Slo-Mo Looting

Page 5 of 11  


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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon writes:

You guys crack me up. You're not writing about cops here. You're writing about rentacops and clerks. These people have no authority--except maybe in Arizona, yet you're ceding them control over a part of your life.
Good bless the modern Conservative. Freedom? Give it away. It's a nuisance and messy and inconvenient.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The part that whispers into your ear, "I want the five finger discount?" Those bumpkins have no right to tell you that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bub209 responds (I think):

What part whispers in whose ear?
I don't get whispers like that, nor do I cede control over my movements to a rentacop or retial clerk.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

the part of your life. - What the heck, it's a noun. Haven't you ever seen one of those? Fuzzy littil thing, like a dust kitten, those partoyerlives. Yes, you're ceding them control over the part of you that wants to steal, not you personally of course, and that seems fair to me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bub209 responds:

Bub, as a woodworker and generally, I'd guess you're a pretty good guy. As a moral and politcal philosopher, you've got some problems, of which a lack of clarity is just the most evident.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The _law_ is liberal, Charlie. Stick that chip over to the side somewhere beyond your shoulder.
No, there is NOT a way of restraining someone who wants to walk away except to restrain them by applying greater and opposite force. Makes me laugh when I see cop shows where the perp is held at gunpoint. Unless he's an idiot, he knows that the officer is not allowed to shoot. He can keep walking away until, of course, he's tackled. Oh yes, presumption of innocence goes beyond arrest; guilt's a matter for the courts to decide, so your MAYBE is always a maybe, even when they're wearing six pairs of designer jeans.
Then there's the car chase controversy....

he
the
property.
Bierce, The

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George writes:

Yup, I guess you're right. Correct, that is. Obviously right. The Constitution is all screwed up, according to you, because the presumption of innocence comes from that source.
There must be a lot of idiots around, by the way. They keep getting caught. Legally enough so that we have something like 1 person in 140 in jail in this country.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Constitution
comes
I understand your thinking here but the constitution is not perfect and todays thief has had 200+ years to learn how to get around the law. Presumption of innocense should not be applicable when there is no doubt that some one is stealing and you tell them to stop.

caught.
And they keep getting out and continuing a life of crime.

this
Now imagine if getting caught was not a good thing. I wonder how many people would look for alternatives to stealing if they knew that their odds of being hurt when running away from a crime were greater. I'm am not saying that everyone shoud be tackeled and hurt, just those that have not learned to stop when being chased by the police.
Liberal laws help keep the good people honest but only protect the criminal.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ah yes.
Ad hominem and strawmen, as always. I merely corrected YOUR misapprehension about the presumption of innocence, which means whether caught in flagrante or not, you are not a thief until convicted.
"There are other ways of stopping a thief, assuming the person really is a thief, that do no include harming him physically. But, hey, we have to remember. He stole property. Or MAYBE he stole property. That's much more important than any injury that might be suffered."
Unfortunately, as indicated, there are NO legal ways for citizens to stop an innocent individual, a fact which even the shoplifters know well. That's why they keep walking. A police officer is somewhat protected by probable cause, which includes accusation by a citizen. From that point on, there is a criminal and tort system which asserts the obligation of the authorities, not the citizenry, to abide by the law.

somewhere
except
so
Constitution
comes
caught.
this
Bierce, The

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

Would you care to tell us where, exactly, in the Constitution this principle is established?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:59:15 -0400, "J. Clarke"

The 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments.
cf: Coffin v. United States.
Regards, Tom.
Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email) http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

presumption
principle
I believe presumed innocent pertains more to something that happens with no witnesses. If you are seen doing something and are caught red handed doing the deed, presumed innocence means squat in my book.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon writes:

Your book is not the instruction book for this country. For which I am thankful.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

no
doing
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???
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon writes:

You consistently compare apples and oranges. No one is going to walk into my shop and start stealing in front of me. Or behind me. Access is limited to friends, for one thing.
And, no, I wouldn't be "OK with that" if someone did try. That still doesn't give me the right to kick the crap out of him, though it seems likely the reaction would be noisy in the extreme and probably a lot more threatening than actuality would allow.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

my
I mentioned in another post why you and I probably have different openions here. I live in Houston. That may explain everything as far as my point of view. ;~) Right now a neighbor hood about 5 miles from where has had a rash of robberies at peoples homes and this has been going on for several months. Not a bad neighbor hood, middle class I'd say. the victims drive up into their drive way, open their garage dooors, look out their car window and find 2 or 3 guys waiting to tie them up and go through their house taking what they want. Listening to the news, there seems to be a large gang of these thieves. Fortunately they nave not harmed anyone yet. The same thing is a daily occourance at the retail stores but no one gets tied up and it is not getting any better.

doesn't
than
Bierce, The

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon responds:

Suggestion: move.
I live in rural Virginia. People don't do that. They'd be picking .30 slugs out of their heads if they did.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I would love to but the Houston economy is so darn good and most of my neighbors know that I work at home and know that I will protect my property. A neighbor around the corner about 5 years ago had 2 guys break into his house during the day and not expecting to find him at home found he had a loaded gun and one of the intruders got shot. Pretty exciting as I heard it all go down and saw one of the guys running away in a trench coat in the middle of summer. Again, Our neighborhood is quite calm compared to many in the Houston area.

slugs out

Yeah I would love to some day move to a place in the slow lane.

Bierce, The

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18 Aug 2004 18:20:01 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) wrote:

Seems that comment is somewhat hypocritical there Charlie. That smacks of the vigilante justice you [and others] were taking people to task for.
I finally figured out what bothered me about the general tone of this thread. When did it become vigilante justice for property owners to protect their property? The instances cited of deaths occured because someone suspected of shoplifting (i.e. stealing property) resisted being questioned regarding that act. Several facts apply here:
    1. Just like in your shop, the person in question was on someone else's property. Just because that property was owned by a company or corporation makes it no less their own property. The fact that the public has access to that property for the purpose of transacting business does not nullify the fact that the location is still private property, not public property.     2. The alleged perpetrators were not killed in an act of resistance to the property owner's legitimate concerns regarding the unauthorized removal of merchandise from that property.     3. The people who caused those injuries or deaths were acting on behalf of the property owner while protecting said property.     4. The general comment that speaks against the employees detaining the perpetrators always revolves around "what the employees *think* they saw". In reality, I suspect that for the employees to have taken action, what they saw was pretty crystal clear -- i.e. a person putting on a watch from stock and walking off with it, or stuffing a piece of merchandise into their clothing. i.e, the objections are based upon "gray area" arguments that most likely are not reality when these events occur.
There is a significant error of terminology being perpetrated here, to whit:
    1. Vigilante justice is not restraining someone who has been observed committing a crime on one's property or property for which one is acting as a caretaker for the owner. If the alleged perpetrator physically resists said restraint (again, while on the property of the business owner), then the resulting consequences are the fault of the one resisting that restraint.     2. Vigilante justice would be having the agents of the property owner find stolen merchandise on the perpetrator's person, taking them out back in the alley and severely beating them (or some other action) to "teach them a lesson".
     If I were one unfairly accused, yes, I'd be p**ssed off and would no longer do business with said merchant and also assure that everyone I knew no longer did business there. I would not attempt to physically resist, I would make my innocence known and further vocally inform those property agents of the property owner that their false accusation was going to be rather expensive in terms of future business.
    However, the idea that someone protecting the property with which they have been entrusted by merely detaining an accused shoplifter has engaged in vigilante justice is ludicrous. How many shoplifters do you think would ever be prosecuted is they were simply allowed to walk away freely? Do you really think that the police would actively pursue finding the guy in the store camera stuffing stuff in his pants when they have no idea who he is, where he lives, or where he went?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.