I’ve never seen a drawn gun outside of a range. And I’m pretty happy that the chances of someone ending my life on purpose (or even accidentally) are astronomically low, I kinda like living.

tsol 5y ago

>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. Well then you've just broken the social contract. Since Hammurabi created the first written rule of law(at least this was taught growing up, but I believe they've found earlier tablets since) society generally agrees that an eye for an eye is the rule. The most you can do to an offender while being morally justified is the equivalent. Except in the case there's a proximate threat to your life, of course, owing to the fact that dead people can't get justice. If you kill someone for stealing, off to prison you go. To put it into terms similar to yours-- why should I value the life of someone who broke the social contract as well as the law? The death of a man shakes me more than the theft of a catalytic converter, and the second you kill a man in my country you are affecting me far more than some common thief. Now you're making my family feel unsafe