bridger responds:
Yes, well...I was aiming at sarcasm and even missed irony, I guess.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
I'm gonna steal that!
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
So if someone walked into your shop and started stealing right in front of you, you would let it happen and if he beat the rap you would be OK with that???
On 17 Aug 2004 19:09:26 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) wrote:
|Leon writes: | |>Which IMHO is part of the problem. Ir law breakers had the fear of being |>punished, they may not break so many laws. If some one is seen stealing, he |>is not a suspect in the eyes of most people, he is truely guilty of |>stealing. But, unfortunately, the liberal laws protect the criminal. |>Again, don't let the criminal piss on your shoe and tell you is raining. | |Oh, bullshit. What you are recommending is basically vigilante justice, with |the cops doing all the deciding of who is and isn't guilty. | |Given, our legal system is in need of repair. Given, too many people get away |with too much. Given, something has to be done. Not given: cops with the right |to do as the damned well please on any or no evidence at all. | |If we could be absolutely sure ever cop, especially rent-a-cops though, had |perfect judgment, then quite possibly allowing them to manhandle prisoners, or |about-to-be prisoners, might be justified. Unfortunately, no one has perfect |judgment, and double unfortunately, the Consitution gives us particular rights |around arrest and incarceration. | |Law breakers should have the fear of the law drummed into them. But I don't |want clerks in stores decided that I shoved something in my pocket because they |didn't see me put it back on the shelf. Or, rather, I don't want them following |me out of the store and jumping on me, or anyone else, over such things. I'm |too old and fat to retaliate as I once might have, but I could sure as hell |remove some teeth and part of an ear, maybe all of it, before going down.
Unfortunately, in Arizona alledged shoplifting is a capital crime punishable by summary execution.
Quote from:
End quote.
A newspaper article indicated that the security guard had no problem whatsoever "taking down" Mr. Hernandez, so I believe that any "self-defense-in-fear-of-my life" defense is inapplicable.
Note the last two sentences in the quoted material. Any store employee, or agent can detain *anyone* they suspect of shoplifting. If that person resists, physical force can be used to detain the individual. It appears that if this escalates to *deadly force* that is okay too.
ARS 13-1805.5.C states: A merchant, or a merchant's agent or employee, with reasonable cause, may detain on the premises in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time any person suspected of shoplifting as defined in subsection A of this section for questioning or summoning a law enforcement officer.
ARS 13-1805.5.D states: Reasonable cause is a defense to a civil or criminal action against a peace officer, a merchant or an agent or employee of such merchant for false arrest, false or unlawful imprisonment or wrongful detention.
(I will write more about the above in another post.)
ARS 13-408 states: A person is justified in using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it necessary to prevent what a reasonable person would believe is an attempt or commission by the other person of theft or criminal damage involving tangible movable property under his possession or control, but such person may use deadly physical force under these circumstances as provided in sections 13-405, 13-406 and 13-411.
None of these sections seem to apply to shoplifting, but the DA obviously thinks they do.
So in Arizona anyway, if you leave the Borg and the buzzer goes off as you go out the door because the clerk didn't zap the rfid tag, and you keep walking, you can be killed. Who said the wild west was dead.
They have these things called handcuffs.....
Makes me laugh
Hmm. "Different cultures" might be considerably closer to the truth than "less civilized". I lived in one such country long enough to wonder what had happened to civilization when I returned to the USA.
How long has it been since you last felt it safe to leave the keys in your car (for a year at a time) or to not lock your home when you went out?
FWIW loss of a hand resulted /only/ from a trial process in which fairness and justice were of equal importance with law; and which was tempered with mercy, compassion, and wisdom (required qualities for judging such matters) - which meant that a lesser punishment was chosen whenever possible.
I've been fascinated that those people considered incarceration uncivilized. Interesting thought, no?
Very interesting, and I stand corrected. "Different cultures" is better phraseology. We are the only WEstern country with the death penalty, so referring to other culturess as less civilized is ridiculous.
Bob
Hi Charlie,
I was with you at the first sentence, but by the time you finished, the description sounded liberal as opposed to the classical definition of conservative.
Both conservative and liberal have become meaningless terms, to me at least, but the most lucid explanation I ever heard of conservative principles was that they revolve around property rights.
Assuming that definition holds water, then privileging property and rights to/over it, including aggressive enforcement, would indeed appear to be a more conservative stance--and thus your stance would apppear to be more liberal.
Similar arguments about a homeowner's right to defend his property in a robbery typically divide along similar political perspectives.
For your consideration, H
Hi Charlie,
I was with you at the first sentence, but by the time you finished, the description sounded liberal as opposed to the classical definition of conservative.
Both conservative and liberal have become meaningless terms, to me at least, but the most lucid explanation I ever heard of conservative principles was that they revolve around property rights.
Assuming that definition holds water, then privileging property and rights to/over it, including aggressive enforcement, would indeed appear to be a more conservative stance--and thus your stance would apppear to be more liberal.
Similar arguments about a homeowner's right to defend his property in a robbery typically divide along similar political perspectives.
For your consideration, H
So if a security guard had suffacted you, you would have deserved it???
I certainly would not have blamed him for doing his job. I was wrong. Had I died, then it would have been my time to go. Stranger things have happened. No body gets out a live.
Well, then if they broke the law they would have to be handled accordingly. What if the guy simply cooperated? He would probably still be alive. One must always take responsibility for his own life and sometimes common sense shoud over rule pride to keep you out of trouble.
Again, if you run and disobey, you stand the chance of being treated with less "respect". If you simply speed and the cop pulls you out of the car and beats you, then he is at fault. If you ignored his lights and siren and made him chase you, well can you blain him? Nothing like taunting a policeman to test your rights.
What, ask the thief to please stop running, and stand still while I cuff you? Where do you live?
...and you can hasten the process if you ignore mother nature's rule: Screw with the bull and you get the horn.
-Doug
Exactly seems only common sense to me too.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.