Originally Posted by Viktri
I'm not understanding some of the sentiment in the thread.
Sounds like a portion of individuals are against the idea of stopping someone from stealing possessions. I have a few buddies of mine who work for the RCMP and police department in my city and if the intruder is spotted before leaving your property (stolen / or attempted) before the cops arrive and you don't take him down yourself, there is a 30-50% chance he is caught. I don't know the validity of this btw, it's what one cop told me. If the burglar is not seen and steals, the chance becomes significantly lower, 10% or so. This is among all property theft, large/small.
So my question is property/possessions worth so little compared to an offenders life/well being? I don't understand this sympathy towards someone doing you harm.
I don't really care if this person stole once or a hundred times, I don't believe in the death penalty for theft of material goods. If you own something that you look at and say "I would definitely kill someone to keep this" then I believe that is a messed up value system.
You are saying property/possession is worth so much that you are willing to kill someone to keep something that is probably only worth pennys on the dollar, or at this time has been valued high by present society, but in the grand scheme of things has no real value other than what we assign to it.
I had suggested earlier that using a bat would have been better, but after JLibs, yours and others position that you have the right to protect your possessions, voluntarily injecting yourself into the situation, then I guess you better go in loaded for bear since you don't know how the other person is equipped.
But, I still stand by my statement that he did not need to inject himself and he could have woke up the next day, perhaps a little poorer, but not a killer.