CDZ When does the sanctity of life run out ?

[night_son]

By definition of their very purpose--transporting people to a destination--cars can exceed the value of a human life for the value of other human life such as those described in my first response.

Now would I kill someone for stealing a car out of a dealer's lot? Well, let's take a look.

Dealer's car stolen from lot. Dealer loses money he could have used to take care of family. Or the person interested in that specific car now cannot purchase it. But it was the only car they could afford on the only lot in town. Now, without affordable transportation, they cannot get a job to feed themselves or their family. So killing that particular brand of car thief is also justifiable.

What about the car thief who gets away because you would not stop him who in a panic to avoid authorities by driving at high speeds crashes into another vehicle driven by a father with his family aboard? By not killing the car thief, you've instead killed an entire family. That's pure irresponsibility.

These are hypothetical. In essence you are saying that you have a crystal ball, can see the future actions and are then able to appoint yourself judge,jury and executioner.
If you extend your argument a little further you would be justified in killing anybody carrying a gun because guns kill and ,hey, they have a gun.
You cant kill people on the basis of what they might do.

I think you miss this......

Carrying a gun is not a break in the law.....since you can legally carry a gun in this country. Stealing a car is, in fact, breaking the law, it doesn't compare to carrying a gun.

You would make a better point if you said shooting someone for driving a car, not stealing a car.

Stealing a car shows that you are willing to endanger the lives of innocents, since you are willing to endanger the owner if they try to stop you, and if the police pursue you, you are likely going to drive recklessly to avoid capture.

When someone points a gun at someone, they have put that life at risk, so yes, you can take that life.

And when they are shot in the back, running, without a weapon, did the person who shot them in the back, commit murder?

Likely they did but it depends. Was the suspect armed or did he appear to be under the influence of some kind of mind altering substance? Was the suspect fleeing toward more civilians specifically families or children? If the suspect was clearly unarmed and running away out of fear then shooting them in the back is excessive when pursuing them on foot and subduing them hand to hand is clearly the safer and more moral thing to do for everyone in the area.

I think that only Dirty Harry or Charlie Bronson would take the shot, and only on a movie set but you're not talking hypothetical anymore, are you? There's a thing about being a cop or soldier lots of people don't consider. When conflict occurs it comes out of nowhere just like a gust of wind. What that means is that leaves you with sometimes just a few seconds or breaths to decide what to do. Making the right decision in all scenarios for all bystanders and combatants involved is always impossible. After action reports and news articles are where REMFs, arm chair commandos/ethicists and finger pointers have time to assign blame and play with what ifs.

I think the police, need better training on when to shoot and when not, so that people running, without being armed, should be chased or fought, hand to hand, and not shot in the back and killed.

Yes, as you stated, it is a high stress job...split decisions have to be made, constantly....but this just means, not all men that want to be or are... policemen, are cut out for the high stress job... imo.

Definitely true. Sometimes one doesn't find that until it's too late.

 

[Care4all]

You steal from me and your life doesnt mean shit. As i would expect the same in return.

And you are wrong!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Based on other threads I have read on here.

People are quite comfortable in killing criminals who steal their cars.

How does that square with the sanctity of life ?

Is a lump of metal worth a life ?

The people pushing this extremism are vocally anti abortion.

I just dont get it.

Either life is sacred or it isnt.

When does the concern accorded to a mass of tissues expire ?

At birth ?

Either life is sacred or it is worth less than a lump of metal.

The thing is a given person might have a family. Their family needs to be fed, clothed and prescriptions purchased for them. The person's car gets them to work. Without the ability to work the person cannot get paid. No pay. No taking care of the family.

The answer: harming or killing the car thief keeps family alive. Car thief dies every time.

Youth can be a beautiful set of blinders. Saving the world and preserving all life sounds great. But either you have something to protect and you do, or you philosophize away the responsibility and let them starve.

Or

How about the child stricken with leukemia? How will her parents get her to treatment if they allow the thief to walk.

How will a mother get to the store to buy food or medicine?

In every case existential value cannot be placed on the hunk of metal with wheels. Its meaning exceeds its materialistic composition.

Insurance covers car theft.it may be inconvenient for a little while but you get your money back. Your examples are not valid.

Years ago I was carjacked in a violent theft. That was the argument of the thief. His need for my car was greater than my need. Since insurance would pay for the loss, there was no real crime.

It didn't work. He got 13 years.

Of course there was no real compensation for the loss as the insurance would not really replace the car. I would have killed him where he stood, cheerfully and with a great sense of satisfaction.

 

[TNHarley]

You steal from me and your life doesnt mean shit. As i would expect the same in return.

And you are wrong!

No, im not wrong. I know how i feel, you dont.
You might think that i shouldnt feel that way, and that is fair. But i aint wrong

 

[TNHarley]

You steal from me and your life doesnt mean shit. As i would expect the same in return.

And you are wrong!

What should i do? Let them get away with it? Let them possibly ruin my life? Ruin my childrens life? Cost me untold amounts of money? Blow their knee out instead of death so they can sue me and we end up on the street?

 

[flacaltenn]

OP is from a country that prosecutes home owners for injuries incurred by burglars even if there is no confrontation. Can't put up barbed wire or mesh reinforced glass on you tool shed. The thief might cut them themselves.

Also from yesterday, The UK now wants to "blunt kitchen knives" because it's the WEAPONS that are the problem, certainly NOT the criminals. Right Tommy?

With Knife Crimes on Rise, British Judge Calls for Duller Kitchen Knives

You quote an old judge at his retirement party as an example of UK law ?

It's not just him. There's plenty of call to regulate knives in UK. That's what happens when the WEAPONS and not the CRIMINALS are the problem. You just make another couple million law abiding citizens "knife criminals". You certainly should see your rights and liberties being kicked to the curb. But you don't. This is a failed arc for crime control. To paraphrase the American oracle James Carville -- "It's the CRIMINALS stupid".

Don't make MORE criminals out of people preparing dinner or carrying a knife for self protection. FOCUS ON THE CRIME.

British Politicians Declare War on Knives

Having failed to disarm criminals with gun controls that they defy, British politicians are now turning their attention to implementing something new and different: knife control. Because criminals will be much more respectful of knife laws than of those targeted at firearms, I guess.

"No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife. Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law," London's Mayor Sadiq Khan tweeted on April 8.

Not to be outdone, his predecessor, Boris Johnson, currently Foreign Secretary, called for increased use of stop-and-search powers by police. "You have got to stop them, you have got to search them and you have got to take the knives out of their possession."

Poundland (the British equivalent of a dollar store) announced last week that it will no longer sell kitchen knives in any of its 850 stores. Similar stores are being slapped with fines for selling knives to minors.

British politicians propose banning home delivery of knives and police promote street-corner bins for the surrender of knives while also conducting stings against knife vendors. Their goal is to "target not only those who carry and use knives, but also the supply, access and importation of weapons."

It all sounds all so familiar, doesn't it? And yet so utterly pointless. If British authorities have been unable to block criminals' access to firearms—mechanical devices that require some basic mechanical skill to manufacture, or at least a 3D printer—how are they going to cut off the flow of knives, which require nothing more than a piece of hard material that can take an edge?

 

[flacaltenn]

God saw that we were being evil in our punishments towards his children on Earth, so he gave us a commandment to stop our cruelty....

He said our punishments were excessive!

And we should follow this commandment....

NO MORE THAN

An eye for an eye,

NO MORE THAN

A Tooth for a tooth,

NO MORE THAN
...
A life, for a life....




Not one of God's children, should be killed for stealing, stealing is not taking the life of another....

No one in our JUSTICE system gets capital punishment, for stealing.... otherwise, that would not be just....

Thats an interesting point. The state doesnt execute thieves so why should the public get that right ?

Robbers get executed all the time by the police. Robbing banks or convenience stores and being armed and threatening. Or taking hostages. A home break-in is a hostage situation. If there is threat to you or family on your premises by someone with the MEANS to cause harm --- they never need to do that again..

Police would take them out if they didn't follow instructions or disarm. I can also..

Ive already stated that there is no threat to life so I dont know where you are going with this.

Maybe that should have been stipulated in your OP. So folks understand your position better. But at any rate, even in SELF DEFENSE in the UK against a threat, the VICTIM too often becomes the criminal.

 

[Flash]

It would be our responsibility to save a child's life if it was going to be killed like in aborted.

However, it is not our responsibility to provide for someones welfare just because they are alive. Nor it is our responsibility to let that person commit crimes without punishment.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

God saw that we were being evil in our punishments towards his children on Earth, so he gave us a commandment to stop our cruelty....

He said our punishments were excessive!

And we should follow this commandment....

NO MORE THAN

An eye for an eye,

NO MORE THAN

A Tooth for a tooth,

NO MORE THAN
...
A life, for a life....




Not one of God's children, should be killed for stealing, stealing is not taking the life of another....

No one in our JUSTICE system gets capital punishment, for stealing.... otherwise, that would not be just....

Thats an interesting point. The state doesnt execute thieves so why should the public get that right ?

Robbers get executed all the time by the police. Robbing banks or convenience stores and being armed and threatening. Or taking hostages. A home break-in is a hostage situation. If there is threat to you or family on your premises by someone with the MEANS to cause harm --- they never need to do that again..

Police would take them out if they didn't follow instructions or disarm. I can also..

Ive already stated that there is no threat to life so I dont know where you are going with this.

Maybe that should have been stipulated in your OP. So folks understand your position better. But at any rate, even in SELF DEFENSE in the UK against a threat, the VICTIM too often becomes the criminal.

If someone is killed then there has to be a trial to determine what happened. The question is proportionality. If I shoot a burglar as he climbs the stairs to where my family is sleeping then no court in the land is going toconvict me.
If I chase him down the stairs and into the street, wing him and then chop him into bits with a machete then the courts might decide that I was out of line.
Thats not unreasonable.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

OP is from a country that prosecutes home owners for injuries incurred by burglars even if there is no confrontation. Can't put up barbed wire or mesh reinforced glass on you tool shed. The thief might cut them themselves.

Also from yesterday, The UK now wants to "blunt kitchen knives" because it's the WEAPONS that are the problem, certainly NOT the criminals. Right Tommy?

With Knife Crimes on Rise, British Judge Calls for Duller Kitchen Knives

You quote an old judge at his retirement party as an example of UK law ?

It's not just him. There's plenty of call to regulate knives in UK. That's what happens when the WEAPONS and not the CRIMINALS are the problem. You just make another couple million law abiding citizens "knife criminals". You certainly should see your rights and liberties being kicked to the curb. But you don't. This is a failed arc for crime control. To paraphrase the American oracle James Carville -- "It's the CRIMINALS stupid".

Don't make MORE criminals out of people preparing dinner or carrying a knife for self protection. FOCUS ON THE CRIME.

British Politicians Declare War on Knives

Having failed to disarm criminals with gun controls that they defy, British politicians are now turning their attention to implementing something new and different: knife control. Because criminals will be much more respectful of knife laws than of those targeted at firearms, I guess.

"No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife. Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law," London's Mayor Sadiq Khan tweeted on April 8.

Not to be outdone, his predecessor, Boris Johnson, currently Foreign Secretary, called for increased use of stop-and-search powers by police. "You have got to stop them, you have got to search them and you have got to take the knives out of their possession."

Poundland (the British equivalent of a dollar store) announced last week that it will no longer sell kitchen knives in any of its 850 stores. Similar stores are being slapped with fines for selling knives to minors.

British politicians propose banning home delivery of knives and police promote street-corner bins for the surrender of knives while also conducting stings against knife vendors. Their goal is to "target not only those who carry and use knives, but also the supply, access and importation of weapons."

It all sounds all so familiar, doesn't it? And yet so utterly pointless. If British authorities have been unable to block criminals' access to firearms—mechanical devices that require some basic mechanical skill to manufacture, or at least a 3D printer—how are they going to cut off the flow of knives, which require nothing more than a piece of hard material that can take an edge?

The rise in knife crime can be linked to austerty politics. The number of police on the streets has been drastically reduced. So has the infrastructure in our cities. Youth clubs,sports clubs and so on have had to close from lack of funding. Community policing is dead because ,again,their numbers have been cut.
When you combine this with economic hardship and the gig economy it is obvious that bad things will happen.

I have my doubts on the effect of banning knife sales but it is common sense that you shouldnt sell them to kids. The store that you mentioned, Poundland, will have been caught on multiple occasions selling to kids. They have not been a responsible retailer and should not be in that business.

Ultimately it will not be legislation that sorts the current problem. We need to rebuild our society and repair the damage caused by 8 years of conservatism.

 

[sparky]

And when they are shot in the back, running, without a weapon, did the person who shot them in the back, commit murder?

Well you see, that could work both ways .....

It's essentially the pretext for the Castle doctrine

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia
States That Have Stand Your Ground Laws - FindLaw

 

[Care4all]

And when they are shot in the back, running, without a weapon, did the person who shot them in the back, commit murder?

Well you see, that could work both ways .....

It's essentially the pretext for the Castle doctrine

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia
States That Have Stand Your Ground Laws - FindLaw

But, do either castle or Stand, allow you to shoot a boy running away from you, on a public street, in the back, when no crime was committed? (a cop just did that)

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Based on other threads I have read on here.

People are quite comfortable in killing criminals who steal their cars.

How does that square with the sanctity of life ?

Is a lump of metal worth a life ?

The people pushing this extremism are vocally anti abortion.

I just dont get it.

Either life is sacred or it isnt.

When does the concern accorded to a mass of tissues expire ?

At birth ?

Either life is sacred or it is worth less than a lump of metal.

The equivalency missing from your post would be making it legal to kill a criminal on demand by ordinary citizens who had their car stolen, just like those who make that choice for an abortion, the above action would be the same as a doctor deciding to end a pregnancy and only then if the doctor was treated the same way the police officer were...
...in fact the only thing in your post that gives it legitimacy is that you consider both the stolen car incident and abortion to be murder.

 

[sparky]

And when they are shot in the back, running, without a weapon, did the person who shot them in the back, commit murder?

Well you see, that could work both ways .....

It's essentially the pretext for the Castle doctrine

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia
States That Have Stand Your Ground Laws - FindLaw

But, do either castle or Stand, allow you to shoot a boy running away from you, on a public street, in the back, when no crime was committed? (a cop just did that)

In my view.....no C4all

the reality of it is, legislation for defense of one's property and wellbeing is many times being used offensively

But what do you expect from a nation who would use terms like preemptive to invade other countries, who's bombing raids have killed and maimed many a wee lad 'running away' ?

I know you probably do care for all , yet that we would debate the dif betwixt murder and killing in a society so deeply blinded by our own moral turpitude,choosing to exist in the comfort of congnitive dissonance is just way over the top for me

~S~

 

[Skull Pilot]

Based on other threads I have read on here.

People are quite comfortable in killing criminals who steal their cars.

How does that square with the sanctity of life ?

Is a lump of metal worth a life ?

The people pushing this extremism are vocally anti abortion.

I just dont get it.

Either life is sacred or it isnt.

When does the concern accorded to a mass of tissues expire ?

At birth ?

Either life is sacred or it is worth less than a lump of metal.

The car thief you refer to was shot because he tried to run over and kill the owner of the car he stole.

And really there is no sanctity of human life.

There are more than 7 billion people on the planet so human life is pretty cheap and the life of a piece of shit criminal is the most worthless of all

 

[sparky]

There are more than 7 billion people on the planet so human life is pretty cheap

ok i'm cheap.....but not easy!

~S~

 

[frigidweirdo]

Based on other threads I have read on here.

People are quite comfortable in killing criminals who steal their cars.

How does that square with the sanctity of life ?

Is a lump of metal worth a life ?

The people pushing this extremism are vocally anti abortion.

I just dont get it.

Either life is sacred or it isnt.

When does the concern accorded to a mass of tissues expire ?

At birth ?

Either life is sacred or it is worth less than a lump of metal.

What about animals? They also have life.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There are more than 7 billion people on the planet so human life is pretty cheap

ok i'm cheap.....but not easy!

~S~

I'm cheap and easy

 

[sparky]

What about animals? They also have life.

My dogs are better people than.....well.....people!

~S~

 

[Frankeneinstein]

wing him and then chop him into bits with a machete then the courts might decide that I was out of line.

Now that's more like some abortions