Topic awaiting preservation: Another reason to hate people. (Page 1 of 1)

This story relates the fact that a jury awarded $75,000 to the family of a burglar who was killed by a security system while breaking into a business.

If I met a person that was on that jury, I would punch that person in the face. How can one look at oneself in the mirror after commiting such an audacious crimanal act as those jurors did?

One dead idiot.


And one idiot who was negligent enough to kill him over some liquor in a bar.


Sorry Seneca, I don't feel bad for a damned soul in the whole thing...but I do see one statement that might need to be reviewed by a WHOLE lot of people these days:

"...because property isn't worth a human life,"

Human nature.
We should educate them all.
How ?
By hardening and hardening their living conditions, and by stealing all their self-comfort, for they can find again the true values of Life. Example : make a great desert of the planet. Two years later, you will NEVER encounter such cases. Because the humans will be lead by the necessities, not their self-egoism and arrogance.


Confine yourself to observing and you always miss the point of your own life. The object can be stated this way : Live the best life you can. Life is a game whose rules you learn if you leap into it and play it to the hilt. Otherwise, you are caught off balance, continually surprised by the shifting play. Non-players often whine and complain that luck always passes them by. They refuse to see that they can create some of their own luck.
--Darwi Odrade

i totally agree with you seneca.
if the guy wasn't doing something wrong, then he wouldn't have died. it's that simple! the judical system obviously isn't enough of a deterent to keep people from committing crimes....maybe the thought of losing their lives over it will be.
but no, instead of putting the responisbility where it belongs, on the criminal, lets put it on the 'evil business owner' who was protecting what's his. maybe he should have put a mattress under the window instead....so that way the 'saintly criminal' wouldn't get any bumps or bruises when he falls through the window on his way to snatching the cash registar. it's an exaggeration i know, but you can see the point (i hope).

when is enough, enough?

And maybe he should have put an automated iron maiden on the windows so when your child was trying to look in, he'd be snapped shut in it's steely jaws and bleed out onto the sill so that he could be proud of his work.


~shakes head~


Once again...

One idiot trying to enter so he died.
One idiot trying to be Batman, so he paid.

It's funny, in a Darwinian way.

Think about the consequences of negligence before you just look at the situational statement. Dig?

I'm feelin' saucy today, mind if I join?

When is enough, enough?

I agree. The crime is everywhere. Speeding and wreckless driving is one of my pet peeves. I mean, just look around. There are people speeding and running red lights everywhere. They are crazy, and only getting worse.
Sure, they have these wussy 'tickets' they give out to people. Pay a fine, blah, blah, blah. That doesn't deter anybody. Fines are worthless.
I'll tell you what they need to do. What they need to do is set up them snipers around town. Give 'em two guns --a .50 and a radar gun -- and some binoculars. First offense, you get a hole in your engine block, second offense...let's just say there won't be a third.
Shoot to kill, baby. Shoot to kill.
Maybe a few a them Blackhawk helicopters over the interstates during rush hour. Yeah.
I'll betcha speedin' goes down real fast. Four or five funerals on the front page of your mornin' paper, in a week everybody'd be drivin' 45 in a 50, just in case that radar wasn't tuned properly. That'd teach 'em. Teach 'em real good.
Wouldn't see no speedin' nowhere.

When is enough, enough?

[edit: seems DG snuck one in there on me...too fast]

[This message has been edited by mobrul (edited 02-26-2003).]

i'm not saying that they way the bar owner went about his 'security system' was right. and i think they had a very valid point about emergency services needing to enter. so give the owner a fine for the shotty security....but to side with a criminal because he was killed?? that's wrong!
there was a case in australia where a guy was breaking into an apartment over a bar. the bar owner and his family lived in the apartment. the owner caugh the guy breaking in and bashed him up. but according to a jury, he bashed him up 'too much'. what is that?!
no, people shouldn't be allowed to rig their doors and windows with lethal amounts of electricity.....but they should be allowed to protect what's theirs within reason.
why should people, who work dang hard to get what they have, have to turn the other cheek to things like this? if someone breaks into your home/business and you shot them or your security dog attacks them, you shouldn't be held liable for that! it's nuts!
bottom line....he was commiting a crime!!
right or wrong...that's how i feel about it! so if any potential criminals are reading this...don't break into my house because i will shoot you!

quote from the defendant's lawyer: "We're never going to know Larry's intent (when he broke in)"

do ya think we can make an educated guess at why he was breaking into a bar thru a window at 2am?

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Yes.


He needed sliced limes.

Stat!

I really don't understand what the Jury was thinking...the Military is allowed to use deadly force against intruders...and to prevent intruders from gaining access to installations. So, why can't a citizen?

I mean, if the guy had not attempted to enter the house, he wouldn't be dead. Very simple. If he had fallen off a cliff, would then Mother Nature be liable? Or gravity?

What if he has slipped on a bit of soap after climbing through the bathroom window, and broke his neck?

In conclusion, he was where he shouldn't have been...and clearly, he had no intention, of just visiting...that's the breaks. It's just crazy, that the Jury decided differently...


WebShaman

Mobrul, I know that you're being sarcastic, but I would almost agree with your scenerio. Almost.

DG, from what I got from the article, a random child walking by would not have gotten hurt. Why a random child would be out at 2 am breaking windows, is a different issue.

What if the owner had set up the trap on the cash register? Obviously only a criminal intent on stealing from it would even try to access it. Should that be illegal, I wouldn't think it negligent?

I'm aware that the law of this country says that property is not worth a human life. I think that to be bullshit. Especially when it's MY property. I would have no qualms about killing someone intent on stealing what's mine. They have no right to it and I should have every right to defend it as is available to me.

(Why I am trying to rationalize with someone who thinks that a human life is worth a $2.50 bottle of gin, I have no idea...)

Reasonable consequences. The penalty for burglary (let's assume that was the case, I think that's reasonable) is not death. It shouldn't be death. The days of hanging horse theives are over. Maybe you want to argue to bring that back. Maybe that bar owner wants to argue the penalty for burglary SHOULD be death. That's fine, argue away, call your congressman, but to take the law into your own hands to execute a burglar is unacceptable.

Where does it end? This idea of protecting your stuff with violence is a slippery slope.
If it's OK to kill a burgler (not someone threatening your life, or even your health) where are the lines?
How much money needs to be at stake to kill?
Can you kill over a car? $100? $10? $1?
What about lesser offenses?
Trespassing? Can you kill someone who is cutting through your yard on the way to the market?
What if you've warned him first?
Can you kill a child coming into your yard to get a mis-kicked football? Can you shoot him to make sure he doesn't step on your prize winning daisies? Maybe you can't shoot him. Maybe you can only beat him bloody with an axe handle. Is that alright?
What if you put up a sign? "Trespassers will be shot dead on sight." Does that make it OK?

When I was 12 years old, I was visiting my cousin that summer. He lived just outside of the city, in an area newly being developed. A bunch of land had been bought from a farmer, and was developed into a neighborhood. The farmer kept about 4 acres for himself and raised a small herd of cattle. Apparently some kids from this neighborhood had been 'having fun' spending their summer days throwing rocks at the cows. The farmer was rightly angry about it.
Well, my cousin and I went walking one afternoon. We walked along the fence that seperated the neighborhood from the cows. The farmer, seeing two kids walking by, was 'sure' we were the ones throwing rocks a week previous, came outside with his shotgun and fired 3 shots, aimed right at us. We were outside of the fence, not even on his land, minding our own business. He was about 75 yards away (and maybe he wasn't such a good shot?), so I didn't get too badly hurt but I did have to go to the hospital to have a small handful of shot pulled out of my arm and back and 17 stiches.

Honest mistake.
He was trying to protect his property.
Whatever.
At 12 years old I was pulling steel shot out of my body and have scars still today to prove it.

Webshaman - I think military stuff is different, because people would not break into their to get money, but information.

As far as in general, I think it is definatly wrong to have a security system that would kill someone. I mean say some stupid teenagers were just playing around and decided to break in to steal some beer. I don't think that becuase of one mistake they would deserve to die.

Cell 816 ~ teamEarth ~ Asylum Quotes

Burglar tried to take alcohol (or cash) that was not legally his right to have, so St. Seneca says he deserved to die.

---

Shopkeeper / Vigilante took the life of the burglar, which was not legally his right to take, so...?

---

See, I'm all about balance. I say we just even the board, kill off the fuckin' shopkeeper too, and then noone tries to touch anything that isn't theirs. So I guess I'm right on your side Seneca. Let's go lynch the fucker, he had no right to try and take that man's soul property.

YEEHAW.

WHERE'S HESTON?

GIT MAH GUNN.

tools.

Now for a modicum of more intelligent thought: Your personal property is replaceable. Lives aren't. Yes you have the right to defend what's yours, but the barbaric idea of murdering a man for trying to take your bone off the fire is a little outdated. Though I will toss this into the ring for the folks at home.

You must be a hell of a person Seneca, and that's no jibe. I don't think I'm anywhere near "man enough" to look into a crying child's eyes and say "Yes I took your daddy away, because he was trying to take my liquor. You'll never see him again, but he deserved what he got."

But that's the responsibility you have for the "right" you think you deserve.




[This message has been edited by DarkGarden (edited 02-27-2003).]

mobrul, your personal history illustrates your point quite well, but I think a "Trespassers shot on site" signs should be OK. If you were not on that farmer's property, he was clearly in the wrong and your family should have taken legal action against him.

You also better believe that I would do anything under my power to stop someone from stealing my vehicle. I have to buy a new one if it's wrecked or never recovered, rent a car while I'm looking, my insurance goes up, and the bastard that takes it, even if caught, won't pay me a cent for it. I'm going to do anything I can to stop him.

DG, what does it matter if a burglar's life is irreplaceable? I wouldn't want to try to replace a criminal anyhow. Does your position come from a belief that all life is inherently sacred? I am curious.

I would have no problem telling a child that I had killed his father to prohibit him from stealing from me. I would also take the opportunity to explain to the child that bad things happened to people who stole from other people and that the child should avoid commiting crimes to avoid the same fate as his father.

DG, please take the time to explain to me how my intolerance of crime makes my arguements any less cogent than yours? I know that it is easier to just categorize me as unintelligent and call me a "tool" than to attempt to understand or reason with me, but that's more telling of your character than of mine.

If you take the statement of "tools" so abruptly personally, than it is, indeed, telling of your character "Saint".

What's being rationalized in your agrument is that you hold the value of property (no matter what the cost, seemingly) to be more sacred than the sanctity of life. You personalize your posessions while de-personalizing another human.

I'm not talking about whether he's a "criminal" or not. That's a fools argument to categorize a person by one action (and one that you just railed against in your post....dig?). What I'm espousing is that there is much more to the situation than "He'sa tried ta steal mah stuff, so's I shot im." You're making a monetary marker on the death of a father...a son...a husband.

If you think I'm agreeing with his actions, then you're beyond fucked. He deserved to be imprisoned, injured to some extent. Pain is a great deterrent, when moderated to the situation. If he'd gotten a nice shock and a burnt hand from it, I'd little have cared.

BUT HE FUCKING DIED MAN!

You'd have no problem telling the child that their dad died because he was stealing? Well I get the feeling that that point sort of illustrates another character mark. Would you be the kind of human douchebag that would say to that child "And your daddy deserved it, because he was nothing but a criminal."?

Rational conversation? Seems a bit blown away by such an irrational viewpoint on value.

And if you can't wrap your brain around that one, this time, then there's little point to continuing the line of thought. This has skewed from the initial post, and was the reason that I wrote so little to start off with, but you auger...and you get wells.

~shakes head~

Pray that you never have a child that acts out in exhuberance one day.

Better yet..pray that your child never meets someone like you.

Or that he never tries to sneak into your own home after dark. Then you needn't explain to anyone...save your spouse.

Hmmm...not meaning to butt in here...

I don't really see it as a property vs human life thing. I see it more, as a threat thing. Someone is trying to enter an area that he is not supposed to...for what, I don't know. Maybe he just was curious, maybe just tired, hungry, cold...or maybe to kill me. I don't know his true intent. But I do know, he is willing to violate the law to accomplish this. I have no way of protecting myself, according to the article. I'm supposed to let the police handle it. But they are not there, at the time of the occurance. In otherwords, I am left to this persons intent.

Now, maybe using deadly force in this case, was going overboard...if the guy was just truly intent on acquiring property that didn't belong to him. But what if my children had been home, at the time? What would have happened then? What if I had 'interrupted' him, in the middle of what he was doing?

We will never really know the intent that the guy had...because he is dead. But he wouldn't be dead, if he hadn't of tried to break in. Granted, he also wouldn't be dead, if the defense system hadn't of been lethal. Most probably, anyway. He still could have slipped on the soap...

If it comes down to me (or my family) and someone else, I choose me and my family.

Webshaman stated it well, DG. I would like to add that my siding with the shopkeeper was not putting a price on human life or making a value judgement between property and life.

What I am trying to convey is that when a person willfully breaks into one's home or business, I consider it as an attack upon one's person. That person should be able to defend against that attack with as much force as necessary. Apparently, the threat of prison time is obviously not enough of a deterant for all people. In those instances, lethal force should be a viable option to the defender.

quote:

---

BUT HE FUCKING DIED MAN!

---

The man was somewhere that he was not supposed to be, doing something that he was not supposed to be doing, so his death is entirely his fault. I don't care that he died, it was a risk that he took upon himself. Sure, it isn't reasonable to expect an electrical booby trap, when illegally entering someone's place of business, but it should be expected that those actions can lead to your own demise.

If I broke into the zoo in the middle of the night, entered the tiger pen and got myself mauled to death, my death would be entirely my fault. Should my family then be able to get money from the zoo for my own stupidity and lawlessness? Should the zoo be liable for having such a deadly "trap" that and child or law enforcement agent could have entered in the middle of the night? I truly hope not.

I would not consider criminal actions to be "exhuberence" by any stretch of the imagination. It's specious at best.

And finally on a side note, DG, I've seen you use the word "tool" in other conversations in a manner that would seem insulting and then later claim that you did not mean it in an offensive manner. Could you please explain to me exactly what you meant when you said, "tools?" That way I'll understand in the future your usage at any particular point in time.

tool.

WS, and the echo from Seneca, seem to blur (or even obfuscate) the distinctions between self defense, stupidity, and setting a deadly trap.

WS, you said "Someone is trying to enter an area that he is not supposed to...for what, I don't know. Maybe he just was curious, maybe just tired, hungry, cold...or maybe to kill me. I don't know his true intent."
That's all well and good, if the bar owner was there! The bar owner, nor his family, was in the building when it happened (at least the story doesn't say so. One can assume that is a significant enough detail to provide if it were the case.) There was no threat against the lives of the owner or his family. There was only potential threat against his stuff (I say 'potential' because it didn't actually manifest.)

Nobody here, so far, has argued that the man belonged in the bar, or that the bar owner is not allowed to defend his own life. All we are saying is that a bottle of gin, or even the $500 in the safe, is worth significantly less than a human life.

And Seneca, breaking and entering is NOT a lethal attack on your person. You may 'see it' that way, or claim to 'consider it' that way, but that doesn't make it so. There exists a thing in US (I'd assume others as well) law called the 'reasonable person standard'. It basically asks 'how would a reasonable person view this situation?'

Just because you 'consider it' someway, doesn't make it so. You are not the sole decider of law and order. You are not the one who gets to make that decision. I can start 'considering' an elephant a peacock, that doesn't make it so.

Your zoo analogy is so flawed, becuase of that same standard. A reasonable person would assume that a person jumping into the tiger cage is going to end up a messy cat toy. A reasonable person might assume that climbing through a window could result in a fall and a broken leg, or even a cracked skull. A reasonable person assumes that breaking into a home in the middle of the night could get him shot. A reasonable person can assume that someone breaking into his home in the middle of the night is there to do harm.
We're talking about none of those things. A reasonable person does not assume that there are 220 V running through window frames.
People who do think that way are clearly not reasonable.

~lmao~
Oh no, Seneca, my use of "tool" is quite blatantly insulting. It describes a vast portion of the population that you (apparently) just insinuated yourself into. The point wasn't the intent of the word, but rather the aim of it. The fact that you missed that...twice...makes it a moot point though, so carry on with your assumption.


And to carry the foolishness to it's ultimate endpoint for me: I'll try not to feel that my life is threatened when someone breaks into my establishment when it's closed...mostly due to the fact that I'm not, fucking there...but I hear I'm dense. Maybe it's fear of death by net loss.

However, I've taken the counterpoint to heart at the core of it's intelligence. I'll be setting landmines throughout my lawn tomorrow. I'll even post a DANGER! LANDMINES! sign.

Fuck the illiterate, and God Bless Amerika!

Yep...tool.

Personally, I'm split on this issue. I've given it some thought on my own, but it always comes down to circumstance for me. If it's my home that's being broken into and I'm there at the time, I'll be setting my aluminum bat to "kill." Otherwise, I don't know.

However, I'd like more thought given to the issue of life vs. a bottle of gin. I think that's a straw-man argument. People who are victimized by thieves are hurt to a greater extent than just losing a little liquor, or $500, or a TV, or whatever the hell else the worthless, parasitical scum take.

I'll use myself as an example. As many of you remember, I was robbed a few months ago. They took my TV, VCR, DVD player and all my CDs. They smashed my window and my front door. Now, it wasn't simply my things they took. They took from me income that was lost as a result of the time I had to take off to deal with the whole debacle. They ran up insurance rates even further, making it harder on me and everyone else having to pay insurance and making it impossible for others to afford it at all (who may then get robbed and are unable to recover).

I lost even more money having to move somewhere I might feel safe again, both in moving expenses and in more lost work. Not to mention lost time on contract work I had going at the time, which also affected the workflow of the business who contracted me.

More importantly, they hurt my ability to support myself, they made my home unlivable, and they took from me my sense of safety. They damaged my life.

Had they stolen my computers, the amount of lost work and income would have been exorbitant. I'm not sure I could have recovered even the material cost of replacing the machines since I wouldn't yet have had sufficient proof of ownership, seeing as I had just obtained insurance.

Had I not had insurance and they stole my computers, I would have been ruined. I could not have afforded to replace them, especially since I had just spent a lot of money putting a new one together. Such a circumstance would have been absolutely devastating to my life.

In the case of a business owner being robbed, the situation could be even worse. The owner in question had been burglarized three times prior. For a similar business owner to repair damages and replace stolen goods on that many occasions could cause the business to lose its insurance or have the rates climb to expensive or unaffordable amounts. You also have to factor in deductibles or personal cost for repairs and replacement. Again, there's also lost time.

One thief could ruin a business, destroying the lives of the owner and his family. Would the criminal's life be a fair exchange then? Should it be allowed to get that far?

I do agree that the owner should be punished for the security system he installed. With it, he threatened the lives of many more people than just burglars. Emergency personnel are a perfect example. Under the circumstances, I suppose the only way to punish him would have been to rule in favor of the burglar. (Now, I said "under the circumstances," meaning the only legal issue at hand revolved around the burglar's death.)

However, as I hope I have begun to demonstrate, thieves take much more than the items they intend to hock. Taking things can actually destroy lives.

If you really wanted to mine your yard, I think you should be allowed to, as long as your posted easy to see signs.

mobrul, a reasonable person wouldn't necessarily expect to be electrocuted when breaking a window, but I think that any reasonable person would agree that whenever you are engaged in burgling, that your life may be at risk. This person obviously was willing to take that risk.

Wes:
One thing I wanted to reiterate (or rather, clarify) is that I don't condone the action of the burglar at all. My entire point of the first "one dead idiot" post was that he needed to accept the consequence of his action. Theft affects people in more ways than most people know, I agree. I've had it happen in my life as well, but the topic skewed from there to a vilification of thieves and a deification of vigilantes and murder.


Yep, I said it...murder.

Call it like it is kids.

I have yet to throw up a single post exhonerating the actions of the deceased, as I agree that it became a sort of twisted caveat emptor. However the act of being the person responsible for killing him whether through intent or blind negligence is the issue here.

Keep in mind that when someone here mistakes me for some bleeding heart, that they're looking at someone who enforces physical punishment near daily, and who still has a lingering faith in Islamic Law.

But some psychotic measures are just too much. Whether it suits my purpose of culling the stupid, or not...it's negligent homicide..it's weighing property over life.

I never assumed anyone was condoning the actions of burglars. And as I said, "I do agree that the owner should be punished for the security system he installed. With it, he threatened the lives of many more people than just burglars."

The point I wanted to cover was the trivialization of a person having his property stolen. I don't see it as a cut-and-dried issue of simple property vs. life. Violating someone's home or business and taking his things can do amazing damage, the least of which is defacement to possessions. When robbery can so greatly affect victims' lives, theft of property is more than just the loss of material things.

So, when I start to see how easily and how drastically a thief can ruin an innocent person's life, I don't hold much regard for the life of the thief.



[This message has been edited by Wes (edited 03-01-2003).]

I agree with the point that it is murder, DG. Certainly, it is.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where murder is condoned, on a number of levels...I always find it strange, that after the Gulf war, that anyone would want to have anything to do with me, what with being a mass-murderer and all.

I would also like to mention the point that Wes raised...that his sense of security was violated (even though, in reality, we live under the threat of this everywhere...illusions are nice). I personally do think, that anyone who is willing to break into a place, etc, should realize (or at least be aware) that they are indeed risking their lives...whereas sometimes, the need outwieghs the risk...still, the very real threat is there...just in the case of the article, it actually happened...

Yes, a man is dead. In an ideal world, this is tragic, certainly. That the human loss, certainly more valuable is than any property, I have no arguement with...in an idealistic setting.

But we live in brutal reality...where killing, and murder, is advanced almost to an artform. In societies, where property is more valuable, than human life. With governments, that commit mass murder on a daily basis. Where mass murders like me, are hailed as heroes, and patted on the back for 'a job well done'.

Nobody forced the man to break into the bar. He made his choice. He paid the consequences. The barman in question has already received, the worst kind of punishment - he killed someone, murdered them. He has lost a piece of humanity, that he can never get back...

Awarding someone money for this loss of life, is paradoxal...is then a Life just worth that? Apparently, the justice system seems to think so...

In other words, things are reduced, in this case, to value...and a human life was given a value...and not very much. Because all the money, and property, and material, will not bring back, or replace, that man's life. And no amount of punishment, can meet that, which the Barman now faces...the prison, of ones own head.

The Barman also made his choice...now he has to live with it. But in these societies, where everything has apparent monetary values (even human life), didn't he then have a right to protect his monetary valuables? For the Barman, his monetary valuables were certainly much more valuable, to him, than the burglar's life...that's the reality, that we seem to live in. The society is allowed to do this, the government as well...even some private citizens...why not the Barman?

I think the important thing is that you are allowed to defend yourself with reasonable force - i.e. enough force to make sure you get the job done otherwise you are negligent.

If landmines were legal then DG is (pretty much) free to mine his front garden but if anyone died crossing it then he is responsible for killing that person whether they are a short-sighted child retreiving their ball, a member of the mergency services coming to help you, a burglar or a drunken relative.

You are responsible for that persons death and you didn't take steps to make that force reasonable so you are guilty of murder and by setting your traps you have to accept the possibility that you are going to kill someone and you should be charged accordingly no matter what the person's intent was.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

There hasn't been any discussion as to whether death was the intended result of upping the voltage or if it was just a bigger deterent. We'll never know because the bartender is dead too. Seems that most of you missed that part. They're charging this settlement to his wife, not to the man that set this up. Sure, he would have had to be responsible for what he did. Point is that they are punishing the punished for something they didn't do.

I have the right to defend myself and my property with deadly force. I give you ONE warning. After that one warning I am authorized by law to take what actions I deem necessary to defend myself and my possessions. If my guard dog kills a burglar in my home that has posted signs stating the existence of said guard dog and I'm not home when the dope gets chowed on, I am hardly at fault.

GrythusDraconis
I admire a man who can budget his life around his pint of Guinness and I envy a man who's wife will let him. ME, inspired by Suho1004 here.