Explain to me why my attitude is wrong.

ddubois · #1 11-21-2005, 07:54 PM

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 · #2 11-21-2005, 07:56 PM

[ 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 · #3 11-21-2005, 07:56 PM

because i only gave him $10.

RunDownHouse · #4 11-21-2005, 07:57 PM

Because your property is not worth a human life.

This should really be moved ASAP.

Patrick del Poker Grande · #5 11-21-2005, 07:58 PM

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 · #6 11-21-2005, 07:59 PM

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 · #7 11-21-2005, 08:00 PM

[ 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. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Blarg · #8 11-21-2005, 08:04 PM

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! · #9 11-21-2005, 08:37 PM

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 · #10 11-21-2005, 08:45 PM

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.