3 ms·

They are are trying to weaken the societal obligation of not stealing by punting the obligation on equipment manufacturers to make things hard to steal. It is

They are are trying to weaken the societal obligation of not stealing by punting the obligation on equipment manufacturers to make things hard to steal. It is cowardly and weak to abuse the legal system to compensate for societal problems by shifting blame onto easy targets. I have no interest in entertaining that line of reasoning.

Dylan16807 3y ago
It's not punting to go after negligence. And saying the goal is to weaken obligations against stealing, not even a side effect? You're throwing up quite a strawman there. And a manufacturer is not an "easy target" at all. If suing a big manufacturer is easy in some circumstance, it means they screwed up badly.
- justrealist 3y ago
  It's shifting responsibility. And yes, it is an easy target, because the goal is to find someone to yell at; nobody cares about winning lawsuits. It's about DAs finding a scapegoat to yell at, to avoid the fact that they have failed to disincentivize crime. It's not negligence because nobody should be under any obligation to defend their property against theft. It's the job of the state to punish crime.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    > It's shifting responsibility. If you design a dispenser that dispenses at the wrong time, you have some responsibility. > And yes, it is an easy target, because the goal is to find someone to yell at; nobody cares about winning lawsuits. If you're not going to win, you lose even more money. Why would you file it? > It's about DAs finding a scapegoat to yell at, That has nothing to do with lawsuits. > to avoid the fact that they have failed to disincentivize crime. It's not possible to go after every little thing. > It's not negligence because nobody should be under any obligation to defend their property against theft. I'd better never have you watch my property, if you think there's no obligation at all to defend things. Leaving valuable items in the middle of the sidewalk is negligent, even though it's a crime to take it.
    - justrealist 3y ago
      Do you believe women bear responsibility as victims of sexual violence if they put themselves in unsafe circumstances?
      - c22 3y ago
        Should women choose to put themselves in unsafe circumstances just to prove a point about how they ought to be able to?
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        People are different from property. Jesus what are you doing. Also the correct analogy for the lawsuit would be leaving someone else to unsafe circumstances. Perhaps a vendor that sold the woman pepper spray that didn't spray. Would that vendor be blameless because a crime occurred and only the criminal gets blame? Edit: Though if you really want an in-depth answer to your question, I would say that just by being an autonomous human being you are self-protecting in a way that meets the bar. Your items can't do the same, so you need to apply protections to them if they're in a place with easy public access.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        [flagged]

Dylan16807 3y ago

It's not punting to go after negligence. And saying the goal is to weaken obligations against stealing, not even a side effect? You're throwing up quite a strawman there. And a manufacturer is not an "easy target" at all. If suing a big manufacturer is easy in some circumstance, it means they screwed up badly.

justrealist 3y ago
It's shifting responsibility. And yes, it is an easy target, because the goal is to find someone to yell at; nobody cares about winning lawsuits. It's about DAs finding a scapegoat to yell at, to avoid the fact that they have failed to disincentivize crime. It's not negligence because nobody should be under any obligation to defend their property against theft. It's the job of the state to punish crime.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > It's shifting responsibility. If you design a dispenser that dispenses at the wrong time, you have some responsibility. > And yes, it is an easy target, because the goal is to find someone to yell at; nobody cares about winning lawsuits. If you're not going to win, you lose even more money. Why would you file it? > It's about DAs finding a scapegoat to yell at, That has nothing to do with lawsuits. > to avoid the fact that they have failed to disincentivize crime. It's not possible to go after every little thing. > It's not negligence because nobody should be under any obligation to defend their property against theft. I'd better never have you watch my property, if you think there's no obligation at all to defend things. Leaving valuable items in the middle of the sidewalk is negligent, even though it's a crime to take it.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    Do you believe women bear responsibility as victims of sexual violence if they put themselves in unsafe circumstances?
    - c22 3y ago
      Should women choose to put themselves in unsafe circumstances just to prove a point about how they ought to be able to?
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      People are different from property. Jesus what are you doing. Also the correct analogy for the lawsuit would be leaving someone else to unsafe circumstances. Perhaps a vendor that sold the woman pepper spray that didn't spray. Would that vendor be blameless because a crime occurred and only the criminal gets blame? Edit: Though if you really want an in-depth answer to your question, I would say that just by being an autonomous human being you are self-protecting in a way that meets the bar. Your items can't do the same, so you need to apply protections to them if they're in a place with easy public access.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      [flagged]