Should PA allow deadly force to stop thieves?

[ROCK-IT3]

I don't see the point in defending thieves or in acting as if there is some higher moral authority in allowing thieves to run rampant. That's a leftist argument. And, that type of argument always leads to protecting criminals and punishing victims. If a person is so inclined as to shoot a thief in the act of robbery, I don't have a problem with it. People should have a right to feel secure in their possessions. I guess, if I was inclined to steal stuff, I would make the argument that it's wrong to stop the theft of other people's possessions through the use of deadly force. Not being a thief, I have no qualms with it. I wouldn't personally shoot a person for shop lifting a pen or a pack of gum--I wouldn't shoot a person for shoplifting anything. I wouldn't judge a person who did--especially if that person owned the store. I would want to have the right to shoot these gangs who go in groups to devour stores. I would not care if they locked the stores down and filled the stores with deadly gas in order to kill every one of those thieves--matter of fact, I would get a little giddy reading about it if it happened.

I don't recall anyone here defending thieves, or saying they should be allowed to run rampant. Point out specific statements if I am wrong.

Again, theft and robbery are two different crimes (neither of which carries a death penalty punishment), although armed robbery carries the threat of death to the victim, and should be treated accordingly by the victim, if possible.

Hypothetically then, you are ok with the innocent people and employees of the store dying along with the thieves? Because in one of the recent videos posted, there were plenty of innocent people in the store also.

[ImminentDanger]

I don't recall anyone here defending thieves, or saying they should be allowed to run rampant.

The current problem is the government's lack of responsible application of appropriate laws & available punishment for theft crimes.

The problem of non-punishment & lack of justice or consequences to these criminals exists only because of the lack of efforts by the judicial system (because of inappropriate legislative actions or actions of individual prosecutors & judges) to use all reasonable, legal & judicial means to bring appropriate consequences to such criminals.

As a practical matter, if there ever was enough support for a law, specifically justifying the killing of burglars, there would have already been enough support to change the judicial system to prevent the need for such a law because the source of the problem would have been fixed.

The current proposal (by GL) is to remove the consequences from victims taking lethal action as a remedy for the current lack of consequences applied by the government against the perp's actions.

The argument is over WHO should bring the consequences. The judiciary is currently NOT bringing consequences, which it should. Does that justify turning over that responsibility for consequences to the victims during the crime? After the crime? In anticipation of the crime?

The consideration should not simply be 'What do I WANT to do when my right to my possessions is violated?'. Rather the question is 'What is the RIGHT thing to do as consequences for theft?'. That is, what is just.

Justice is the reasoned application of appropriate consequences for the crime committed. Taking into account some of the responses here, I hesitate to think that victims, in the throes of the crime, can satisfactorily mete out such JUST consequences, but rather tend to REVENGE consequences.

I DO believe there should be JUST consequences for thievery.

As a private citizen, I have been both the victim of burglary and have helped capture burglars. My position on this question is not based simply on theoretical contemplation. It is, however, a reasoned position, not an emotional or vengeful one created in the heat of the moment.

The proper fix of this problem is RE-TAKING the government from those who have foisted the problem upon us. Then returning to appropriate consequences for all criminal activity.

...

[GunLawyer001]

The Code of Draco specified death for most violations.

Some would say that's too high a price to pay for stealing chickens or raping the neighbor.

Problem is, the price shouldn't be set at the point where you get some takers, that's a marketing issue, finding the point where the price charged lets you sell all of your wares.

We're not selling the chickens and demanding $1 million per. We don't want anyone to steal, so a proportionate sentence is irrelevant. We need to set the "penalty" at the point where we deter most or all willful crimes. Not fistfights between drunks, not trespassing by toddlers. But pre-planned burglaries, intentional car thefts, swarms of looters . . . what's the "right level" of that shit? Zero. We want them to never do that.

You could do some rough math and try to achieve this without death for anything, but that's never going to work with human beings raised by other human beings. How do you measure (what the crime is worth to me) vs (what are my chances of being caught, convicted & punished?) times (how bad is that punishment?)

So a 10% chance of having your hand lopped off for purse-snatching seems to virtually eliminate crime.

A 1% chance of having a judge talk sternly to you before sending you back home does nothing at all to stop crime, not even profitless crimes like graffiti and other vandalism.

A 50% chance that witnesses will be killed before they can testify, appears to blow up crime. When you arrest a perp and release him until trial, he's free to stalk any witnesses. No wonder nobody talks to cops in the hood.

Would I want Democrats to have the power to execute a few thousand MAGA types over trespassing? Nope. That's not the question here. Would I want burglars and car thieves to SERIOUSLY fear being shot while driving off with packages? Yep. And after the first couple incidents, my guess would be that career criminals would flee PA and start robbing New Yorkers and Jerseyites and Marylanders and Ohioans. Because every action has a reaction, you can't just look at X thefts last year and say "that translates into X killings this year after the law changes". Because even thugs understand threats, so their behavior changes. It's why we have relatively few occupied home invasions in the USA, and lots of them in the UK. It's why urban thugs have a pattern of testing victims to see if they seem like hard targets, before committing themselves.

[Banks]

Mixed feelings on this. Just remember no matter what, this is at the discretion of the judge and the prosecutor. Prosecutor decides if you'll be charged and the judge decides what evidence the jury will hear (depending on motion to suppress). I've seen cases that were clearly self defense (in my opinion) only to see the judge decide that criminal history, fugitive status and toxicology reports were inadmissible. That's the whole defense and the guy got something like 60 years.

[Walleye Hunter]

There's few people that I despise just because of who or what they are and thieves are right near the top of that list. Execute them all, the planet is overpopulated anyway and that's a better place to start than an old scooter who worked all his life.

[GunLawyer001]

There's few people that I despise just because of who or what they are and thieves are right near the top of that list. Execute them all, the planet is overpopulated anyway and that's a better place to start than an old scooter who worked all his life.

The Supreme Court focused on "immutable characteristics", saying it's bad to discriminate or mistreat people because of their race, gender, heritage, things they didn't cause and they can't change if they wanted to (trannies & Liz Warren are wrong, you can't change any of those).

I'm against Canada encouraging the handicapped to die. I'm against pogroms against Jews. I'm against the rich eating poor children or harvesting their organs for sale, like China does.

I'm not at all against discriminating against people who chose to steal, rape, assault random passersby, or invade our nation in violation of our laws and colonize us. They can stop stealing, refuse to rape, manage their anger, wait in line like the decent foreigners whom we might want here.

It's like Hamas wanting all Jews to die, vs Israel killing Hamas thugs so they stop killing Jews. Only one of those is "genocide". Shooting fleeing thieves is not genocide, it's merely illegal and punishable same as killing your neighbor because he lets his leaves fall on your lawn.

I only suggest allowing victims to shoot property thieves because there's no other suggestions in play for stopping the anarchy and self-help redistribution of wealth that's going on now, under Democrat tyranny. If someone with influence were to put forth a plan to keep Soros money out of DA elections, mandate impeachment when DA's refuse to prosecute cases because of "racial equity" concerns, establish enough new prison cells or tents or dormitories to house every offender (and rent them out to pick crops so that the taxpayers aren't suffering as much and farmers stop hiring illegals), then shooting thieves becomes unnecessary and therefore cruel.

[JAKIII]

Liberal DAs would still get elected without Soros money, (i.e., no dims are voting for conservative candidates who are pro LE and tough on crime).

[Curmudgeon]

366932407_10224572933298730_1067241311315812498_n.jpg