Racial tensions

[5fouls]

2 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Answer the question; does your child deserve to die for a property crime regardless of any threat of violence?

I've already answered that question.  Smashing a store window and stealing property is a threat of violence.  Let's try and answer this one.  Did the people that set fire to the Family Dollar verify that the owner or an employee wasn't in the store when the fire was set?  

Feel free to take a stab at the scenario I laid out for @Hoosierhoopster.  I suspect I'll get a trial attorney's explanation from him, but I'm curious to hear someone outside the legal profession to explain to me when that line has been crossed where the store owner has a right to defend himself.

[KoB2011]

2 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

I've already answered that question.  Smashing a store window and stealing property is a threat of violence.  Let's try and answer this one.  Did the people that set fire to the Family Dollar verify that the owner or an employee wasn't in the store when the fire was set?  

Feel free to take a stab at the scenario I laid out for @Hoosierhoopster.  I suspect I'll get a trial attorney's explanation from him, but I'm curious to hear someone outside the legal profession to explain to me when that line has been crossed where the store owner has a right to defend himself.

The store owner or employees always have the right to defend themselves, they don't have a right to murder someone over a property crime. 

[KoB2011]

11 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

A guy goes into a business with a weapon.... gun, hammer, knife, take your pick.  Robber tells the store owner to give him all the money in the cash register,  Store owner says to robber, "Just take the money, please don't hurt me".  Store owner realizes the robber is not wearing a mask and recognizes him as a kid from the neighborhood.  Robber has not announced or even indicated in any way that he would harm the store owner.  But, given that the owner recognizes the robber, there is a good chance the robber will.  At what point in this scenario does the 'property crime' cross the imaginary line where it is okay for the store owner to pull his own weapon and defend himself.  Is that after he is dead?  Defeats the purpose right?

This would depend strongly on the weapon, so you need to pick that. 

If someone pulls a gun on you, of course defense by means of deadly force is acceptable. If they have a knife, and you pull out a gun and shoot them between the eyes or three shots to the chest, then you've crossed a line of self defense and likely committed murder. 

[5fouls]

1 minute ago, KoB2011 said:

The store owner or employees always have the right to defend themselves, they don't have a right to murder someone over a property crime. 

But, at what time in my scenario does the robber escalate the property crime of robbery and make it a crime against person.  That happens when the robber takes action to use the weapon he has brought in to commit the robbery.  And, unfortunately, for the store owner, that may be too late to defend himself.

Look, I'm not advocating a store owner chase the kid down the street and shoot him in the back for simply throwing a rock through his window.  But, if a store owner feels personally threatened by the actions of someone else, who am I to judge what he does to protect himself.  It's not my place.  

[KoB2011]

2 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

But, at what time in my scenario does the robber escalate the property crime of robbery and make it a crime against person.  That happens when the robber takes action to use the weapon he has brought in to commit the robbery.  And, unfortunately, for the store owner, that may be too late to defend himself.

Look, I'm not advocating a store owner chase the kid down the street and shoot him in the back for simply throwing a rock through his window.  But, if a store owner feels personally threatened by the actions of someone else, who am I to judge what he does to protect himself.  It's not my place.  

So you don't think Ahmaud Arbery was murdered? Those white supremacists felt threatened. 

[5fouls]

3 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

This would depend strongly on the weapon, so you need to pick that. 

If someone pulls a gun on you, of course defense by means of deadly force is acceptable. If they have a knife, and you pull out a gun and shoot them between the eyes or three shots to the chest, then you've crossed a line of self defense and likely committed murder. 

Why would the weapon being a knife change things.  Maybe if it's a 15 year old kid.  But, what if the robber was former Special Forces in the military?  In that instance, the knife could be actually more deadly than a gun.  You're asking a lot of a store owner that's facing the threat to process all of that?  He would be dead before he checked all of the boxes in his head if the intent of the robber was to eliminate the witnesses all along.

[5fouls]

Just now, KoB2011 said:

So you don't think Ahmaud Arbery was murdered? Those white supremacists felt threatened. 

Stretching things here.

[KoB2011]

1 minute ago, 5fouls said:

Why would the weapon being a knife change things.  Maybe if it's a 15 year old kid.  But, what if the robber was former Special Forces in the military?  In that instance, the knife could be actually more deadly than a gun.  You're asking a lot of a store owner that's facing the threat to process all of that?  He would be dead before he checked all of the boxes in his head if the intent of the robber was to eliminate the witnesses all along.

Because self defense has a lot to do with what you're defending against. 

[KoB2011]

Just now, 5fouls said:

Stretching things here.

Not at all. It isn't anywhere close to enough to say you felt threatened and therefore used deadly force. You're now advocating that it is. 

[5fouls]

Signing off for the night @KoB2011  I have to get up early in the morning for work.  Interesting discussion.  While I don't agree with your point of view, I respect your right to have that opinion.  My only recommendation is to not make it personal, which you initially did with Muddy River.  

[BobSaccamanno]

3 hours ago, Muddy River said:

It says a lot about me?  What knowledge about me have you gleaned from this thread?  Have you figured out why I feel the way I do, or do you not care?  Let me fill in some of the blanks.  Many years ago, my grandfather (a WW2 vet for what it's worth) was closing up the family restaurant for the night.  He was in his business, not his home.  Someone came in and murdered him for a couple of hundred dollars.  So, while you might find me repulsive for not having sympathy and compassion for the looters, my family history prevents me.  My grandfather died, the business never reopened, and the case was never closed.  All that he worked for was gone.  Maybe if he had been armed things would be different today.  Certainly if he had shot the intruder first things would be different.  I don't hate humanity, but I do hate those that look to prey on others.  So, judge me if you must, but know that nothing you say can change my past.

I’m very sorry to hear that happened.  Extremely vicious and so unfair.   Completely senseless.  And I can understand never getting over it.  

[rico]

6 hours ago, 5fouls said:

What is going on in cities across America is not trespassing or shoplifting.  

 

Meh, one of the passive "protesters" accidentally dropped a cigarette on some gasoline inside the store.  

[Reacher]

I think people are talking past each other here. I don't recall anyone saying trespassers should be arbitrarily shot. I keep hearing the argument made about property crimes.

You can't pretend a business owner is not going to be threatened when looters break in. Many have been beaten and seriously injured as pointed out already. Yes, there is a fine line. I believe many business owners care more about their business than their home and don't fault them for doing what they can, legally, to protect that. The original example of the guy with the shotgun in his doorway did just that. That shotgun was a powerful deterrent as evidenced by him being the only business on the block unscathed. He obviously didn't shoot anyone. Hopefully, he only would have if he was in immediate danger. In light of what has been going on, that cannot be dismissed. 

Lastly, if my child was shot whole robbing a home or a business, I'm not going to blame the shooter, but rather my child. Tragic yes, but people need to know right from wrong. 

[hoosier_exotics]

11 minutes ago, Reacher said:

I think people are talking past each other here. I don't recall anyone saying trespassers should be arbitrarily shot. I keep hearing the argument made about property crimes.

You can't pretend a business owner is not going to be threatened when looters break in. Many have been beaten and seriously injured as pointed out already. Yes, there is a fine line. I believe many business owners care more about their business than their home and don't fault them for doing what they can, legally, to protect that. The original example of the guy with the shotgun in his doorway did just that. That shotgun was a powerful deterrent as evidenced by him being the only business on the block unscathed. He obviously didn't shoot anyone. Hopefully, he only would have if he was in immediate danger. In light of what has been going on, that cannot be dismissed. 

Lastly, if my child was shot whole robbing a home or a business, I'm not going to blame the shooter, but rather my child. Tragic yes, but people need to know right from wrong. 

Damn right, my kids know better.  If they are out doing this stupid shit and something happens to them, I won't hold any bad feelings towards store owners. My oldest daughter is a far lefty. Girl can't tell ya when her payments are due, but can spout off day and time of any march going on. She lives in Indy, and I told her before this started, if she got in trouble she's on her own. 

[Reacher]

Armed citizens in Salem Oregon successfully deterred rioters who announced via social media they were heading there. No loss of life, no property damage. 

In Chicago 21 killed this weekend. Additional 46 shot. 

Dozen videos of looting going on-https://cwbchicago.com/2020/06/more-images-of-looting-and-damage-around-chicago.html

National guard secured the downtown area and forced rioters into the neighborhoods and suburbs. 

Apparently there were bus loads of rioters that came from IN. 

[5fouls]

@KoB2011

Last night, you asked me a question regarding what if my son was one of the looters since kids do stupid things.  Let's change that up and I'll ask you how you would feel if your son was the store owner.

Here's the scenario.  Your son owns a small business that stays open until, let's say 10 o'clock.  At 9:00 PM, news starts breaking about riots occurring in the area.  Your son starts hearing sirens, and what appears to be gunshots.  They may or may not be rubber bullets.  He can't tell.  He steps outside and sees the CVS on the corner of the next block on fire. At that point he decides to call it a night and begins the process to close. Unfortunately,  before he gets too far in the process, a brick is thrown through the store window,  Then someone with a hammer finishes smashing through the glass and 4 looters pile into the store.  Three of them grab some merchandise and immediately run out.  But, the guy with the hammer walks toward your son, points the hammer and says 'Give me all the cash'.  It's not really a threat, because hammers can't shoot after all and the looter did not add 'or I'll bash your head in' to his demand for the cash.

At this point, I can see the scenario playing out 6 different ways, only three of which are good for your son.  So, basically a 50/50 proposition that something bad happens to your child.

• Your son gives the guy the money from the register and the looter flees with no harm to your son. This is the preferred outcome.
• Your son gives the looter the money, but the looter bashes your son in the head with the hammer anyway.  Obviously a bad outcome.
• Your son refuses to give the looter the money and the looter bashes your son in the head with the hammer out of anger. Bad outcome
• Your son refuses to hand over the money and the looter flees.  Second best outcome for your son.
• Your son defends his property and is not charged for whatever happened to the looter.  A good outcome for your son, not so good for the looter.
• Your son defends his property and is charged with what happened to the looter.  It was just a hammer after all.  It's not like it was a gun.  Not good for your son.

Now, if it plays out like the last scenario, are you going to defend the actions of your son or be a witness for the prosecution explaining to the jury why your son should be charged?  I ask, because it sounds as if it was anyone else's son but your own, you would be a prosecution witness.  Meanwhile, your son is likely hoping I'm on the jury, because if I am, there is no way he's getting convicted,

So, in summary, last night you put me on the spot to explain how I would react if my son was the looter.  This morning, I'm asking you to explain, as a father, how you would react if your son was the store owner.

@Hoosierhoopster.  No legal answer.  Just pick one or the other.  Are you the prosecutor or the defense attorney in this case?

 

 

 

[dbmhoosier]

5 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

@KoB2011

Last night, you asked me a question regarding what if my son was one of the looters since kids do stupid things.  Let's change that up and I'll ask you how you would feel if your son was the store owner.

Here's the scenario.  Your son owns a small business that stays open until, let's say 10 o'clock.  At 9:00 PM, news starts breaking about riots occurring in the area.  Your son starts hearing sirens, and what appears to be gunshots.  They may or may not be rubber bullets.  He can't tell.  He steps outside and sees the CVS on the corner of the next block on fire. At that point he decides to call it a night and begins the process to close. Unfortunately,  before he gets too far in the process, a brick is thrown through the store window,  Then someone with a hammer finishes smashing through the glass and 4 looters pile into the store.  Three of them grab some merchandise and immediately run out.  But, the guy with the hammer walks toward your son, points the hammer and says 'Give me all the cash'.  It's not really a threat, because hammers can't shoot after all and the looter did not add 'or I'll bash your head in' to his demand for the cash.

At this point, I can see the scenario playing out 6 different ways, only three of which are good for your son.  So, basically a 50/50 proposition that something bad happens to your child.

• Your son gives the guy the money from the register and the looter flees with no harm to your son. This is the preferred outcome.
• Your son gives the looter the money, but the looter bashes your son in the head with the hammer anyway.  Obviously a bad outcome.
• Your son refuses to give the looter the money and the looter bashes your son in the head with the hammer out of anger. Bad outcome
• Your son refuses to hand over the money and the looter flees.  Second best outcome for your son.
• Your son defends his property and is not charged for whatever happened to the looter.  A good outcome for your son, not so good for the looter.
• Your son defends his property and is charged with what happened to the looter.  It was just a hammer after all.  It's not like it was a gun.  Not good for your son.

Now, if it plays out like the last scenario, are you going to defend the actions of your son or be a witness for the prosecution explaining to the jury why your son should be charged?  I ask, because it sounds as if it was anyone else's son but your own, you would be a prosecution witness.  Meanwhile, your son is likely hoping I'm on the jury, because if I am, there is no way he's getting convicted,

So, in summary, last night you put me on the spot to explain how I would react if my son was the looter.  This morning, I'm asking you to explain, as a father, how you would react if your son was the store owner.

@Hoosierhoopster.  No legal answer.  Just pick one or the other.  Are you the prosecutor or the defense attorney in this case?

 

 

 

Someone comes at the store owner with a hammer and demands all the cash.  I guarantee you the store owner could blow such person away and there's not a jury in the country that would convict the store owner of anything. 

[5fouls]

2 minutes ago, dbmhoosier said:

Someone comes at the store owner with a hammer and demands all the cash.  I guarantee you the store owner could blow such person away and there's not a jury in the country that would convict the store owner of anything. 

But, there are people posting in this thread that would convict the store owner unless an explicit threat was made.  And, apparently, carrying a hammer while robbing a store is not a threat.  The hammer does not become a threat until it is swung at the store owner's head.  And, that's likely too late for the store owner to react.

[mrflynn03]

People dont like getting their asses beat. Negative reinforcement is a great teaching tool. If this doesnt stop soon the hammer will come down on them. 

If it was up to me I'd have already requested the military units on standby.  Dont like the police?  They really wont like the military police. 

This crap is out of control. 

[Seeking6]

Former IU football player Chris Beaty was one of the people killed over the weekend in Indy in association with protests. Knew of him via mutual friends/acquaintances. One of those really good guys....type that goes out his way to help others. I have no clue of details but this is the sort of collateral damage that comes with these protests that really irritate me.

[tdhoosier]

14 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

@KoB2011

Last night, you asked me a question regarding what if my son was one of the looters since kids do stupid things.  Let's change that up and I'll ask you how you would feel if your son was the store owner.

Here's the scenario.  Your son owns a small business that stays open until, let's say 10 o'clock.  At 9:00 PM, news starts breaking about riots occurring in the area.  Your son starts hearing sirens, and what appears to be gunshots.  They may or may not be rubber bullets.  He can't tell.  He steps outside and sees the CVS on the corner of the next block on fire. At that point he decides to call it a night and begins the process to close. Unfortunately,  before he gets too far in the process, a brick is thrown through the store window,  Then someone with a hammer finishes smashing through the glass and 4 looters pile into the store.  Three of them grab some merchandise and immediately run out.  But, the guy with the hammer walks toward your son, points the hammer and says 'Give me all the cash'.  It's not really a threat, because hammers can't shoot after all and the looter did not add 'or I'll bash your head in' to his demand for the cash.

At this point, I can see the scenario playing out 6 different ways, only three of which are good for your son.  So, basically a 50/50 proposition that something bad happens to your child.

• Your son gives the guy the money from the register and the looter flees with no harm to your son. This is the preferred outcome.
• Your son gives the looter the money, but the looter bashes your son in the head with the hammer anyway.  Obviously a bad outcome.
• Your son refuses to give the looter the money and the looter bashes your son in the head with the hammer out of anger. Bad outcome
• Your son refuses to hand over the money and the looter flees.  Second best outcome for your son.
• Your son defends his property and is not charged for whatever happened to the looter.  A good outcome for your son, not so good for the looter.
• Your son defends his property and is charged with what happened to the looter.  It was just a hammer after all.  It's not like it was a gun.  Not good for your son.

Now, if it plays out like the last scenario, are you going to defend the actions of your son or be a witness for the prosecution explaining to the jury why your son should be charged?  I ask, because it sounds as if it was anyone else's son but your own, you would be a prosecution witness.  Meanwhile, your son is likely hoping I'm on the jury, because if I am, there is no way he's getting convicted,

So, in summary, last night you put me on the spot to explain how I would react if my son was the looter.  This morning, I'm asking you to explain, as a father, how you would react if your son was the store owner.

@Hoosierhoopster.  No legal answer.  Just pick one or the other.  Are you the prosecutor or the defense attorney in this case?

 

 

 

Man, you are getting into the weeds here. The hammer is being used in a threatening manner, IMO. But I think the overall point is if a looter is running out of your store with stolen goods, the store owner can’t shoot him in the back. 

Creating all these fictional scenarios with a ton of hypotheticals is getting around the main point and is why we have trials; for these gray areas when lawyers have to argue the intent of the law. 

So, asking HH to not give give a legal answer is like asking a physicist if we can go to Mars, but not to give a ‘scientific answer’. Haha. Complicated  questions require complicated answers. And you better watch out or HH will start billing you by the hour. 

[Reacher]

@KoB2011, let me add to add to @5foulsscenario.  Your daughter senses the protest she is attending getting ugly and decided to leave. She calls you and is talking to you on the phone telling you about the protest when she ends up with her vehicle surrounded.  You were just watching the news and saw vehicles overturned and burned, people pulled from their vehicles and beaten. Your daughter tells you her vehicle is being rocked. windows are being smashed. Do you tell her to hit the gas and get herself out of that situation?

[IUFLA]

14 hours ago, Lostin76 said:

Yeah, can we start another thread for people to brag about shooting looters?

As long as we can herd the folks who seem to have broken out the pom-poms in favor of looting and violence into that thread as well...

See? Other people can use innuendo and hyperbole too...

[Reacher]

Lansing MI- a tale of 2 protests

Anyone notice, care to explain, the difference in the protesters in Lansing MI? Reopen protesters made big news with their protests yet there was no damage, trash, injuries, etc. Compare that with the rioting from the Floyd protests. I'm sure there are many other places where similar comparisons can be made.

[5fouls]

9 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

Man, you are getting into the weeds here. The hammer is being used in a threatening manner, IMO. But I think the overall point is if a looter is running out of your store with stolen goods, the store owner can’t shoot him in the back. 

Creating all these fictional scenarios with a ton of hypotheticals is getting around the main point and is why we have trials; for these gray areas when lawyers have to argue the intent of the law. 

So, asking HH to not give give a legal answer is like asking a physicist if we can go to Mars, but not to give a ‘scientific answer’. Haha. Complicated  questions require complicated answers. And you better watch out or HH will start billing you by the hour. 

Agree 100% that shooting someone in the back, or is otherwise not a threat, is wrong.  My main point is that it is very difficult sometimes to know when that line is crossed by either party in the situation.  And, given a situation where I can't definitively tell whether there was a real threat to the well-being of the store owner or not, I'm going to side with the store owner.  It would be a rare situation for me to side with the looter, unless he clearly was fleeing the scene and was no longer a threat to the owner.