How he gonna get his money?

[fast]

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.

I've been thinking about this post off and on. I don't like it. Sorry.

 

[bilby]

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.

I've been thinking about this post off and on. I don't like it. Sorry.

There's no need to apologise; You are entitled to your opinion.

I would be interested to know what it is, specifically, about my post you don't like though. Do you disagree with my premises? With my reasoning? with my conclusions? Or are you saying that you think I am right, but that you are unhappy about that? Or do you perhaps find my tone or writing style unlike-able?

Perhaps you would prefer it if I had used a different font

 

[DBT]

While it is wrong to kill someone for a break and entry (unless under an immediate threat of death), the issue of having your home invaded by an intruder and your sense of security and peace of mind in your own home probably destroyed is far, far greater than the remark 'lose your TV' suggests.

It is.

When my home was burglarized it was frightening. My daughter wanted to stay home from school that day because she was still a little sick. But she'd missed 3 days already. But as I was standing in the kitchen making breakfast I thought that if she asked me to stay home one more time, I'd let her. But she didn't, and so I drove her to school.

When the burglars broke in, they smashed through her bedroom window to gain entry. The thought still unsettles me.

So now I have a new fence ($4500), an alarm system ($40 a month and counting), a Rottweiler ($900 and counting), and a tactical shotgun ($800). The several thousand dollars in stuff they stole is small in comparison to my peace of mind and the long term costs of security.

I've known elderly people who were devastated to find that someone had broken into their home. They said that they no longer feel secure in their own home, the thought of an intruder being inside their home plays on their mind, imagined possibilities, insecurity. What was actually stolen is trivial compared the the emotional cost to elderly folks who should have been enjoying their retirement. Of course the thief has no such considerations.

 

[abaddon]

I've met several deeply traumatized folks. They weren’t attacked or raped, and some didn’t even have all that much stolen. But their sanctuary in the world was violated and now they feel safe nowhere. It fucks with their heads over years.

The people who think 'what does property matter compared to a life?' don’t know fuck what they’re talking about, as it isn't an issue of property versus life. If human lives are of great value (though I consider that value relative and lose-able) then the space they need to feel secure in their bodies and homes is too.

 

[laughing dog]

I've met several deeply traumatized folks. They weren’t attacked or raped, and some didn’t even have all that much stolen. But their sanctuary in the world was violated and now they feel safe nowhere. It fucks with their heads over years.

The people who think 'what does property matter compared to a life?' don’t know fuck what they’re talking about, as it isn't an issue of property versus life. If human lives are of great value (though I consider that value relative and lose-able) then the space they need to feel secure in their bodies and homes is too.

Does that justify killing someone for having invaded your space after they are gone?

 

[Playball40]

I don't think they were trying to 'justify' it, only to point out there is more trauma than 'just losing a TV'. I agree with them. Not saying it should be a capital offense but nor should it be considered 'nothing' like jaywalking. That said, the trauma from killing another human being appears to be quite high as well (at least for most people).

I've met several deeply traumatized folks. They weren’t attacked or raped, and some didn’t even have all that much stolen. But their sanctuary in the world was violated and now they feel safe nowhere. It fucks with their heads over years.

The people who think 'what does property matter compared to a life?' don’t know fuck what they’re talking about, as it isn't an issue of property versus life. If human lives are of great value (though I consider that value relative and lose-able) then the space they need to feel secure in their bodies and homes is too.

Does that justify killing someone for having invaded your space after they are gone?

 

[Kusa]

I've met several deeply traumatized folks. They weren’t attacked or raped, and some didn’t even have all that much stolen. But their sanctuary in the world was violated and now they feel safe nowhere. It fucks with their heads over years.

The people who think 'what does property matter compared to a life?' don’t know fuck what they’re talking about, as it isn't an issue of property versus life. If human lives are of great value (though I consider that value relative and lose-able) then the space they need to feel secure in their bodies and homes is too.

Does that justify killing someone for having invaded your space after they are gone?

Maybe I missed something but I didn't see anyone talking about hunting the invader down after they left the premises.

 

[laughing dog]

Does that justify killing someone for having invaded your space after they are gone?

Maybe I missed something but I didn't see anyone talking about hunting the invader down after they left the premises.

The OP case is about a woman who shot and killed an alleged burglar as he was climbing out of the window.

 

[Kusa]

Maybe I missed something but I didn't see anyone talking about hunting the invader down after they left the premises.

The OP case is about a woman who shot and killed an alleged burglar as he was climbing out of the window.

If that's the case, I like Texas laws.

 

[KeepTalking]

Maybe I missed something but I didn't see anyone talking about hunting the invader down after they left the premises.

The OP case is about a woman who shot and killed an alleged burglar as he was climbing out of the window.

No, the OP case is ambiguous on the details. It states that she saw the burglar exiting through a window, however, it goes on to say that afterward there was a confrontation, and he was shot by the homeowner. This leaves open the possibility that Trevon re-entered the home during the confrontation. All of this has been discussed in the thread.

 

[RavenSky]

The OP case is about a woman who shot and killed an alleged burglar as he was climbing out of the window.

No, the OP case is ambiguous on the details. It states that she saw the burglar exiting through a window, however, it goes on to say that afterward there was a confrontation, and he was shot by the homeowner. This leaves open the possibility that Trevon re-entered the home during the confrontation. All of this has been discussed in the thread.

It also leaves open the possibility that she exited her home and shot the burglar outside.

Overall, I agree with Bilby - the best way to cut down on this sort of crime (the burglary) is to increase the social safety net. Pragmatically, it also eliminates the "where's he going to get his money" types of excuses. Plus its simply humane.

I also agree with Playball, DBT and others who have noted that being burglarized is very traumatic - far more than "just" losing a television. I would also submit that if a homeowner is in the house when someone breaks in, the assumption should be that the homeowner's life is in danger, and I honestly don't have any sympathy for the burglars that get shot and killed.

I still don't agree with guns for homeowner protection - I don't have the statistics but I'd bet that far more family members & friends get shot than burglars. But I'm also not going to defend a burglar who is shot/killed by a homeowner during commission of their crime.

At the same time, shooting a fleeing burglar is not self-defense.

 

[laughing dog]

At the same time, shooting a fleeing burglar is not self-defense.

No, it is revenge.

 

[rousseau]

I keep seeing this thread title and getting viscerally angry.

Derec, you're a fucking awful person.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've met several deeply traumatized folks. They weren’t attacked or raped, and some didn’t even have all that much stolen. But their sanctuary in the world was violated and now they feel safe nowhere. It fucks with their heads over years.

Yeah, I know someone who got burgled and responded by selling his house because he didn't feel safe anymore.

(Admittedly, the neighborhood had gone downhill. I wouldn't have wanted to live there.)

 

[Derec]

I keep seeing this thread title and getting viscerally angry.

This angry?

Derec, you're a fucking awful person.

Why? What's wrong with quoting the cousin verbatim?

 

[KeepTalking]

No, the OP case is ambiguous on the details. It states that she saw the burglar exiting through a window, however, it goes on to say that afterward there was a confrontation, and he was shot by the homeowner. This leaves open the possibility that Trevon re-entered the home during the confrontation. All of this has been discussed in the thread.

It also leaves open the possibility that she exited her home and shot the burglar outside.

Exactly, that makes at least three possibilities, if not more. So, given the lack of details provided in this case, it is not as black and white as it was characterized by laughing dog. Given that Kusa has apparently not read through the entire thread, I thought it would be helpful to provide them with a more accurate account of the discussion that has transpired.

Overall, I agree with Bilby - the best way to cut down on this sort of crime (the burglary) is to increase the social safety net. Pragmatically, it also eliminates the "where's he going to get his money" types of excuses. Plus its simply humane.

I am also in agreement on that point.

I also agree with Playball, DBT and others who have noted that being burglarized is very traumatic - far more than "just" losing a television. I would also submit that if a homeowner is in the house when someone breaks in, the assumption should be that the homeowner's life is in danger, and I honestly don't have any sympathy for the burglars that get shot and killed.

I have never been burgled, but I have been mugged on the street. I fought back, but eventually had to give the mugger the $7 in my pocket and my class ring when he produced the gun that he had only told me he had in his pocket before. I know it's not the same thing as having your home violated, and not feeling safe there any more. At the time I wouldn't have had any sympathy for the guy who mugged me, had he been killed in the commission of that, or a similar crime, but through the lens of decades, I have ceased to harbor those feelings, and hope he was able to turn his life around. Neither one of us deserved to die over my pocket change and overly expensive ring.

I still don't agree with guns for homeowner protection - I don't have the statistics but I'd bet that far more family members & friends get shot than burglars. But I'm also not going to defend a burglar who is shot/killed by a homeowner during commission of their crime.

I think a shotgun is a sensible weapon to keep for homeowner protection. Most shotguns are easy to load, so there is little reason to keep one loaded. The sound of a pump action shotgun being loaded itself is enough to scare most burglars away. They are also much more difficult for very young kids to pick up and handle, so less chance of an accident with them. They can also be loaded with birdshot (or even re-loaded with rocksalt), and put on a wide choke to make them less lethal than most guns.

I do own a shotgun, but I don't even keep it in my home. When it comes to defending my home, I will have to rely on the numerous melee weapons mounted on my walls, and my martial arts training to get the job done. That's the choice I made, though, to keep the young one's in my household safe from accidents. I am getting older now, and that martial arts training was decades in the past. I am out of practice, and may have to reconsider keeping the shotgun handy sooner or later.

At the same time, shooting a fleeing burglar is not self-defense.

Agreed. If it was the case that she shot him while he was fleeing, she should be prosecuted for it.

 

[Derec]

I am also in agreement on that point.

I disagree. Evidence suggests this little twerp of a burglar was not hurting for necessities.

I have never been burgled, but I have been mugged on the street. I fought back, but eventually had to give the mugger the $7 in my pocket and my class ring when he produced the gun that he had only told me he had in his pocket before. I know it's not the same thing as having your home violated, and not feeling safe there any more. At the time I wouldn't have had any sympathy for the guy who mugged me, had he been killed in the commission of that, or a similar crime, but through the lens of decades, I have ceased to harbor those feelings, and hope he was able to turn his life around. Neither one of us deserved to die over my pocket change and overly expensive ring.

Fuck that. He threatens you with a gun, you (or another victim) has full right to shoot him in self defense.
Police: St. Paul robbery victim had permit to carry when he killed armed suspect

Victim shoots, kills would-be robber
Deputies: Would-be victim shot, wounded 1 attacker
Maybe your mugger managed to turn his life around, but I doubt it. Armed robbery is not mere youthful indiscretion you know.

I think a shotgun is a sensible weapon to keep for homeowner protection. Most shotguns are easy to load, so there is little reason to keep one loaded. The sound of a pump action shotgun being loaded itself is enough to scare most burglars away. They are also much more difficult for very young kids to pick up and handle, so less chance of an accident with them. They can also be loaded with birdshot (or even re-loaded with rocksalt), and put on a wide choke to make them less lethal than most guns.

Also the short ranger makes it impossible somebody some distance away (say a neighbor) would be shot by a stray bullet.

Agreed. If it was the case that she shot him while he was fleeing, she should be prosecuted for it.

Agreed. Have not heard anything about any developments on that front though.

 

[KeepTalking]

I disagree. Evidence suggests this little twerp of a burglar was not hurting for necessities.

The statement with which I was in agreement was not necessarily about this specific case, but more general in nature. Increasing the social safety net should help to reduce this type of crime, but will not stop all crimes of this nature.

I have never been burgled, but I have been mugged on the street. I fought back, but eventually had to give the mugger the $7 in my pocket and my class ring when he produced the gun that he had only told me he had in his pocket before. I know it's not the same thing as having your home violated, and not feeling safe there any more. At the time I wouldn't have had any sympathy for the guy who mugged me, had he been killed in the commission of that, or a similar crime, but through the lens of decades, I have ceased to harbor those feelings, and hope he was able to turn his life around. Neither one of us deserved to die over my pocket change and overly expensive ring.

Fuck that. He threatens you with a gun, you (or another victim) has full right to shoot him in self defense.

That's how I felt at the time. If I had a gun, however, that fistfight would have turned into a shootout, and would have increased the chances of one of us, or even and innocent bystander, not going home that night. It wasn't worth it for $7 and a ring.

Maybe your mugger managed to turn his life around, but I doubt it. Armed robbery is not mere youthful indiscretion you know.

I doubt it as well, that was in East St. Louis in the '80s, chances are he is dead or in jail now, but I have no way of knowing. For a while I had thoughts (probably more like fantasies) of obtaining a handgun, and hunting the guy down over pocket change and a ring. I grew out of that kind of thinking long ago, and understand now that everyone's life matters to someone, even those of black muggers. Criminals can turn their lives around, I am proof, I have a felony record but am now quite successful by the standards of my youth.

I think a shotgun is a sensible weapon to keep for homeowner protection. Most shotguns are easy to load, so there is little reason to keep one loaded. The sound of a pump action shotgun being loaded itself is enough to scare most burglars away. They are also much more difficult for very young kids to pick up and handle, so less chance of an accident with them. They can also be loaded with birdshot (or even re-loaded with rocksalt), and put on a wide choke to make them less lethal than most guns.

Also the short ranger makes it impossible somebody some distance away (say a neighbor) would be shot by a stray bullet.

Yes, there a number of reasons why a shotgun is a sensible weapon for home defense, which is why I disagree with the blanket statement that guns are not acceptable for that purpose. Even though I believe that, and own a shotgun, I still don't keep it in my home because of the young lives in my household that matter so much more to me than even my own life. I couldn't bear to see one of them die due to the accidental discharge of a firearm, that I could have prevented by making sure that they have absolutely no conceivable access to my guns.

 

[Malintent]

I keep seeing this thread title and getting viscerally angry.

Derec, you're a fucking awful person.

How about READ the responses to your posts, m'kay? It isn't a conversation if you just walk into the room, blather on, and then just walk out.

You should be angry.. what has been pointed out to several people before, including yourself, is that Derec QUOTED THE COUSIN OF THE BURGLER.

THE BURGLER THAT GOT SHOT... HIS FAMILY.... THEY SAID THJOSE WORDS.. VERBATUM.

You SHOIULD be angry... for the same reasons that Derec is angry... because those are horrible words THAT WERE SAID BY THE PIECES OF SHIT THAT ARE DEFENDING HIM.

You on the right page now?

 

[JonA]

Fuck that. He threatens you with a gun, you (or another victim) has full right to shoot him in self defense.

That's how I felt at the time. If I had a gun, however, that fistfight would have turned into a shootout, and would have increased the chances of one of us, or even and innocent bystander, not going home that night. It wasn't worth it for $7 and a ring.

Philosophising after it's all over is one thing, but that should not determine legal liability for an act.

Morally wrong? Maybe. Legally punishable? I don't think we want a world where it is.