Family of armed robber outraged that store clerk shot and killed their brother in self-defense: 'Yes, he's robbing them — oh well!'

[Patooka]

a) Not what was said. The argument put forth was:

No mention of violence. The individual who argued this is anti-abortion because their stance is life is sacred.
b) This is definitely a thread where absurd goalpost shifting is strongly encouraged. Even doctors say so.

This story is of someone robbing a store. This thread links to another thread which has a story about a burglar.

Robbing a store. If the robber robs the store while there is someone in the store, and it is anything other than trying to be subtle and shoplifting, the robber is threatening the store employee. It is that threat that the employee responds to.

Burglary. If the burglar robs the home while there is someone in the home, then burglar is threatening the home owner. It is that threat that the home owner responds to.

If you think you can stand by and take pictures of your stuff while the burglar carts it off, you're nuts.

Again, that is not what Half-life said. And just so we are clear, I personally don't have a problem with someone getting shot at whilst robbing a store and imminent violence is apparent. All I am trying to ascertain is how the arguments the OP is making are rationalized by the ethics the poster allegedly has.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When a robber is found in commission of a robbery, whether it is someone holding up a convenience store or a burglar in a house, that criminal is giving evidence of a threat to life by virtue of the act the criminal is involved in. Killing that criminal is an act of self defense, not killing over property.

To expand upon this--"robbery" by definition involves either the use of force or the threat of the use of force.

Furthermore, there have been too many cases of robbers killing their victims because the victims didn't have enough loot.

 

[laughing dog]

When a robber is found in commission of a robbery, whether it is someone holding up a convenience store or a burglar in a house, that criminal is giving evidence of a threat to life by virtue of the act the criminal is involved in.

Nonsense.

Killing that criminal is an act of self defense, not killing over property.

Your conclusion is based on a nonsensical premise.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

When a robber is found in commission of a robbery, whether it is someone holding up a convenience store or a burglar in a house, that criminal is giving evidence of a threat to life by virtue of the act the criminal is involved in.

Nonsense.

Killing that criminal is an act of self defense, not killing over property.

Your conclusion is based on a nonsensical premise.

Here in Texas, if one breaks into a house with a weapon after dark, that burglar, robber, rapist or whatever is fair game pretty much. How such miscreants are treated may well depend on what state this all happens in.

 

[laughing dog]

Nonsense.
Your conclusion is based on a nonsensical premise.

Here in Texas, if one breaks into a house with a weapon after dark, that burglar, robber, rapist or whatever is fair game pretty much. How such miscreants are treated may well depend on what state this all happens in.

It does depend on the state. It may depend on whether the burglar is entering or leaving or whether he/she is armed - something the kneejerk “property trumps life” crowd.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

When a robber is found in commission of a robbery, whether it is someone holding up a convenience store or a burglar in a house, that criminal is giving evidence of a threat to life by virtue of the act the criminal is involved in.

Nonsense.

In your universe, person A robs person B by saying "pretty please". Meanwhile in the real word threats and violence are used. It is the violence or threat of violence that people respond to with sometimes deadly force. Not the property.

Killing that criminal is an act of self defense, not killing over property.

Your conclusion is based on a nonsensical premise.

You think resisting a criminal is a nonsensical premise. You also think defending your own life is defending property.

 

[laughing dog]

In your universe, person A robs person B by saying "pretty please". Meanwhile in the real word threats and violence are used. It is the violence or threat of violence that people respond to with sometimes deadly force. Not the property.

Killing that criminal is an act of self defense, not killing over property.

Your conclusion is based on a nonsensical premise.

You think resisting a criminal is a nonsensical premise. You also think defending your own life is defending property.

Your response relies on the sociopathic libertarian worldview, any threat to your property is necessarily a deadly threat to you.

Fortunately, in many parts of the civilized world, burglars and robbers are not automatically assumed to be threats to life. In those parts of the world, something that is foreign to those who value property over life is used- the rule of reason.

 

[WAB]

From the article, the clerk:

"I just had somebody try to attempt and rob me over here at Dollar General on Gettysburg. Came in with a firearm, threatened to take money out the drawer, pointed a gun at me and my staff members," the caller told dispatchers. "He pointed a gun at me, I had a firearm on me, I pulled my firearm and I shot him in self-defense."

Bold mine.

Seems clear-cut to me. There was not only his own life but the lives of others at risk. I'm not sure any real concern for the money in the drawer was a factor.

However, me, I would not have taken a kill shot, if I were a super-duper expert with a gun. But I'm not. Don't own one, never have, never will.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In your universe, person A robs person B by saying "pretty please". Meanwhile in the real word threats and violence are used. It is the violence or threat of violence that people respond to with sometimes deadly force. Not the property.



You think resisting a criminal is a nonsensical premise. You also think defending your own life is defending property.

Your response relies on the sociopathic libertarian worldview, any threat to your property is necessarily a deadly threat to you.

Fortunately, in many parts of the civilized world, burglars and robbers are not automatically assumed to be threats to life. In those parts of the world, something that is foreign to those who value property over life is used- the rule of reason.

Robbers are by definition a threat. Even if they have no weapon and it's just a strongarm robbery people sometimes die.

 

[bilby]

I suppose if I did not call the police and/or take photographs, you'd have a point.

I can understand why a sociopath would think property is more important than human life, but I cannot understand why a Christian would think so.

Even if you called the cops and didn't have enough time to take pictures, they could still steal stuff and be gone before the police arrive. Why do you think it's legal to kill someone if they're in your home? Because if it wasn't, you give the gangs the free reign to rob you.

In the civilised world, it ISN'T legal to kill someone if they are in your home. It's illegal to keep a firearm for the purpose of home or self defence; It's illegal to use excessive force against a person who enters your property, and even against a person who presents a clear threat to your person. While the use of lethal force may be justified in some cases, this is not something that will be assumed to be true by either police or courts. If you kill an intruder, you need to have a pretty solid case to present that explains why lesser force would not have sufficed to detain or expel the intruder.

That's the normal, standard, ordinary way the the law has operated in the civilised world for several centuries. And yet Europe, Canada, and Australasia are not, as you predict they must be, lawless wastelands under the control of marauding gangs of criminals.

This observation rather suggests that your hypothesis as presented here is a bit shit.

You should probably either try a lot harder; Or not at all. This whole "thinking things through" business isn't as easy as you appear to assume it to be; And if you can't do it effectively, you might be best off leaving it to those who can.

 

[Bronzeage]

I suppose if I did not call the police and/or take photographs, you'd have a point.

I can understand why a sociopath would think property is more important than human life, but I cannot understand why a Christian would think so.

Even if you called the cops and didn't have enough time to take pictures, they could still steal stuff and be gone before the police arrive. Why do you think it's legal to kill someone if they're in your home? Because if it wasn't, you give the gangs the free reign to rob you.

In the civilised world, it ISN'T legal to kill someone if they are in your home. It's illegal to keep a firearm for the purpose of home or self defence; It's illegal to use excessive force against a person who enters your property, and even against a person who presents a clear threat to your person. While the use of lethal force may be justified in some cases, this is not something that will be assumed to be true by either police or courts. If you kill an intruder, you need to have a pretty solid case to present that explains why lesser force would not have sufficed to detain or expel the intruder.

That's the normal, standard, ordinary way the the law has operated in the civilised world for several centuries. And yet Europe, Canada, and Australasia are not, as you predict they must be, lawless wastelands under the control of marauding gangs of criminals.

This observation rather suggests that your hypothesis as presented here is a bit shit.

You should probably either try a lot harder; Or not at all. This whole "thinking things through" business isn't as easy as you appear to assume it to be; And if you can't do it effectively, you might be best off leaving it to those who can.

I'm not going to argue that the United States is in the civilized world. There's too much evidence to the contrary. However, in the US, breaking and entering a dwelling where people sleep, is presumed to be a lethal threat and a resident can use lethal force without later having to proof that such a threat did exist in fact.

There is also quite a bit of evidence that we like to find reasons to shoot people. Starting with this simple common law "castle principle", we get stuff like "stand your ground" laws, which basically make it legal to start an altercation and then shoot the other person when it doesn't go as you expected. Fortunately, STG laws are not widely accepted and quite a few people found themselves in a lot of trouble, after shooting someone. Present case law suggests that a STG defense is more likely to succeed if you are the only surviving witness, and there's no video tape of the incident.

 

[bilby]

In the civilised world, it ISN'T legal to kill someone if they are in your home. It's illegal to keep a firearm for the purpose of home or self defence; It's illegal to use excessive force against a person who enters your property, and even against a person who presents a clear threat to your person. While the use of lethal force may be justified in some cases, this is not something that will be assumed to be true by either police or courts. If you kill an intruder, you need to have a pretty solid case to present that explains why lesser force would not have sufficed to detain or expel the intruder.

That's the normal, standard, ordinary way the the law has operated in the civilised world for several centuries. And yet Europe, Canada, and Australasia are not, as you predict they must be, lawless wastelands under the control of marauding gangs of criminals.

This observation rather suggests that your hypothesis as presented here is a bit shit.

You should probably either try a lot harder; Or not at all. This whole "thinking things through" business isn't as easy as you appear to assume it to be; And if you can't do it effectively, you might be best off leaving it to those who can.

I'm not going to argue that the United States is in the civilized world. There's too much evidence to the contrary. However For example, in the US, breaking and entering a dwelling where people sleep, is presumed to be a lethal threat and a resident can use lethal force without later having to proof that such a threat did exist in fact.

There is also quite a bit of evidence that we like to find reasons to shoot people. Starting with this simple common law "castle principle", we get stuff like "stand your ground" laws, which basically make it legal to start an altercation and then shoot the other person when it doesn't go as you expected. Fortunately, STG laws are not widely accepted and quite a few people found themselves in a lot of trouble, after shooting someone. Present case law suggests that a STG defense is more likely to succeed if you are the only surviving witness, and there's no video tape of the incident.

FTFY.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I suppose if I did not call the police and/or take photographs, you'd have a point.

I can understand why a sociopath would think property is more important than human life, but I cannot understand why a Christian would think so.

Even if you called the cops and didn't have enough time to take pictures, they could still steal stuff and be gone before the police arrive. Why do you think it's legal to kill someone if they're in your home? Because if it wasn't, you give the gangs the free reign to rob you.

In the civilised world, it ISN'T legal to kill someone if they are in your home. It's illegal to keep a firearm for the purpose of home or self defence; It's illegal to use excessive force against a person who enters your property, and even against a person who presents a clear threat to your person. While the use of lethal force may be justified in some cases, this is not something that will be assumed to be true by either police or courts. If you kill an intruder, you need to have a pretty solid case to present that explains why lesser force would not have sufficed to detain or expel the intruder.

That's the normal, standard, ordinary way the the law has operated in the civilised world for several centuries. And yet Europe, Canada, and Australasia are not, as you predict they must be, lawless wastelands under the control of marauding gangs of criminals.

This observation rather suggests that your hypothesis as presented here is a bit shit.

You should probably either try a lot harder; Or not at all. This whole "thinking things through" business isn't as easy as you appear to assume it to be; And if you can't do it effectively, you might be best off leaving it to those who can.

You're looking at the legacy of the British system where even a self-defense killing is killing the king's serf. Much of the world doesn't have such ridiculous notions on self-defense. (Now, if you want **really** unreasonable, consider Iran. A woman who accidentally kills a man in clear self defense is guilty of murder.)

As for lesser force--the US also expects that, but in a reasonable fashion: You're only expected to use a lesser option if you can do so without risk. Since that's a threshold that's hard to reach it's rarely relevant. (After all, even if the guy is a lot smaller than you and his hands are empty doesn't mean he isn't going to pull a knife if you grab him.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is also quite a bit of evidence that we like to find reasons to shoot people. Starting with this simple common law "castle principle", we get stuff like "stand your ground" laws, which basically make it legal to start an altercation and then shoot the other person when it doesn't go as you expected. Fortunately, STG laws are not widely accepted and quite a few people found themselves in a lot of trouble, after shooting someone. Present case law suggests that a STG defense is more likely to succeed if you are the only surviving witness, and there's no video tape of the incident.

It's leftist garbage like this that causes the trouble with SYG laws. People believe you and shoot when they aren't allowed to so they get in trouble.

SYG says two things:

1) You don't have to retreat even if that's a safe option. This isn't that big a deal, the number of times you know retreat to be safe is low.

2) It prevents the reflexive arrest of someone claiming self defense. Note that it does not keep them from being later charged, it simply avoids arrest first, ask questions later.

I think what's confusing you is if you start an incident and then leave and the guy comes after you that you are allowed to defend yourself.

 

[bilby]

In the civilised world, it ISN'T legal to kill someone if they are in your home. It's illegal to keep a firearm for the purpose of home or self defence; It's illegal to use excessive force against a person who enters your property, and even against a person who presents a clear threat to your person. While the use of lethal force may be justified in some cases, this is not something that will be assumed to be true by either police or courts. If you kill an intruder, you need to have a pretty solid case to present that explains why lesser force would not have sufficed to detain or expel the intruder.

That's the normal, standard, ordinary way the the law has operated in the civilised world for several centuries. And yet Europe, Canada, and Australasia are not, as you predict they must be, lawless wastelands under the control of marauding gangs of criminals.

This observation rather suggests that your hypothesis as presented here is a bit shit.

You should probably either try a lot harder; Or not at all. This whole "thinking things through" business isn't as easy as you appear to assume it to be; And if you can't do it effectively, you might be best off leaving it to those who can.

You're looking at the legacy of the British system where even a self-defense killing is killing the king's serf.

No such system has ever existed in Britain, and if it had it would still fail to explain the German, French, and Italian laws (and many, many others).

This nonsensical claim sounds like the kind of thing an American gun-nut might invent, secure in the knowledge that his audience, like himself, knows jack-shit about British law and history, but are vehemently republican (with a small "r") and so would be hesitant to contradict him.

Much of the world doesn't have such ridiculous notions on self-defense. (Now, if you want **really** unreasonable, consider Iran. A woman who accidentally kills a man in clear self defense is guilty of murder.)

As for lesser force--the US also expects that, but in a reasonable fashion: You're only expected to use a lesser option if you can do so without risk. Since that's a threshold that's hard to reach it's rarely relevant. (After all, even if the guy is a lot smaller than you and his hands are empty doesn't mean he isn't going to pull a knife if you grab him.)

Your country is a fucking basket case. Your second amendment has been twisted into insanity, and has rotted your brains.

 

[Patooka]

Your country is a fucking basket case. Your second amendment has been twisted into insanity, and has rotted your brains.

Despite the fact it has the phrase "well regulated" in it, almost at the very start even.

 

[ruby sparks]

That's the normal, standard, ordinary way the the law has operated in the civilised world for several centuries. And yet Europe, Canada, and Australasia are not, as you predict they must be, lawless wastelands under the control of marauding gangs of criminals.

Indeed. America is the exception.

 

[ruby sparks]

The problem here is that there aren't enough guns in the USA. Americans should have more guns.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65_LXgWTSj8[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Keith&Co.]

The problem here is that there aren't enough guns in the USA. Americans should have more guns.

No, no, there are plenty of guns. But not everyone has one.
The problem is distribution.
We should be taking guns from the paranoid/vindictive and giving them to the defenseless.

 

[laughing dog]

In your universe, person A robs person B by saying "pretty please". Meanwhile in the real word threats and violence are used. It is the violence or threat of violence that people respond to with sometimes deadly force. Not the property.



You think resisting a criminal is a nonsensical premise. You also think defending your own life is defending property.

Your response relies on the sociopathic libertarian worldview, any threat to your property is necessarily a deadly threat to you.

Fortunately, in many parts of the civilized world, burglars and robbers are not automatically assumed to be threats to life. In those parts of the world, something that is foreign to those who value property over life is used- the rule of reason.

Robbers are by definition a threat. Even if they have no weapon and it's just a strongarm robbery people sometimes die.

BS.