By God George, you’ve given me an idea!
ETA: Our neighborhood watch sign could be two crossed shotguns!
Because even a Bugatti Veyron isn’t worth the lowliest of lives. Unless you think that once a person steps over that very thin line between honesty and criminality, they are totally beyond redemption. A corpse can’t get to change it’s wicked ways.
What about the fact that by engaging in said criminal activity, they’re ruining your livelyhood, potentially ruining your life?
I’ve known people who have lost their jobs, and subsequently their homes, because their car was stolen. They were forced to move into a much shadier neighborhood, putting them and their family at an increased risk and danger.
We are addressing the issues. :rolleyes: But I’m man enough to take my deserved knuckle-rap. It was worth it. (And by TWO moderators no less…)
I was wonder the same thing last night!
I think requiring at least ONE mob member to live there would clinch it!
How common an occurence would this be? Because if it is not happening very often, the police always have spare cars in their pounds that they have confiscated from criminals. A criminal took your car, you get one of theirs back until you get on your feet again. Or do the police keep the profits from all these unclaimed criminal’s goodies?
Anyway, if you are that dependent on your vehicle, why not take the battery out at night, if you can’t lock it in a garage? Two minutes inconvenience every evening and morning is better than no car and no livelihood, or the blood of a teenage joy-rider on your hands, surely?
Note the use of nasty names to describe thieves. They are dehumanizing them to make them less than human and not deserving of societies protections. Their lives are definitely worth less than a CD player.They should have the right to exterminate these vermin.
Are you actually serious?
I thought you were speaking nonsense when you suggested that a person flee their own home and give it up to a burglar, but now you’re suggesting that people have a duty to remove the battery from their car to prevent you or your colleagues from stealing it?
The degree of punishment dealt out is not equal to the crime being comitted. Your life is not at risk by someone stealing your car (assuming they’re not trying to run you down in the process). Plus:
A) Insurance will cover the car
B) No blood stains on upholstery or bullet holes in car.
C) Avoid jail for your vigilante justice.
Of course I am serious. You have a duty to your peace of mind to protect it, if it is really as important as you claim. I assume it is alarmed at least then, if you are going to leave it on the street?
The thing that seems to be missing here is an understanding of what’s valuable to whom.
The armed homeowners value the sanctuary of their homes, and believe that they have a right to defend themselves against those who would violate it. They don’t want to kill someone; they don’t believe that their dvd player is worth a human life, because that’s not what they’re defending when they pull the trigger. They’re defending their home, their shelter, their sanctuary.
The other guys value life. They believe that the right to life trumps the right to property, liberty or self-determination. They believe that a feeling, thinking human is worth more than anything in the world. To them dead is dead, but anything else can be repaired or healed with time.
The life guys keep trying to show how much more a life is worth than mere things. They keep failing, because the homeowners have the same belief. The homeowners keep trying to show how their basic rights are more valuable then those who would violate them. They keep failing, because the life guys believe that life trumps everything else.
The life guys also seem to think the homeowners are trying to punish the crooks. They’re not; they’re simply trying to defend themselves. There is no useful question of what the crooks deserve, because no one is trying to punish them, merely to stop them.
Pretty much everyone. Not everyone can afford Full Replacement insurance, and even if they can it often doesn’t pay enough.
Many cars are from 1.5 - 5 years pay for most people.
The police keep the profits.
Because the victim isn’t to blame for the criminal committing criminal acts?
You just live in made up cloud cuckoo land where any argument can be justified by an imaginary premise, don’t you?
A few posts ago you were telling us insurance companies wouldn’t pay off a claim on a homeowner’s policy, because everyone knows the homeowner bears an affirmative obligation to set up his “motion sensors”(in keeping with your theory that some (unspecified) level of “security system” is a bare minimum before I can expect some subhuman (yes, someone who intentionally violates the social code of humans is, in some degree, less than fully human) not to violate my living space). Except that’s nothing to do with any actual insurance policy anyone has seen.
Now we learn of police departments happily lending impounded cars out to the victims of subhuman car thieves. Because, you know, that’s how it works. No liability concerns. No program of selling unclaimed impounded goods. And the notion of police “profit” – try subsidizing the cost of trying to keep the small subset of scumbags from ruining things for the rest of us.
Seriously, did you really think police departments gave out “loaner cars?” Did you, for a moment, think that? Have you never heard of a police auction, or understood its purpose?
You know, I’ve always heard people saying that rape is the only crime where people blame the victim. When someone is robbed, you never hear someone say it was the victim’s fault for not locking their stuff up or for “tempting” the robber with expensive goodies. This is the first time I’ve actually heard someone seriously doing that for robbery.
I’ve never had an insurance policy, but I thought I’d heard of payouts being refused because certain precautions had not been made. I may well be wrong.
Are those till assistants who cost stores more than the shoplifters in losses, sub-human creatures? Just wondering about your delineation.
No, I didn’t; I just thought it might be a good use of them in exceptional circumstances. No, again. Yes, I have; to subsidise police funds. Do you think they are allowed to bid themselves, or would they get non-cop mates to do it?
Yes you do. Tourists are often advised not to flash their valuables about in certain places.
A. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe I can’t afford full insurance. Ever hear of a deductable? And then there are cars that have a blue book value of nearly zero, but are worth WAY more than because they are solid transportation. I have an old car I probably could not GIVE away. But its probably good for another 10 years and 250,000 miles. To ME thats worth a hundred or two dollars every month.
Of course in just, fair, and human socitiey, that values ANYONES life above ALL else, your society would instantly reimburse me for my stolen car so as to not put the burgulars life at risk. Heck, they would even pay my insurance so I wouldnt even give a rats ass if my car was stolen.
When cars are provided for “free” by society, get back to us on this.
B. A bloody car with holes in will still get you to work. Might even make it a better chick magnet. NASCAR CHICKS RULE !
C. Its NOT vigilante justics if your killing a guy to stop him from stealing your car. That whole during/after the fact little detail. And even if it IS, it shouldnt be.
NASCAR! just for hell of it.
ivan, what’s your position in this argument? I get that you think people should get security systems and dogs and steel core windows and bars on their doors and barbed-wire -topped electric fences and moats populated by with alligators and sharks.
But, presuming all that fails, and you find yourself awakening in your bed hearing burglar in your home, and have a gun close at hand, is your position that if the gun-owner sees fit to take that gun and attempt to subdue the burglar, they are somehow wrong in doing so?
Sometimes you seem to be claiming that it is foolish to do so, and defend that position with unlikely scenarios ranging to ridiculous hyperbole, but whether it’s dumb or risky do to so, do you assert that it’s wrong to advance barrel-first towards the home invader and attempt to neutralize (or, if they prefer, kill) the intruder?
NVM…post deleted…I can’t think of anything to say that won’t be against forum rules.
Except, I share your jaw drop, **Catsix. **
Exactly!
And there is a reason its called GRAND theft auto. Even our legal system recognizes that stealing a car has way more serious implications for the victim than stealing their collection of Santa’s or Zamfir CDs.