5 ms·

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 neigh

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...
    - cozzyd 5y ago
      I agree intent matters. My point is that harm here is the catalytic converter being stolen, not the unfortunate chain of events that might befall someone as an indirect result (and other things that can cause that indirect result aren't even crimes). That unfortunate chain of events can't be used to justify murdering the thief of a relatively inexpensive car part. It's like saying a pickpocket should get murdered because they might steal your bus pass and that's how you get places. For the record, I'm immune to catalytic converter theft because I don't own a car. I've had bike wheels stolen multiple times though, and that's no fun, but certainly no justification for murder.
- MarkMarine 5y ago
  The reason our justice system is structured the way it is precisely to take these emotions out of justice. Property theft isn’t a lifetime sentence or death sentence because our society tries to give people chances to make a mistake and recover. The aggrieved party can’t be trusted to maintain the level of impartiality and long term thinking required for metering out our form of justice, that’s why we have impartial judges and juries. Losing property isn’t worth a death sentence, and everyday people aren’t tasked with protecting their own property to the point where they are given the power to kill, you’re only “supposed” to use deadly force to save a life when no other option exists. Pulling the trigger and killing someone has lifelong consequences for everyone that touches these people, this isn’t a video game. Also, your example of harm is nuts. Someone steals your catalytic converter you can still drive to work, the car still runs it’s just loud. So, see, you own a gun and you’ve already talked yourself into a situation where having a catalytic converters is some life threatening event, worthy of taking someone’s life for, or at least not having sympathy for. That’s callous. If I were you I’d rethink that position.

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...
  - cozzyd 5y ago
    I agree intent matters. My point is that harm here is the catalytic converter being stolen, not the unfortunate chain of events that might befall someone as an indirect result (and other things that can cause that indirect result aren't even crimes). That unfortunate chain of events can't be used to justify murdering the thief of a relatively inexpensive car part. It's like saying a pickpocket should get murdered because they might steal your bus pass and that's how you get places. For the record, I'm immune to catalytic converter theft because I don't own a car. I've had bike wheels stolen multiple times though, and that's no fun, but certainly no justification for murder.
MarkMarine 5y ago
The reason our justice system is structured the way it is precisely to take these emotions out of justice. Property theft isn’t a lifetime sentence or death sentence because our society tries to give people chances to make a mistake and recover. The aggrieved party can’t be trusted to maintain the level of impartiality and long term thinking required for metering out our form of justice, that’s why we have impartial judges and juries. Losing property isn’t worth a death sentence, and everyday people aren’t tasked with protecting their own property to the point where they are given the power to kill, you’re only “supposed” to use deadly force to save a life when no other option exists. Pulling the trigger and killing someone has lifelong consequences for everyone that touches these people, this isn’t a video game. Also, your example of harm is nuts. Someone steals your catalytic converter you can still drive to work, the car still runs it’s just loud. So, see, you own a gun and you’ve already talked yourself into a situation where having a catalytic converters is some life threatening event, worthy of taking someone’s life for, or at least not having sympathy for. That’s callous. If I were you I’d rethink that position.