OT: Moral of the story….Don’t chase a shoplifter on your breaktime

[scaredyclassic]

re: the criminal getting shot on his way out of the store case.
The issue isn’t really about “coddling criminals”. It’s about what sort of society you want to live in and whether you approve of vigilante justice.

Would you be all right with the clerk finding the robber and shooting him in the street a few days later? if you think that’s a good idea, that it’s open season on anyone who commits any crime, then you’d better ponder where we end up if we allow people to shoot each other because they’ve been wronged or perceive themselves to have been wronged.

we have laws regarding the use of self-defense, varying state by state, and it’s impossible to tell whether or not the clerk was within the bounds of the law from a simple news article. But it certainly sounds risky to shoot a rober armed with a knife on the way out the door of a store, since the robbery appears to be over and the robber only has a knife. I don’t know what the answer is, but to say, “line em up, kill ema ll, give them a beating” is probably not going to end well on a societal level.

because ultimately this isn’t just about criminals and criminal rights. it’s about how we separate civilized from uncivilized behavior. And if you feel really good about someone getting their “just desserts”, if a beating or a shooting or torture sounds like a good resolution, then there is a very real risk that what you are salivating over is the slippery slope into vigilianteism.

[CA renter]

[quote=scaredycat]re: the criminal getting shot on his way out of the store case.
The issue isn’t really about “coddling criminals”. It’s about what sort of society you want to live in and whether you approve of vigilante justice.

Would you be all right with the clerk finding the robber and shooting him in the street a few days later? if you think that’s a good idea, that it’s open season on anyone who commits any crime, then you’d better ponder where we end up if we allow people to shoot each other because they’ve been wronged or perceive themselves to have been wronged.

we have laws regarding the use of self-defense, varying state by state, and it’s impossible to tell whether or not the clerk was within the bounds of the law from a simple news article. But it certainly sounds risky to shoot a rober armed with a knife on the way out the door of a store, since the robbery appears to be over and the robber only has a knife. I don’t know what the answer is, but to say, “line em up, kill ema ll, give them a beating” is probably not going to end well on a societal level.

because ultimately this isn’t just about criminals and criminal rights. it’s about how we separate civilized from uncivilized behavior. And if you feel really good about someone getting their “just desserts”, if a beating or a shooting or torture sounds like a good resolution, then there is a very real risk that what you are salivating over is the slippery slope into vigilianteism.[/quote]

If vigilante justice means tht decent, law-abiding citizens are protected instead of criminals, I’m all for it.

If you’ve ever been a victim of a crime (especially a violent crime, as I have), you would be very much in favor of vigilantism, IMHO.

Violent criminals’ rights should **never** trump the rights of law-abiding citizens to live in a safe, peaceful environment.

[CA renter]

[quote=scaredycat]re: the criminal getting shot on his way out of the store case.
The issue isn’t really about “coddling criminals”. It’s about what sort of society you want to live in and whether you approve of vigilante justice.

Would you be all right with the clerk finding the robber and shooting him in the street a few days later? if you think that’s a good idea, that it’s open season on anyone who commits any crime, then you’d better ponder where we end up if we allow people to shoot each other because they’ve been wronged or perceive themselves to have been wronged.

we have laws regarding the use of self-defense, varying state by state, and it’s impossible to tell whether or not the clerk was within the bounds of the law from a simple news article. But it certainly sounds risky to shoot a rober armed with a knife on the way out the door of a store, since the robbery appears to be over and the robber only has a knife. I don’t know what the answer is, but to say, “line em up, kill ema ll, give them a beating” is probably not going to end well on a societal level.

because ultimately this isn’t just about criminals and criminal rights. it’s about how we separate civilized from uncivilized behavior. And if you feel really good about someone getting their “just desserts”, if a beating or a shooting or torture sounds like a good resolution, then there is a very real risk that what you are salivating over is the slippery slope into vigilianteism.[/quote]

If vigilante justice means tht decent, law-abiding citizens are protected instead of criminals, I’m all for it.

If you’ve ever been a victim of a crime (especially a violent crime, as I have), you would be very much in favor of vigilantism, IMHO.

Violent criminals’ rights should **never** trump the rights of law-abiding citizens to live in a safe, peaceful environment.

[CA renter]

[quote=scaredycat]re: the criminal getting shot on his way out of the store case.
The issue isn’t really about “coddling criminals”. It’s about what sort of society you want to live in and whether you approve of vigilante justice.

Would you be all right with the clerk finding the robber and shooting him in the street a few days later? if you think that’s a good idea, that it’s open season on anyone who commits any crime, then you’d better ponder where we end up if we allow people to shoot each other because they’ve been wronged or perceive themselves to have been wronged.

we have laws regarding the use of self-defense, varying state by state, and it’s impossible to tell whether or not the clerk was within the bounds of the law from a simple news article. But it certainly sounds risky to shoot a rober armed with a knife on the way out the door of a store, since the robbery appears to be over and the robber only has a knife. I don’t know what the answer is, but to say, “line em up, kill ema ll, give them a beating” is probably not going to end well on a societal level.

because ultimately this isn’t just about criminals and criminal rights. it’s about how we separate civilized from uncivilized behavior. And if you feel really good about someone getting their “just desserts”, if a beating or a shooting or torture sounds like a good resolution, then there is a very real risk that what you are salivating over is the slippery slope into vigilianteism.[/quote]

If vigilante justice means tht decent, law-abiding citizens are protected instead of criminals, I’m all for it.

If you’ve ever been a victim of a crime (especially a violent crime, as I have), you would be very much in favor of vigilantism, IMHO.

Violent criminals’ rights should **never** trump the rights of law-abiding citizens to live in a safe, peaceful environment.

[CA renter]

[quote=scaredycat]re: the criminal getting shot on his way out of the store case.
The issue isn’t really about “coddling criminals”. It’s about what sort of society you want to live in and whether you approve of vigilante justice.

Would you be all right with the clerk finding the robber and shooting him in the street a few days later? if you think that’s a good idea, that it’s open season on anyone who commits any crime, then you’d better ponder where we end up if we allow people to shoot each other because they’ve been wronged or perceive themselves to have been wronged.

we have laws regarding the use of self-defense, varying state by state, and it’s impossible to tell whether or not the clerk was within the bounds of the law from a simple news article. But it certainly sounds risky to shoot a rober armed with a knife on the way out the door of a store, since the robbery appears to be over and the robber only has a knife. I don’t know what the answer is, but to say, “line em up, kill ema ll, give them a beating” is probably not going to end well on a societal level.

because ultimately this isn’t just about criminals and criminal rights. it’s about how we separate civilized from uncivilized behavior. And if you feel really good about someone getting their “just desserts”, if a beating or a shooting or torture sounds like a good resolution, then there is a very real risk that what you are salivating over is the slippery slope into vigilianteism.[/quote]

If vigilante justice means tht decent, law-abiding citizens are protected instead of criminals, I’m all for it.

If you’ve ever been a victim of a crime (especially a violent crime, as I have), you would be very much in favor of vigilantism, IMHO.

Violent criminals’ rights should **never** trump the rights of law-abiding citizens to live in a safe, peaceful environment.

[CA renter]

[quote=scaredycat]re: the criminal getting shot on his way out of the store case.
The issue isn’t really about “coddling criminals”. It’s about what sort of society you want to live in and whether you approve of vigilante justice.

Would you be all right with the clerk finding the robber and shooting him in the street a few days later? if you think that’s a good idea, that it’s open season on anyone who commits any crime, then you’d better ponder where we end up if we allow people to shoot each other because they’ve been wronged or perceive themselves to have been wronged.

we have laws regarding the use of self-defense, varying state by state, and it’s impossible to tell whether or not the clerk was within the bounds of the law from a simple news article. But it certainly sounds risky to shoot a rober armed with a knife on the way out the door of a store, since the robbery appears to be over and the robber only has a knife. I don’t know what the answer is, but to say, “line em up, kill ema ll, give them a beating” is probably not going to end well on a societal level.

because ultimately this isn’t just about criminals and criminal rights. it’s about how we separate civilized from uncivilized behavior. And if you feel really good about someone getting their “just desserts”, if a beating or a shooting or torture sounds like a good resolution, then there is a very real risk that what you are salivating over is the slippery slope into vigilianteism.[/quote]

If vigilante justice means tht decent, law-abiding citizens are protected instead of criminals, I’m all for it.

If you’ve ever been a victim of a crime (especially a violent crime, as I have), you would be very much in favor of vigilantism, IMHO.

Violent criminals’ rights should **never** trump the rights of law-abiding citizens to live in a safe, peaceful environment.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote]i guess the problem is if the shoplifter had gotten hurt or killed–or more likely, an innocent bystander had been toppled — [/quote]

I think the issue here is not that the employer worries that the shoplifter might get hurt. And no one is interested in cuddling criminals either. The employer’s concern is that the employee might get hurt while chasing the thief. This is the store’s worst case scenario and nightmare: that the thief pulls a gun and kills/badly hurts the clerk chasing him.

Is the store that concerned about its clerks safety? Yes, but more importantly, the store doesn’t want to be sued by the clerk’s widow.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote]i guess the problem is if the shoplifter had gotten hurt or killed–or more likely, an innocent bystander had been toppled — [/quote]

I think the issue here is not that the employer worries that the shoplifter might get hurt. And no one is interested in cuddling criminals either. The employer’s concern is that the employee might get hurt while chasing the thief. This is the store’s worst case scenario and nightmare: that the thief pulls a gun and kills/badly hurts the clerk chasing him.

Is the store that concerned about its clerks safety? Yes, but more importantly, the store doesn’t want to be sued by the clerk’s widow.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote]i guess the problem is if the shoplifter had gotten hurt or killed–or more likely, an innocent bystander had been toppled — [/quote]

I think the issue here is not that the employer worries that the shoplifter might get hurt. And no one is interested in cuddling criminals either. The employer’s concern is that the employee might get hurt while chasing the thief. This is the store’s worst case scenario and nightmare: that the thief pulls a gun and kills/badly hurts the clerk chasing him.

Is the store that concerned about its clerks safety? Yes, but more importantly, the store doesn’t want to be sued by the clerk’s widow.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote]i guess the problem is if the shoplifter had gotten hurt or killed–or more likely, an innocent bystander had been toppled — [/quote]

I think the issue here is not that the employer worries that the shoplifter might get hurt. And no one is interested in cuddling criminals either. The employer’s concern is that the employee might get hurt while chasing the thief. This is the store’s worst case scenario and nightmare: that the thief pulls a gun and kills/badly hurts the clerk chasing him.

Is the store that concerned about its clerks safety? Yes, but more importantly, the store doesn’t want to be sued by the clerk’s widow.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote]i guess the problem is if the shoplifter had gotten hurt or killed–or more likely, an innocent bystander had been toppled — [/quote]

I think the issue here is not that the employer worries that the shoplifter might get hurt. And no one is interested in cuddling criminals either. The employer’s concern is that the employee might get hurt while chasing the thief. This is the store’s worst case scenario and nightmare: that the thief pulls a gun and kills/badly hurts the clerk chasing him.

Is the store that concerned about its clerks safety? Yes, but more importantly, the store doesn’t want to be sued by the clerk’s widow.

[scaredyclassic]

how does shooting fleeing shoplifters make for a safe and peacfeul environment? Also, if we start as a society shooting all robbers as they flee, wouldn’t that incentivize robbers to shoot first?

[scaredyclassic]

how does shooting fleeing shoplifters make for a safe and peacfeul environment? Also, if we start as a society shooting all robbers as they flee, wouldn’t that incentivize robbers to shoot first?

[scaredyclassic]

how does shooting fleeing shoplifters make for a safe and peacfeul environment? Also, if we start as a society shooting all robbers as they flee, wouldn’t that incentivize robbers to shoot first?

[scaredyclassic]

how does shooting fleeing shoplifters make for a safe and peacfeul environment? Also, if we start as a society shooting all robbers as they flee, wouldn’t that incentivize robbers to shoot first?

[Author]

Posts