These stories should be plastered in schools everywhere.

[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?