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?

[GGT]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

So in other words if someone comes into your house and starts taking your shit even if your armed that's OK? Just let him go because his life is more important than all of your belongings? Bull shit.

If stores didn't have any security to stop shop lifting it would lead to MORE shop lifting.

Also let's consider the people dying here aren't exactly valuable. They are literally the scum of the earth. Parasites that feed off of the productive portion of society. If they choose to risk their life I'll shed no tears for them.

[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.

[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?

[Timbuk2]

his life is more important than all of your belongings?

Yes. Yes it is.

~

And so it continues, round and round and round.

1. You keep trolling these same stories; thief gets killed, ha ha. Over and over.
2. We keep pointing out that life is greater than any property of any value.
3. You are unable to grasp the concept.
4. And keep posting the same stuff.
5. We have long surpassed the point where reasonable discourse is worthwhile.
6. Derision and mockery is all that is left in response to the troll
7. So don't worry about it. There there. Keep posting the same silly little stories. *pats head*

[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?

[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.

[LittleFuzzy]

So in other words if someone comes into your house and starts taking your shit even if your armed that's OK? Just let him go because his life is more important than all of your belongings? Bull shit.

Of course it's not ok for him to steal. But it's also not ok to shoot him dead and if you do, you should be prosecuted for murder.

If stores didn't have any security to stop shop lifting it would lead to MORE shop lifting.

You can have security to prevent shop-lifting without going so far as beating people to death.

Also let's consider the people dying here aren't exactly valuable. They are literally the scum of the earth. Parasites that feed off of the productive portion of society. If they choose to risk their life I'll shed no tears for them.

All men are created equal, justice is blind, yadda yadda yadda. Each of those people is as valuable, and is less of a parasite on the productive portion of society than your kid Lewk. Heck, they're probably more productive for society than you and your insurance job, now THAT'S parasitic. Legal, but most certainly pure leeching.

[Enoch the Red]

Also let's consider the people dying here aren't exactly valuable. They are literally the scum of the earth. Parasites that feed off of the productive portion of society. If they choose to risk their life I'll shed no tears for them.

I can't help but wonder how you can square this outlook with your faith. Doesn't a large part of Christian dogma revolve around forgiveness of sin and redemption? Do you believe that the sinners should be able to repent of their sins and receive forgiveness? Do you believe that God has a rating scale for sin? If not, what about these sins make those that would commit them the scum of the Earth, while leaving your sins as eminently pardonable? Was the Biblical punishment for theft death?

[Lewkowski]

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?

If smoking/drinking education causes fewer people to drink and drive or smoke then clearly people respond to being exposed to the potential negative consequences of stupid decisions. So if you plaster these kinds of stories in schools you would get fewer criminals due to them being deterred by the possible consequences.

[Lewkowski]

Fuzzy - The concept of everyone being equal and equally valuable is insane.

Almost no one truly believes that. If you had to save a 40 year old rapist or a 10 year old child who would you save? If you consider them equally valuable its a coin flip - but guess what you don't. Insurance isn't parasitic its a it is security for life's little bumps.

[Lewkowski]

I can't help but wonder how you can square this outlook with your faith. Doesn't a large part of Christian dogma revolve around forgiveness of sin and redemption? Do you believe that the sinners should be able to repent of their sins and receive forgiveness? Do you believe that God has a rating scale for sin? If not, what about these sins make those that would commit them the scum of the Earth, while leaving your sins as eminently pardonable? Was the Biblical punishment for theft death?

I don't believe we should base our laws on morality.

Forgiveness is required - that doesn't change the fact that even Christians would celebrate Hitler's death. Furthermore beyond personal forgiveness you can look at what the net cost or benefit to society is and consider an outcome as having a positive or negative event on society.

I don't consider all sins equal. (Though all would eternally separate us from God without the sacrifice of Jesus)

I'm uncertain why you think we should use biblical law for determining punishments. I don't take you as one who would advocate for theocracy.

I also don't believe in an Eye for an Eye. That's absurd - why would you be fearful of the law if it only punished you as far as you did something? If you steal a $100 should your punishment be the loss of a $100? Insanity! Since not all criminals are caught it would be a net benefit for the criminal element!

No I believe in laws that protect society. I don't care about justice per say, an equitable punishment is not what I want. I want a punishment that puts FEAR in the hearts of would be criminals. This FEAR would create less crime, leading to less people getting hurt and/or dying.

[LittleFuzzy]

Fuzzy - The concept of everyone being equal and equally valuable is insane.

Almost no one truly believes that.

I think quite a few people don't. You may not give it any credence since you're incredibly selective about what Founding values mean anything to you but it's still there. Having said that, yes I'll prioritize between lives a little. I'd choose to save a child over an adult. Not because it's life is worth more but because it needs more protection. I wouldn't save you over the criminal though. And your kid is still contributing less to society. And insurance isn't parastic in itself. Just your job and similar things which only pad the middleman's suction of value.

[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?