Originally posted by: episodic
Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
i never knew the death penalty was an appropriate crime for burglary or trespassing.
now, i have no real sympathy for career criminals who this happens to but the problem is there is one person figuring it all out if they are worthy of life or death.
the problem i have is i both knew and also heard of some younger kids, teens, late teens - who did some stupid shit. stupid shit that did include robbing a house. stupid shit that did include trespassing just for kicks. and most of those people i knew that did some of these things did not become career criminals by any stretch of the imagination - they became people that you would want to live next door to because they do not bother anybody or offend anyone or make life bothersome for the people around them. did they deserve to die too?
thats the issue i have with people getting boners from trespassers being shot.
is trespassing a crime. yep. but is everyone that does it deserving of death?
It is reaction. For too long people have been victimized and called the police - only to have them come out - take a report - and nothing ever happen. People are fed up. Am I saying you are wrong? No
Am I saying they are right? No.
It is just what it is. . .
I had my house broken into in my early 20's and had everything I had worked for stolen, and the police didn't even want to investigate it, saying it would do no good.
It is simply a reaction. Who knows what the answer is.
It's understandable, but as you say, wrong. People don't realize the way they're having the same flaw as the thieves insofar as not respecting human life and others' rights.
They're hardly the same, thieves and their victims who shoot them unnecessarily, but both are not valuing something they should - respect for others' property and well-being and sometimes safety for the thieves, and the value of human life over the value of property in the case of the shooters. Different wrong, but both wrong.
People need to use the system, the police. If there really isn't any way for that to work, and I'd have to hear about that, I can understand people using force to defend their property, but IMO the effort to avoid violence has to be made - it's not just a 'shoot them for stealing' or 'do it in a way likely to result in shooting the thief' such as startling them and if they react with a jump shooting, when it can be done in a way less likely to lead to shooting. As odd as it may sound, if you can't feel you have some love for the thief as a human being as you use force to stop them in the act, you may not be right to be doing it. Glee at killing them, torturing the thief or trying to cause gratuitous suffering, and such acts of vengeance, are wrong.
And if your police aren't doing their job, why aren't you getting off your butt enough to do something to fix that? Did you call the police chief, the mayor, write a letter to the editor?
I had a car stolen. The thief was a slimeball - the police saw the car and pursued him but he crashed it into a wall and ran away and the police 'didn't see his face'. Maybe that's the case, but I can't help but wonder if it wasn't some sort of setup where he was an informant and they let him go. He left a lot of incriminating evidence:
A paycheck stub with his name, liquor bottles, a motel receipt, condom packages, a prescription for herpes medication, a cell phone and more.
The police had my drive it all in to them, and the DA then chose not to prosecute. No justice there.
At first, there were some vigilante fantasies. But part of me also thought about another perspective - the idiocy leading to mistakes in youth, the problems the guy had, and despite being out several hundred dollars plus fixing the car, I cooled down, and will deal with the issue. I don't expect others to go through that, but maybe it's enough that we have the protections we do, which *could* have caught him, could well have imprisoned him, and can well do so next time if he does it again.
I would *not* want the chance to have caught him and shot him. That would be a horrible act.
A time I'd be closer to violence is a story told to me by a friend of some real sleaze criminals who moved into an apartment and took over with drug dealing, and ignored all the rules they wanted to. They'd park illegally, and she called a tow truck. The poor innocent tow truck drive went to tow the car and the criminals beat him unconscious. I forget the details if he had permanent damage, but those guys needed to be stopped.
It may surprise some that I'm for vigilante justice when it's justified. I'd have no problem with those guys having been confronted with a gun and shot if they threatened.
I'd be pretty understanding of the tow truck driver or his friends or family going back for revenge if the system could not obtain it. Pretty understanding, but not quite condoning.
Having said all that, I'm also interested in how to *prevent* such crimes, and I see the people who can't be bothered with that as partly guilty for the crimes. Their lazy 'don't coddle the criminals' rhetoric is a real barrier to saving people from harm and there's no excuse. A prevented crime is a lot better than one with a convicted (or killed) criminal.
I think it's foolish for people to only be concerned about justice after the crime is committed. Misguided ideology can be the enemy to effective crime prevention ('don't spend a cent on anything to reduce crime, it's simply their choice not to commit the crime, end of story').