These stories should be plastered in schools everywhere.

[Lewkowski]

Message - Don't steal, don't die.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/26/...art-employees/

"According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the middle-aged man, whose identity has not been released, allegedly attempted to shoplift two DVD players from a Walmart in Lithonia, Ga., about 15 miles east of downtown Atlanta, around 1:30 a.m. Sunday. He exited through the front doors and was walking through the parking lot when two employees and a contract security guard caught and subdued him. When police arrived at the scene, they found the three workers on top of the suspected thief. When officers tried to handcuff the man, they noticed he was unresponsive and bleeding from his nose and mouth. He was taken to a nearby hospital and pronounced dead shortly thereafter."

Hopefully these guys get the employee of the month award. (They won't because we have become a pathetic litigious society.)

[Timbuk2]

You've upgraded from toothpaste to DVD players.

Have a gold star. *pats head*

[Lewkowski]

You've upgraded from toothpaste to DVD players.

Have a gold star. *pats head*

If more criminals were scared of security there would be less crime. True or false?

[Steely Glint]

If more criminals were scared of security there would be less crime. True or false?

They'd just go and find somewhere less well protected to rob. So false.

If you somehow had a situation where every single robbery target had a chance of a fatal outcome for the robbers, then you'd see less crime, but more of that crime would be violent: fewer bad guys, but much more quick to use force to get what they want. For example, if everyone in a society walked around armed and was prepared to shoot muggers there'd be fewer muggings - however, those muggers that remained would adopt new tactics to deal with the fact that everyone was packing by, for example, shooting first or jumping the target with like 5 people before they could draw their weapon. Or maybe they'd switch to other tactics like pickpocketing - can't blast the crim if they're two blocks away before you know something is missing. A lot of crime would probably move onto the internet, phishing scams and fraud and so on. Actually, that's already happening anyway.

People would adapt, basically, so the outcome is unpredictable.

[Lewkowski]

They'd just go and find somewhere less well protected to rob. So false.

If you somehow had a situation where every single robbery target had a chance of a fatal outcome for the robbers, then you'd see less crime, but more of that crime would be violent: fewer bad guys, but much more quick to use force to get what they want. For example, if everyone in a society walked around armed and was prepared to shoot muggers there'd be fewer muggings - however, those muggers that remained would adopt new tactics to deal with the fact that everyone was packing by, for example, shooting first or jumping the target with like 5 people before they could draw their weapon. Or maybe they'd switch to other tactics like pickpocketing - can't blast the crim if they're two blocks away before you know something is missing. A lot of crime would probably move onto the internet, phishing scams and fraud and so on. Actually, that's already happening anyway.

People would adapt, basically, so the outcome is unpredictable.

Question - Do you think educating kids on smoking or the dangers of drinking and driving provides any positive benefit?

[Steely Glint]

Question - Do you think educating kids on smoking or the dangers of drinking and driving provides any positive benefit?

Question - do you think we could skip over this ludicrious attempt at some kind of Socratic dialogue and you could just make whatever point you were going to make?

[RandBlade]

You've upgraded from toothpaste to DVD players.

Have a gold star. *pats head*

Theft is theft. Where do you draw the line?

[LittleFuzzy]

Theft is theft. Where do you draw the line?

Somewhere below beating someone to death, choking them to death, or in some other fashion violently bringing about their demise.

[Lewkowski]

Somewhere below beating someone to death, choking them to death, or in some other fashion violently bringing about their demise.

Struggles happen when criminals resist. Should stores not try to defend their property at all? And if stores shouldn't do you feel the same about private citizens? And if no one bothered to try to defend their stuff what would that do to crime rates?

[LittleFuzzy]

Struggles happen when criminals resist. Should stores not try to defend their property at all? And if stores shouldn't do you feel the same about private citizens? And if no one bothered to try to defend their stuff what would that do to crime rates?

Life, including the lives of criminals, is more valuable than property. Lethal violence in defense of a threat to one's own life is reasonably reciprocal. Lethal violence in defense of a tube of toothpaste, a dvd player, or a car is not. If you're worried about crime rates, maybe you should be willing to pony up more in taxes for measures which don't end in death, like increased police presence or, heaven forbid, outreach and services to mitigate the reasons and impulses that prompt crime in the first place. Fear is a weak tool and is dealing with surface expression only, and not a root cause. It mostly just shifts the crime to victims or sites which are more defenseless.

[Khendraja'aro]

Somewhere below beating someone to death, choking them to death, or in some other fashion violently bringing about their demise.

He probably thinks that $100 are worth a human life.

[Timbuk2]

Theft is theft. Where do you draw the line?

As Fuzzy so succinctly put;

Somewhere below beating someone to death, choking them to death, or in some other fashion violently bringing about their demise.

Where do you draw the line Rand?

[Aimless]

Theft is theft. Where do you draw the line?

This is interesting. Do you then believe the monetary value of the things stolen should not influence l the severity of the punishment?

[RandBlade]

Somewhere below beating someone to death, choking them to death, or in some other fashion violently bringing about their demise.

This time it is you that should re-read what was quoted. If you believe killing over theft is wrong then that's a logically valid position. What I object to is determining or judging it based upon the monetary value of the product stolen.

What Timbuk2 wrote sort of implied that a toothpaste or DVD player isn't worth killing over, but perhaps something more valuable like an Armani jacket, Rolex watch or new BMW is worth killing over. Either its OK to kill over property or its not, I don't see a monetary value that changes it from "not OK" to "well that death was reasonable".

This is interesting. Do you then believe the monetary value of the things stolen should not influence l the severity of the punishment?

When it comes to incarceration etc?-Yes.
When it comes to celebrating vigilante killings? No.

I don't see a monetary value that makes it OK to kill. The monetary value is redundant.

As Fuzzy so succinctly put;

Where do you draw the line Rand?

I put the line at life or death, I don't put the line on toothpaste or DVD players. I couldn't care less what was stolen. Why do you find toothpaste or DVD players to be relevant?

[GGT]

Lewk, there will always be some "criminal element" in society, regardless of security measures. True or False?

[Lewkowski]

Lewk, there will always be some "criminal element" in society, regardless of security measures. True or False?

True - however % of the criminal element is not fixed and can be changed.

[GGT]

Hang on....the OP title changed. WTF?


What is going on here? The original thread was started by Lewk but seemed to be taken over by someone else?

[Aimless]

Ah, Christianity, the most violent religion in the US

[Radar Love]

Message - Don't steal, don't die.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/26/...art-employees/

"According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the middle-aged man, whose identity has not been released, allegedly attempted to shoplift two DVD players from a Walmart in Lithonia, Ga., about 15 miles east of downtown Atlanta, around 1:30 a.m. Sunday. He exited through the front doors and was walking through the parking lot when two employees and a contract security guard caught and subdued him. When police arrived at the scene, they found the three workers on top of the suspected thief. When officers tried to handcuff the man, they noticed he was unresponsive and bleeding from his nose and mouth. He was taken to a nearby hospital and pronounced dead shortly thereafter."

Hopefully these guys get the employee of the month award. (They won't because we have become a pathetic litigious society.)

Whoa. You value human life so little? No room for mistakes in life, not eve the little ones? You've never made a mistake of this magnitude in your life?

Let he who does not sin cast the first stone.

[Lewkowski]

Whoa. You value human life so little? No room for mistakes in life, not eve the little ones? You've never made a mistake of this magnitude in your life?

Let he who does not sin cast the first stone.

Last time I checked society did not cast a death sentence. The criminal chose his death by multiple things.

1. Choosing to be a parasite and stealing.
2. When caught in the act the thief should have stopped running and waited patiently to be arrested.
3. When attacked by the good people trying to do their jobs he should have stopped resisting and struggling.

This is similar to a criminal running from the police and crossing train tracks and dying due to train. Aside from the clean up its quite an amusing thing.

And the good that come of this is fantastic. People don't do crimes for two main general reasons.

1. It violates the moral code they have.
2. They fear the consequences.

That's it. And we know that criminals like this lack morals (or they wouldn't be stealing) so the ONLY thing that prevents them from stealing is FEAR. Criminals should live in absolute terror of citizens protecting their own property and law enforcement. By creating that terror, the earlier the better, you create less crime and less people die in the long run.

If you want to save lives - then spread the word that stealing can get you killed.

[Aimless]

I'm pretty sure Lewk is saying he doesn't actually care about crime rates or about safety or even about bringing about a good society, he mostly just wants the opportunity to wank to stories about people dying. You kinda hafta read between the lines though. People don't die like this just because they resisted, they die because dumb aggressive incompetents go beyond their duties and try to do things for which they lack the necessary skill or means. The only reason Lewk's so ready to excuse their incompetence is because he values killing over doing the right thing. I just don't understand why he can't take up a hobby like bird-watching or something.

[Lewkowski]

So what I'm hearing you say is that you would save some people's lives over others. How do you come to that determination?

Let's also consider the concept of value.

"the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something."

The Importance - is your family more or less important that someone else?

Worth - Do people carry perfectly equal earning potential? Isn't one person worth more as it pertains to their ability to gain wages?

Usefulness - Are all people equally useful? Or is the person who is a doctor more useful than the strung out drug addict?

By the definition of the word some people are more important, useful and worth more. If you disagree please explain. Do you disagree with the definition or do you find every human being in this world equally important to you? If you have a counter definition on how you use the term value I'd like to hear it. Let's dissect it and see if your truly being honest or if you're just parroting what you believe to be the socially correct thing to say.

[Hazir]

He already told you his selection criterium, so what's the deal with asking that again?

Also, the real question you're dodging is not where people range on some metaphysical value scale, but why the hell you don't seem to understand that that's a different kind of value than the one we use in monetary terms. Or is it all just an exponent of the work that you do in what's easily one of the most parasitical sectors of our society?

[Khendraja'aro]

Then maybe you should've said so from the start. Your initial statement was very ambiguous, so don't cry now when everyone misunderstood you. You don't get to be indignant if you're unable to convey your position.

[RandBlade]

I thought it was clear quoting him in context talking about toothpastes and DVDs. I would have responded sooner but started a new job this week and been super busy so this is the first time to respond.

I'd still like to know why bring up toothpaste if its not relevant? I don't think it matters if its toothpaste or DVDs or gold jewelry when it comes to vigilante killings. The quote clearly referred to toothpaste as if that was being measured as a relevant factor.

EDIT: Just to give the context back crystal clearly, it is toothpaste and DVDs discussed not that killing in any circumstance is wrong.

You've upgraded from toothpaste to DVD players.

Have a gold star. *pats head*

[Timbuk2]

I put the line at life or death, I don't put the line on toothpaste or DVD players. I couldn't care less what was stolen. Why do you find toothpaste or DVD players to be relevant?

Wow where's a whoosh parrot when you need one. That went straight over your head Rand.



Hint: I don't find it relevant.

It's only relevance is in pointing out Lewk's absurd position. Which is why I said it.

So we're all on the same page, and at the risk of repeating myself; property (of ANY value, Rand) is not of greater value than life.

Onwards ...

[RandBlade]

I don't think that's true at all. Proportions of population smoking are falling all the time for decades and I think that the threats play a major - not exclusive, but major if not main - part in that.

It may not get all smokers to quit but it certainly stops many eventually and gets many youngsters never to start in the first place.

[RandBlade]

Again I doubt that. May as well pull all kids out of school now if that was the case. I think good teachers do make a meaningful impact on the decisions adults make years later.

I use many meaningful things I learned at school regularly. Most meaningful one I think more people need to pay attention to, in order to avoid financial catastrophes is the basis of Compound Interest. Not borrowing unnecessarily, but saving instead due to the impact of usurious interest rates makes adult life easier just as not being an idiot smoking does.

[Steely Glint]

Again I doubt that. May as well pull all kids out of school now if that was the case. I think good teachers do make a meaningful impact on the decisions adults make years later.

Lewkowski has spoken of quote, 'plastering', it all over schools which I took to mean posters featuring a hoodlam bleeding out with a gunshot wound and 'IF U FIEV U DIE!!111" or some other keen insight in big red letters. I seriously doubt anyone would even remember such posters when they're in their 20s, and if they do would hardly take them seriously enough - remembering and evaluating now with the eyes of an adult - to base decisions on.

I use many meaningful things I learned at school regularly. Most meaningful one I think more people need to pay attention to, in order to avoid financial catastrophes is the basis of Compound Interest. Not borrowing unnecessarily, but saving instead due to the impact of usurious interest rates makes adult life easier just as not being an idiot smoking does.

I honestly can't remember a single fact or concept I learned at school which I can remember today, let alone find useful. The one exception is the fact I can spell reasonably well despite having dyslexia, which was down to a specialized department at the school I was at. Of course that doesn't mean school was worthless, I may not have learned anything lasting but I learned how to learn.

[Lewkowski]

I believe that secular laws shouldn't be based on God's law. Not that I think anything is wrong with God's law but once we combine the secular with the religious we invite corruption. Look at the popes selling indulgences in the middle ages for a great example of the dangers of that kind of system.

There absolutely is a calculus to the value of human life. That's a taboo concept but when you get into the weeds people do weigh life on a scale. I'm not concerned about jay walking but if you did want less jay walking you could put harsh punishments to prevent it.

In regards to your last thing about the more cavalierly we treat life the more violent crime you see I disagree. What I think we see in the real world is that the more crime we have the more cavalierly we treat life.