BF2S Forums Shoplifter killed over toothpaste

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

You're clearly trying to justify vigilante justice.  I'm explaining why it isn't logical.

and it isn't because...?

Ok...  let's break this one down, shall we?...

Guy steals toothpaste.  Clerk chokes and kills thief.  Thief's family demands justice.  Well...  I guess if vigilante justice is ok, then the thief's family can go out and kill the clerk.  Then, the clerk's family is pissed about that....

It's a bit problematic to say the least.

And if it hadn't resulted in a death? Simple citizen's arrest. You have issues with that? Should they have let him get away to rob another day?

Turquoise wrote:

Ok...  let's break this one down, shall we?...

Guy steals toothpaste.  Clerk chokes and kills thief.  Thief's family demands justice.  Well...  I guess if vigilante justice is ok, then the thief's family can go out and kill the clerk.  Then, the clerk's family is pissed about that....

It's a bit problematic to say the least.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That's why for the period of time you are actually breaking social contract, you are absolutely on your own.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

...and later turn yourself in then of course it is imperative that limits are placed on the system to maintain the rights of the possibly innocent, that's what the Bill of Rights is for.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

When someone is actually in the act of burglary, rape, murder etc. and to extend those same rights to them as if they are a member of society...

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

When you are actively working against a stable society you forfeit your rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

...and that what I wrote specifically pertains to the period in which the contract is broken.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ok...  let's break this one down, shall we?...

Guy steals toothpaste.  Clerk chokes and kills thief.  Thief's family demands justice.  Well...  I guess if vigilante justice is ok, then the thief's family can go out and kill the clerk.  Then, the clerk's family is pissed about that....

It's a bit problematic to say the least.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That's why for the period of time you are actually breaking social contract, you are absolutely on your own.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

...and later turn yourself in then of course it is imperative that limits are placed on the system to maintain the rights of the possibly innocent, that's what the Bill of Rights is for.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

When someone is actually in the act of burglary, rape, murder etc. and to extend those same rights to them as if they are a member of society...

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

When you are actively working against a stable society you forfeit your rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

...and that what I wrote specifically pertains to the period in which the contract is broken.

And again, your logic does not pertain to how our system actually works.

A thief is not treated the same as a murderer or a rapist, nor should he be.

If we did act like that, it would most certainly resemble Sharia Law more than a Western law system.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ok...  let's break this one down, shall we?...

Guy steals toothpaste.  Clerk chokes and kills thief.  Thief's family demands justice.  Well...  I guess if vigilante justice is ok, then the thief's family can go out and kill the clerk.  Then, the clerk's family is pissed about that....

It's a bit problematic to say the least.

And if it hadn't resulted in a death? Simple citizen's arrest. You have issues with that? Should they have let him get away to rob another day?

That's not vigilante justice.  The vigilante part implies a violent vindictiveness on the part of the avenger, so to speak.

The guy was scared and went too far. Shit happens. Have you been in a similar situation? How did you react/feel?

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

And if it hadn't resulted in a death? Simple citizen's arrest. You have issues with that? Should they have let him get away to rob another day?

That's not vigilante justice.  The vigilante part implies a violent vindictiveness on the part of the avenger, so to speak.

The guy was scared and went too far. Shit happens. Have you been in a similar situation? How did you react/feel?

I'm not saying that I would react more logically than the guy in this situation.  But if I did kill someone -- even by accident -- I do have to suffer a penalty for it.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

And again, your logic does not pertain to how our system actually works.

A thief is not treated the same as a murderer or a rapist, nor should he be.

If we did act like that, it would most certainly resemble Sharia Law more than a Western law system.

I don't know how much more clear I can make the fact that the justice system is completely and obviously irrelevant when the person is in the act of committing a crime.

It is absolutely relevant.  Look, if a guy robs me, and then I shoot him in the back as he's running away and it kills him, that is a crime.

Now, depending on the jury I get, my punishment could range between a lot of things, but the point is..  I still have to go to court for it.

So, the justice system is relevant at all times because of the repercussions tied to what actions I take.

Our "social contract" is pretty clear cut on that.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

And again, your logic does not pertain to how our system actually works.

A thief is not treated the same as a murderer or a rapist, nor should he be.

If we did act like that, it would most certainly resemble Sharia Law more than a Western law system.

I don't know how much more clear I can make the fact that the justice system is completely and obviously irrelevant when the person is in the act of committing a crime.

It is absolutely relevant.  Look, if a guy robs me, and then I shoot him in the back as he's running away and it kills him, that is a crime.

Now, depending on the jury I get, my punishment could range between a lot of things, but the point is..  I still have to go to court for it.

So, the justice system is relevant at all times because of the repercussions tied to what actions I take.

Our "social contract" is pretty clear cut on that.

Whether or not you go to court for it doesn't mean anything about the justice system itself. Innocent people go to court all the time and are acquitted as such. There is a reason why you are innocent until proven guilty.

Essentially you are insinuating that the right to shoot a thief in the back increases crime as compared to our more civilized (LOL) European counterparts, a hilarious notion.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I believe in proportionate force.  If a home invader has a deadly weapon, you should be able to defend with deadly force.

However, the example in the OP did not even involve a weapon.

And as I said, he probably watched too much WWE/MMA and thought he was choking him out correctly. He thought wrong. Did he really do anything wrong in subduing a guy that just robbed him? No. Should he be punished? Yes, as I said, he used excessive force. Same with curb stomping or pile driving I can choke a guy out in about seven seconds, he'll black out and come to a bit groggy thirty seconds later. I'm trained to do this and I would use it in a situation like that because while he's out he's easy to tie up/cuff etc. The key is that I'm trained

Involuntary manslaughter is still a crime.  Obviously, he shouldn't get the same penalty as 2nd degree or premeditated, but he did overstep his rights by killing this guy.

Sure, I'm not arguing he doesn't deserve some punishment. Involuntary obviously fits. You seem to be arguing that no one should ever step into 'vigilante' mode and that we should leave everything to police. Surprised that a southerner puts so much faith in the police...

Turquoise wrote:

True, but following that principle, no one "forfeits their rights" by breaking the social contract except under very specific circumstances.

For example, you're allowed to kill someone in self-defense.  You're also allowed to kill someone in defense of someone else's life.

Those are some of the rare occasions where someone truly forfeits their rights.  Otherwise, they still have, at the very least, the right to live.

They don't have the right to live, you don't have the right to kill them. There is a very important distinction.

The purpose of social contract in the first place is to protect everyone from each other. That is exactly the reason for laws - to make sure that crime is prevented in the first place or at the very least to remove people that are likely to commit a crime (because they already have) from society. To allow someone to kill someone else without sufficient reason is clearly indicative of that person's capability to be damaging to society. The OP is a perfect example. The thief forfeited his right to life, but at the same time the clerk that overreacted proved himself dangerous to society.

Turquoise wrote:

A society that legitimizes vigilantism is much more prone to being violent overall, because of the inherent acceptance of violence on a subconscious level.

A ballsy claim with zero data or even really logic to back it up. That makes about as much sense as saying violent video games make criminals.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

They don't have the right to live, you don't have the right to kill them. There is a very important distinction.

The purpose of social contract in the first place is to protect everyone from each other. That is exactly the reason for laws - to make sure that crime is prevented in the first place or at the very least to remove people that are likely to commit a crime (because they already have) from society. To allow someone to kill someone else without sufficient reason is clearly indicative of that person's capability to be damaging to society. The OP is a perfect example. The thief forfeited his right to life, but at the same time the clerk that overreacted proved himself dangerous to society.

If the thief forfeited his right to live, then that means the clerk would not be eligible for being charged with anything.  Your first sentence makes no sense, and it is certainly false according to the social contract we live under in this country.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

A ballsy claim with zero data or even really logic to back it up. That makes about as much sense as saying violent video games make criminals.

A culture that promotes violence as an answer to crime will undoubtedly be more violent innately.  If you want stats, then again, look at the differences in violent crime rates between us and much less vigilantist countries like Canada.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-05-10 22:02:54)

JohnG@lt wrote:

You know, in the state of Texas, if you see an accident occur you are required by law to stop and give as much aid as you can until an ambulance arrives. It's a good law, especially in a state as large as Texas where help might not arrive for a long time. By your logic Turquoise, the law is stupid because there are trained professionals who are paid to perform the job. Texans should just drive on by and leave the people on the side of the road to their fate. Because, hell, a person trying to aid an injured person just might accidentally kill them.

Well, if it's any consolation, most states have laws in place that protect Good Samaritans.  Unfortunately, for the states that don't, there have been cases where people have taken other people to court over injuries caused by those trying to help.

That's quite a bit different from vigilantism though.  I think we can agree that Good Samaritans should be protected by law.

JohnG@lt wrote:

If I'm walking down the street and I see a man steal a womans purse and I tackle him for a citizens arrest, I'll be called a hero. If he breaks his neck when he falls to the ground I'll be charged with involuntary manslaughter? Sorry, the outcome is the same, one just happens to be bad luck.

That's why you have juries.  You'd be charged, but then a decent lawyer should be able to either get you acquitted or limit you to a very light sentence.