5 ms·

What's actually horrible is committing acts of extrajudicial violence.

CamperBob2 5y ago
That's up to the thief to decide. It's pretty easy to avoid such "extrajudicial violence," simply by respecting the property rights of others.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  What you're doing now is victim blaming. There are a million things that can and often do go wrong already with our criminal justice system, but it does function, more or less, as a way of arriving at a just conclusion; your suggestion that we throw all of that out is, literally, barbaric. I can't believe I have to say this, but society is worse off without laws and a just mechanism by which to enforce them.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    your suggestion that we throw all of that out is, literally, barbaric. Sounds like you're arguing with someone who doesn't actually exist. If this happens frequently, it might be a good idea to talk about it with someone who is there for you.
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      I'm arguing against what you wrote. If you didn't understand what you wrote, that's on you, not me.
      - CamperBob2 5y ago
        Then you'll have no trouble quoting my exact words suggesting that we "throw all of that out." Right?
        TameAntelope 5y ago
        > Violent reactions are really the only deterrent left to keep thieves at bay. Yes, it was quite easy to quote where you said, "Throw out existing laws, revert to what is literally the definition of barbarism."
blindmute 5y ago
Why?
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  You need someone on the Internet to tell you why extrajudicial violence is among the worst things a person can do in a society? Ahmaud Arbery is a perfect example.
  - blindmute 5y ago
    Killing someone because they kind of resemble someone else who had been doing burglaries in the area is a far cry from defending your own property while a theft occurs. If someone attempts to rob or burglarize me while I'm present, I can and will use force up to and including lethal force to stop them. This is legal in some circumstances, not extrajudicial. In the cases where it is extrajudicial, it can often be moral. Police are a great feature of society, but a citizen has personal responsibility over his own life and property foremost. The police aren't always with you; you are.
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      It is in no way different, and that's the whole problem. If you condone extrajudicial killings/violence, you condone all of them, because your position is that people should be able to take the law into their own hand, using their own judgement, even if it's flawed judgement (how can you know your own judgement is flawed)? You can't both agree that violence without due process is acceptable, and then disagree with how someone applied their own set of morality to a situation that resulted in them using violence. It's either/or, because the alternative is for you to have a say in their violence, at which point you're just re-creating a criminal justice system.
      - blindmute 5y ago
        > Your position is that people should be able to take the law into their own hand, using their own judgement, even if it's flawed judgement Yes, and if the judgment turns out to be flawed, then punish them accordingly. There are many instances of laws where the legality depends on circumstances bounded by reasonable judgment, such as self defense. I am legally allowed to kill someone if I fear for my life in some circumstances. The judicial system then determines if my fear was justified. Likewise, defending your own property with violence is legal, depending on circumstances and judgments which are validated in court. The case you referenced was obviously poor judgment. Your original point is that property cannot be morally defended through violence. This is neither the actual law, nor does it make sense from any real world perspective.

That's up to the thief to decide. It's pretty easy to avoid such "extrajudicial violence," simply by respecting the property rights of others.

TameAntelope 5y ago
What you're doing now is victim blaming. There are a million things that can and often do go wrong already with our criminal justice system, but it does function, more or less, as a way of arriving at a just conclusion; your suggestion that we throw all of that out is, literally, barbaric. I can't believe I have to say this, but society is worse off without laws and a just mechanism by which to enforce them.
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  your suggestion that we throw all of that out is, literally, barbaric. Sounds like you're arguing with someone who doesn't actually exist. If this happens frequently, it might be a good idea to talk about it with someone who is there for you.
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    I'm arguing against what you wrote. If you didn't understand what you wrote, that's on you, not me.
    - CamperBob2 5y ago
      Then you'll have no trouble quoting my exact words suggesting that we "throw all of that out." Right?
      - TameAntelope 5y ago
        > Violent reactions are really the only deterrent left to keep thieves at bay. Yes, it was quite easy to quote where you said, "Throw out existing laws, revert to what is literally the definition of barbarism."

blindmute 5y ago

Why?

TameAntelope 5y ago
You need someone on the Internet to tell you why extrajudicial violence is among the worst things a person can do in a society? Ahmaud Arbery is a perfect example.
- blindmute 5y ago
  Killing someone because they kind of resemble someone else who had been doing burglaries in the area is a far cry from defending your own property while a theft occurs. If someone attempts to rob or burglarize me while I'm present, I can and will use force up to and including lethal force to stop them. This is legal in some circumstances, not extrajudicial. In the cases where it is extrajudicial, it can often be moral. Police are a great feature of society, but a citizen has personal responsibility over his own life and property foremost. The police aren't always with you; you are.
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    It is in no way different, and that's the whole problem. If you condone extrajudicial killings/violence, you condone all of them, because your position is that people should be able to take the law into their own hand, using their own judgement, even if it's flawed judgement (how can you know your own judgement is flawed)? You can't both agree that violence without due process is acceptable, and then disagree with how someone applied their own set of morality to a situation that resulted in them using violence. It's either/or, because the alternative is for you to have a say in their violence, at which point you're just re-creating a criminal justice system.
    - blindmute 5y ago
      > Your position is that people should be able to take the law into their own hand, using their own judgement, even if it's flawed judgement Yes, and if the judgment turns out to be flawed, then punish them accordingly. There are many instances of laws where the legality depends on circumstances bounded by reasonable judgment, such as self defense. I am legally allowed to kill someone if I fear for my life in some circumstances. The judicial system then determines if my fear was justified. Likewise, defending your own property with violence is legal, depending on circumstances and judgments which are validated in court. The case you referenced was obviously poor judgment. Your original point is that property cannot be morally defended through violence. This is neither the actual law, nor does it make sense from any real world perspective.