# How he gonna get his money?

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Homeowner Shoots, Kills Teen Burglary Suspect
Relatives of a 17-year-old are angry the teenager was shot and killed by a homeowner who police say was protecting her property.
The sister of the teen who died identified him as Trevon Johnson. She said he was a student at D. A. Dorsey Technical College.
“I don’t care if she have her gun license or any of that. That is way beyond the law… way beyond,” said Johnson’s cousin Nautika Harris. “He was not supposed to die like this. He had a future ahead of him. Trevon had goals… he was a funny guy, very big on education, loved learning.”
On Thursday, police say Johnson burglarized a home south of 79th Street near I-95 — just blocks away from where he lives.
[...]
“You have to look at it from every child’s point of view that was raised in the hood,” said Harris. “You have to understand… how he gonna get his money to have clothes to go to school? You have to look at it from his point-of-view.”

How he gonna get his money? I don't know, maybe get a job?

For the record, I do not know whether the shooting is justified or not. It certainly is not clear cut but what is clear is that "but for" the burglary he would not have been shot.
But the reason I posted this is this casual justification of burglary by the cousin. It is a sign of a deep dysfunction in the culture.

P.S.: Being a Trevon from Florida is a dangerous proposition ...

#### Tom Sawyer

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Well, regardless of anything else, if you shoot someone who's climbing out of a window because he's leaving and going away from you, it means that you weren't in any danger and that's just straight up murder.

Since this murder happened during the commission of a felony, Johnson is guilty of it as well.

#### Nice Squirrel

##### Contributor
So Trayvon Martin had broken into a house now?

#### funinspace

##### Don't Panic
The Mummy Returns?

#### KeepTalking

##### Code Monkey
Well, regardless of anything else, if you shoot someone who's climbing out of a window because he's leaving and going away from you, it means that you weren't in any danger and that's just straight up murder.

While that is true, there does seem to be some ambiguity with regard to whether or not he was leaving as he was shot. The article does say that he was climbing out of the window, and leaving the house, but at that point it notes that there was a confrontation before he was shot.

If he was confronted by the home owner as he left, and he decided to re-enter the house during the confrontation, then the home owner was in danger, and the shooting is not murder.

#### AthenaAwakened

##### Contributor
So Trayvon Martin had broken into a house now?

It doth appear so, or at least it doth to one person here.

#### Tom Sawyer

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Well, regardless of anything else, if you shoot someone who's climbing out of a window because he's leaving and going away from you, it means that you weren't in any danger and that's just straight up murder.

While that is true, there does seem to be some ambiguity with regard to whether or not he was leaving as he was shot. The article does say that he was climbing out of the window, and leaving the house, but at that point it notes that there was a confrontation before he was shot.

If he was confronted by the home owner as he left, and he decided to re-enter the house during the confrontation, then the home owner was in danger, and the shooting is not murder.

Fair point. I guess something like that would need to wait on the investigation before a determination could be made. Something along the lines like if he was shot in the front inside the house, it would be self-defence. If he was shot in the back while still in the window, it would be murder.

Since Florida has the death penalty for felony murder, she should be executed.

#### J842P

##### Veteran Member
While that is true, there does seem to be some ambiguity with regard to whether or not he was leaving as he was shot. The article does say that he was climbing out of the window, and leaving the house, but at that point it notes that there was a confrontation before he was shot.

If he was confronted by the home owner as he left, and he decided to re-enter the house during the confrontation, then the home owner was in danger, and the shooting is not murder.

Fair point. I guess something like that would need to wait on the investigation before a determination could be made. Something along the lines like if he was shot in the front inside the house, it would be self-defence. If he was shot in the back while still in the window, it would be murder.

Since Florida has the death penalty for felony murder, she should be executed.

How was she party to the felony?

#### prideandfall

##### Veteran Member
How was she party to the felony?
the thing about this whole scenario that i find ridiculous is that in the american pop-cultural sensibility things like cutting off a person's hand for stealing a loaf of bread is seen as this barbaric savage abomination, but straight up killing someone for stealing a TV is seen as perfectly acceptable by some people.

i don't give a shit if it's her house or if there even was a confrontation, either human life has some kind of inherent value and snuffing it out over a TV is completely fucked up, or human life doesn't have any inherent value and why don't you people shut the mother fuck up about abortion... because it's always the same kind of assfuck douchenozzles who scream that abortion is murder who then say "oh well he was on her property, so he deserved to die"

##### Veteran Member
the thing about this whole scenario that i find ridiculous is that in the american pop-cultural sensibility things like cutting off a person's hand for stealing a loaf of bread is seen as this barbaric savage abomination,

I'm sure many Americans would be ok with that, were it to become legal to do so.

Think about it, our leading Republican Presidential candidate thinks its ok to kill the families of terrorists and wants to bring back waterboarding and more. He's the *leading* candidate.

#### Tom Sawyer

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Fair point. I guess something like that would need to wait on the investigation before a determination could be made. Something along the lines like if he was shot in the front inside the house, it would be self-defence. If he was shot in the back while still in the window, it would be murder.

Since Florida has the death penalty for felony murder, she should be executed.

How was she party to the felony?

Ok, you're right. Only the people committing the felony are covered by this rule, it's not just that a murder happens during the felony. My mistake. This is just regular murder.

#### J842P

##### Veteran Member
How was she party to the felony?

Ok, you're right. Only the people committing the felony are covered by this rule, it's not just that a murder happens during the felony. My mistake. This is just regular murder.
Yeah. I think the whole point of felony murder, which I'm not sure I buy into, is that if you commit a murder in the commission of a bank robbery, for example, that's worse than just shooting someone randomly on the street.

#### fromderinside

##### Mazzie Daius
Ok, you're right. Only the people committing the felony are covered by this rule, it's not just that a murder happens during the felony. My mistake. This is just regular murder.

It depends. Was the confrontation the guy exiting making eye contact with the lady with the gun or did he step back in to 'discuss' things.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
When there are more people than jobs, 'maybe get a job?' is not an option available to all, so suggesting it as a solution is just silly. Even if this individual managed to get a job, there will be plenty more people without jobs to take his place as burglars.

When there are insufficient welfare provisions for those without jobs, crime is the only option. (Oddly, nobody ever chooses to just go without, which is the other possibility I guess - would you? Honestly?)

I think it is a valid question - "How he gonna get his money?". It's not a justification of burglary as such; it is a direct and clear indictment of the society the US has created.

Unsurprisingly, poor people who can't get work and can't get enough to live on from welfare, turn to crime. Why this should surprise anyone is beyond me.

If you don't want burglaries, the single best thing a society can do is not 'allow homeowners to use lethal force', nor is it 'employ lots of police', nor is it 'impose harsh penalties on convicts'. No, the single most effective way to reduce theft and burglary is to give poor people enough money so that they don't feel driven to take it.

This is not an argument about being 'nice' to poor people, or about being 'soft' on crime, either; It isn't about the poor people AT ALL; It is a simple assessment of the best thing FOR THE REST OF SOCIETY. You WILL end up supporting the poor. You DON'T have a choice - if you don't do it voluntarily, then they will take stuff by force.

It is cheaper to pay taxes to support generous benefits for the unemployed, than it is to pay for insurance against theft.
It is cheaper to pay taxes to support generous benefits for the unemployed, than it is to pay for enough police to prevent theft.
It is cheaper to pay taxes to support generous benefits for the unemployed, than it is to pay for replacements for the stuff they steal.

But because Americans are crazy, they would rather pay more, and live in a more dangerous environment, and have less nice stuff, and have less personal freedom, than allow 'freeloading'. That's not a sane position to take - no matter how popular it is.

#### TSwizzle

##### Let's Go Brandon!
Sister said:
“You have to look at it from every child’s point of view that was raised in the hood,” said Harris. “You have to understand… how he gonna get his money to have clothes to go to school? You have to look at it from his point-of-view.”

I'm baffled by this statement.

It's a shocking state of affairs.

#### Colonel Sanders

##### Senior Member
If you break into my house and I'm home and you're not running away, I'm gonna blow your fucking brains out. And I mean that sincerely--it'll be a kill shot because I don't want you ever coming back. Ideology means fuck-all when some scumbag is in my house intending to do who-the-hell knows to me and my daughter.

What's not going to happen is an invite to a sit down while I make you a goddamn pb&j and pat you on the back for society forcing you to endanger my life, the life of my kid, and my property.

I've been the victim of burglars who came in through my kid's window shortly after I drove her to school. She'd been complaining about being sick and I almost let her stay home. If she would have been a little more persistent I would have let her, but she'd already missed three days and seemed to be better the night before.

What would have happened to her had I let her stay home that day by herself while I went to work? Thankfully I don't know.

If it was my kid that had gotten his idiot ass shot to death, I would be apologizing to the woman who shot him. I would say I'm sorry for my kid putting you through this shit. I would apologize for him scarring her for the rest of her life---for having to live with the fact that she killed someone and that my kid forced her to do it or played any role at all in it, and all the other bullshit that's going to come with it. I would be ashamed for him. And frankly, if she shot the bastard in the back, I'd still apologize. That's what responsible parents do. That's what parents who want their kid to grow up and not be a stain on society do.

#### Tom Sawyer

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
America. Fuck ya.

Way to ... make yourself safer?

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Sister said:
“You have to look at it from every child’s point of view that was raised in the hood,” said Harris. “You have to understand… how he gonna get his money to have clothes to go to school? You have to look at it from his point-of-view.”

I'm baffled by this statement.
I am not at all surprised by that.
It's a shocking state of affairs.
Yes. Yes it is.

But not in the least baffling or surprising. It is exactly what we should expect, given the circumstances.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
So Trayvon Martin had broken into a house now?
I did not say that, did I. I just said it's dangerous having that name in Florida, especially at 17.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
When there are more people than jobs, 'maybe get a job?' is not an option available to all, so suggesting it as a solution is just silly. Even if this individual managed to get a job, there will be plenty more people without jobs to take his place as burglars.
Do you know he sought work but could not find any?
When there are insufficient welfare provisions for those without jobs, crime is the only option. (Oddly, nobody ever chooses to just go without, which is the other possibility I guess - would you? Honestly?)
You are assuming facts not in evidence.
1. That he looked for a job and was not able to find one.
2. That the family so poor he was forced into burgling.

I think it is a valid question - "How he gonna get his money?". It's not a justification of burglary as such; it is a direct and clear indictment of the society the US has created.
I do not think the cousin means that without a life of crime Trevon would be reduced to wearing rags straight out of a Dickensian novel. No, I rather think it's about being able to afford the right brands.
Unsurprisingly, poor people who can't get work and can't get enough to live on from welfare, turn to crime. Why this should surprise anyone is beyond me.
Do you know the family's financial situation?

If you don't want burglaries, the single best thing a society can do is not 'allow homeowners to use lethal force', nor is it 'employ lots of police', nor is it 'impose harsh penalties on convicts'. No, the single most effective way to reduce theft and burglary is to give poor people enough money so that they don't feel driven to take it.
But US does have many programs to help the poor. Effective negative tax rate through all the refundable tax credits. Housing subsidies. Food stamps. Even Obamaphones. I do not think we need to add couture to that list, especially when clothes can be had cheaply.

But because Americans are crazy, they would rather pay more, and live in a more dangerous environment, and have less nice stuff, and have less personal freedom, than allow 'freeloading'. That's not a sane position to take - no matter how popular it is.
What about personal responsibility? Trevon did not have to have that $200 pair or Lebron sneakers or whatever he was going to buy when he "got his money". As I said, US does provide benefits to the poor. Just not enough to fund conspicuous consumption, and neither should it. #### Derec ##### Contributor Sister said: “You have to look at it from every child’s point of view that was raised in the hood,” said Harris. “You have to understand… how he gonna get his money to have clothes to go to school? You have to look at it from his point-of-view.” I'm baffled by this statement. It's a shocking state of affairs. Yeah, but she is hardly alone with that sentiment, sadly. By the way, speaking of interesting Florida burglar stories, this probably takes the cake. Alleged Florida burglar eaten by alligator while hiding from police #### whichphilosophy ##### Contributor Homeowner Shoots, Kills Teen Burglary Suspect Relatives of a 17-year-old are angry the teenager was shot and killed by a homeowner who police say was protecting her property. The sister of the teen who died identified him as Trevon Johnson. She said he was a student at D. A. Dorsey Technical College. “I don’t care if she have her gun license or any of that. That is way beyond the law… way beyond,” said Johnson’s cousin Nautika Harris. “He was not supposed to die like this. He had a future ahead of him. Trevon had goals… he was a funny guy, very big on education, loved learning.” On Thursday, police say Johnson burglarized a home south of 79th Street near I-95 — just blocks away from where he lives. [...] “You have to look at it from every child’s point of view that was raised in the hood,” said Harris. “You have to understand… how he gonna get his money to have clothes to go to school? You have to look at it from his point-of-view.” How he gonna get his money? I don't know, maybe get a job? For the record, I do not know whether the shooting is justified or not. It certainly is not clear cut but what is clear is that "but for" the burglary he would not have been shot. But the reason I posted this is this casual justification of burglary by the cousin. It is a sign of a deep dysfunction in the culture. P.S.: Being a Trevon from Florida is a dangerous proposition ... I'm not sure how the laws vary from state to state but I would assume she would be entitled to use the gun if she was in any danger that she perceived, which many not have been actual danger. If he was already running away, was she entitled to ask him to stop at gunpoint. Was she justified in preventing the person taking her property. Sometimes the reporting is inaccurate so we cannot rely on initial reports for accurate information. The report indicates there was a confrontation prior to shots being fired. So this would need to be analysed more carefully by the investigators. #### Derec ##### Contributor #### whichphilosophy ##### Contributor #### Derec ##### Contributor Since Florida has the death penalty for felony murder, she should be executed. Hardly. Even if she killed the 17 year old without justification it would be 2nd degree murder at the most. #### bilby ##### Fair dinkum thinkum Do you know he sought work but could not find any? Unless you are going to claim that there is full employment in the area, then that's not relevant - if it wasn't him, it would be someone else. When there are insufficient welfare provisions for those without jobs, crime is the only option. (Oddly, nobody ever chooses to just go without, which is the other possibility I guess - would you? Honestly?) You are assuming facts not in evidence. 1. That he looked for a job and was not able to find one. 2. That the family so poor he was forced into burgling. No, I am not assuming anything. I am saying that, regardless of this individual case, there is necessarily going to be someone in his position, due to the fundamentals of the US economy and social structure. I think it is a valid question - "How he gonna get his money?". It's not a justification of burglary as such; it is a direct and clear indictment of the society the US has created. I do not think the cousin means that without a life of crime Trevon would be reduced to wearing rags straight out of a Dickensian novel. No, I rather think it's about being able to afford the right brands. You are assuming facts not in evidence. Unsurprisingly, poor people who can't get work and can't get enough to live on from welfare, turn to crime. Why this should surprise anyone is beyond me. Do you know the family's financial situation? No, and I don't need to, for the reasons I already gave, and which I am unsurprised that you cannot grasp. If you don't want burglaries, the single best thing a society can do is not 'allow homeowners to use lethal force', nor is it 'employ lots of police', nor is it 'impose harsh penalties on convicts'. No, the single most effective way to reduce theft and burglary is to give poor people enough money so that they don't feel driven to take it. But US does have many programs to help the poor. Effective negative tax rate through all the refundable tax credits. Housing subsidies. Food stamps. Even Obamaphones. I do not think we need to add couture to that list, especially when clothes can be had cheaply. The US does NOT have adequate programs to help the poor; as evidenced by the existence of a massive number of poor people in the world's richest nation. Civilized countries do NOT have poverty on the scale seen in the USA. But because Americans are crazy, they would rather pay more, and live in a more dangerous environment, and have less nice stuff, and have less personal freedom, than allow 'freeloading'. That's not a sane position to take - no matter how popular it is. What about personal responsibility? Trevon did not have to have that$200 pair or Lebron sneakers or whatever he was going to buy when he "got his money". As I said, US does provide benefits to the poor. Just not enough to fund conspicuous consumption, and neither should it.
Not just not enough to fund conspicuous consumption. Not enough to keep people from a life of crime.

If you want to reduce crime, that's your benchmark right there.

#### laughing dog

What about personal responsibility? Trevon did not have to have that $200 pair or Lebron sneakers or whatever he was going to buy when he "got his money". Talk about assuming facts not in evidence. What makes you think this homicide victim was going to buy expensive anything, let alone expensive sneakers? #### Loren Pechtel ##### Super Moderator Staff member Well, regardless of anything else, if you shoot someone who's climbing out of a window because he's leaving and going away from you, it means that you weren't in any danger and that's just straight up murder. Since this murder happened during the commission of a felony, Johnson is guilty of it as well. "There was a confrontation". In other words, she didn't just shoot him while he was climbing out the window. If I had to guess I would say she attempted to detain him (legal) and he attacked. That's irrelevant to Derec's point, though--the cousin is so steeped in hood culture that she doesn't understand that sometimes bad things happen when you commit burglary. - - - Updated - - - While that is true, there does seem to be some ambiguity with regard to whether or not he was leaving as he was shot. The article does say that he was climbing out of the window, and leaving the house, but at that point it notes that there was a confrontation before he was shot. If he was confronted by the home owner as he left, and he decided to re-enter the house during the confrontation, then the home owner was in danger, and the shooting is not murder. Fair point. I guess something like that would need to wait on the investigation before a determination could be made. Something along the lines like if he was shot in the front inside the house, it would be self-defence. If he was shot in the back while still in the window, it would be murder. Since Florida has the death penalty for felony murder, she should be executed. You don't seem to understand what "felony murder" means. I see no way she committed felony murder here even if she simply shot him as he was going out the window. #### Loren Pechtel ##### Super Moderator Staff member i don't give a shit if it's her house or if there even was a confrontation, either human life has some kind of inherent value and snuffing it out over a TV is completely fucked up, or human life doesn't have any inherent value and why don't you people shut the mother fuck up about abortion... because it's always the same kind of assfuck douchenozzles who scream that abortion is murder who then say "oh well he was on her property, so he deserved to die" If there was a physical confrontation (or attempted confrontation) then her life is in danger, she's justified in shooting. (You are under no obligation to figure out whether they're simply trying to take your gun away to escape or if they are attempting to eliminate the witness that saw them. If you guess wrong you're dead, the law doesn't require you to guess. You can react to the most dangerous reasonable scenario in the case. The reality is that criminals sometimes eliminate witnesses so you are free to figure that an attack upon you is an attempt to do just that.) #### Loren Pechtel ##### Super Moderator Staff member I'm not sure how the laws vary from state to state but I would assume she would be entitled to use the gun if she was in any danger that she perceived, which many not have been actual danger. If he was already running away, was she entitled to ask him to stop at gunpoint. Was she justified in preventing the person taking her property. Sometimes the reporting is inaccurate so we cannot rely on initial reports for accurate information. The report indicates there was a confrontation prior to shots being fired. So this would need to be analysed more carefully by the investigators. My understanding is that she would be justified in telling him to freeze but that she can't shoot if he continues to leave. #### barbos ##### Contributor Sister said: “You have to look at it from every child’s point of view that was raised in the hood,” said Harris. “You have to understand… how he gonna get his money to have clothes to go to school? You have to look at it from his point-of-view.” So the guy was naked during the burglary? #### TSwizzle ##### Let's Go Brandon! #### Derec ##### Contributor What about personal responsibility? Trevon did not have to have that$200 pair or Lebron sneakers or whatever he was going to buy when he "got his money".
Talk about assuming facts not in evidence. What makes you think this homicide victim was going to buy expensive anything, let alone expensive sneakers?
It's a reasonable assumption. We are not talking Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread here.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Unless you are going to claim that there is full employment in the area, then that's not relevant - if it wasn't him, it would be someone else.
Well the woman was burgled before which is why she got the cameras (which are going to be useful for the police in the shooting). But if he hadn't chosen to break into her home nobody else would have decided to do it that day. And in fact, this shooting might hopefully scare some wannabe burglars straight.
No, I am not assuming anything. I am saying that, regardless of this individual case, there is necessarily going to be someone in his position, due to the fundamentals of the US economy and social structure.
You are assuming crime is driven by needs, rather than wants.
You are assuming facts not in evidence.
I am making a reasonable assumption. There were interviews with his family members. All had clothes on that were fine, far from threadbare. And his brother had a smart phone to his ear during the interview. Then there were Facebook photos of the deceased shown in the interviews - decent, newish clothes, nice sneakers, even jewelry. He definitely did not look like somebody driven to crime out of desperation.
No, and I don't need to, for the reasons I already gave, and which I am unsurprised that you cannot grasp.
Yet you are making excuses for this burglar as well as others. Show me evidence that these kinds of crimes (theft, burglary, robbery) are driven by genuine needs rather than wants.
The US does NOT have adequate programs to help the poor; as evidenced by the existence of a massive number of poor people in the world's richest nation. Civilized countries do NOT have poverty on the scale seen in the USA.
Yes, many countries have more generous social safety net, that is true. But it is also true that people in poor neighborhoods in the US enjoy conspicuous consumption, buying luxury items they can't afford.
"Shopping While Black": Is Conspicuous Consumption Related to the Black/White Wealth Gap?
Note that Alternet is a left wing rag and that they defend this practice (while blaming whites for everything bad that happens to blacks). But how can one defend irresponsible behavior like this:
Alternet said:
Consequently, a poor black single mother in a ghetto underclass community may see it as a perfectly “rational” behavior to spend hundreds of dollars on a toddler’s sneakers and jeans. Alternatively, a middle aged black working class man may judge it “rational” to spend 600 dollars a month to lease a luxury car--even when he does not own his own home.
Nuff said.
Not just not enough to fund conspicuous consumption. Not enough to keep people from a life of crime.
Or maybe those who engage in the life of crime need to dial their desires back. Because it's better wearing $20 jeans and$15 shirt from Walmart than being shot dead by the person you burgled. Duh!
If you want to reduce crime, that's your benchmark right there.
And personal responsibility of the wannabe criminal does not enter into it at all?

Last edited:

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Of course you can't charge the Gator for homicide.
No, but they still gave him the death penalty.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
Talk about assuming facts not in evidence. What makes you think this homicide victim was going to buy expensive anything, let alone expensive sneakers?
It's a reasonable assumption.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Well the woman was burgled before which is why she got the cameras (which are going to be useful for the police in the shooting). But if he hadn't chosen to break into her home nobody else would have decided to do it that day. And in fact, this shooting might hopefully scare some wannabe burglars straight.
You really are not grasping what I am saying. Unless you can say that absent this one burglar, NO burglaries would occur AT ALL, then you are not addressing my position AT ALL. I am not interested in individuals here; I am taking a STATISTICAL approach, and saying that the failure of US society to take the necessary steps to give citizens a certain minimum level of wealth WILL INEVITABLY lead to crime; and that while that crime cannot be predicted - either in the detail of who will be a perpetrator or who will be a victim - the argument that crime AS A WHOLE could, potentially, be prevented in such a social structure (by policing, or by deterrence, or by people all choosing to get jobs instead of turning to crime), is insane.

The very tedious and oft repeated debate on these boards about whether a given shooting in a given set of circumstances was or was not 'justified' is completely irrelevant to my point. Theft and burglary is common in the US, DESPITE homeowners being able to use deadly force; DESPITE harsh sentences for convicted offenders; DESPITE the fact that it is an incredibly risky thing to do. And the reason for this is that NOT ALL AMERICANS CAN GET WHAT THEY WANT BY LAWFUL MEANS.

I know that contradicts your national myth; but it is true - and obviously so. You have significant unemployment; and inadequate support for the unemployed. So you get lots of crime.
No, I am not assuming anything. I am saying that, regardless of this individual case, there is necessarily going to be someone in his position, due to the fundamentals of the US economy and social structure.
You are assuming crime is driven by needs, rather than wants.
Not at all. I am accepting that if reasonable wants are not met, then you will have unreasonable levels of crime. Of course, there will always be people with unreasonable wants who commit crime whatever support they are given; but they are very few and far between.
You are assuming facts not in evidence.
I am making a reasonable assumption. There were interviews with his family members. All had clothes on that were fine, far from threadbare. And his brother had a smart phone to his ear during the interview. Then there were Facebook photos of the deceased shown in the interviews - decent, newish clothes, nice sneakers, even jewelry. He definitely did not look like somebody driven to crime out of desperation.
Nevertheless, you are assuming facts not in evidence. You think your assumptions are reasonable; but I disagree - and it is irrelevant to my point either way. I don't care about the specifics of this case; they are irrelevant to the wider point, which is that crime is a function of poverty - hence the sister's quite perceptive question, 'How he gonna get his money?'.
No, and I don't need to, for the reasons I already gave, and which I am unsurprised that you cannot grasp.
Yet you are making excuses for this burglar as well as others.
No, I am not. I don't give a flying fuck about this burglar as an individual; just as a symptom of a far larger (and far less tedious) issue.
Show me evidence that these kinds of crimes (theft, burglary, robbery) are driven by genuine needs rather than wants.
Are you seriously going to argue that nobody in the USA today has unmet NEEDS?
The US does NOT have adequate programs to help the poor; as evidenced by the existence of a massive number of poor people in the world's richest nation. Civilized countries do NOT have poverty on the scale seen in the USA.
Yes, many countries have more generous social safety net, that is true. But it is also true that people in poor neighborhoods in the US enjoy conspicuous consumption, buying luxury items they can't afford.
"Shopping While Black": Is Conspicuous Consumption Related to the Black/White Wealth Gap?
Note that Alternet is a left wing rag and that they defend this practice (while blaming whites for everything bad that happens to blacks). But how can one defend irresponsible behavior like this:
Alternet said:
Consequently, a poor black single mother in a ghetto underclass community may see it as a perfectly “rational” behavior to spend hundreds of dollars on a toddler’s sneakers and jeans. Alternatively, a middle aged black working class man may judge it “rational” to spend 600 dollars a month to lease a luxury car--even when he does not own his own home.
Nuff said.
Not just not enough to fund conspicuous consumption. Not enough to keep people from a life of crime.
Or maybe those who engage in the life of crime need to dial their desires back. Because it's better wearing $20 jeans and$15 shirt from Walmart than being shot dead by the person you burgled. Duh!
If you want to reduce crime, that's your benchmark right there.
And personal responsibility of the wannabe criminal does not enter into it at all?
I don't give a shit about the details of this case; nor do I care to get dragged in to yet another stupid and pointless debate about race politics in the USA.

Personal responsibility is irrelevant while the society is structured such that not everyone can possibly meet a civilized standard of personal responsibility. We need not be able to say WHO, specifically will fail (nor who, specifically will succeed despite hardship) to be able to predict that MANY will.

Discussing 'personal responsibility' is irrelevant to the wider question of theft and burglary at the criminological level; You might as well try to understand the Niagara Falls by reference to the motion of individual water molecules.

#### whichphilosophy

##### Contributor
Of course you can't charge the Gator for homicide.
No, but they still gave him the death penalty.

Yet he didn't get a fair trial but at least he may have supplied a few shoes and handbags.

#### Axulus

##### Veteran Member
It's a reasonable assumption.

Why would he buy thrift store stuff? The US is flooded with cheap clothes. So much so that a bunch of NGOs dump ship loads of all the excess on third would countries. There is no plausible scenario where a 17 year old needs to steal to obtain thrift store quality clothes. The stuff can be easily obtained from non-profits or for petty cash.

The proof is in the Facebook photos. He appears to have had a reasonable enough wardrobe for school purposes.

#### whichphilosophy

##### Contributor
You really are not grasping what I am saying. Unless you can say that absent this one burglar, NO burglaries would occur AT ALL, then you are not addressing my position AT ALL. I am not interested in individuals here; I am taking a STATISTICAL approach, and saying that the failure of US society to take the necessary steps to give citizens a certain minimum level of wealth WILL INEVITABLY lead to crime; and that while that crime cannot be predicted - either in the detail of who will be a perpetrator or who will be a victim - the argument that crime AS A WHOLE could, potentially, be prevented in such a social structure (by policing, or by deterrence, or by people all choosing to get jobs instead of turning to crime), is insane.

The very tedious and oft repeated debate on these boards about whether a given shooting in a given set of circumstances was or was not 'justified' is completely irrelevant to my point. Theft and burglary is common in the US, DESPITE homeowners being able to use deadly force; DESPITE harsh sentences for convicted offenders; DESPITE the fact that it is an incredibly risky thing to do. And the reason for this is that NOT ALL AMERICANS CAN GET WHAT THEY WANT BY LAWFUL MEANS.

I know that contradicts your national myth; but it is true - and obviously so. You have significant unemployment; and inadequate support for the unemployed. So you get lots of crime.
No, I am not assuming anything. I am saying that, regardless of this individual case, there is necessarily going to be someone in his position, due to the fundamentals of the US economy and social structure.
You are assuming crime is driven by needs, rather than wants.
Not at all. I am accepting that if reasonable wants are not met, then you will have unreasonable levels of crime. Of course, there will always be people with unreasonable wants who commit crime whatever support they are given; but they are very few and far between.
You are assuming facts not in evidence.
I am making a reasonable assumption. There were interviews with his family members. All had clothes on that were fine, far from threadbare. And his brother had a smart phone to his ear during the interview. Then there were Facebook photos of the deceased shown in the interviews - decent, newish clothes, nice sneakers, even jewelry. He definitely did not look like somebody driven to crime out of desperation.
Nevertheless, you are assuming facts not in evidence. You think your assumptions are reasonable; but I disagree - and it is irrelevant to my point either way. I don't care about the specifics of this case; they are irrelevant to the wider point, which is that crime is a function of poverty - hence the sister's quite perceptive question, 'How he gonna get his money?'.
No, and I don't need to, for the reasons I already gave, and which I am unsurprised that you cannot grasp.
Yet you are making excuses for this burglar as well as others.
No, I am not. I don't give a flying fuck about this burglar as an individual; just as a symptom of a far larger (and far less tedious) issue.
Show me evidence that these kinds of crimes (theft, burglary, robbery) are driven by genuine needs rather than wants.
Are you seriously going to argue that nobody in the USA today has unmet NEEDS?
The US does NOT have adequate programs to help the poor; as evidenced by the existence of a massive number of poor people in the world's richest nation. Civilized countries do NOT have poverty on the scale seen in the USA.
Yes, many countries have more generous social safety net, that is true. But it is also true that people in poor neighborhoods in the US enjoy conspicuous consumption, buying luxury items they can't afford.
"Shopping While Black": Is Conspicuous Consumption Related to the Black/White Wealth Gap?
Note that Alternet is a left wing rag and that they defend this practice (while blaming whites for everything bad that happens to blacks). But how can one defend irresponsible behavior like this:
Alternet said:
Consequently, a poor black single mother in a ghetto underclass community may see it as a perfectly “rational” behavior to spend hundreds of dollars on a toddler’s sneakers and jeans. Alternatively, a middle aged black working class man may judge it “rational” to spend 600 dollars a month to lease a luxury car--even when he does not own his own home.
Nuff said.
Not just not enough to fund conspicuous consumption. Not enough to keep people from a life of crime.
Or maybe those who engage in the life of crime need to dial their desires back. Because it's better wearing $20 jeans and$15 shirt from Walmart than being shot dead by the person you burgled. Duh!
If you want to reduce crime, that's your benchmark right there.
And personal responsibility of the wannabe criminal does not enter into it at all?
I don't give a shit about the details of this case; nor do I care to get dragged in to yet another stupid and pointless debate about race politics in the USA.

Personal responsibility is irrelevant while the society is structured such that not everyone can possibly meet a civilized standard of personal responsibility. We need not be able to say WHO, specifically will fail (nor who, specifically will succeed despite hardship) to be able to predict that MANY will.

Discussing 'personal responsibility' is irrelevant to the wider question of theft and burglary at the criminological level; You might as well try to understand the Niagara Falls by reference to the motion of individual water molecules.

Where there is poverty there is crime, but when you look at some of the wealthy, they are capable of even worse crimes in terms of value and exploitation. Crime covers all races and classes. What is amazing is when corrupt politicians and business people amass several millions is they still want more.

#### barbos

##### Contributor

Why would he buy thrift store stuff? The US is flooded with cheap clothes. So much so that a bunch of NGOs dump ship loads of all the excess on third would countries. There is no plausible scenario where a 17 year old needs to steal to obtain thrift store quality clothes. The stuff can be easily obtained from non-profits or for petty cash.

The proof is in the Facebook photos. He appears to have had a reasonable enough wardrobe for school purposes.
Also, one can steal clothes from these collection boxes, and no one will shoot you for that.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor

Why would he buy thrift store stuff? The US is flooded with cheap clothes. So much so that a bunch of NGOs dump ship loads of all the excess on third would countries. There is no plausible scenario where a 17 year old needs to steal to obtain thrift store quality clothes. The stuff can be easily obtained from non-profits or for petty cash.

The proof is in the Facebook photos. He appears to have had a reasonable enough wardrobe for school purposes.
Your response is an example of the excluded middle: thrift store shopping or expensive stuff. Try again.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Your response is an example of the excluded middle: thrift store shopping or expensive stuff. Try again.

I had already mentioned the middle - cheap, but decent, new clothes you can get from a place like Walmart or Target or Ross.
And you ignored Axulus' point about Facebook photos where he is shown to have decent clothes to wear. He even had jewelery. He wasn't forced into a life of crime by some dire need.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
You really are not grasping what I am saying. Unless you can say that absent this one burglar, NO burglaries would occur AT ALL, then you are not addressing my position AT ALL.
But the statement by the cousin of "this one burglar" is what prompted this discussion. Are you admitting that Nautika Harris is full of shit?
And obviously absent "this one burglar" there'd still be burglaries, because there are many burglars around. But I would say vast majority of them are like Trevon, and very few if any at all are like Jean Valjean.

I am not interested in individuals here; I am taking a STATISTICAL approach,
So may we see your STATISTICS on motivations for burglaries?

and saying that the failure of US society to take the necessary steps to give citizens a certain minimum level of wealth WILL INEVITABLY lead to crime;
But the US does provide myriads of programs to help the poor. Again, we are talking about stealing for wants, not needs.

]and that while that crime cannot be predicted - either in the detail of who will be a perpetrator or who will be a victim - the argument that crime AS A WHOLE could, potentially, be prevented in such a social structure (by policing, or by deterrence, or by people all choosing to get jobs instead of turning to crime), is insane.
Well your idea of giving 17 year old thugs enough free money that they are not tempted to engage in criminal activity is not going to eliminate crime AS A WHOLE either.

The very tedious and oft repeated debate on these boards about whether a given shooting in a given set of circumstances was or was not 'justified' is completely irrelevant to my point. Theft and burglary is common in the US, DESPITE homeowners being able to use deadly force; DESPITE harsh sentences for convicted offenders; DESPITE the fact that it is an incredibly risky thing to do. And the reason for this is that NOT ALL AMERICANS CAN GET WHAT THEY WANT BY LAWFUL MEANS.
I want a Tesla Model S. I can't afford it. So the government should provide me a Model S so I am not tempted to steal one or burgle houses to raise enough cash. Brilliant!
It is not the job of the government to provide all its citizens' wants.

Not at all. I am accepting that if reasonable wants are not met, then you will have unreasonable levels of crime.
Do you think Trevon had reasonable wants?

Of course, there will always be people with unreasonable wants who commit crime whatever support they are given; but they are very few and far between.
Depends on your definition of "reasonable".

Nevertheless, you are assuming facts not in evidence. You think your assumptions are reasonable; but I disagree - and it is irrelevant to my point either way. I don't care about the specifics of this case; they are irrelevant to the wider point, which is that crime is a function of poverty - hence the sister's quite perceptive question, 'How he gonna get his money?'.
His cousin's question was about the specifics of Trevon's case though. I think her question showed the unreasonable levels of entitlement rather than being perceptive.

No, I am not. I don't give a flying fuck about this burglar as an individual; just as a symptom of a far larger (and far less tedious) issue.
It sure sounds like you are offering justification for these types of crimes.

Are you seriously going to argue that nobody in the USA today has unmet NEEDS?
I am saying vast majority of robberies or burglaries are not driven by any unmet needs. Again, this is not a Dickensian novel or Les Miserables.

Personal responsibility is irrelevant while the society is structured such that not everyone can possibly meet a civilized standard of personal responsibility. We need not be able to say WHO, specifically will fail (nor who, specifically will succeed despite hardship) to be able to predict that MANY will.
Personal responsibility is always relevant and part of it involves being cognizant of one's means.

Discussing 'personal responsibility' is irrelevant to the wider question of theft and burglary at the criminological level; You might as well try to understand the Niagara Falls by reference to the motion of individual water molecules.
Difference being, water molecules are incapable of making choices. Trevon Johnson was capable of making choices, and ...

#### whichphilosophy

##### Contributor
Your response is an example of the excluded middle: thrift store shopping or expensive stuff. Try again.

I had already mentioned the middle - cheap, but decent, new clothes you can get from a place like Walmart or Target or Ross.
And you ignored Axulus' point about Facebook photos where he is shown to have decent clothes to wear. He even had jewelery. He wasn't forced into a life of crime by some dire need.

I don't know all the details, but even persons in dire need still make the choice whether or not to rob.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
Your response is an example of the excluded middle: thrift store shopping or expensive stuff. Try again.

I had already mentioned the middle - cheap, but decent, new clothes you can get from a place like Walmart or Target or Ross.
And you ignored Axulus' point about Facebook photos where he is shown to have decent clothes to wear. He even had jewelery. He wasn't forced into a life of crime by some dire need.
You need to explain why this has anything to do with the reasonableness of the assumption that he must be using the proceeds to by expensive shoes or other forms of conspicuous consumption.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
You need to explain why this has anything to do with the reasonableness of the assumption that he must be using the proceeds to by expensive shoes or other forms of conspicuous consumption.
His cousin said he was using the proceeds of his thug life to buy clothes. Since he wasn't walking around in rags, it's a reasonable assumption he was seeking to buy expensive clothes. Expensive shoes are also very popular among with the lawbreaking urban crowd, so it's not a stretch that his tastes did not stop at his ankles.

By the way, this Twitterer is on a different level of stupid than even you. Did not think that was even possible. Note "intersectional feminist" and "social justice" in her description. Social justice == not caring what the black kid did, the fact that he is black is enough to declare him an innocent victim. Also, I think the homeowner was black anyway.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
His cousin said he was using the proceeds of his thug life to buy clothes. Since he wasn't walking around in rags, it's a reasonable assumption he was seeking to buy expensive clothes.
It took you almost a month to come up with the moronic excluded middle fallacy that it is either rags or expensive clothes. You are not fooling anyone with your bigoted and idiotic assumptions.

#### Nice Squirrel

##### Contributor
His cousin said he was using the proceeds of his thug life to buy clothes. Since he wasn't walking around in rags, it's a reasonable assumption he was seeking to buy expensive clothes.
For all people, there are more choices than only rags or expensive clothes. You are not fooling anyone with your moronic assumptions.

No he is right. Thug life requires only clothing found in McDonalds dumpsters, or the bespoke Hip Hop shops of Savile Row.