3 ms·

Well, if law enforcement proves useless, give shopowners protection for handling it themselves. Our current attitude of just deal with it/ignore it is not only

Well, if law enforcement proves useless, give shopowners protection for handling it themselves. Our current attitude of just deal with it/ignore it is not only insanity, it's infuriating.

analog31 4y ago
In a sense they are. The article talks about putting deodorant behind a locked panel. I'm hoping you're not talking about something like an physical confrontation, since that would strike me as dangerous and unmanageable. That's the last thing I'd want to expose employees and customers to.
jakelazaroff 4y ago
Assuming you mean allowing them to use violence against shoplifters, I’m curious how far you think we should take this. Should we allow employees to use violent force to recover stolen wages from their employers? After all, orders of magnitude more is stolen via wage theft than shoplifting.
- BeFlatXIII 4y ago
  Yes. Call it Plan Romanov.
- silisili 4y ago
  Whataboutism aside, in a more just world, law enforcement and the judicial system handle things so townspeople don't have to. And that's a great thing. But what do you do when those systems stop doing anything?
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    It’s not whataboutism. You’re proposing a change to society, and I’m asking you exactly what that change would look like.
    - silisili 4y ago
      Zero liability or recourse for injuries sustained by reasonable force during the commission of a provable crime.
      - jakelazaroff 4y ago
        So again, if let’s say a waiter assaults their manager who isn’t covering the difference between their tips and minimum wage, that would be allowed? What if I slash the tires of an illegally parked car with an expired police placard?
        akiselev 4y ago
        When the GP says “reasonable force,” that “reasonable” is doing all the heavy lifting. It’s whatever he considers reasonable. Let’s also ignore that “provable” is decided by the courts which these vigilantes are meant to bypass. Rules for thee but not for me.
        JamesianP 4y ago
        Doesn't everyone use words to mean what they want to mean by the words?? I seriously though your post was a defense at first. Why would their rule not protect you from liability also? If it's legal it isn't vigilantism. Isn't it the law in some states that you are allowed to use force to prevent theft? I assume that's what they meant. Yes it has its drawbacks but I think the current pacifist course has us headed for 24/7 surveillance.
        lupire 4y ago
        OK so we have something like this: Stand Your Ground laws. A bunch of states passed then recently and saw a large increase in shooting deaths that legally weren't proven to be either self-defense or murder, becuause the witness is dead. Now what?
        4y ago

Well, if law enforcement proves useless, give shopowners protection for handling it themselves. Our current attitude of just deal with it/ignore it is not only insanity, it's infuriating.

analog31 4y ago

In a sense they are. The article talks about putting deodorant behind a locked panel. I'm hoping you're not talking about something like an physical confrontation, since that would strike me as dangerous and unmanageable. That's the last thing I'd want to expose employees and customers to.

jakelazaroff 4y ago

Assuming you mean allowing them to use violence against shoplifters, I’m curious how far you think we should take this. Should we allow employees to use violent force to recover stolen wages from their employers? After all, orders of magnitude more is stolen via wage theft than shoplifting.

BeFlatXIII 4y ago
Yes. Call it Plan Romanov.
silisili 4y ago
Whataboutism aside, in a more just world, law enforcement and the judicial system handle things so townspeople don't have to. And that's a great thing. But what do you do when those systems stop doing anything?
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  It’s not whataboutism. You’re proposing a change to society, and I’m asking you exactly what that change would look like.
  - silisili 4y ago
    Zero liability or recourse for injuries sustained by reasonable force during the commission of a provable crime.
    - jakelazaroff 4y ago
      So again, if let’s say a waiter assaults their manager who isn’t covering the difference between their tips and minimum wage, that would be allowed? What if I slash the tires of an illegally parked car with an expired police placard?
      - akiselev 4y ago
        When the GP says “reasonable force,” that “reasonable” is doing all the heavy lifting. It’s whatever he considers reasonable. Let’s also ignore that “provable” is decided by the courts which these vigilantes are meant to bypass. Rules for thee but not for me.
        JamesianP 4y ago
        Doesn't everyone use words to mean what they want to mean by the words?? I seriously though your post was a defense at first. Why would their rule not protect you from liability also? If it's legal it isn't vigilantism. Isn't it the law in some states that you are allowed to use force to prevent theft? I assume that's what they meant. Yes it has its drawbacks but I think the current pacifist course has us headed for 24/7 surveillance.
        lupire 4y ago
        OK so we have something like this: Stand Your Ground laws. A bunch of states passed then recently and saw a large increase in shooting deaths that legally weren't proven to be either self-defense or murder, becuause the witness is dead. Now what?
        4y ago