Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

nps.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 64 posts

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#21

Post by ultimafan »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #19
ultimafan wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wage theft is abhorrent but does not have the implication of violence behind it, so I would say no, take it to the law and go work somewhere else. It's a far cry from knowing a stranger has broken into your house and violated one of the few sanctuaries you have and potentially put your family at risk, and left behind the trauma of family members never feeling safe in that home again (and that is something I can tell…

Oh I thought you were talking about property loss, not violent break and enter into your home. So you’re talking with people speaking out against lethal force in home invasion. Ok. Got it

Yes, sorry I should have been more clear about that in my initial post. I would not condone someone going out and explicitly seeking violence after the fact.

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#22

Post by zwirbl »

ultimafan wrote: post #16
ajkjk wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I mostly agree although I think lethal force is often not in the 'within reason' clause of my stance. Depends on the circumstances but Americans love to jump to talking about lethal force way too fast and it's creepy. Not to mention that it results in, well, a lot of death. But it is really more than just the hours it took, or sentimental value. It is also the coherence of the worldview that "one's stuff is the…

>Well, I mostly agree although I think lethal force is often not in the 'within reason' clause of my stance. For sure, there definitely are situations in which case it would be absurd to try to justify as within reason. But I would say burglaries, home invasions, muggings, carjackings or any theft that has an implication of violence towards the victim and the like squarely fall into the "within reason" category regar…

Or people in other countries are actually glad that the risk of being shot are minimal while still being safe

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#23

Post by valianteffort »

ajkjk wrote: post #9
ultimafan wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, and at the risk of saying something inflammatory, it really grinds my gears when I hear people argue against lethal defense of property with comments along the lines of, "Is your X really worth more than someone's life?", as if the moral and ethical burden should fall on the victim and not the aggressor. Property and ownings aren't free, you often cannot replace them without cost or replace them at all if the…

Well, I mostly agree although I think lethal force is often not in the 'within reason' clause of my stance. Depends on the circumstances but Americans love to jump to talking about lethal force way too fast and it's creepy. Not to mention that it results in, well, a lot of death. But it is really more than just the hours it took, or sentimental value. It is also the coherence of the worldview that "one's stuff is the…

The notion that a thief would have to pay for their crimes with their life, either because anyone could be armed and its legal to protect your property with lethal force, or the government would punish repeated theft with death, I think would be enough to deter most people from doing so. It's the fact that a jail/prison sentence is meaningless to most criminals (if they're even sent there), that we have such rampant crime.

Just look at any country that has strict laws, and serious punishment like Singapore, Japan, South Korea. They enjoy unparalleled safety in their cities.

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#24

Post by Epa095 »

ultimafan wrote: post #21
wahnfrieden wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I thought you were talking about property loss, not violent break and enter into your home. So you’re talking with people speaking out against lethal force in home invasion. Ok. Got it

Yes, sorry I should have been more clear about that in my initial post. I would not condone someone going out and explicitly seeking violence after the fact.

The thief has your box of savings and are walking away. You recognise the thief, and can give the police its name. You happen to have a gun. Are you morraly permitted to commit violence to stop the thief? And how does this violence compare to the violence you can commit to the vage thief?

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#25

Post by adastra22 »

ultimafan wrote: post #21
wahnfrieden wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I thought you were talking about property loss, not violent break and enter into your home. So you’re talking with people speaking out against lethal force in home invasion. Ok. Got it

Yes, sorry I should have been more clear about that in my initial post. I would not condone someone going out and explicitly seeking violence after the fact.

FYI your original post sounded like you were advocating shooting purse snatchers or shoplifters in the back as they ran away with the goods.

Home invasion is quite a bit different from property theft.

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#26

Post by Obscurity4340 »

ultimafan wrote: post #8
ajkjk wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The notion of objects being replaceable and therefore you shouldn't do much when they're taken is.. I think?... an invention of risk departments at modern corporations. Like sure if you're a department store you don't want to risk your employees getting hurt stopping a shoplifter, the downside far exceeds the upside. But as a person ? That's your stuff, and it makes total sense to want it , not a replacement, and to…

Agreed, and at the risk of saying something inflammatory, it really grinds my gears when I hear people argue against lethal defense of property with comments along the lines of, "Is your X really worth more than someone's life?", as if the moral and ethical burden should fall on the victim and not the aggressor. Property and ownings aren't free, you often cannot replace them without cost or replace them at all if the…

I hate that argument too because it very callously disregards the assymetry of intention and information when in fact you almost can't responsibly assume its anything other than life or death. Its so very easy for the barristers perched up in their High Courts to dictate homilies while after the fact of someone trying to kill you and they don't want to put them back in prison or get the press hounding them due to statistical irrelevancies although that should not be totally ignored in other more appropriate forums for such civil discussion

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#27

Post by Obscurity4340 »

ultimafan wrote: post #16
ajkjk wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I mostly agree although I think lethal force is often not in the 'within reason' clause of my stance. Depends on the circumstances but Americans love to jump to talking about lethal force way too fast and it's creepy. Not to mention that it results in, well, a lot of death. But it is really more than just the hours it took, or sentimental value. It is also the coherence of the worldview that "one's stuff is the…

>Well, I mostly agree although I think lethal force is often not in the 'within reason' clause of my stance. For sure, there definitely are situations in which case it would be absurd to try to justify as within reason. But I would say burglaries, home invasions, muggings, carjackings or any theft that has an implication of violence towards the victim and the like squarely fall into the "within reason" category regar…

Its weirdly almost on the level of a fetish for some of them in the sense they crave and fantasize about coming out guns a'blazing. You can hear it in their voice, see it in their eyes, and their body language completely radiates their contempt for any world where they are not the main character killing "bad guys"

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#28

Post by Epa095 »

valianteffort wrote: post #23
ajkjk wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I mostly agree although I think lethal force is often not in the 'within reason' clause of my stance. Depends on the circumstances but Americans love to jump to talking about lethal force way too fast and it's creepy. Not to mention that it results in, well, a lot of death. But it is really more than just the hours it took, or sentimental value. It is also the coherence of the worldview that "one's stuff is the…

The notion that a thief would have to pay for their crimes with their life, either because anyone could be armed and its legal to protect your property with lethal force, or the government would punish repeated theft with death, I think would be enough to deter most people from doing so. It's the fact that a jail/prison sentence is meaningless to most criminals (if they're even sent there), that we have such rampant…

I agree that the immediate risk of death would probably influence it a bit. On the other hand, it's pretty clear that there is not a strong negative correlation between "risk of death" and "crime rate" in the world, just think about south America (high death risk and high crime) and the Nordic countries (low death risk low crime).

I also strongly disagree with the statement "It's the fact that a jail/prison sentence is meaningless to most criminals (if they're even sent there), that we have such rampant crime.". Again, compare prison sentences in the USA with e.g Norway, then compare their recidivism rates. There are many many factors that play into crime rate (poverty, education, and recidivism being important ones), reducing it to 'our prisons are too nice' is way too simple.

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#29

Post by i8comments »

ultimafan wrote: post #8
ajkjk wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The notion of objects being replaceable and therefore you shouldn't do much when they're taken is.. I think?... an invention of risk departments at modern corporations. Like sure if you're a department store you don't want to risk your employees getting hurt stopping a shoplifter, the downside far exceeds the upside. But as a person ? That's your stuff, and it makes total sense to want it , not a replacement, and to…

Agreed, and at the risk of saying something inflammatory, it really grinds my gears when I hear people argue against lethal defense of property with comments along the lines of, "Is your X really worth more than someone's life?", as if the moral and ethical burden should fall on the victim and not the aggressor. Property and ownings aren't free, you often cannot replace them without cost or replace them at all if the…

Lethal force is only to be used in self defense, when your life is truly threatened and you truly have no other way of stopping them.
Post reply on HN