Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/16/2005 4:24:42 AM EDT
prompted by the walmart thread ...
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:27:30 AM EDT
Jay-walking is where we draw the line and only give life in a federal pound you in the ass prison.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:32:23 AM EDT
If you are stealing my property, I should have the right to use whatever
force is necessary to stop you.

But I don't think it is okay for a paid security guard to kill you for stealing diapers.

If Sam Walton was there and saw the guy lift the diapers, then Sam Walton
should have the right to use force.

Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:40:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Reaper:
If you are stealing my property, I should have the right to use whatever
force is necessary to stop you.

But I don't think it is okay for a paid security guard to kill you for stealing diapers.

If Sam Walton was there and saw the guy lift the diapers, then Sam Walton
should have the right to use force.




They stopped him, then held him down on hot pavement till he died. I don't see how that was "necessary to stop him"


Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:41:03 AM EDT
I'm not just talking about shooting a guy to prevent him from stealing from you.



I'm thinking along the lines of: a guy is caught stealing, goes to court, loses his trial, and is sentenced to death.


Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:44:54 AM EDT
I think if the perp winds up dying during the commission of the crime I won't shed a tear.

Actually, I think thieves dying during the commission of their crimes is a good thing. However, if they live, they should not be executed upon being found guilty.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:46:30 AM EDT
IF they did start that penalty, how much to you think theft would drop??
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:51:25 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:53:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tc6969:
I think after a guy proves for the third time that he cannot function in society without preying on his fellow man he should be removed from it.

There should be a three time loser prison and once a year they should close the shutters and gas the shit out of all of them.


LOL.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:59:59 AM EDT
Removing a perasite from society.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 5:04:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2005 5:07:54 AM EDT by Dolomite]

Originally Posted By cruze5:
IF they did start that penalty, how much to you think theft would drop??


And how many cops and mall ninjas would now be facing the end of a Hi-Point .45 with the serial numbers ground off over the terroristic act of pocketing a Snicker's bar?

And then there's not paying your taxes (on time). Is that not stealing? Why not just have the IRS include a bullet fee on every 1040 form - if you don't get audited - they send you a check for $0.33.

Everytime you give Uncle Sugar more power - he'll find a way to fucking abuse it.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 5:14:22 AM EDT
My only reservations about death as a penalty for stealing are these.

1. I wouldn't approve of killing somebody for stealing clothes they actually needed immediately, or food that was intended to be consumed more or less immediately. I never prosecuted people for stealing food they needed right then, if they had no money. In those circumstances, I think further punishment (after the night in jail) is inhumane.

2. The English experience of punishing theft with death in the 18th Century suggests that severe punishment for relatively trivial crimes breeds lawlessness. That's where the expression "May as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb" comes from, and it seems that people lived that way. If swiping a watch will get you executed, why not steal a bunch of stuff and kill the victim? You can only be hanged once.

Other than those circumstances, I think about it like this: I would cheerfully and unhesitatingly kill someone who tried to force me into slavery. Somebody who steals the fruit of your labor is effectively forcing you to work for him without compensation. Furthermore, stealing is grossly depraved behavior, and people who do it, except in dire necessity, are worthless scum.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 5:23:06 AM EDT
Yeah, let's use islamic law as a guide and kill people whenever we want for whatever reason.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 5:25:12 AM EDT
Anyone who steals from me should die. I don't care about any of you mullets.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 5:41:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
Yeah, let's use islamic law as a guide and kill people whenever we want for whatever reason.



Actually, I think all they do is cut off your hand(s).
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 5:42:40 AM EDT
I think you need to re-write your poll.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 5:49:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Fenian:

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
Yeah, let's use islamic law as a guide and kill people whenever we want for whatever reason.



Actually, I think all they do is cut off your hand(s).

You have to understand their culture to understand that punishment. Over there, everyone eats from one community food bowl, shoveling food out with your right hand (since the left is used to wipe your butt after #2, it never touches the food). Thieves lose their right hand, and thus cannot feed themselves from the community bowl. Either someone must feed you, or you die of starvation, because nobody is going to let you stick your crap-wiping hand in their bowl. So stealing is punished by the death penalty in Islamic countries, just a very slow death.

Kharn
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 5:56:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By senorFrog:
I think you need to re-write your poll.




Yeah, now that I'm more awake, I think so too.

Kind of stupid wording.

Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:15:59 AM EDT
In Texas is it generally legal to use deadly force to stop theft at night. No wonder most theft takes place during daylight hours.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:26:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Fenian:

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
Yeah, let's use islamic law as a guide and kill people whenever we want for whatever reason.



Actually, I think all they do is cut off your hand(s).



That would be be worse than death!!! I could not live without Rosey Palm and her 5 friends!
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:32:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RenegadeX:
In Texas is it generally legal to use deadly force to stop theft at night. No wonder most theft takes place during daylight hours.



Actually, I don't think it matters whether it's day or night. But the law won't protect you from the "civil" ass raping the victim's family will give you through the courts.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:34:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mjohn3006:

Originally Posted By Fenian:

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
Yeah, let's use islamic law as a guide and kill people whenever we want for whatever reason.



Actually, I think all they do is cut off your hand(s).



That would be be worse than death!!! I could not live without Rosey Palm and her 5 friends!



I know, what if you happen to be a right handed wiper?
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:38:29 AM EDT
Theft should be dealt with but not by death penalty. Offenders should have to pay restitution through supervised labor. If an offender happens to get injured or killed from a victims attempt at recovery or stopping the crime......oh well.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:40:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2005 6:41:28 AM EDT by Da_Bunny]
Given only those two extreme choices, I had to say yes. There are circumstances where killing somebody to prevent theft is entirely justifiable. If the thief forcefully resists or threatens or endangers people's health or life in anyway during the act, then deadly force should be tolerated.

In the case of the Wal-Mart LP employees, the deadly force was incidental, not intentional. The risk to the perpetrators serves as deterrent. I can't think of any reason why somebody should be able to commit a crime that puts people at risk or loss and expect to walk away from it.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:46:32 AM EDT
I say start a new thread that is better worded.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:49:00 AM EDT
kinda overkill IMHO
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:50:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
I say start a new thread that is better worded.



Against Yoda/Mad Hatter-speak have you something? No, fine with you it is; or yes, confusing you find it? Your opinion is which?
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:52:29 AM EDT
BTW the death penalty hasn't stopped people from murdering others... why would it stop people from stealing?

Mostly people steal when they don't think anyone else is looking. So unless you want an even worse England type situation where there are 15 cameras on every street corner... We need to accept that there are bad people everywhere. If they're not stealing cars or cameras, they're going to try scams to steal.

Some people - admittedly, I believe they're SCUM - feel the need to steal from others as their living. Nothing will change that short of death, but is it worth punishing them with the death penalty? IMHO no.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 7:00:59 AM EDT
It would cut down on staeling.

Incidentally, South Carolina has the "castle doctrine" meaning I can shoot a thief in my house stealing.


Works for me.

And forces crims to ask "Gee, id dat TV done wurf the stealing for?"


Link Posted: 8/16/2005 8:26:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
I say start a new thread that is better worded.



Against Yoda/Mad Hatter-speak have you something? No, fine with you it is; or yes, confusing you find it? Your opinion is which?



More like computer code speak.

I typed a question,

Would you have any problem with the death penalty being used as the usual punishment for stealing?

typed one ok response: No, killing thieves is ok

then withotu thinking went into computer code mode and just stuck a not into the previous reply to get its opposite.

Link Posted: 8/16/2005 8:28:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By tc6969:
I think after a guy proves for the third time that he cannot function in society without preying on his fellow man he should be removed from it.

There should be a three time loser prison and once a year they should close the shutters and gas the shit out of all of them.


LOL.



+1
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 8:30:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cruze5:
IF they did start that penalty, how much to you think theft would drop??


About as much as the murder rates drop in states that have the death penalty!
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 8:36:49 AM EDT
death penalty for a property crime is excessive punishment.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 8:39:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2005 8:44:50 AM EDT by _DR]
What's next?
Cutting off an arm for a speeding ticket?

In any kind of civilized society the punishment should fit the crime, and executing someone before they have been judged in a court of law is not what we want in this country, that is basically what Wal-Mart did, albeit involuntarily, as a result of their employee's stupidity.

Excessive force in restraint is never OK, regardless of the situation. I have seen this happen in a nursing home where all that was needed were the right restraining methods but a resident died because the idiots restraining him had no idea how easy it is to kill a man. I suspect the Wal-Mart monkeys exhibited the same ineptness.

So the result is a criminal will never go to trial for his crime or be given a chance to set his life straight, two individuals will have involuntary manslaughter at the least on their records, and will be barred from LE employment of any kind, Wal-Mart will be out a huge sum of money and the courts will be tied up with yet another unecessary lawsuit, potentially resulting in the loss of millions.


All because Walmart LP idiots would not just let the thief go with his $50 of merchandise, examine the camera tapes, and get the guy next time. I would wager that everyone who has a say, including Walmart corporate, the judges, jury, and even the individuals themselves would say it was not worth it.

And some people on this forum will support this kind of ignorance.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 8:39:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:
I'm thinking along the lines of: a guy is caught stealing, goes to court, loses his trial, and is sentenced to death.



Trial? We don need no steenken trial...

Link Posted: 8/16/2005 8:43:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
I say start a new thread that is better worded.



Against Yoda/Mad Hatter-speak have you something? No, fine with you it is; or yes, confusing you find it? Your opinion is which?



More like computer code speak.

I typed a question,

Would you have any problem with the death penalty being used as the usual punishment for stealing?

typed one ok response: No, killing thieves is ok

then withotu thinking went into computer code mode and just stuck a not into the previous reply to get its opposite.




Just yanking your chain.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 8:50:27 AM EDT
it depends on what you steal.
If you steal classified info from this country and sell it to the enemy then hell yeah you should fucking die.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 8:53:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By twonami:
it depends on what you steal.
If you steal classified info from this country and sell it to the enemy then hell yeah you should fucking die.



The crime you describe would be high treason.
By law, treason is punishable by death. By all means, the rule of law should be enforced.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 8:55:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2005 8:56:58 AM EDT by FLAL1A]

Originally Posted By _DR:
What's next?
Cutting off an arm for a speeding ticket?

In any kind of civilized society the punishment should fit the crime, and executing someone before they have been judged in a court of law is not what we want in this country, that is basically what Wal-Mart did, albeit involuntarily, as a result of their employee's stupidity.

Excessive force in restraint is never OK, regardless of the situation. I have seen this happen in a nursing home where all that was needed were the right restraining methods but a resident died because the idiots restraining him had no idea how easy it is to kill a man. I suspect the Wal-Mart monkeys exhibited the same ineptness.

So the result is a criminal will never go to trial for his crime or be given a chance to set his life straight, two individuals will have involuntary manslaughter at the least on their records, and will be barred from LE employment of any kind, Wal-Mart will be out a huge sum of money and the courts will be tied up with yet another unecessary lawsuit, potentially resulting in the loss of millions.


All because Walmart LP idiots would not just let the thief go with his $50 of merchandise, examine the camera tapes, and get the guy next time. I would wager that everyone who has a say, including Walmart corporate, the judges, jury, and even the individuals themselves would say it was not worth it.

And some people on this forum will support this kind of ignorance.



That's a remarkably tortured use of language. It isn't possible to "execut[e] someone before they have been judged in a court of law . . . albeit involuntarily." If a killing is involuntary it is by definition not an execution. WalMart's lackeys killed him involuntarily (or at least unintentionally). The death was not punishment for the theft. If it was caused by the apprehension and detention (which we don't know yet) it was inadvertent. Calling it an involuntary execution for theft is like saying that the driver of a car who had the right-of-way and fatally T-boned somebody running a red light on a cross street "executed the other driver for violating a traffic regulation, albeit involuntarily." That is ignorant.

I don't think anyone endorsed the guy's accidental death at the hands of Wally World. However, some of us don't mind if a thief dies in the midst of his crime. It strikes me as the judgment of that court from which there is no appeal.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 10:52:00 AM EDT
I dont support the government killing thieves.

But I definately support property owners killing thieves in the process of defending thier property.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 11:23:09 AM EDT
The problem with the death penalty for a "lesser" crime is that it removes the incentive not to kill the witnesses who may later testify. In other words, if I see you stealing, and you know the death penalty will follow if you are caught, and convicted, what stops you from murdering me to keep me quiet?

And please, let's not get into the whole "That's why I carry" argument.

Top Top