How he gonna get his money?

[Derec]

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]

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]

So Trayvon Martin had broken into a house now?

 

[funinspace]

The Mummy Returns?

 

[KeepTalking]

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]

So Trayvon Martin had broken into a house now?

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

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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]

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]

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"

 

[Shadowy Man]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

“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]

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]

America. Fuck ya.

Way to ... make yourself safer?

 

[bilby]

“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]

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]

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.