you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 67 points 7 hours ago (10 children)

Zero reason for this response (3 dudes with guns drawn?) when the goods are insured. Call in another cop, one who is in a vehicle, to follow the car and pull them over if you care that much. Having the AG say this is “justified” is a horrendous misjudgment on her part.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 7 hours ago (4 children)

    Zero reason for this response if the goods aren’t insured. In what sane universe is it morally justified to hurt anyone over material items??

    FFS on top of that it was diapers. Meaning mom and friend were desperate to care for their baby. The system is so disgustingly broken.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 36 minutes ago

    There is no system, there are just people. And is it justified to hurt people over theft? Of course it is.

    All legality ends in killing when taken to its end result. If you get a speeding ticket, what happens if you don't pay it? You get a warrant for your arrest. What happens when you're stopped for speeding again and the officer, noticing your warrant, goes to arrest you but you, believing the state has no business apprehending you for something you never agreed not to do on roads nobody actually owns (which is a legitimate and objective claim, mind you), resist that arrest?

    One of three things can occur:

    1. You are arrested, which means that another human being placed their hands upon you and did things to you that you do not consent to. If your neighbor did this to you you would consider it both insane and immoral, and you would be wholly justified in that consideration.
    2. You escape arrest, but you will most likely be arrested in the future.
    3. Your resistance utilized some level of force which was reciprocated by the officer, and you were shot and killed.

    And what do you think happens if you do successfully resist arrest? Now you have a warrant for your arrest not only for speeding, but also for resisting arrest. And what do you think would happen if say, you successfully resisted arrest say, 5 times? Do you think the state is going to just throw its hands up and say, "well, we tried but that bugger got away so what can we do!?" No, of course not. Eventually the criminal escalation will be so great that you would be seen as a violator of the law wholly need of processing, which means violence used against you to ensure your capture. What happens then when those escalated officers draw weapons on you and demand your surrender and you try to escape a sixth time? They throw up their hands?

    Of course not, they open fire.

    ALL criminal acts eventually lead to death unless you succumb to the will of the authoritarian structure or you're successfully captured and processed, it just depends where along that line you are.

    Is it rationally justified to open fire on someone for stealing from a Walmart? Of course not. But it would have been justified to arrest the woman and punish her to the fullest extent of the law, barring that the law is just, and by just, keep in mind, simply being that in which violates the will of another through a logical order of operations. I.E: Murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc.

    An officer who shoots at a car to prevent someone from getting away with petty theft at a Walmart should be tried and convicted of murder, but the woman who stole from that Walmart should be tried and convicted of theft, at least barring that the Walmart wanted to press charges at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 6 hours ago (1 child)

    How about the fact that in some states, if someone is invading your home in the middle of the night and you shoot them you can be convicted depending on if you give them an avenue of egress, but these guys jumped in front of a moving car and their "reaction" was "justified?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 24 minutes ago

    Wouldn't that depend though?

    It is the responsibility of the police to make arrests, not prove guilt or innocence - that is the job of the courts. The police gathered what information they could, rightly concluded that someone had committed theft and attempted to make an arrest. This means that if they can use their bodies to stop the perpetrator from escaping that arrest, they should.

    The question then falls on the idea of, was the car already going 30MPH and an officer jumped in front of it not giving them enough time to stop, and that was seen as an act of violence? That then would have been two poor decisions on behalf of that officer. First, jumping in front of the car, and two, in assuming the car's not stopping to be an act of aggression upon them that warranted a returned act of agression.

    If someone came into my home, robbed me and my family then ran out to their car and I was standing at the end of my driveway by the time the car started moving (I own firearms) and they clearly held no intention of not running me over, I would shoot to kill and I would be completely justified in doing so. Not because they robbed me (though that can actually be warranted too, it just depends), but because they made an attempt on my life, or at the very least, on my physical well-being.

    No man should be made to accept another's attempts to strip them of their life or well-being. I should not be made to suffer a broken body because the only way to have stopped that would be to have taken the life of the assailant who had no qualms with crushing my body.

    Also regarding what you posted, many states are wholly nonsensical in the vast majority of their laws. What is rational is that if someone were to enter your property, you are justified in analyzing the threat as rationally as you can, given the circumstance, and acting accordingly. If you shoot the 8 year old running across your yard, you're in the wrong and just murdered a child, but there are many different situations that can arise. If someone walks into my home (I have young children) and I see that they are carrying a knife or firearm, I'm not going to speak with them, warn them, or otherwise give them an "egress", I am going to shoot to kill, period, the state be damned.

    The 3 seconds it might take me to ask questions and wait for a response could be all it takes before my toddler is shot dead. I don't have that time, I don't know this person, I don't know their intentions, and this is the single most horrific and pivotal moment of likely my entire life - the notion that I should be held more accountable for how I react than the individual who entered my home armed is utter nonsense. NOBODY matters to me as much as my children, and that should be a universality across the whole of humanity. If you don't believe that, you're doing "human" wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

    Following them turns into a high speed chase now endangering other people. Not really a better option when random people get killed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments