How to catch a thief

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

I have story for you.

Two friends of mine are the actual subjects of this story. They had gone to Portland Oregon to visit other friends of theirs and were sleeping outside in the back of a pickup that had a canopy on the back. They had just come from spending two weeks in the back country in Oregon. Both of them carry revolvers when they are out backpacking and camping.

Anyway, the first night they were in Portland they awoke to someone opening the canopy and crawling into the back of the pickup to steal stuff. The promptly drew their guns and captured the guy. They then took him inside the home of the person they were visiting. They had him lying on the floor on his stomach with his hands behind and struck of a "conversation" as to "what to do with this guy". They held a mock debate as to whether or not they should just take him out in the boonies and shoot him, or turn him over to the cops.

The theif, well, I should call him the attempted theif, was so scared he was begging them to call the cops. After they figured they had scared him enough they called the cops to come and get him. The guy was so scared that when the cop asked him if he had been breaking and entering he said, Yes I'm guilty. Please take me to jail.

Funny thing was that the person whom my two friends had gone to visit had been broken into several times before they went to visit as he lived in rough part of town. Know what? His property was left alone after that. No one stole anything from him in that neighborhood for several years after that.

The moral of the story is that fear of consequences is a great deterent to undesireable behavior.

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

So Freddy - should we all have guns - hell, Apache helicopters, and grenades in our childrens' lunch-boxes, so that we can all sleep safely at night ?

Sure - I'll vote for that. I think not.

 

Nope. That's not what I'm saying and I think you know it. In everything there has to be balance. Right now criminals have much more power than, and no respect for, honest, law abiding citizens because they know there is very little risk to themselves. You can do nothing to restore that balance of power by taking the ability of the potential victim to defend himself by whatever means are necessary at the time. Do you really advocate that taking power away from potential victims will decrease the likelyhood that they will be victimized?

I'm the only one on this thread who has been advocating the right of self defense. Not vigilanteism, but self defense. The right to make the balance of power, for that's what it is, equal between the criminal and the law abiding citizen.

Remarks have been made how in the US people aren't given due process of law, how it's being a vigilante to stop someone in the actual commission of a crime by the use of force, how it's basically wrong to harm a criminal who is the act of committing a crime, etc.... I just figure turn about is fair play. Don't you?

If it is going to be claimed by those taking the point of view that a person is always innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, then it's fair game to see if they really believe that, or if their position changes when it comes down to their own person for they are opposing the position that a person should be able to use force or violence in exercising the right of self defense.

I haven't proposed anything radical. I haven't proposed that people get together and take suspected criminals out and shoot them because they might have done something wrong. I have only addressed what should be able to happen during the commission of a crime.

 

This is the crux of where your argument falls down here. Victims of crime are in the minority, yet you advocate arming all of society in case one member comes under attack ? I'm afraid you will most likely not find a single (rational) soul in the UK that would subscribe to this, and even though I have been in situations in the past where I have felt threatened, I would take little solace from the "priviledge" of carrying a weapon that could kill in the blink of a moment of anger.

Might work for you, Freddy - not for me, and many like me.

 

Hmmm.... So, because victims are a minority they shouldn't have the right to defend themselves? That seems to be your point.

Also, answer me this. Is not all society responsible for what happens in society? Is it not the shared responsibility of all society when criminals harm people? I see your position as ducking responsibility. I very much believe that all men are my brothers, and that I have a duty to help my fellow man wherever it lies within my power to do so. The Biblical story of the Good Samaritan answers for me the question as to who is my neighbor.

Ask yourself the question, Would I really have been in the situation of being threatened if the person creating the situation had known that the odds of him getting away with his behavior were between slim and none? I think you will find that the answer to that question is no.

 

Without actually joining this conversation, I just wanted to interject that differences of opinion are expected and I do love a good debate however...I just want to remind everyone that it is possible to disagree without personalizing conflict. Just wanted to make sure that everyone knew that. Cheers.

 

I suppose that to catch a thief, you need to think like a thief.

How would YOU go about stealing your gasoline (or petrol)?

Then, how would you prevent yourself from being able to?

I suppose hackers & ethical hackers think along the same lines...

The 'bat & the moth' argument..

An epic struggle.

 

I guess it all comes down to the bleak concept of an effective deterrant.

Society is like that unfortunately. Right back from when mankind first stood upright. No body had weapons or an defences. The first ape to pick up a club won.

Then everyone else had a club and it was even. Then people learned to defend against someone with a club, but the first person to pick up a spear won.

This goes on until we get to the cold war, when we all had a button that could destroy the world. Nobody would ever use it, so it becomes rather pointless.

The question is, if you wake up in the night and find somone nicking your stereo, would you shoot him?

If not, it's kind of pointless having a gun.
If you would, does that sound rational?

What should happen is that a thief would get a gun, just in case you had one. So now the thieves have all got guns. If they were sensible, they would invest in some body armour too.

Then what?

I can see both sides of the argument, and it's a subject that is deeply ingrained in both our societies so I don't think anyone is going to win this debate.

If I thought that having a gun in the house would protect my family, then I'd get one. But I've never been robbed, and neither has anyone else I know.

I would also say that I would rather lose my TV and have to fill in the insurance claim form than live the rest of my life knowing that I had put a teenage chav in a wheelchair. Just about.

 

Eloquently put, Jonny.

 

the truth is your more likely to GET shot if you have a gun
the majority of criminals in the UK dont actually carry guns, this means your likely not to die when someone robs your stereo
sure you have a right to defend yourself, the law says so, but defend yourself doesnt mean 'shoot in the head' guns are not required for self defense, unless your society openly allows all to carry them

criminals can get guns here, but its not the easiest thing to do, you cant get the ammo at the local kmart, and there rather expensive, the truth is most criminals just dont bother with them


if you were a crook, and you thought the guy in the house had a gun, would you rob it? yeah, but youd make sure u had a gun too, and youd cap him in the head before making too much noise to save your own skin

but its not the guns that cause the violence in the states, its not the guns that cause the massive ammount of murders comparitave to other nations
its the attitude, the crappy media, and the FUD coming out of every orifice you can find, people who are afraid of everything and everyone because of the ammount of crap news, carrying guns, is a bad bad bad combination

and if I recall correctly the passage in the constitution reads

Lets break this down
firstly, everyone having guns just because they go through a check, does not constitute well regulated,
secondly, with the size and budget of the us military, its not necessary for the countries security
thirdly, arms is a generic word meaning you damn well could own an AH-64 or a home made nuke, try getting round that in the new anti terrorist laws though, wouldnt happen

The simple fact is, america was founded as a frontier nation, after the advent of guns, and the attitude required then, has not changed
despite mr hestons claims that its his 'god given right' to bear arms, its not, its an AMMENDMENT to the constitution, meaning it wasnt even in the original, and its pretty clear in recent years that that constitution can be changed when the need sees fit by congress, ammendments even more so

sure they have a use, and perhaps they could be a benefit to the people, but the implementation was somewhat flawed, just my 2c

 

In a way, I kind of side with the US of A.
Maybe not on a practical implementation front, but on convistion of beliefs.

Maybe it's better to say 'I've got a gun and the right to defend myself' rather than to look round sheepishly and comment on the fact that you don't see as many bobbies on the beat these days.
It's a political correctness thing here. If someone tries to nick my phone and I break his arm, the chances are that I'll be in worse trouble than him. Especially if he's from an ethnic minority, then I really am screwed.

I think it's not about if you've got a gun or not, it's about being afraid to fight back because of the possible reprocussions.
We tend to be tought that it's not worth a fight. If somone wants our phone, we give it to them and then claim it on insurance. From what I've read here about America, the're more likely to say 'no' (having a gun at this point helps).

 

Ok guys. Just a final post. I'll give Isreal as a final example. They have a very low crime rate. High terrorism rate, but low crime rate. Things such as home invasions are basically unknown. There's a reason for this. Everyone in Isreal at the age of 17 goes to spend time in the military. When they get out, by law, they take both a weapon and ammunition home. Thus every household in Isreal has a weapon. Yet the doom and gloom forecasted by the anti-gun lobbies and activists has not come true in Isreal. The opposite is true

The relationship that people here have been saying exists between gun ownership and crime simply doesn't exist in real life. It's a fallacy that has been taught by those with an agenda and it's been believed by many people.

What I have advocated on this thread was also true in the old west here in the US. When everyone was armed and knew how to use weapons people used to leave their homes unlocked and burglary was basically unknown. Mr. Average Joe didn't go around shooting his wife if he was angry. He didn't go shoot his neighbor over common disputes either. However, people respected each other much more. Sure, there were those people like John Wesley Hardin who went around shooting other people, but if you read into who he was, he was bascially a sociopath or psychopath. He had no conscience, no sense of right and wrong. And, many of the others in the old west who did the same things he did were the same way.

These people exist in our society today and they still arm themselves whether it be legally or illegally. They are not a reason to keep law abiding citizens from arming themselves.

Now, if someone, personally, doesn't want to own a gun, I see no problem with that. If you feel you and your family would rather die or have your property stolen than defend yourself and your property with a weapon, that's fine. I have no problem with that. However, that is a personal choice. Those people who do want to defend their person and property should have the choice, and much of the way this thread unfolded shows that those who believe that they, personally, would not want to own a gun want to force everyone else to act and think as they do.

The objections raised to gun ownership are not held up by real world statistics. Crime rates go down when guns are owned by the majority of the population. It's been proven in real world situations time and again. Fewer people are harmed and die when everyone must be respected as able to defend themselves because the risk vs. reward ratio to the criminals increases. The greater the risk associated with the crime, the less often the crime will be committed. It's a statistically and logically proven formula that works every time.

So, when/if laws concerning gun control and self-defense are being voted on in your neck of the woods remember that your personal desire to not own a gun, not defend yourself, may very well not be the personal desire of you neighbor, and you don't have the right force an increase in the likelihood of becoming a crime victim on your friend or neighbor through removing his ability to defend himself. Just remember that this is a highly personal choice and you don't have the right to make your friends and neighbors make the same choices you do.

If you trust your friends and neigbors when they don't own a gun, they'll still be the same people with a gun. They will still be trustworthy.

 

You are absolutely right in this Jonny. Much of this debate involves political correctness and agendas. It's also about being afraid to fight back, and about fear of repercussions. Guns aside, no one should ever be prosecuted for attempting to stop a theif caught in the act of stealing their personal property. Any law that removes the ability to defend yourself removes one the most basic of human rights there is. That law is designed to create sheep.

 

Untrue and I think you know it. It's a proven statistic that the vast majority of burglars are not murderers, and would not commit a murder. There is a huge pyschological jump between being willing to break into someone's home, and being willing to commit cold-blooded murder. The first is a dishonest person. The second a sociopath. You're creating a logical fallacy.

 

I've enjoyed our debate here, but I agree with ffreeloader that it's best left before it gets any more heated.

We are two different cultures with different ideas and values. The US is a big place, and I'm sure ff won't try to claim that what works in Alabama works in the same way in California.
Likewise I live in a nice quiet place in South Wales. If I lived in the centre of Liverpool I may have different feelings after my third car got stolen.

But I think that it's fantastic that we can have this kind of conversation. I'm old enough to remember pre-internet when if you wanted to know about something you either had to go and have a look or read it in a book. All hail the international sharing of ideas!

Now, if Mac users had guns...

 

I can go with that, yup.

 

I too enjoy honest debate. When it's about exchanging ideas, learning, etc... debate is fun. I entered, and won, my first debate in the 3rd grade and I've enjoyed it ever since. I don't enjoy it when the sole goal is "winning" a debate and people begin to deliberately use dishonest means of debate. I mean, if a position can't be upheld honestly, then that position is worth taking because to me debate is about finding truth.

Guess I'm just an idealist at heart because I've been in so many internet debates in which truth was sacrificed that I have gotten very sensitive to it. It tends to get my dander up very quickly. Even then it isn't so much the person as it the tactics, but I will get personal when those types of tactics are used.

 

I've read the other posts, and don't want to answer every single thing I disagree with, it'd take too long. I do want to say though, the presumption of innocence until guilt has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt is a tennet of our (UK) law that can never be overturned, not while we call ourselves a democratic and reasonable nation anyhow. Justice has to be done, justice has to be seen to be done. It doesn't matter how many people saw the "alleged" crime, if they cannot take the stand and tell a Judge and Jury what they saw, and be beleived by them (or at least, a majority), that person is not guilty. Even an admission of guilt (i.e. a confession) doesn't necessarily prove guilt, after all, what use is the confession of a man who is mentally deranged/unstable. The court system has a purpose, and it should fulfill that purpose in the independant and neutral manner that it does (most of the time).

Justice should not be delivered down the barrel of a gun, and thats the main reason I beleive that our (UK) law is the right one, and that the US model has serious faults which lead to some of the social problems that have arisen in recent years.

Obviously, no system is perfect, and there will always be miscarriages of justice going both ways. It is, however, in my very humble opinion, m'lud, better to see 100 guilty men walk free than it is to see 1 innocent man be convicted.

 

Don't start him off again!

 

Well, I'll just say this. That's a straw man post. You're arguing against something that was never said and isn't the truth about the US justice system. Pretty easy to win a debate that way. No one can defend something they've never said and don't believe.