So most people on this thread would prefer to be a victim of theft ?
I live 4 blocks from the incident.
Seattle has less Police then 10 years ago which is less Police then 20 years ago, and the population has sky rocketed ...
I had a friend in the neighborhood catch someone in the act of stealing his stereo out of his car, destroying the dashboard in the process. He detained the criminal and called police. Waited over 4 hours for the Police to never show! Several times he contacted the police station that is less then 1 mile from the incident, ended up letting the criminal go and having his car damaged.
I ask now, what would you have done?
Was the criminal in my friends case deterred?
The shooting case is easy to look at in hind sight. What damage was done to the car? Would the car have been taken if the victim had not intervened? Did the criminal have a gun? What was the crime being committed? What portion of the outcome is the perp accountable for? Was the shooter justified?
Many on this thread don't justify the shooting. But of what is the justification for the act of the crime that originated it? Was it wrong to set out to steal? Why should the person who's possessions were to be stolen be expected to have insurance to recover items taken in a crime? the list goes on & on ...
Why is it so easy to discount the fact the someone set out to steal, to take someone else's life energy from them, (life energy used to work an earn money to buy possessions), is this exceptable but stopping this theft of this life energy is not exceptable even if the out come resulted in unintentional results.
What if the criminal had a gun, would you change your mind? Remember at the time it was unknown, only after the fact was it determined that no gun was on the criminal.
How much does one have to steal before theft becomes unexceptable, would a house full of stole property make a difference?
A man defends his property, his life force energy, now he loses his right to freedom and then his future right to have devices to aid him in protection, is this just?
I live 4 blocks from the incident.
Seattle has less Police then 10 years ago which is less Police then 20 years ago, and the population has sky rocketed ...
I had a friend in the neighborhood catch someone in the act of stealing his stereo out of his car, destroying the dashboard in the process. He detained the criminal and called police. Waited over 4 hours for the Police to never show! Several times he contacted the police station that is less then 1 mile from the incident, ended up letting the criminal go and having his car damaged.
I ask now, what would you have done?
Was the criminal in my friends case deterred?
The shooting case is easy to look at in hind sight. What damage was done to the car? Would the car have been taken if the victim had not intervened? Did the criminal have a gun? What was the crime being committed? What portion of the outcome is the perp accountable for? Was the shooter justified?
Many on this thread don't justify the shooting. But of what is the justification for the act of the crime that originated it? Was it wrong to set out to steal? Why should the person who's possessions were to be stolen be expected to have insurance to recover items taken in a crime? the list goes on & on ...
Why is it so easy to discount the fact the someone set out to steal, to take someone else's life energy from them, (life energy used to work an earn money to buy possessions), is this exceptable but stopping this theft of this life energy is not exceptable even if the out come resulted in unintentional results.
What if the criminal had a gun, would you change your mind? Remember at the time it was unknown, only after the fact was it determined that no gun was on the criminal.
How much does one have to steal before theft becomes unexceptable, would a house full of stole property make a difference?
A man defends his property, his life force energy, now he loses his right to freedom and then his future right to have devices to aid him in protection, is this just?