Oh,,, so you run them till they drop... Suppose you don"t have the ability to run as far and simply want to get the deed done.
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
Slo-Mo Looting
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
I'll send my lawyer right over to beat the crap outta you...
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
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
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
Leon responds:
Of what? Forgetfulness? You weren't stealing the stuff.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
Sort of a Draconian punishment for stealing a few bucks worth of diapers, I'd say, and something of a drastic technique for holding a person until the real cops arrive. I'd say his family has a suit, but what do I know. I'm not a compassionate Conservative, nor am I a lawyer.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
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
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
Reading these posts and watching the morning news about Scott Petersen is making me obsess about society and morality. The term "sociopath" was defined in connection with the Petersen case. I never realized it before, but do you realize that sociopaths are necessary for the functioning of our society? Where would John Gotti have gotten without grunts like Sammy the Bull? How would the Chicago Carpenter's union survive without the ability to intimidate people like my friend with a roofing business, by sending goons out to drive his own trucks through his overhead doors and kill his pet pig, which was the company mascot? Thank God there is a stabilizing force in society so that in some cases, at least, a Gotti will end up powerless. I would like to read a thesis about how the percentage of remorseless individuals in society are used to control and manipulate us. I think the remorseless- ness begins with the one who is willing to take what does not belong to them, I also believe that if the Democrats win the upcoming election, the world will become more comfortable for the Scott Petersens among us, and that they will destroy the world. Do we all want to live in New Jersey?
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
The part that whispers into your ear, "I want the five finger discount?" Those bumpkins have no right to tell you that.
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
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
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
No, I was not stealing the stuff but I could sure under stand how an employee would have viewed it.
Charlie, neither one of us are idiots, ;~), I think that both of us have valid views perhaps given our back grounds of where we live or have lived. If I still lived in Corpus Christi where I grew up, I would probably see things a bit more your way. I do indeed recall seeing things your way. However now I live in Houston, TX and see things in a completely different light. I'd say 99% of the people getting chased down are caught red handed and not for the first time by the same stores.
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
John Gotti was a sociopath himself.
The latter prt of your diatribe is ridiculous. I don't know if Peterson is a sociopath...he sounds to me like a garden variety nasty piece of work as far as women are concerned. If he did kill his wife, I'll concede sociopathological status.
That said, I doubt very much that these people (sociopaths) are made more or less comfortable by whatever political party is in power.
How this discussion got to this point from a WalMart clerk tackling and injuring a suspected shoplifter I have no idea.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
LOL! Atta boy, Leon ... but you're just too damn "Texas" for most with that attitude. ;>) (Like it or not, it is pretty much a fact that most of those who have been in this part of the country longer (30 years or more) than 85% of the current residents simply aren't programmed to accept scofflaws of any sort gracefully.)
It's also notable that no matter how small the world becomes, and with all the moaning about the loss of regional differences in this country, it appears that you can still easily geograhically delineate the participants by the logic of their arguments.
As my 82 year old Dad still maintains to those, mostly eastern, acquaintances with a tendency to be a bit apologetic toward criminals of any degree "Believe what you will, just be warned that should you ever turn to a life of crime, don't get caught stealing from me."
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
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.
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
And crime in the US tends to be higher than most places. I blame lax liberal laws. I say let the laws be come more simple and let the jury decide. Right now a person is scared to defend his property or him self for fear that he might become the victim again.
Scott Peterson's on the side girl friend is becoming a victim.
Take the guy that murdered his pregnant girlfriend and turned himself in after seeing Passion of the Christ. Why on earth does this need to go to trial????? Simply whisk him off to a mental hospital and determine if he is crazy or not. If he is not crazy, use a bullet on him.
Take the guy that killed his neighbor, cut his body up, and dumped the remains in Galveston bay. The jury found him innocent after he confess to the crime. His excuse was that he murdered his neighbor by accident and was afraid that no one would believe that it was an accident. YEAH, it was an accident so hack the body up and dump it in to the bay. AND THE JURY FOUND HIM INNOCENT. Lax laws... they allow the criminals to piss on our shoes and tell us that is raining.
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
Ok, when I say liberal laws, please do not take that as laws created by liberals. Take that as laws that have no bite. Laws with too many loop holes. Laws that let the guilty get off because of what ever reason. Laws with absolutely too much protection of the guilty.
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
This is realism. He stole. He thus risked apprehension. When apprehended, he resisted, and thus risked application of force. When force is applied then death is a possible outcome. He took the chance, what happened after that was on his head.
It amazes me that people can turn apprehension of someone caught in the act into "vigilante justice".
If these guards got a good look at him and three weeks later saw somebody who they thought looked like him walking down the street and killed that person, _that_ would be "vigilante justice".
Further, the issue is not that "if someone steals they deserve to die". You are confusing injuries sustained as a result of resisting apprehension with penalties applied by law. If someone steals and gets caught at it and gets hurt or killed while attempting to resist apprehension then that is their problem. Yes, the guards should have been better trained. But the guy "knew or should have known" (as various statutes say about various things) that he was dealing with rent-a-cops. Maybe it didn't occur to him that lack of training might equate to excessive use of force rather than inability to overpower him.
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
LOL... Yeah Siwngman, I finally indicated to Charlie that our differences of opinions on this matter are probably a result of where we live and have lived.
LOL Yeah... ;~)
Yeah..
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
No, you have to suffer the public embarrassment and humiliation. Think down the road when your found innocent. Get it?
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
Jesus is right. It's common courtesy to answer reasonable questions posed by the designated representatives of the owners of the property on which you are standing. I don't see why you have a problem with it.
Walking onto somebody else's property and then getting pissed off when they ask you what you are doing there is not "doing nothing". In fact it is downright suspicious.
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "
Nothing there places burden of proof on the government. Only establishes procedures.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. "
Nothing there places burden of proof on the government either.
I'm not going to quote the whole thing there but the equal protection clause does not place burden of proof on the government.
I think you will find that the presumption of innocence comes out of English common law and was established in the US by case law rather than by statute.