|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> I guess E nailed it /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1639285300 Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 12/11/21 at 21:01:40 |
|
Title: I guess E nailed it Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/11/21 at 21:01:40 Groot Agrees that the retailers aren't doing everything they can do to make it harder for the criminals. How DARE they expect society to Not make violent criminals comfortable? WTF are they thinking? How can they expect society today to behave in line with how things have been for decades? Yeah, I'm WAITING for the false equivalency pretenses from the left. Gonna smash it like a Pinata. https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/chicago-mayor-lori-lightfoot-blames-retailers-not-criminals-for-increased-crime-and-smash-and-grabs/ |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by Eegore on 12/12/21 at 02:30:37 What I was saying is I would recommend that retailers take on security measures within their control before they lobby Congress to allow all US citizens to use deadly force to protect property they think people will steal. What will happen first? 1: Congress allows US citizens to murder each other based off the premise that they believe a person or group of persons are going to steal something. 2: Expensive purses get locked up. |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by WebsterMark on 12/12/21 at 04:03:56 You’re sounding a bit like a politician E. Your extrapolating ideas into wild and crazy end results. Did anyone say allow US citizens to kill each other because they think somebody might steal something? No, no one said that. I said, and I posted several videos showing clear examples, that citizens should step in (and legally should be allowed to step in) to stop behavior like this. That’s a little bit different than sitting outside of Neiman Marcus and shooting any black kid that walked by in a hoodie. That’s kind of what you’re trying to infer which is a typical political (mostly liberal) talking points. That’s how you dodge addressing the real issue by extrapolating it to the nth degree into something it’s not. |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by Eegore on 12/12/21 at 05:28:45 Well when the proposed activity is "Shoot them in the face" I would think its best to legalize that action instead of proclaiming everyone will just look the other way because that particular murder was to protect civilized society. What end result do you think will happen when you shoot someone in the face? "Did anyone say allow US citizens to kill each other because they think somebody might steal something? No, no one said that." I disagree: "To me, shooting them down is the right answer. If it's not legal It needs to be." So here JoG does propose that deadly force be legal to protect against potential theft. My stance is that this will be a very long and very difficult process and that most businesses will lock their products up before they will lobby to let people murder in their retail outlets. I already agreed with you that people, when they feel it's safe to do so, should intervene. I do not agree that we should shoot them in the face until it is legal to do so. I also do not think that only reasonable law-abiding people will take advantage of this legalization, I think criminals would as well. |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by WebsterMark on 12/12/21 at 05:59:31 That phrase was essentially recalled so pretend for the sake of discussion it never occurred. |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/12/21 at 06:39:08 Potential theft.. Good GAWD!! Stoppit! Wiping out your inventory and wrecking the store .. When it threatens your ability to pay your bills It threatens your whole life. It's not stealing a pencil It's destroying everything you worked for. And look at what Groot says,, I'm comfortable. She, IT, DISAGREES with me And thinks the stores need to take steps. Funny,, until democrats started running things, that was not necessary. |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by Eegore on 12/12/21 at 13:19:13 Using the video provided in the other thread one can see a large group of people running into unlocked doors at a high rate of speed. How many of those people, in that video, at that time, could you say actually stole something? At that time. Grabbing a semiautomatic and shooting into that running crowd would be shooting people that might steal something. You think when you go to court US law will change to meet your needs? Now if you shoot them as they are exiting, and can confirm they are carrying a store item, (and aren't someone running out in fear that bought something) then sure, start shooting. Aim for the face. Remember this is not for your safety, just to protect "property". "It's not stealing a pencil It's destroying everything you worked for." And you can keep pretending that only good people will use the law. This one law will be the one criminals won't take advantage of somehow. Criminals would never use legalization of deadly force to their advantage right? What about this one law keeps criminals from abusing it? "She, IT, DISAGREES with me And thinks the stores need to take steps." Lobbying to legalize deadly force to protect property is taking steps. How would "IT" even know You want to legalize deadly force to protect property anyway? Again which do you think will happen first: 1: Bob's Luxury Handbag Emporium lobbies Congress and spends 10 or 20 years trying to legalize use of deadly force to "protect property". 2: Bob's Luxury Handbag Emporium modifies their purchasing process. |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by Serowbot on 12/12/21 at 14:10:31 ... and then with legal open carry laws,.. what if the shoplifters start carrying AR15's into the stores they are going heist? It's wilder than the wild, wild, west. Bullets flying everywhere. Better to just let it happen, then use security cam footage or hope someone snitches. I don't own anything I'd be willing to kill someone to keep. |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/12/21 at 14:48:20 I don't own anything I'd be willing to kill someone to keep. Doesn't mean you don't own stuff someone would kill You for. How YOU feel means squat. What about the guy who has worked all his life to build a business and can't afford to have his inventory ripped off What about the fact that the criminals are armed with crowbars and a head shot would be deadly? You prefer letting them ruin someone over them stopping them? Open carry is your argument? Really? Business owners have the Right to say otherwise. You lefties are the reason why it is how it is. Reference the map of cities where the murder rate sets records. Trump's fault? Nope. It's lefty bullshit,realized. The cops won't and the law says the victim can't. Jeff Cooper said it best. Ohh,PLEASE point out where he is wrong.. https://www.azquotes.com/author/3249-Jeff_Cooper Let's Go Brandon!! |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by Serowbot on 12/12/21 at 15:09:23 A right leaning reporter once pointed out a map of the US to Al Gore covered in mostly red with tiny blue patches here and there and asked why America has so few liberal areas. Gore said, "That's where all the people are" Urban crime is high because that's where all the people are. LA county has a population of 10 million. New York's total population is just greater than 8 million. That’s about the same number of people who live in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and the western half of Minnesota combined. Where would you expect crime to be high? |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by Eegore on 12/12/21 at 15:35:27 "What about the fact that the criminals are armed with crowbars and a head shot would be deadly? You prefer letting them ruin someone over them stopping them?" Again you are mixing personal protection with property protection. You can use deadly force to protect yourself and others. Now if you are behind the counter and a guy runs in grabs something and runs out, with a crowbar, and you chase him out of the store and shoot him in the back, you are not protecting yourself. So in that case law needs to be changed so we can kill people running away. If a guy with a crowbar runs in a store and you see him and shoot him in the face because you think he will go steal something, you will go to prison - unless we change the laws. Now if you can articulate that you believe he was going to engage in imminent harm towards another person, that's ok. But what is being discussed is shooting people in the face if you think they are stealing that soap in that video. Gunning down many people as they run into a store is something we need input from store owners on. How much investment and time are they willing to put into allowing them to gun down people running in their stores with possible intent to steal? Personally I think they would lose business if customers think store employees can gun down people they think are running in to steal something, or if they think it could happen while they are shopping and they get shot instead. |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/12/21 at 15:37:56 You are Serious? You don't remember your Own history? When, ever,have you seen such lawlessness? And Why is it where your ideology is out in front? Look,LOOK, at what is going on. You don't want to see the victim stop the crime. YOU don't WANT the victim to stop the crime. Own that. |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by Eegore on 12/12/21 at 15:42:55 "Look,LOOK, at what is going on. You don't want to see the victim stop the crime. YOU don't WANT the victim to stop the crime. Own that." Current law does not allow for what you propose. Law would need to change. Shooting people to protect property is not legal except in very specific cases (like arson) and would need to spend years and years in court to be implemented, if it ever is. How does that help Bob Store Owner tomorrow? The victim should be empowered, I am just saying legalizing deadly force to protect property and only property, not people but specifically and only property, is the least efficient means of empowering them. |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by MnSpring on 12/12/21 at 16:56:34 If a person makes money, by convincing people. (that spend OTHER peoples money) That person, will, ‘sound like’ a, ‘politician’. |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by MnSpring on 12/12/21 at 17:06:11 77686E6974734272427A68642F1D0 wrote:
JOG Jog jog, do you not understand, the way to deter/stop the outrageous, crime, is to NOT, punish/incarcerate, the THIEF ! It is to punish the store owner who's property was Stolen/Destroyed. It is to punish the honest customer who pays for things, by having to pay more, because of the, THEFT'S . |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by Serowbot on 12/13/21 at 07:22:53 Quote:
That's gonna' take a lot of bullets... :-? |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by Eegore on 12/13/21 at 14:16:46 I think lowering the prosecution dollar amount would help, but you need Prosecutors, Judges and Courtrooms and places to put criminals which at this point there aren't enough. |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/14/21 at 04:33:44 Ahh,the false equivalency pretenses.. You KNOW Shoplifting is NOT what I am talking about. Shoplifting doesn't come with a gang of people rushing into the jewelry store Smashing the displays with a crowbar. The lame ass strawman crap is so old. STOPPITT |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by Eegore on 12/14/21 at 05:40:40 "You KNOW Shoplifting is NOT what I am talking about." Yes I KNOW that. But you won't acknowledge that protecting "property" INCLUDES shoplifting. If deadly force is legalized to "protect property" then shoplifting is included unless there are other parameters. I proposed changes, that you ignored, "Shoplifting doesn't come with a gang of people rushing into the jewelry store Smashing the displays with a crowbar." Yeah. But shoplifting and crowbar smashing gangs stealing are all taking "property". So when we propose it should be legal to kill people over "property" then we need to propose parameters that separates shoplifting from armed multiple person theft. And then we go back to what helps Bob Store Owner first: Decades of law debate legalizing killing people during multi-person armed theft. Store policy changes. If Bob Store Owner shoots people to "protect property" today - Bob Store Owner goes to prison. That's not Strawman, that's fact. Bottom line is Bob Store Owner should be able to fight back, but legalizing deadly force will take many years. What can help him today? |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by MnSpring on 12/14/21 at 08:47:21 5777757D6077120 wrote:
Clearly it is, Cages/mantraps to enter the store. Bars on windows and doors small enough to not allow a human through. Limit on how many in a store at one time. Merchandise locked up, and only available for one person, to look at one thing, supervised by one employee. Because it is clearly, NOT, Stopping or /Punishing the Thief’s. |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by Serowbot on 12/14/21 at 09:16:43 There are countries where the law allows severe vigilante justice, of the kind some of you suggest. They are not places you would want to live. Think about it. |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by Eegore on 12/14/21 at 09:36:29 Because it is clearly, NOT, Stopping or /Punishing the Thief’s. That is part of it, but do you think legalizing deadly force for property theft will happen anytime soon? Do you think if a Wal-Mart employee opened up semi-automatic fire into a group of potential thieves tomorrow as they rushed in the door, that maybe the employee would end up in jail? On average do you feel Wal-Mart would gain or lose customers if 20+ thieves were shot dead by means of company policy in a store? It would definitely deter theft. I am not arguing that. I am just saying the outcome will most likely be prison time for the shooter. |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/14/21 at 12:02:43 Do you think if a Wal-Mart employee opened up semi-automatic fire into a group of potential thieves tomorrow as they rushed in the door, that maybe the employee would end up in jail? STOPPITT. Read what I said. |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by Eegore on 12/14/21 at 13:24:17 "STOPPITT. Read what I said." My understanding is you believe using deadly force to protect property should be legal. "Watching a gang rip off a store, like a bank robbery, yeah, law needs changed to Shoot them." Sure, but can Bob Store owner actually do that because we think it "should be legal"? Is that how he resolves his problem tomorrow? You are isolating property protection to specific events and locations like jewelry stores and use of blunt objects - but your argument also includes potential for human harm which mitigates any property protection application. At that point you aren't protecting "property" you are protecting humans. If we legalize deadly force to protect property, how do we define the specifics? I suggested some that were ignored. If we just allow "property" to be protected by deadly force then any object I own I can kill over. |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/14/21 at 19:47:19 You're not reasonable. I'm done explaining. If you wanted to understand what I am saying, you would have. |
|
Title: Re: I guess E nailed it Post by Eegore on 12/14/21 at 21:04:16 I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to lobby for years and years to allow use of deadly force to protect property. There are too many variables to allow everyone the ability to kill others to save their "livelihood" or to protect "civilized society" without opening the door for criminals to use it too. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |