5 ms·

Yes, sorry I should have been more clear about that in my initial post. I would not condone someone going out and explicitly seeking violence after the fact.

Epa095 3y ago
The thief has your box of savings and are walking away. You recognise the thief, and can give the police its name. You happen to have a gun. Are you morraly permitted to commit violence to stop the thief? And how does this violence compare to the violence you can commit to the vage thief?
- ultimafan 3y ago
  Too much of a hypothetical to give a real answer to that, imho. I do not think it is immoral to protect your savings or property if someone has gone to the lengths of violating your safety by breaking in to your home. If you know and recognize them, and you're familiar with them, you would probably know well enough to know that they are not a threat and didn't break in with the intention to hurt you. But all that goes out the window if you happen upon an unexpected stranger in your home in the spur of the moment. With a wage thief, it's not an action that could directly threaten you. You would be making the choice to go well out of your way to cause harm to them, it'd be premeditated violence. And I would hope no one would choose to do that.
- phil21 3y ago
  I am entitled to a citizens arrest of the suspect, with all the liability that implies for myself if I am wrong. If the subject refuses to comply, then enough physical violence to restrain them until police arrive or at least my property is returned is absolutely warranted. No more violence than this though, and it's a very subjective line. If I end up being wrong about it being my property, I am in some serious shit if I decide to go down this route. This whole meme that you can do whatever you want to my property and you can't do anything about it is just silly. It's not reality for most of humanity, and is a very small bubble in western history so far. I'm doing fine in life now so my bar for this is far higher. However at much more desperate times in my life, stealing the tools out of my truck would have been existential and I would have fought anyone I caught stealing them to the death if required. It's a huge amount of privilege to say property doesn't matter and can easily be replaced. I also have in the past showed up at thieves homes to retrieve my stolen property - luckily no violence was ever needed, and I had no plans to engage in it going into those situations. The vast majority of the time if you confront such a thief they will instantly give up because they are simply not used to any pushback whatsoever from victims (or anyone at all whatsoever these days). Was this likely a stupid personal decision for my own safety? Yep. But it was the only decision you can make if you actually care about society. We are seeing the results of too many people making the rational personal choice at the expense of the greater good today.
adastra22 3y ago
FYI your original post sounded like you were advocating shooting purse snatchers or shoplifters in the back as they ran away with the goods. Home invasion is quite a bit different from property theft.

Epa095 3y ago

The thief has your box of savings and are walking away. You recognise the thief, and can give the police its name. You happen to have a gun. Are you morraly permitted to commit violence to stop the thief? And how does this violence compare to the violence you can commit to the vage thief?

ultimafan 3y ago
Too much of a hypothetical to give a real answer to that, imho. I do not think it is immoral to protect your savings or property if someone has gone to the lengths of violating your safety by breaking in to your home. If you know and recognize them, and you're familiar with them, you would probably know well enough to know that they are not a threat and didn't break in with the intention to hurt you. But all that goes out the window if you happen upon an unexpected stranger in your home in the spur of the moment. With a wage thief, it's not an action that could directly threaten you. You would be making the choice to go well out of your way to cause harm to them, it'd be premeditated violence. And I would hope no one would choose to do that.
phil21 3y ago
I am entitled to a citizens arrest of the suspect, with all the liability that implies for myself if I am wrong. If the subject refuses to comply, then enough physical violence to restrain them until police arrive or at least my property is returned is absolutely warranted. No more violence than this though, and it's a very subjective line. If I end up being wrong about it being my property, I am in some serious shit if I decide to go down this route. This whole meme that you can do whatever you want to my property and you can't do anything about it is just silly. It's not reality for most of humanity, and is a very small bubble in western history so far. I'm doing fine in life now so my bar for this is far higher. However at much more desperate times in my life, stealing the tools out of my truck would have been existential and I would have fought anyone I caught stealing them to the death if required. It's a huge amount of privilege to say property doesn't matter and can easily be replaced. I also have in the past showed up at thieves homes to retrieve my stolen property - luckily no violence was ever needed, and I had no plans to engage in it going into those situations. The vast majority of the time if you confront such a thief they will instantly give up because they are simply not used to any pushback whatsoever from victims (or anyone at all whatsoever these days). Was this likely a stupid personal decision for my own safety? Yep. But it was the only decision you can make if you actually care about society. We are seeing the results of too many people making the rational personal choice at the expense of the greater good today.

adastra22 3y ago

FYI your original post sounded like you were advocating shooting purse snatchers or shoplifters in the back as they ran away with the goods. Home invasion is quite a bit different from property theft.