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-retai...

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.

That phrase was essentially recalled so pretend for the sake of discussion it never occurred.

 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.

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!!

"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.

"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.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 12/12/21 at 15:37:56:


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 .