That's an Apple store. All those phones are absolutely worthless after he left with them and Apple isn't exactly short of money.
No one really lost anything, and no one gained anything. Why shoot someone to protect a fantastically small proportions of Apples profits?
Shoot because that's what it has come to, that existing deterrents aren't working. Keep in mind that shooting doesn't necessarily mean shoot-to-kill, which is more of a police mentality or if you were trapped and in fear of your life. Shoot to incapacitate is a thing, at least until the thug pulls a gun himself.
What's dumb is thinking you should be able to take the law into your own hands, and as a homeowner/business owner, putting materialistic objects above life is ok.
It could as easily be argued that the punk thief is the one putting his life at risk... for material objects.
Materialist objects are all your "property", including money. As all of that can be replaced. Life cannot. Life is the only thing worth protecting, materialistic objects are not, no matter what it is.
Disagree. There is QUALITY of life. If we let the world go to hell because of oversimplified concepts that don't pan out, things get worse. and worse. and worse. Then again, I never suggested shooting him except as a counter to your argument, but at the same time, I recognize that shoot-to-kill is largely a police event, while there is also shoot-to-incapacitate, and then if the punk pulls a gun in retaliation, see above, that the punk thief is the one putting his life at risk. I AM against shoot to kill for material objects, but also in favor of whatever escalated force is needed to get the job done.
ultimately your life and others, is what you risk every time you confront a thief, or who you presume is a thief, which can and will cause innocent people to get harmed.
Actually the root cause is the punk thief so you can't really spin this around and blame the victims. What causes more innocent people to be harmed? Not exercising sufficient deterrents to punk would-be thieves so they feel like they can get away with this kind of behavior, with *acceptable* risk.
Society has evolved away from your archaic way of thinking, even where laws permit it. History shows why that is so. You want to go backwards as a society, and ignore the actual cause of the rise in stealing and robberies. I already told you what the primary cause is, (social and economical injustice, that brings acts of desperation).
Archaic is thinking we should just let society go to hell in a hand basket and take pity on people who could have just gotten a jobby job. It sure looked like he had expensive sneakers on as well, if he's so hard up then why does he get to wear expensive designer clothing to go thieving?
#lifechoices
It's sad that you believe your tv, or anything else you own is worth someone's life, that someones stupid decisions, or acts of desperation should give you the right to harm them. There's a reason we have laws, law enforcement, judicial systems. History shows why it's bad for citizens to take the law into their own hands, and is littered with innocent people being injured or killed, as well as homeowners/business owners-employees being injured and killed.
Better that a few die to preserve a peaceful way of life for the vast majority, instead of promoting anarchy. Plus as previously stated, you want to ignore the root cause of the danger instead of establishing adequate deterrents.
In fact, history shows that police can't be everywhere and citizens are the primary deterrent for the average person contemplating criminal acts. It's only the few % of society with mental problems that are this brazen.
If as you contend, innocent people are being injured or killed, wouldn't that also be a reason to not hesitate for a moment, to immediately incapacitate the punk thieves before it can escalate past that?
So you know, I have been robbed 3 times in my life, equaling thasands if not tens of thousands of dollars in losses. I have also been jumped closing up business, in an attempt to get in and still shit. Fortunately I still had an employee there who literally saved my life, and no, me carrying a gun wouldn't have helped as I was blind sided by rock to the head that he continued to keep beating me in the head with. The employee didn't get involved to protect or save the materialistic objects inside the business, he did it to save my life. Fuck the shit inside. It can be replaced, my life or other can't be replaced.
Why do you think your assailant thought they could get away with what they were doing? Because the penalties were deemed worth the risk vs the reward. How do you change that equation? You can't reduce the reward except locking up everything and then there's still the human employee needing access to the cash. Refuse to take cash?
Otherwise the change to the equation is to make the penalty much harsher, which as I've already mentioned, doesn't necessarily mean shoot-to-kill rather than incapacitate.
Honestly, I think your "belief" of how it should be, and what the government can do "easily", is both very naive and ignorant.
You are pretending that all thieves are sane, moral people, which I can assure you that they are not. Some will rob you, then kill or at least assault you, the so-called innocent person who is not so innocent if he is facilitating robbers getting away with it, without sufficient deterrent to protect society.
Did you ever consider that if we just let thieves and robbers get away with it, that those 3 times you were robbed, might've been 300 instead? That there is a very good chance that you would have been harmed?
Ignorant is pretending that if you do nothing to stop the problem, that it won't get worse, not only for you, but other merchants, and as we've both conceded, putting innocent people at increased risk compared to reducing the instances of these crimes in the first place, through stronger deterrents.
At the same time, I feel it would degrade quality of life and would risk more innocent people if every citizen were armed and eager to shoot at a moment's notice. There is a balance to be met, and part of that is using whatever force is necessary to detain people who no longer care about right and wrong. There are not police in every store, on every street corner, in every neighborhood, so if not the citizens doing something, then who will? It is very naive to think that crime won't get worse, if citizens act like lambs.
On the other hand, if a burglar were in my home and my family was there, he's getting shot. Dead. No telling what he might do besides steal a widget or 3.
