Explain to me why my attitude is wrong.

[ddubois]

Maybe move this to politics?

You have a store front. A man comes in, sticks a gun in your face, and demands money. You give it to him, and then as he turns and runs for the door, you reach under your counter, grab your gun, and shoot him. He dies.

Your action seems perfectly acceptable to me. Explain to me I am wrong, why this is immoral, and why the world is a better place because this is illegal and with your subsequent imprisonment.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe move this to politics?

You have a store front. A man comes in, sticks a gun in your face, and demands money. You give it to him, and then as he turns to run for the door, you reach under your counter, grab your gun, and shoot him. He dies.

Your action seems perfectly acceptable to me. Explain to me I am wrong, why this is immoral, and why the world is a better place because this is illegal and with your subsequent imprisonment.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a couple of states that give you a right to protect your property.

[gorie]

because i only gave him $10.

[RunDownHouse]

Because your property is not worth a human life.

This should really be moved ASAP.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

I think the general idea is that you were free of the threat to your life when you shot this guy (in the back). Your survival was no longer in question and you were no longer saving your life. Also, the ending of life is of far greater magnitude than the theft of any amount of money, so you are therefor punishing him too severely.

[AndysDaddy]

It seems a simple question of whether or not you believe that you should have the right to take a life to protect property. As the previous poster said, different states take different positions on this one.

Personnaly, I'd lean towards not allowing this, but it is a close call in my mind.
--
Scott

[Tron]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the general idea is that you were free of the threat to your life when you shot this guy (in the back). Your survival was no longer in question and you were no longer saving your life. Also, the ending of life is of far greater magnitude than the theft of any amount of money, so you are therefor punishing him too severely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Patrick is absoluely correct in all matters not relating to iPods. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Blarg]

This doesn't seem overtly political to me, and seems fine for here. OOT would be dumbed down even dumber if we couldn't ever discuss anything besides fake boobs or something.

I think one more dead violent crook is no loss to the world at all, but that doesn't mean it's up to random individuals to do it. That's why we have laws, so every man isn't a walking death squad. Shooting him might actually do the world a lot of good in the long run, but that's not for you to judge. Once your life is no longer threatened, you can't, in self defense, take someone else's.

On a practical basis, there are consequences to this kind of thing, too. For one, your gun will probably be confiscated by police for an indefinite period of time. This could coincide exactly with relatives of the dead guy coming back, armed, to get revenge. What then? Even with a gun, most of the time if someone wants to get the drop on you and shoot you, it's easy. Scumbags usually have scumbag family and friends, and "revenge" even when the scumbag is entirely in the wrong is hardly out of the moral vocabulary of these guys.

[BluffTHIS!]

Your life was no longer in danger, and thus you have no right to then use deadly force on a fleeing robber who did not imminently threaten the life of another person (in which case you would be justified). If you believe otherwise, then it logically follows that you believe a sentence of death to be an appropriate sentence for a convicted armed robber.

[zipo]

Remember that scene in Godfather III where Pacino's nephew (Andy Garcia) shot a couple of thugs sent by a gangster (Joey Zaza) who broke into his apartment with the intention of killing him, even though they only had knives and Garcia had a gun.

Corleone asks the kid - why did you have to shoot them?

Kid says - I was just sending a message.

[ QUOTE ]
Kid says - I was just sending a message.

[/ QUOTE ]
Great line. But won't work in this case.

The "message" in the movie was received and understood by those for whom it was intended.

I'm not against guns. I had a gun on the premises of a business I owned. I would not have used it as the OP described. A shot in the back of a fleeing perp is, IMO, cowardly. A well-placed shot in his ass, thigh, or lower, would have gotten nothing but major lawsuits.

I'd have emptied my clip over his head and around him. That might have been a good "message" to him, and him alone. Well, maybe he'd have talked to his buds about it (after he'd changed his underwear) and they'd have gotten a little hint.

[cardcounter0]

This isn't illegal in Kansas City.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Because your property is not worth a human life.

This should really be moved ASAP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but a violent extortionist's life isn't worth a human life either.

[ddubois]

[ QUOTE ]
Because your property is not worth a human life.

[/ QUOTE ]
So alot of people are referring to "a life" not being worth "the money", but I would say the robber's life is not worth any money. Or more precisely, he is worth negative money - in that his existance is a drain on the rest of society functioning as we would deign appropriate. His violent crimes carry a societal cost.

[ QUOTE ]
I think one more dead violent crook is no loss to the world at all, but that doesn't mean it's up to random individuals to do it

[/ QUOTE ]
Is there someone else more qualified? More than the person who just had their life-threatened and their money stolen? Also, use of the word "random" here is objectionable.

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe otherwise, then it logically follows that you believe a sentence of death to be an appropriate sentence for a convicted armed robber.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay!

I mean, if there was some way to be certain that no one was ever wrongly convicted, I think I would be. But human memory sucks, people ID the wrong guy, can't remember details, people plant evidence, etc. Which is why shooting the guy at the scene is optimal - you can be certain that you have the right guy, and avoid the risk of the guy: a) committing any more crimes, b) getting off on some technicality, c) obscuring evidence, or d) avoiding capture.

With upwards of 4 billion people on the planet, I am not opposed to some culling.

[hmkpoker]

hmmmm

I'm not bothered by this emotionally.

The only problem is that, practically, this puts you at a high degree of legal risk, but then duh. Fire is hot.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe move this to politics?

You have a store front. A man comes in, sticks a gun in your face, and demands money. You give it to him, and then as he turns and runs for the door, you reach under your counter, grab your gun, and shoot him. He dies.

Your action seems perfectly acceptable to me. Explain to me I am wrong, why this is immoral, and why the world is a better place because this is illegal and with your subsequent imprisonment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Simple answer: "Officer, I feared for my life". You'll be fine.

The main moral implication in this act is that if he has an accomplice, you are sentencing the accomplice to life or even the death penalty due to the insane felony murder rule.

A man armed with a gun == you should shoot him if you can. To do otherwise is to simply hope that he won't murder you and that he isn't so high he'll fail to understand what's going on.

Simply put, don't wait for the gun-wielding criminal to act like a decent human being. Your life may be at stake. No jury will convict. This post may also serve as a warning to anyone who is thinking of breaking in my home: how do you know I'm not bluffing?

natedogg

[ QUOTE ]
No jury will convict.

[/ QUOTE ]
That, is not a slam dunk.

[gamblore99]

I would have no problem shooting this person. I would probably try to just wound him, but I doubt I would really feel to bad about him dying.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I would have no problem shooting this person. I would probably try to just wound him, but I doubt I would really feel to bad about him dying.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you lose your house and IRA to him as a result of his civil suit you will.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe move this to politics?

You have a store front. A man comes in, sticks a gun in your face, and demands money. You give it to him, and then as he turns and runs for the door, you reach under your counter, grab your gun, and shoot him. He dies.

Your action seems perfectly acceptable to me. Explain to me I am wrong, why this is immoral, and why the world is a better place because this is illegal and with your subsequent imprisonment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Simple answer: "Officer, I feared for my life". You'll be fine.

The main moral implication in this act is that if he has an accomplice, you are sentencing the accomplice to life or even the death penalty due to the insane felony murder rule.

A man armed with a gun == you should shoot him if you can. To do otherwise is to simply hope that he won't murder you and that he isn't so high he'll fail to understand what's going on.

Simply put, don't wait for the gun-wielding criminal to act like a decent human being. Your life may be at stake. No jury will convict. This post may also serve as a warning to anyone who is thinking of breaking in my home: how do you know I'm not bluffing?

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what backwater state you are from, but in the real USA this is 100% illeagal. Shoot him and he lives, you get sued and go to jail. Shoot him and he dies, you go to jail and maybe avoid a wrongful death lawsuit. I seriously doubt the "I feared for my life (as he ran away from me out the door) officer" is going to work anywhere that isnt texas or some place like that.

The people who say they would shoot to wound him, why? Shoot him in hte leg and he rolls over and pops you in the chest. Better to either shoot to kill, or just be a normal person and let him run away. It looks like momst of the gun toters would love this opportunity to show how manly they are by shooting a fleeing man. Gulity or not once he turns and flees you are not in danger, furthermore you are free to flee the other way to increase your lack of danger. You are certainly 100% wrong to shoot him as he leaves.

FYI it is illegal in most cities to discharge your fire arm without cause, so even if you "empty your clip" around him your still in a load of trouble.

[gamblore99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would have no problem shooting this person. I would probably try to just wound him, but I doubt I would really feel to bad about him dying.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you lose your house and IRA to him as a result of his civil suit you will.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a post about the morality of shooting a fleeing armed robber in the back. Whether it is legal has nothing to do with it. I am talking strictly on moral principles. Obviously I am not willing to go to jail to save 15 dollars and some pride.

[BCPVP]

Egads, I'm agreeing with weatherman!

You're a vigilante if you take it upon yourself to dispense the death sentence to someone for theft. C'mon! "I feared for my life, officer" is not going to work because you have little if anything to fear from someone running away from you carrying the money he just stole. If he comes back (also assuming he's armed), then blast away because now you can reasonably fear for your life. But your life is not at risk from a fleeing man.

Plus consider what happens if you miss. Now the robber might continue to flee or he might fire back after finding some cover and your shootout could get other people killed, all because you took it upon yourself to be judge, jury, and executioner.

I'm all for killing someone who is in the process of robbing/raping/attempting to kill you, but not for shooting at someone who is in the process of fleeing.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a post about the morality of shooting a fleeing armed robber in the back.

[/ QUOTE ]
This should be obvious and the fact that some people have no problem with shooting a fleeing criminal for petty theft is quite disturbing. How can anyone claim the moral high ground when arguing that this man should be shot?

[BluffTHIS!]

That's why I said earlier that it logically follows that they would also agree that execution was an appropriate sentence for armed robbery.

[BCPVP]

We also might as well throw the concept of due process out the window.
Why have trials when we can just find the bastard and shoot him?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Execution is an appropriate sentence for armed robbery.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should we not have harsher penalties for property theft than for life theft (murder) ?

I hear you when you equate life with property (Life = $$$), which means having the death penalty for both murderers and armed robbers -- but would this send a strong enough capitalist message ?? I doubt it.

Where would we be without property?? Most probably dead. I mean, I hear all the time "I'd be dead without my toaster!", "My father will kill me if I scratch the car!", etc.

So, I suggest, BE TOUGHER ON ARMED ROBBERY : Death penalty for murder; two weeks in MMMMMM's apartment for armed robbery.

[Darryl_P]

I am in 100% agreement with you on this one, but I was debating whether or not to post it since there is really not much point in debating it with bleeding-hearted libs who'd rather see my ass in jail for protecting my own kind (or even thinking there is such a thing as my own kind), than to see crack-addicted armed thugs get the rap.

The intelligent, highly-educated reasoning says that their unpleasant behavior is really our fault, see, because we had more opportunites than they had as children. Since we were luckier, we should feel sorry for them because we don't deserve to have any unfair advantages. If we don't do that, then we're bad people and a threat to society ourselves. Do you get it now?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
We also might as well throw the concept of due process out the window.
Why have trials when we can just find the bastard and shoot him?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
HOUSTON, Texas (AP), November 21, 2005 -- Doubts are being cast on the guilt of a Texas man executed more than a dozen years ago after the crime's lone witness recanted and a co-defendant said he allowed his friend to be falsely accused under police pressure. CNN Report (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/11/20/texas.execution.ap/index.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/US/11/20/texas.execution.ap/vert.cantu.tx.dcj.jpg

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I am in 100% agreement with you on this one, but I was debating whether or not to post it since there is really not much point in debating it with bleeding-hearted libs who'd rather see my ass in jail for protecting my own kind (or even thinking there is such a thing as my own kind), than to see crack-addicted armed thugs get the rap.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then debate with me as I think most here can vouch that I am not a bleeding-heart liberal.
In this example, the shooting of the criminal is not done out of protection of yourself. The criminal is running away. Shooting him in this case would be almost purely out of vengeance and has no place in a society that considers due process a right. And there's no mention of this robber "beating the rap". That's what a police force and district attorney are for.

[ QUOTE ]
The intelligent, highly-educated reasoning says that their unpleasant behavior is really our fault, see, because we had more opportunites than they had as children. Since we were luckier, we should feel sorry for them because we don't deserve to have any unfair advantages. If we don't do that, then we're bad people and a threat to society ourselves. Do you get it now?

[/ QUOTE ]
Please, spare us. I, for one, will certainly not argue that you shouldn't shoot the robber because he may have had a bad childhood. I argue that you have no right to kill someone for stealing who is in the process of running away and to do so is a gross violation of their right to due process (yes, even crack-addled criminals have rights).

Do you get it now?

[Girchuck]

You get a street rep for shooting people in the back.
You have to move far away, because the next thug who robs your store will shoot you first instead of getting it in the back.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Shooting him in this case would be almost purely out of vengeance and has no place in a society that considers due process a right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's consider philosophically why due process exists...if I'm missing something please point it out but I see two key reasons:

a) To make sure the facts are straight
b) To make sure society's consensus values are applied and not those of any particular individual

Reason a) I agree with whole-heartedly and so I would only shoot the guy if the case was 100% clear cut and I could prove it. I wouldn't want people thinking I'm a random killer myself so I'd make sure everyone gets to see the videotape, transcripts of witness testimony etc. If there is any doubt as to what the true facts are, then I'd be in favor of due process myself.

Reason b), however, I reject with all my heart because of the heavy liberal slant to the judicial system. If the judge and jury were made up only of the top 25% most right-wing segment of the population I'd gladly accept their verdict. Sadly, though, there are so many liberals who are more concerned with the rights of criminals than those of honest businessmen, that I cannot accept a due process in which such people are in power.

If you are in favor of due process, I'm assuming it's because of a combination of a) and b) above. In the case of b), are you saying you agree with society's consensus values, or at least are willing to compromise, or are you just pointing out the fact that the system forces us to accept them whether we like them or not?


[ QUOTE ]
And there's no mention of this robber "beating the rap".

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but there is mention of him getting away which means there is a chance he will escape.

I suppose a lot depends on how big the chance is and what the expected rap will be. In my value system it would have to be 100% and either life imprisonment or execution. If someone threatens my life and I can prove it, I believe I have the right to a 100% guarantee that that person can never again threaten or cause harm to me or my family. Under the current system the only way to achieve that is to kill him. If there were another way, I'd be all for it.

I assume the real-world values of roughly 80% and a few years' imprisonment would be acceptable in your value system. Just wondering, though, what if they were lower? What if it were only 20% and the expected rap were only 1 year of community service? What would your position be then? If you are still in favor of letting him go, how low would the probability have to be before you took matters into your own hands?

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
It looks like momst of the gun toters would love this opportunity to show how manly they are by shooting a fleeing man.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with showing manliness and everything to do with having zero tolerance for having to live in a society where behavior like that is endorsed or accepted. If you give him your money and do nothing you are telling him he did a good thing by robbing you and that he should do it again. If you kill him then it tells others who might want to try the same thing that it might not be such a good idea.

[InchoateHand]

Yes, violence is a very powerful deterrence. I mean, the death penalty reduces murder, and vigilante justice decreases crime! Its proven by science...

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's consider philosophically why due process exists...if I'm missing something please point it out but I see two key reasons:

a) To make sure the facts are straight
b) To make sure society's consensus values are applied and not those of any particular individual

[/ QUOTE ]
In addition to these, here are a few more reasons/rights you receive under due process (from http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html):
# Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
# Right to be present at the trial
# Right to an impartial jury
# Right to be heard in one's own defense
# Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior

[ QUOTE ]
Reason a) I agree with whole-heartedly and so I would only shoot the guy if the case was 100% clear cut and I could prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's your first problem. You can't know with 100% certainty whether a case is clear cut AND you can prove it in the moments before shooting the robber. But it's not for you to decide anyway. That's why the victims of crimes aren't the ones in the jury box.

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't want people thinking I'm a random killer myself so I'd make sure everyone gets to see the videotape, transcripts of witness testimony etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
These things all take place after the crime has been committed, namely at trial. You are circumventing this whole process when you decide that YOU will decide what the law and punishment should be for a particular crime is.

[ QUOTE ]
If there is any doubt as to what the true facts are, then I'd be in favor of due process myself.

[/ QUOTE ]
What good is finding out if there was any doubt when you've already shot the robbber? This is supposed to happen at trial, not made as snap decision by someone who has just been robbed.

[ QUOTE ]
Reason b), however, I reject with all my heart because of the heavy liberal slant to the judicial system.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now you're getting ridiculous. This is a terrible argument in favor of vigilantism.

[ QUOTE ]
Sadly, though, there are so many liberals who are more concerned with the rights of criminals than those of honest businessmen, that I cannot accept a due process in which such people are in power.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't get to choose who will get rights and when. We all have rights all of the time.

But let's go ahead and weigh the rights of both parties involved. First the businessman has a right to not be robbed or threatened. He also has a right to self-defense while his life is in danger. But we already know that the businessman's life is no longer in danger. Now the criminal also has rights, like the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury, a lawyer, and the right to not be unjustly killed. While he could have been killed during the commission of his crime and I would have no problem, he cannot be killed while he's running away.

Now it seems to me we can let the businessman shoot the robber and therefor violate many of the criminals rights or we can enforce laws that prevent the businessman from shooting. Either way, the businessman's rights have still been violated, but in the first case, the robber's more fundamental rights have been violated. We can sort out the damage if the businessman doesn't kill the robber, but we can't do much if he does.

[ QUOTE ]
No, but there is mention of him getting away which means there is a chance he will escape.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps. That's an argument for a better police force, not an argument for killing any criminal for any crime onsight.

[ QUOTE ]
In my value system it would have to be 100% and either life imprisonment or execution. If someone threatens my life and I can prove it, I believe I have the right to a 100% guarantee that that person can never again threaten or cause harm to me or my family.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again with the proving. Who are you proving this to? It's a farce if the other guy is not allowed to present his side, and he's not since you killed him. That's not justice.

But there is this concept of punishment fitting the crime that is sorta common here in the U.S. It means we don't kill people for jaywalking and speeding. In this case, the punishment of execution does not fit with the crime of robbery.

[ QUOTE ]
I assume the real-world values of roughly 80% and a few years' imprisonment would be acceptable in your value system. Just wondering, though, what if they were lower? What if it were only 20% and the expected rap were only 1 year of community service? What would your position be then? If you are still in favor of letting him go, how low would the probability have to be before you took matters into your own hands?

[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter what the probability is. You do not have the right to dispense "justice" at your pleasure. You have a right to self-defense while your life is in danger, but you do not have the right to vigilantism.

I hope that if you are unfortunate to ever be robbed and you do shoot the criminal as he's running away, that you're locked up for as long as they can legally do so. Your idea of justice is warped and sick.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with showing manliness and everything to do with having zero tolerance for having to live in a society where behavior like that is endorsed or accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]
NO ONE is arguing that such behavior should be endorsed or accepted. What we are arguing is that you do not have the right to become judge, jury, and executioner.

[ QUOTE ]
If you give him your money and do nothing you are telling him he did a good thing by robbing you and that he should do it again.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's what the criminal justice system is for.

[ QUOTE ]
If you kill him then it tells others who might want to try the same thing that it might not be such a good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe. Or maybe the next time your robbed, you'll be shot first without warning.

[Darryl_P]

Thank you Mr. State Representative for explaining how the system works in the USA. I know that. Duh.

I was hoping for a philosophical discussion about a hypothetical situation reflecting your personal values, not just an aping of the official answers which are perfectly predictable and highly tedious.

I'm smart enough to know how the liberal-infested judicial system works so I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you by not doing anything to get myself locked up anytime soon. In the meantime I'd worry about managing the national debt if I were you, because that and the house of cards built upon it is a favorite to be the demise of your so highly prized society.

[InchoateHand]

Thats right, the liberal infested judiciary! They are sick, I tell you, sick! The most consistently conservative element of the American political process is horribly stricken with a case of liberals! Quick, run to...oh wait...nevermind.

You aren't very bright, are you?

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
You aren't very bright, are you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid it is you who is not very bright because you think that a politician with an (R) beside his name isn't a liberal. I've got news for you...your whole government is liberal, including the republi-dummies. True conservatism is something you will only experience after your economy collapses and a broad-scale war erupts. When it happens you'll be scratching your head thinking "hmmm...why are people so evil?" while I'll just be witnessing Darwinian nature unfolding as it should.