|
This would be a great point, if I had said "I think the way American police use force right now is really good and cool." Pomp and Taeke have both taken the position that using violence to defend or recover property is immoral, which is the incredibly stupid argument I am addressing. I believe the use of force in defense of property is moral, and also that some instances of force are excessive and immoral. Pomp posted:Just because it's the only thing american police are trained to do doesn't mean it's required.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This would be a great point, if I had said "I think the way American police use force right now is really good and cool." Not only have I answered that over and over again, you've actually answered my own question over and over again that you can't tell the difference between "I don't think the police should use force" and "I don't think the police should use excessive force."
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Armed robbers arm themselves because they are willing to use force to further their robbery!? If only that baby had just given them his money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
If you think that story is proof on why you should argue and fight with robbers you need to read it again. It's terrible, and I don't blame the woman for what happened, but that story doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Pomp posted:Not only have I answered that over and over again, you've actually answered my own question over and over again that you can't tell the difference between "I don't think the police should use force" and "I don't think the police should use excessive force." Why is it moral for the police to use force to defend property but not the owner of the property?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Why is it moral for the police to use force to defend property but not the owner of the property? Because they are highly trained and held to the highest of standards of conduct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
You keep escalating this conversation to more and more absurd poo poo and completely dodging the point. Life isn't a horror movie, robbers aren't there to kill you, escalating the situation is not in you or your family's best interest. Just give them the poo poo. No police force in the world will tell you otherwise. It's not just a moral thing you massive idiot. The only reason extreme violence is "needed" to apprehend non-violent or unarmed suspects is because police are trained that way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
If I call the cops on someone for stealing from me I would hope they would use the minimum force necessary to apprehend the guy. But more and more of what I see in the news makes me think that calling the cops on someone is a death sentance. On top of that they stand a good chance of being sent to prison and prisons in the US are basically torture/rape pits. Can anyone here really say that a burglar or shoplifter deserves the violence inflicted on them in the US prison system? Can you really say, knowing the sorts of things that might await them, that it is moral for you to send them there or to call the cops knowing that they might just roll up and shoot them to death? If you know these things can happen as a result of your actions you can't just go "not my problem", you had a hand in what happened whether you like it or not. I'm not sure what can be done in this country anymore, the whole situation is untenable and I don't think there is any solution, let alone a solution with the slightest chance of ever being implemented. 
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Pomp posted:Not only have I answered that over and over again, you've actually answered my own question over and over agforce hat you can't tell the difference between "I don't think the police should use force" and "I don't think the police should use excessive force." So if someone is stealing a TV, how much force is excessive? Can the police bring him down in a manner that has a 50% chance of breaking his leg? "I'm only opposed to force when it's excessive" is an empty statement; unless you define excessive, you're really saying "I only agree with force when it's convenient for my argument."
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Pomp posted:You keep escalating this conversation to more and more absurd poo poo and completely dodging the point. Life isn't a horror movie, robbers aren't there to kill you, escalating the situation is not in you or your family's best interest. Just give them the poo poo. No police force in the world will tell you otherwise. The only reason extreme violence is "needed" to apprehend non-violent or unarmed suspects is because police are trained that way. Actually, home invasion robberies where the victims are home often end in death. The robber who isn't interested in potential harm breaks in when no one is home.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Because they are highly trained and held to the highest of standards of conduct. I'm guessing this is intended as a joke, but in case it isn't thats a functional argument not a moral one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Actually, home invasion robberies where the victims are home often end in death. The robber who isn't interested in potential harm breaks in when no one is home. Gonna need a source on that that's not someone trying to sell me a security system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Pomp posted:Gonna need a source on that that's not someone trying to sell me a security system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Actually, home invasion robberies where the victims are home often end in death. The robber who isn't interested in potential harm breaks in when no one is home. Often? While it's certainly more likely given the brazen nature of it, I'd be curious to see what statistics back up 'often'. I say this as someone who experienced a home invasion robbery and recovered the stolen item from the perpetrator without a weapon, violence, or threats. Hell, once I caught up to him he even apologized while returning it. The guy was simply an opportunist thinking he had an easy score, people home or not. While that's likely not representative of the majority of home invasion robberies, I do question that they 'often' result in death. Unless it's Texas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:It's begging the question because the way you phrased your question presumes some sort of malicious scheme and conscious racism as opposed to other possibilities...like financial crimes being a lot harder to prove. If I'm reading this correctly, doing the job even-handedly is difficult so instead prosecutors take the easy way out and imprison hundreds of thousands of drug offenders? And the result is grossly disparate, racist, and harmful to society at large, but at least (most) of the people involved aren't doing it maliciously?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:Often? While it's certainly more likely given the brazen nature of it, I'd be curious to see what statistics back up 'often'. How high was he? How high were you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Actually, home invasion robberies where the victims are home often end in death. The robber who isn't interested in potential harm breaks in when no one is home.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:You sounded so certain in your post though, surely you have a source that supports your argument and debunks his. Household burglaries ending in homicide made up 0.004% of all burglaries between 2003 and 2007 according to the FBI. hth
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Because they are highly trained and held to the highest of standards of conduct. lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:Household burglaries ending in homicide made up 0.004% of all burglaries between 2003 and 2007 according to the FBI. Edit: 26.66% by their number. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Well, here's a start. https://www.google.com/#q=home+invasion+felony+murder
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:Household burglaries ending in homicide made up 0.004% of all burglaries between 2003 and 2007 according to the FBI. yes. and in over 70% of the burglaries included in the survey, the home owners were not present. Hard to kill someone who's not there. Which just backs up my earlier statement that a robber who does not want to risk physical victimization will likely come when no one is around. Home invasion with the owner present is inviting physical conflict. Whole different level of criminal there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:If I'm doing the math right that study says ~25% of home invasion robberies involve "violent victimization." Keep doing math to find that no injuries occurred in 92% of all "home invasions"!
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:Keep doing math to find that no injuries occurred in 92% of all "home invasions"! Edit: This isn't buried in an appendix either. It's literally in the "Highlights" section of the first page of the report you apparently didn't read.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Try reading that again chief. Once you are done Google the distinction between "Burglary" and "Robbery." Nope. Check Table 20. This is fun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:Keep doing math to find that no injuries occurred in 92% of all "home invasions"! Read your own loving source. In 26% of cases in which anyone but the burglar was present, there was a violent crime in addition to the burglary. And that's solely counting cases of burglary, meaning that the violent victimization was paired with the property crime, rather than being the sole criminal act. EDIT: Your 92% number in Table 20 is for "attempted forcible entry", meaning they didn't get in, you utter twat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Wait. A dude came into your home while you were there, took your poo poo, left, and then you chased him down and politely asked for it back and he returned the item and apologized? Hah. In fairness I did try to grab a weapon since he had at least 100 pounds on me, but I ditched it immediately realizing a foot tall plastic trash can is probably worse than useless. Didn't get the chance to ask for it, even. He just handed it back once I caught up, said 'sorry' a bit sheepishly, and started jogging off. I asked if he had anything else, he said no. So I..awkwardly told him how uncool a thing that is to do to someone. It's tough coming up with a clever way to chastise someone with such an abrupt and unexpected ending. It was pretty surreal. He may have been high, who knows. I however had a red-eye flight the night before and had worked all day before that. Had I been high I probably would've been wise enough, or slow enough, not to do anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:Nope. Check Table 20. This is fun. quote:A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglar-ies and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:You sounded so certain in your post though, surely you have a source that supports your argument and debunks his. It was actually this amanasleep posted:Household burglaries ending in homicide made up 0.004% of all burglaries between 2003 and 2007 according to the FBI. As opposed to his, still, zero source. ActusRhesus posted:yes. and in over 70% of the burglaries included in the survey, the home owners were not present. Hard to kill someone who's not there. Which just backs up my earlier statement that a robber who does not want to risk physical victimization will likely come when no one is around. Home invasion with the owner present is inviting physical conflict. Whole different level of criminal there. We're still talking a sub .5% number when you take that into account.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Read your own loving source. In 26% of cases in which anyone but the burglar was present, there was a violent crime in addition to the burglary. And that's solely counting cases of burglary, meaning that the violent victimization was paired with the property crime, rather than being the sole criminal act. It would help to know exactly what definition of burglary they are using. In a lot of jurisdictions it's intrusion into a dwelling with the intent to commit a felony. The felony doesn't have to be larceny. So breaking into someone's home to rape them is burglary and rape in some places. Without clear guidance on how they are defining things, the study isn't all that helpful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:While interesting, you'd need to separate the home invasions where the victims attempted to resist and when they didn't to draw any meaningful conclusions from this. You could easily end up supporting his/her argument with the little factoid too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Pomp posted:It was actually this "According to the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, 430 burglary-related homicides occurred between 2003 and 2007 on average annually." Is your position that 430 is an insignificant number, such that someone, facing a home invasion, should not be concerned for their safety?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:I'm just going to quote myself here in the middle of this little slapfight, since, as much as I'd like to agree with amanasleep, neither of you is actually showing anything from this. Yes, home invasions with the owner present sometimes end up in violence. But one side is trying to say that using force to defend your property increases the chance that there will be violence done on your body as well as your property. "But there's violence during home invasions!" isn't exactly a counterpoint to that, since it is always possible that there wouldn't have been had the homeowner responded differently. What about this is hard to understand? This thread is now un-ironically engaged in victim-blaming. I think I'm done here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Pomp posted:We're still talking a sub .5% number when you take that into account. loving how are we talking about a sub .5% number when we're talking about 26% of burglaries in which a household member was present winding up with violent victimization? Are you trying to pull the "versus the entire national population" thing, where you ignore the fact that we're talking about cases in which someone has already illegally entered the house? You're just confusing poo poo to confuse poo poo now, I think. ActusRhesus posted:Without clear guidance on how they are defining things, the study isn't all that helpful. Even conceding the first point, I can't agree with this. The simple fact of the numbers indicates that someone entering a house illegally for whatever purpose has, in over 25% of cases, engaged in a violent act toward the person or people inside. Still a useful figure, especially when people are trying to play the "if someone's in my house I'll just comply because they're obviously only there to take my TV" card.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:"According to the FBI’s Supplementary Concern for safety is the exact reason no justice department in the world would advise you to argue or fight with robbers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:loving how are we talking about a sub .5% number when we're talking about 26% of burglaries in which a household member was present winding up with violent victimization? Are you trying to pull the "versus the entire national population" thing, where you ignore the fact that we're talking about cases in which someone has already illegally entered the house? You're just confusing poo poo to confuse poo poo now, I think. I think we're on the same page though...the point being that assuming "they'll just take my stuff and leave me alone" is naive. Ask these guys. http://www.ibtimes.com/cheshire-murders-hbo-documentary-reveals-added-level-horror-unspeakable-connecticut-crime-1356201 oh...wait...
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Actually, home invasion robberies where the victims are home often end in death. O.5% is often now? I agree I would fear for my safety in such a situation but you seem to have quickly forgotten what you said.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
According to 538, 1100 police-committed killings occur on average annually. Is your position that 1100 is an insignificant number, such that someone, facing a cop, should not be concerned for their safety?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I think we're on the same page though...the point being that assuming "they'll just take my stuff and leave me alone" is naive. Ask these guys. It sure is comforting when prosecutors don't even understand how data work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:O.5% is often now? you'd have a point if I had said "the majority of home invasions end in death." which I didn't say. but over 400 deaths a year? Yeah. I'd say that's often enough to be concerned. Interestingly, it's on par with the approximate number of police related shootings, which is being called an epidemic. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/08/how-many-police-shootings-a-year-no-one-knows/
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:31
|
|