Robbery revenge

AHarvey said:
Do you think the fact that it could turn out to be imitation or unloaded has any effect on the innocent victim who has it shoved in their face? To the victim he has the intent on shooting them in the face to take their wallet and phone.

Whats more, if you are willing to pull a gun, fake or not, to steal from innocent people why should they have any rights at all?

And running someone doesn't show intent to kill, it was intent to stop them. You can't state that it was clearly with intent to kill.
Click to expand...

So to clarify, in the example we were given in the op (I assume you read the article and watched the video) the robbers had already conducted the robbery and were off. The victim then chased them down in their car and ran them down. The video of him running them down looks pretty much to kill to me - the guy flew through the air. Do you believe that's the right thing to do? Clearly it is not. Regardless how angry you are, you haven't the right to deliver justice, you aren't a judge and a judge wouldn't be running people down in a car either.

Untwist your panties and give your keyboard a break. Let us be honest, despite your bravado, if it were you with the gun shoved in your face you'd cry for mummy and beg for your life, and quite rightly so. What's the point in risking murdering someone over petty possessions? Your insurance will cover it. Move on.
 
teaboy5 said:
I have never read such ****. The person the other end end of the gun won't know this and the memory of having a gun pointed at their head may affect them for the rest of their life.

It's just a pity the robber didn't end up in a wheel chair due to their actions.
Click to expand...

You didn't watch the video either, you're just knee jerk ranting too.
 
G-MAN2004 said:
I never said anything about wanting revenge legalised, as I know that would cause all sorts of havoc. I wouldn't even do it myself. But in those rare instances where it does occur, I'll be the first to say that I really couldn't care less and I hope they get away with it. I certainly wouldn't stop them.
Click to expand...

You think the targets of revenge deserve what they get and hope that people taking revenge get away with it...so why do you think it should be illegal?

Also:

Where do you draw a line? You think murder is OK revenge for robbery, so you clearly think a lot of escalation is OK. How about a beating for an insult? A couple of punches for using a parking space the other person thinks is theirs? Etc.

If you don't want the law to enforce a definition of what revenge is allowed and what isn't, who gets to set that definition? It would, of course, be set by whoever is willing to use the most force to impose their will.
 
Orionaut said:
In all seriousness, Why not??

I cannot think of any conceivable reason why a surviving armed robber is a better outcome for society than a dead one!
Click to expand...

It's not about the armed robbers. I don't care about them.

It's about what happens to society when revenge is allowed to replace law.
 
RoboCod said:
Right to life.

An armed robber is not necessarily a killer. It could just be an imitation weapon, it could be unloaded, or he might have absolutely no intention of using it other than to intimidate. Running someone over on the other hand is clearly with the intention to kill. It's even worse!
Click to expand...

Threatening someone with a weapon or something that appears to be a weapon (e.g. an imitation weapon or an unloaded gun) can reasonably be interpreted as intent to kill. The person with the weapon certainly intends it to be interpreted that way - that's the whole point. So if the target kills the person threatening them right there and then, I think it's always reasonable force.

Killing them afterwards is a different matter, but there is some degree of grey area in some circumstances. What if they're going to come back some other time to kill their victim? If someone definitely intends to kill you, killing them first has some degree of self defence. The police can't supply bodyguards. I don't think it should be legal, but I do think it should be partially mitigating circumstances in some cases.

An armed robber might not necessarily be a killer, but they definitely want their victims to think that they are and so it's reasonable for their victims to act as if they armed robber is a killer. It's also quite likely that an armed robber who didn't intend in advance to be a killer becomes one anyway. It's easy to use a weapon in the heat of the moment.

People really don't deserve to die just because they thieved something. When did the forums become ISIL run?
Click to expand...

True.

It's also true that a plausible threat to kill isn't the same as theft even if the two things happen together.
 
AHarvey said:
[..]
Whats more, if you are willing to pull a gun, fake or not, to steal from innocent people why should they have any rights at all? [..]
Click to expand...

Because rights have to apply to everyone or they're not rights.

England has tried outlawry before. It's a very bad idea and it would be a lot worse now than it was in the medieval period.

I think you haven't thought your position through. You probably don't really want rape, torture and murder for kicks to be legal. You probably don't really want it legally filmed and distributed for like-minded people to masturbate over. You probably don't really want slavery legalised. That is what you're advocating, whether you realise it or not. If there are people with no rights at all, anyone can do anything to them. Sometimes that would be rape, torture, murder or all three. Sometimes it would be slavery. If a person has no rights at all, there is nothing to stop anyone else doing those things to them apart from individual conscience. With the number of people in this country, you can be sure there would be some people who would do those things.
 
RoboCod said:
Right to life.

An armed robber is not necessarily a killer. It could just be an imitation weapon, it could be unloaded, or he might have absolutely no intention of using it other than to intimidate. Running someone over on the other hand is clearly with the intention to kill. It's even worse!

People really don't deserve to die just because they thieved something. When did the forums become ISIL run?
Click to expand...

That doesn't really answer the question asked though, is society better or worse off with one less armed robber?

Angilion said:
If you don't want the law to enforce a definition of what revenge is allowed and what isn't, who gets to set that definition? It would, of course, be set by whoever is willing to use the most force to impose their will.
Click to expand...

Isn't that how the law itself is enforced anyway?
 
Angilion said:
Threatening someone with a weapon or something that appears to be a weapon (e.g. an imitation weapon or an unloaded gun) can reasonably be interpreted as intent to kill. The person with the weapon certainly intends it to be interpreted that way - that's the whole point. So if the target kills the person threatening them right there and then, I think it's always reasonable force.

Killing them afterwards is a different matter, but there is some degree of grey area in some circumstances. What if they're going to come back some other time to kill their victim? If someone definitely intends to kill you, killing them first has some degree of self defence. The police can't supply bodyguards. I don't think it should be legal, but I do think it should be partially mitigating circumstances in some cases.

An armed robber might not necessarily be a killer, but they definitely want their victims to think that they are and so it's reasonable for their victims to act as if they armed robber is a killer. It's also quite likely that an armed robber who didn't intend in advance to be a killer becomes one anyway. It's easy to use a weapon in the heat of the moment.



True.

It's also true that a plausible threat to kill isn't the same as theft even if the two things happen together.
Click to expand...



Your first paragraph discusses a right to self defence. Self defence is a given, I completely agree you must protect yourself however necessary.

The question from OP is did they get what they deserved? In this instance I think not. It's a revenge attack, the robbery was done, then the victim took it upon himself to take the law into his own hands and administer punishment. He should have the book thrown at him.
 
Haggisman said:
That doesn't really answer the question asked though, is society better or worse off with one less armed robber?



Isn't that how the law itself is enforced anyway?
Click to expand...

Is society better off executing robbers as they wish?

And it did answer the question asked... He asked me why not... My answer was Right to life.
 
Haggisman said:
[..]Isn't that how the law itself is enforced anyway?
Click to expand...

Not usually, no. There is usually at least some attempt to have consistent law and to have at least some degree of consensus and some method of at least some degree of ability to change a law perceived as unjust, even if it's only politicians concerned about getting (re)elected.

That's not the same thing as the most powerful and ruthless thug setting the law by their decree in their territory and the only method of change being killing them and taking their place as top thug.
 
RoboCod said:
Right to life.

An armed robber is not necessarily a killer. It could just be an imitation weapon, it could be unloaded, or he might have absolutely no intention of using it other than to intimidate. Running someone over on the other hand is clearly with the intention to kill. It's even worse!

People really don't deserve to die just because they thieved something. When did the forums become ISIL run?
Click to expand...

Armed robbery ! It doesn't matter if its an imitation weapon or if they planned to use it or not the feeling for the victim is the same. Hell he was almost certainly in a state of shock when he drove after them so even more so his actions are entirely justified.

Two armed robbers off the streets. Its a win for justice.
 
I find it funny what the cop said :

"You're never excused when you're using your vehicle as a weapon."

So it's okay to drive down the street, stop and shout "stop or I'll shoot!", then kill them with you're gun? I wonder if the kid that was robbed did this (with a legally held firearm) would have gotten off more lightly.
 
Angilion said:
Because rights have to apply to everyone or they're not rights.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Right to life has been mentioned, but certain states still have the death penalty. What has happened to that persons right to life? It was waved because of something they did.

Angilion said:
Threatening someone with a weapon or something that appears to be a weapon (e.g. an imitation weapon or an unloaded gun) can reasonably be interpreted as intent to kill. The person with the weapon certainly intends it to be interpreted that way - that's the whole point. So if the target kills the person threatening them right there and then, I think it's always reasonable force.
Click to expand...

Having been quite good with a pistol on a range in the US, I did wonder if I lived there, would I want a gun. What makes me think I wouldn't is the chance of you getting shot, must increase exponentially if you carry a gun yourself because of the above.

If the robber decides to use a gun, his chances of the robbery working increase, but his chances of dying certainly increase too.

RoboCod said:
The question from OP is did they get what they deserved? In this instance I think not. It's a revenge attack, the robbery was done, then the victim took it upon himself to take the law into his own hands and administer punishment. He should have the book thrown at him.
Click to expand...

Did they get what the deserved is obviously very different to 'should this be legal'. I agree it would be chaotic if this was made legal, but I still hope the kid in his car is let off.
 
i would say though depending how much earlier the robbery had occurred (say it happened just off camera about 10-30 seconds ago) the guy could maybe have some level of diminished responsibility from fight or flight/being scared out his usual wits by have had a gun stuck in his face and he responded in a way he would not normally have.

not innocent by any measure but mitigating.
 
Damn he hit them with some speed there. I have no sympathy for a criminal at the precise moment of the crime but after a bit of time has elapsed like in this case to do what the victim did makes him guilty too. It certainly makes him look to have psychopathic tendencies.

What's his solution to other hard situations?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom