4 ms·

There was no evidence of wrongdoing on his part. Even if they had evidence that he stole something, a private militia shouldn't be called to enforce this, but a

by carlmr 3y ago

There was no evidence of wrongdoing on his part. Even if they had evidence that he stole something, a private militia shouldn't be called to enforce this, but a police investigation. Somebody at WotC should be held liable for this. Are there no laws in America against this?

colpabar 3y ago
[flagged]
phpisthebest 3y ago
Yes, but it requires people to know their legal rights, and engage with them Had the police been called most likely the police would have said "this is a civil matter" not done nothing, at most taken a report for a detective to investigate the alleged theft. Also had the homeowner just said "leave my property", and then the police called, the private militia would then be trespassing and the police would remove them. Here however the homeowner basically consented to the actions, the search, and the seizure while under threat of additional legal action they still consented. Know your rights.
- mindslight 3y ago
  That is a good description of what is, but not what ought to be. It's very easy to discuss this after the fact, detached from the situation with a calm head, and be confident that this victim would have been legally in the clear. But rational analysis is sorely absent when an armed gang shows up at your door demanding something and threatening more violence if you don't comply. The legal dynamic in the US has basically evolved to justify shakedown behavior, where it's technically possible to "stand up" for your rights if you know the exact song and dance at the right time, but practically most people don't and can't. Whereas what really needs to happen is for various aggressor parties to be legally restrained from using coercion to begin with. And that's not even touching the dynamic where various types of aggressors end up shooting first despite being in the wrong, cry "self defense", and then successfully avoid getting charged with second degree murder.
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    >>But rational analysis is sorely absent when an armed gang shows up at your door demanding something and threatening more violence if you don't comply. That is why my standing policy is to never answer the door unless I am expecting someone. Even for package delivery I have a table for them to leave the package on. >>Whereas what really needs to happen is for various aggressor parties to be legally restrained from using coercion to begin with. Examples of laws where this happens would be great. >>And that's not even touching the dynamic where various types of aggressors end up shooting first despite being in the wrong, cry "self defense", and then successfully avoid getting charged with second degree murder. Examples please.
    - mindslight 3y ago
      > That is why my standing policy is to never answer the door unless Sure. "Standing policy" implies that you've spent a bunch of time thinking it out, presumably thinking about the corner cases (police are there and they aren't leaving), and also concluding that you're willing to forgo answering the door in times it would have been beneficial. That's all work and preparation that you're taking for granted, that frankly most people don't have time for. It would be akin to me railing against people for using GMail, as I run my own mail server. The world is too big to micromanage everything. If physical security is one of your hobbies that is fantastic. But it's wrong to assert that it's universal. > Examples of laws where this happens would be great. The point is that we're sorely lacking those laws, or at least enforcement of them. This particular situation should result in charges of armed robbery, but I doubt it will. But even my saying that is wrong, as it buys into this high stakes paradigm. Rather, how about a simple misdemeanor law that prohibits the bringing firearms onto someone else's residential real estate, unless a sign is posted that explicitly allowed it? > Examples please I feel bad for coming back to this example so often, but I don't stay up on the latest unjustified murder of the week and its details are beyond reproach - Breonna Taylor. That was perpetrated by "police" rather than corporate thugs, but it's exactly the dynamic of someone acting exactly as the legal system implies they should to preserve their rights, ending up with their girlfriend being murdered, and still no justice being served.
Reubachi 3y ago
why would this necessitate a police investigation? Even greater waste of time, now affecting the taxpayer. Guy bought item, company sent item. That's it. Company can ask for it back citing an internal misrelease, or not. Guy can ignore, or not. No breach, theft at all. Quite Literally a non story I feel silly even commenting about. Why did OP share this a month later? Not HN material.

by carlmr 3y ago

colpabar 3y ago

[flagged]

phpisthebest 3y ago

Yes, but it requires people to know their legal rights, and engage with them Had the police been called most likely the police would have said "this is a civil matter" not done nothing, at most taken a report for a detective to investigate the alleged theft. Also had the homeowner just said "leave my property", and then the police called, the private militia would then be trespassing and the police would remove them. Here however the homeowner basically consented to the actions, the search, and the seizure while under threat of additional legal action they still consented. Know your rights.

mindslight 3y ago
That is a good description of what is, but not what ought to be. It's very easy to discuss this after the fact, detached from the situation with a calm head, and be confident that this victim would have been legally in the clear. But rational analysis is sorely absent when an armed gang shows up at your door demanding something and threatening more violence if you don't comply. The legal dynamic in the US has basically evolved to justify shakedown behavior, where it's technically possible to "stand up" for your rights if you know the exact song and dance at the right time, but practically most people don't and can't. Whereas what really needs to happen is for various aggressor parties to be legally restrained from using coercion to begin with. And that's not even touching the dynamic where various types of aggressors end up shooting first despite being in the wrong, cry "self defense", and then successfully avoid getting charged with second degree murder.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  >>But rational analysis is sorely absent when an armed gang shows up at your door demanding something and threatening more violence if you don't comply. That is why my standing policy is to never answer the door unless I am expecting someone. Even for package delivery I have a table for them to leave the package on. >>Whereas what really needs to happen is for various aggressor parties to be legally restrained from using coercion to begin with. Examples of laws where this happens would be great. >>And that's not even touching the dynamic where various types of aggressors end up shooting first despite being in the wrong, cry "self defense", and then successfully avoid getting charged with second degree murder. Examples please.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    > That is why my standing policy is to never answer the door unless Sure. "Standing policy" implies that you've spent a bunch of time thinking it out, presumably thinking about the corner cases (police are there and they aren't leaving), and also concluding that you're willing to forgo answering the door in times it would have been beneficial. That's all work and preparation that you're taking for granted, that frankly most people don't have time for. It would be akin to me railing against people for using GMail, as I run my own mail server. The world is too big to micromanage everything. If physical security is one of your hobbies that is fantastic. But it's wrong to assert that it's universal. > Examples of laws where this happens would be great. The point is that we're sorely lacking those laws, or at least enforcement of them. This particular situation should result in charges of armed robbery, but I doubt it will. But even my saying that is wrong, as it buys into this high stakes paradigm. Rather, how about a simple misdemeanor law that prohibits the bringing firearms onto someone else's residential real estate, unless a sign is posted that explicitly allowed it? > Examples please I feel bad for coming back to this example so often, but I don't stay up on the latest unjustified murder of the week and its details are beyond reproach - Breonna Taylor. That was perpetrated by "police" rather than corporate thugs, but it's exactly the dynamic of someone acting exactly as the legal system implies they should to preserve their rights, ending up with their girlfriend being murdered, and still no justice being served.

Reubachi 3y ago

why would this necessitate a police investigation? Even greater waste of time, now affecting the taxpayer. Guy bought item, company sent item. That's it. Company can ask for it back citing an internal misrelease, or not. Guy can ignore, or not. No breach, theft at all. Quite Literally a non story I feel silly even commenting about. Why did OP share this a month later? Not HN material.