I don't want to live in a region where my neighbors just watch me get robbed...
1. When a person charges you with an industrial hammer, Run.
2. If in case, I over power the person and harm the person. I am liable for the medical bill of the person I harmed.
3. Offices here are most likely insured.
Laws like this seem insane. I'm strongly of the opinion that if you are the one choosing to attack someone else, you accept all risk and responsibility for the encounter. If the victim responds with lethal force in bonafide self-defense, then :shrug:.
Stuff especially expensive stuff owned by a business is generally insured (like in the case of the computers here)
In less populated areas, my experience has been that individuals pretty much have to take responsibility for intervening in things they see - since no one else is around or could be around to do anything in time - or quickly things get out of control in a wider sense. I have property in an area that it’s easily 45 minutes before you could get a police response to a real, active emergency just due to travel time from the station. If you don’t intervene in anything weird, even if it isn’t your property, then the whole area gets a reputation for lawlessness pretty quick and attracts more problems. The attitudes of the local law enforcement generally are friendlier too towards getting more help, as they are well aware of how little they can do without it. They also deal with fewer things like folks itching (or able) to sue, due to it often being poorer areas, and everyone being less up in each other’s faces all the time.
In urban environments, there are often dedicated folks nearby (as in a few minutes response time), and everyone tends to be tenser - and the problems are often less ‘help me, I’m stuck in a ditch’ and more ‘semi-insane and/or drunk people getting in a fight in a public place’, and more people have the resources and/or access to lawyers to make things a nasty mess. So in general it IS better to call in the specialists who are used to dealing with it, and stay out of the mess if you can.
Many disingenuously respond to this with some variation of, "but theft doesn't deserve the death penalty!" Of course, I'm not advocating for the death penalty for thieves--defense isn't about justice or sorting out what anyone deserves, it's about preserving one's rights (including one's right to life). How we charge thieves in courts is a different matter.
I think that's safely out of bounds of "bonafide self-defense" :)
Like the recent case where the guy was shot while they had their hands up and were backing away from the person with the gun.
You: "we often charge people for attacking people too"
I'm not sure if you think you're rebutting my point, or if you're just going off on an unrelated tangent?
If something like this happens call the cops and watch so that you can act as a witness if necessary. Not much else you can do.
What do you expect a neighbor to do regarding a violent gang that blows up a door, takes 5min to do its thing, and proceeds to vanish in the night?
Personally, I take way more than 5min to get up the bed.
Which hey, maybe somewhere? But yes, it is not the most likely outcome, or frankly a good idea to try, even if legal in your particular jurisdiction.
Ideally response is either 1) it’s defended enough it’s not worth their time, or 2) evidence is recorded enough the perpetrators can be identified, then folks track them down and arrest them when they aren’t prepared for resistance and on guard and there is less of a chance of someone getting shot or blown up in a fight. Because that is a incredible amount of paperwork.
Real life is not like TV land.
Property is an extension of person, because we spend portions of our finite lives turning effort into tangible goods.
The problem with the "human life is worth less than property" attitude is that there is always a contingent of the population which is not hesitant to take advantage of such kindness. Especially when you start mixing cultures. The only deterrent that such people recognize is the threat of violence.
This isn't justification for extreme punishment legal punishment, but it is moral justification for deadly violence in immediate response to ongoing theft of the output of one's labor. Otherwise you are sending a message that people are essentially free to take from you and your community, because arrest and prison are not a sufficient deterrent for some groups of people.
I think you have it exactly right with "privileged take". Salaried with PTO and direct deposit makes it feel like money just magically appears in your bank account.
And if you really cared about savings hours of life for people working hourly wage, you'd be in favor of increased crackdowns on white collar crime over theft.
More money is stolen from hourly workers in the form of wage theft than from robbery.
When people care so little about your livelihood and your cultural rules, violence becomes an acceptable deterrent. And people who take issue with this perspective seem to act as though thieves have no control over their actions. It's actually very simple: if you don't want to risk being shot at, don't steal from people. The majority of burglary and robbery in the US is emphatically not committed out of desperation over food and/or shelter. Welfare covers that.
How about a sentence of 20 to life? Even if that's still not enough to be effective as a deterrent, it means you won't have repeat criminals, since they'll still be in jail for their last crime.
You are there, it's your stuff. You should be able to defend it.
I've seen those videos, but aren't almost all of them from places where the DA refuses to prosecute even when the thieves do get caught?
A punishment similar to murder for breaking & entering and theft?!
Picture this: you catch a group in the act, they now have a choice: 20 to life if they leave you alive and able to report who they are or kidnap/maim/kill you so they have less chance of getting identified (if they are, the punishment is no worse, if they aren't they get away: so the range of possibilities is 50% better).
Would still push people towards the worse crime to cover their tracks I expect, and wouldn't be a full deterrent because it doesn't account for people acting under duress that is more dangerous in their mind than what the law is threatening.
Furthermore, there is a cost to keeping someone locked up for 10-to-20. Do you want to pay that out of your taxes? Because that is where it would come from.
> But clearly the punishments we have now are too lenient to be effective.
People still steal in places where the punishment is losing a hand or being stoned to death. What do you propose that would be a greater deterrent than those?
I might risk myself to save lives, but not to save stuff, even a business. And I certainly wouldn't expect or even want others to risk injury or worse to save my stuff, or even my life for that matter.
> Property is an extension of person
Property lost can be regained. Life lost saving property or time lost recovering from serious injury trying to save property, not so much so.
> The problem with the "human life is worth less than property"
What you are suggesting I'm saying is the exact opposite of what I am saying. Human life is not worth risking to save property. Heck, human injury is hardly worth it in most cases.
Sorry, meant to write the opposite
>Property lost can be regained The life force (time) spent generating wealth represented as property cannot be regained.
>my shit is more important than your life More like "my shit is more important than your life while you are disregarding my right to property and robbing me". Yes, your life is worth less if you're stealing for profit. Just as your life is worth less if you murder someone, though obviously not to the same degree.
But I can't stress how easy this is; if the potential thieves know that they may encounter lethal force while thieving, they will be less likely to take the risk of such antisocial behavior and, more importantly, they know what they're risking when they decide to take time and effort from you. This doesn't even get into theft of sentimental property.
It doesn't quite matter if the punishment is disproportional to the threat when the laws and social norms are very clear: don't steal from other people. Especially when such threat of violence also acts as the only effective deterrent.
People still steal in places where the punishment is losing a hand or being stoned to death. What do you propose that would be a greater deterrent than those?
Nothing in the above suggested that wasn't going to happen though, so the question feels a bit deliberately point-making-for-points-y.