Why would that even be thought to be true? Police officers with guns are no less likely to kill you than a citizen with a gun, if you are a criminal. And even if they don’t kill you, they can lock your ass in jail.
I take it those forthright and upfront criminals who were asked gave these responses more to diss the police, than by any relation to truth.
This is like believing those surveys where someone asks a schoolboy of a certain age if they have had sex or ‘done drugs’ and expecting honest answers!
Only if the police officer catches you. Unless you’re trying to break into a police station, you are more likely to encounter the person living there than the police officer who arrives 1-30 minutes after someone raises the alarm.
That’s preventative, though. There are precautions that we should all take, but it’s never the victim’s fault.
This makes it seem like you’re blaming the victim. As in, tempting some otherwise good criminal. If you’re that easily induced into crime, it’s your fault–not someone who felt like opening their window. This also sounds so much like the rationalizations that I’ve read rapists give for their crimes–she was asking for it, secretly wanted it, etc.
No one deserves to die for stealing. But if an irate or freaked out homeowner sees a stranger in their house ends up killing said intruder, then it sucks to be the intruder. It happens. And it’s the ultimately the fault of the person entering unlawfully into someone’s home.
I don’t need to justify them; I’ve been punished for them. They are exiled to the past. I am just offering my perspective. Take it, or leave it. It’s only words on a message board.
Of course not; I was being sarcastic.
Here in the UK, I could change your locks and claim squatters rights if I didn’t actually cause any damage.
Okay, I’ve managed 104 posts without the dreaded troll word coming up! Are you really going to go down that route?
Because an encounter with an armed citizen is a.) surprising/unexpected and b.) the citizen isn’t exactly bound by strict requirements and procedures police officers are supposed to follow. In a state with a Castle Doctrine, you can essentially legally kill someone who breaks into your house. The police aren’t supposed to open fire unless they sincerely believe their life is in danger, and by the time they’re called, chances are they’re aware of the situation and what they’re facing.
And I sincerely doubt criminals are lying on the studies in order to “diss the police.” If I were a criminal, what would I be afraid of more whenever breaking into a house: a potentially well-armed homeowner who’s willing to kill any intruder (and whose state law backs them up in doing so), or a police officer who could shoot (but likely won’t, especially on a robbery call) and if you get caught, you go to jail (where a lot of career criminals feel is their “home” anyway). The debate of who you fear more, armed citizens or police, comes down to the punishment you’re likely to receive from coming in contact with them: death or jail. Given the choice, I’d pick jail too.
Earlier in this very long discussion, ivan did indeed admit to being a former criminal/burglar. For that reason, it’s not surprising most of his posts blame the victim instead of the perpetrator…
Once again, you presume that you and your cellmates are the totality of criminal knowledge. US criminals have reason to fear getting shot by armed citizens. We shoot more of them than cops do. That doesn’t even include the millions of times criminals flee at the sight of a gun in their victim’s hands.
I settle for being proven correct over and over. Besides that is absolutely not true. I bring shitloads of cites. That is false. You reserve the right to reject any and all claims that refute you. that is dishonest but I expect that now.
[mind reading cap on]Though I’ve admitted to finding it hard to follow the, uh, quirky leaps your mind takes, I’m going to have a go at this one: thus spake a former retail shoplifter (you, in my hypothetical) who rationalized his theft by telling himself “the till assistants are stealing more than I ever could, so this is really pretty venial.”[/cap off]
Seriously, because in what other mentality could you think I would be a-okay with till assistants stealing from their employer? In your world is “the Man” okay with till assistants stealing because they are “part of the Establishment?” Does not compute.
And why would it matter “who costs stores more?” Stealing is STEALING. I despise ALL thieves.
Stealing is WRONG.
Stealing HURTS.
Do you understand how much it sucks to have a business, say a small business, die? Somewhere from “a lot,” to devestating.
Knowing that it died partly because of pilferage and theft, which is a huge detriment to many smalll businesses, is even harder to bear, especially when the thieves are those you trusted and paid. Yet you think it’s relevant that shoplifters (in your view) steal less than the staff?
Every new post paints a blacker and more distorted picture of your character. You claim your venality is a thing of the past because you have now done a cynical cost-benefit calculus and stopped housebreaking because it’s no longer worth your trouble. I say it has marked (or is an integral part of) your current character. Tell me, how many forms of benefit are you on? Bogus disability claim? I’m putting good money that your f-everyone-but-me ways have not ended, just shifted their target. Tell me I am wrong.
Then where are the cites for handguns in colonial America? If you can’t link to the cites themselves for some reason, link to the thread here where you provided them. Like Kalhoun, you regularly turn up in these debates, but it is impossible to take you seriously.
This thread makes me think that someone should develop a MMOFPS called “home invasion” where you choose to be a gun-toting homeowner or a thief with ninja skills. The goal of every thief is to locate and steal the precious TiVo, and the goal of every gun-toting homeowner is to empty a full clip into a thief.
