"duty to retreat" laws are gun control laws.

[joko104]

You're statement is heinously amoral.

Summary: You love criminals and hate people who work to earn what they have.

 

[joko104]

We have a thing called insurance


If you haven't insured your home and/or business for theft, perhaps you might want to look into it.

How much does insurance pay for irreplaceable family photographs and videos?

Exactly how many hours a year do you claim a person should be forced to labor for criminals to pay for insurance for the protection of criminals? Be specific: 100 hours? 200 hours? 500 hours a year in servitude to criminals?

That's the Democratic Party's claim to poor people: "Well, if you couldn't afford insurance then losing everything to criminals is YOUR fault!" Nearly all progressives blame the victim. Always.

 

[joko104]

But they hung/shot looters regularly throughout time.

"After Katrina, New Orleans police officers circulated orders authorizing them to shoot looters and "take back the city," but it remains unclear who issued them."
After Katrina, New Orleans Cops Were Told They Could Shoot Looters — ProPublica

It always used to be the rule that "looters will be shot" in emergencies and what is happening in Minnesota is an emergency situation. One reason is so that people could feel safe to flee without losing literally everything they have.

 

[Rich2018]

How much does insurance pay for irreplaceable family photographs and videos?

But loss of those isn't going to make you starve to death

So you can't justify killing someone for attempting to steal a family photograph.

 

[joko104]

If that "stuff" is your means of making a living?

What gives a looter the right to take that which is not theirs?

Work for a living? How un-progressive of you.

 

[Schism]

We're just at the beginning of this investigation. The thief could have come at the shop owner, could have had a weapon, could have struck or assaulted the owner; we don't really have all the facts. But then again, democrats have never waited for facts to jump to conclusions.

 

[joko104]

But loss of those isn't going to make you starve to death

So you can't justify killing someone for attempting to steal a family photograph.

At least you admit that to Democrats the only standard is not starving to death. Clearly, then you agree with me that other than SNAP, ALL social programs and welfare needs to be eliminated. As long as a person doesn't starve to death, everything it ok. It's not like people really NEED shelter, prescription drugs, clothing or any of that stuff. You claim they don't.

Why do you so love criminals - particularly thieves.

Given only 2 choices, which do you pick:
1. Being burned to death in a fire bombing
2. Beaten and kicked to death by a mob

Your choice is?

 

[joko104]

This is an appropriate thread for thieves to argue on behalf of their right to steal anything from anyone with impunity. The thread for arsonists to claim they are protected too.

 

[adm120]

Yes "duty to retreat" means one has to "run" from an attack and possibly die, before defending themselves...its typical of liberal states and cities, where the scum have more rights than the law abiding citizens.

 

[joko104]

We're just at the beginning of this investigation. The thief could have come at the shop owner, could have had a weapon, could have struck or assaulted the owner; we don't really have all the facts. But then again, democrats have never waited for facts to jump to conclusions.

There also is the question of do you have a right to prevent being fire bombed by a mob?

 

[joko104]

He needs to start a go fund me page.

 

[joko104]

Do you think the mayor would have the same opinion if looters and fire bombers were breaking into and burning her neighbors home and now were smashing in the windows of her house?

 

[joko104]

Yes "duty to retreat" means one has to "run" from an attack and possibly die, before defending themselves...its typical of liberal states and cities, where the scum have more rights than the law abiding citizens.

"Duty to retreat" should be called "Bullies Rule In Our City/State."

 

[joko104]

Bandits. Think thieves in groups of 50 or more that rape and burn villages.


You're welcome.

You are just another person who has such ego insecurities in your message you can not admit when you make a mistake.

I commonly acknowledge making mistakes in messages, but I am not emotionally and psychological insecure. The two on the cross were not rapists, not part of a mob of 50 and had not burned down anything. They were thieves. In the past, theft was not tolerated. Yes, people were executed (and tortured, disfigured) for theft. Your message was 100% false.

 

[Rich2018]

At least you admit that to Democrats the only standard is not starving to death....

Or causing death by any means

Or making an individual feel their life (or another's life/lives) were threatened

Clearly, then you agree with me that other than SNAP, ALL social programs and welfare needs to be eliminated. As long as a person doesn't starve to death, everything it ok.

WTH ?

How did you get from restricting lethal force to preserve life to abolishing welfare ?

Are you under some crazy notion that welfare exists purely to preserve life ?

Why do you so love criminals

Why do you confuse "love" with a respect for human life and human rights (or do you think that criminals have no rights?)

Given only 2 choices, which do you pick:
1. Being burned to death in a fire bombing
2. Beaten and kicked to death by a mob

I think kicked to death

Which would you pick ?

 

[joko104]

Or causing death by any means

Or making an individual feel their life (or another's life/lives) were threatened




WTH ?

How did you get from restricting lethal force to preserve life to abolishing welfare ?

Are you under some crazy notion that welfare exists purely to preserve life ?




Why do you confuse "love" with a respect for human life and human rights (or do you think that criminals have no rights?)




I think kicked to death

Which would you pick ?

Because to you all that matters is starving to death. Dying of any other means as a result is ok with you - no way to get out of freezing weather, can't afford prescription drugs etc. If all that matters in life is not starving to death, then all that matters for welfare is not starving to death too.

I would likely pick the fire bomb as usually the cause of death is not burning, but suffocating. With that potential I could have some control over my death and how rapidly it comes. However, I can't say which is better. In my youth I was often protractedly kicked and beaten. Also was burned, but just something like with a cigarette. I know I would not want to be kicked and beaten to death, so would hope dying in a fire would be faster/lesser.

We are arguing from very different perspectives. I've had basically nothing in my life where lack of shelter and food was very real in life threatening ways. I worked to obtain those things and more. I labored for it - voluntarily. Being forced to labor for someone else hours, days, weeks, months or years because a thief stole it in my opinion is that thief having made me his slave. He has made my family suffer, including my children. Yes, I believe I have an inherent right to kill him if that is what it takes to not be forced into slavery for him and to prevent his harming my family including my children.

To you, it's just "stuff," maybe because you've always had stuff and stuff - whatever it is - just came to you for free. That's not my history. You also likely have never been in any real "slave" role. I was, nearly my entire childhood and youth. From age 4 to 15, anything I had - specifically food, shelter from the elements and any kind of clothing always came only in expense for forced "work" - or worse. Stealing from me is stealing hours of my finite life time, forcing me to labor exclusively for their benefit.

While obviously not something petty being stolen, but for such as looting or burning down our business? This not only harming the owner and his family - possibly massively or even ultimately lethally (such as can't afford medical care/drugs) but also his employees and their families too. As for arsonists? ANYONE holding a firebomb who is going to throw it into a building? SHOOT that person if that is what it takes to stop the bombing. The arsonists had no way to know if someone was sleeping in a backroom, hiding in terror in a corner etc. Arson against buildings is a particularly horrific and sociopathic crime of the most horrific consequences to innocent people. Killing their pets. Anyone who had anything in the pawn shop also was stolen from too when it was burned up or stolen.

Everyone in that community will suffer - probably permanently - for the long term effect of the looting/arsons.

All that said, it is clear we have diametrically opposite opinions on this that won't change. People should explore the laws of the jurisdiction they chose to live in before deciding to live within that jurisdiction, but almost no one does. Here? I recall a case of someone I knew well (now deceased). A wheelchair bound old man. A good ole boy and hunter his entire life. He shot 2 of 3 home invaders to death with a tiny .25, waking him while he was sleeping face down, his .25 below him. One pulled him around to wake him, asking where he hid money. He responded by surprise firing a .25 point blank against his chest over that guy's heart dropping him fast. The next one dropped dead almost immediately shot point-blank in the heart. The 2nd died in the front yard. But the 3rd one was only wounded - caught later.

The investigator - only somewhat teasingly - got on his case with "why the hell didn't you sleep with your 45 so not to put us thru the hassle of tracking him down and then all the bother of a trial?" Around here, they want people to shoot burglars. So do I. But, then, the local judge gave a guy 20 years in prison for steal a 6 pack out of someone's garage. If you want to be a thief and if you want to be a defenseless victim of thieves, go live in a jurisdiction run by urban Democrats. Of not, live some place like here.

See how easy that is?

If the rule of "looters will be shot" is being circulated and boomed out by loud speakers, if any looter is shot it should be recorded on the death certificate as a suicide.

 

[aociswundumho]

Having a gun isn't a license to kill

It is if you're a cop.

A gun is for defending your life, not for killing anyone who steals from you....if you had your way, a convenience store clerk could shoot shoplifters.

You have the natural right to use reasonable and proportionate force to defend your property - not just your life.

 

[joko104]

It is if you're a cop.



You have the natural right to use reasonable and proportionate force to defend your property - not just your life.

In a very, very rural part of Texas, the wife of a very wealth man of an very wealth clan that totally controlled the county - literally held ever local office including the Sheriff's Department, Constable's office, DA and judges - was gratuitously made a "volunteer deputy" and given an ID and badge to go along with the tiny black powder antique 5 shot hammerless lady of the night .32 silver and gold plated revolver she sometimes had on a thigh holster accessible thru a no bottom pocket. After she said "I do" to the oath, she was teasingly told "Congratulations. Now you can shoot anyone. But if you ever do shoot someone, remember then to say -Police! Stop or I'll shoot! Then call your husband. He'll call us. We'll take care of the rest."

They boast they have not had any crime of any kind for decades. Never held a criminal trial in over 200 years. Seems of the very rare occasions of having a prisoner they all committed suicide or had to be shot while trying to escape. Everyone knows they're like that - so they have no problem with crime. None. Very socially friendly and personable - provided you are there by invitation. Nicest and politest people you could meet. Rich. Like to have lots of fun. Very laid back.

 

[Rich2018]

Because to you all that matters is starving to death. Dying of any other means as a result is ok with you

From what statement did you get that interpretation ?

I would likely pick the fire bomb as usually the cause of death is not burning, but suffocating.

I think burning to death is much worse

You're thinking of a witch burning at the stake
How about being doused in gasoline and set on fire ?

...in my opinion is that thief having made me his slave. He has made my family suffer, including my children. Yes, I believe I have an inherent right to kill him...

So if someone's stealing your car and without it you and your family would have to walk 5 miles to work/school/church/the store thgrough all weathers, that is suffering isn't it
Should you be allowed to shoot a car thief ?

...you also likely have never been in any real "slave" role....

True, and neither have you

...I was, nearly my entire childhood and youth. From age 4 to 15, anything I had - specifically food, shelter from the elements and any kind of clothing always came only in expense for forced "work" - or worse. Stealing from me is stealing hours of my finite life time, forcing me to labor exclusively for their benefit.

BS

....but for such as looting or burning down our business? This not only harming the owner and his family - possibly massively or even ultimately lethally (such as can't afford medical care/drugs) but also his employees and their families too.

Again, that's what insurance is for

As for arsonists? ANYONE holding a firebomb who is going to throw it into a building?

The law permits lethal force to prevent your home being burned down
Because no home = no shelter
And shelter is a basic need

Everyone in that community will suffer - probably permanently - for the long term effect of the looting/arsons....

Why won't they recover ?
Why can't houses/businesses be rebuilt and stock replaced ?

Natural disasters like Hurricanes are far more destructive

...I recall a case of someone I knew well (now deceased). A wheelchair bound old man. A good ole boy and hunter his entire life. He shot 2 of 3 home invaders to death...

So what ?
Evidence by anecdote
There are people subjected to home invasion who didn't have to kill and who didn't kill anyone - so what ?

...if you want to be a thief and if you want to be a defenseless victim of thieves, go live in a jurisdiction run by urban Democrats....

Like Alaska or Arizona

Would either of those two states be good examples ?

If the rule of "looters will be shot" is being circulated and boomed out by loud speakers, if any looter is shot it should be recorded on the death certificate as a suicide.

Looters can be shot in certain circumstances.

 

[Rich2018]

It is if you're a cop.

Recent high profile cases of cops being convicted of murder after shooting someone would contradict that

You have the natural right to use reasonable and proportionate force to defend your property - not just your life.

Operative word bolded.

 

[Chillfolks]

Is 'stuff' really worth the cost of even one human life?

Very good point. Every person thinking of looting or stealing others peoples atuff should ask themselves is this stuff worth my life. If the answer is no then don't engage in the looting or stealing

 

[Rich2018]

Very good point. Every person thinking of looting or stealing others peoples atuff should ask themselves is this stuff worth my life. If the answer is no then don't engage in the looting or stealing

Hey, a panacea to end crime.

 

[PirateMk1]

I checked the Minnesota statutes. Anarcho-Tyranny in a nutshell:



Apparently, Minnesotans can't defend themselves from an unarmed robbery unless it occurs in their house.

Is not looting, arson, invasion of premises, all felony acts in Minnesota?

 

[PirateMk1]

We have a thing called insurance


If you haven't insured your home and/or business for theft, perhaps you might want to look into it.

Most insurance coverage does not cover incidents of civil unrest or insurrection or terrorism unless explicitly specified, usually in a separate policy. As per usual however check your policy to be sure. Most all I have ever bound personal or business required the second policy specifically for terrorism insurrection civil unrest, especially since 2001.

 

[Rich2018]

Is not looting, arson, invasion of premises, all felony acts in Minnesota?

Invasion of premises is way too vague, what does that mean ?

Most insurance coverage does not cover incidents of civil unrest or insurrection or terrorism unless explicitly specified, usually in a separate policy. As per usual however check your policy to be sure. Most all I have ever bound personal or business required the second policy specifically for terrorism insurrection civil unrest, especially since 2001.

"Riot, civil commotion, and vandalism are covered perils under virtually all commercial property policies. They are covered causes of loss under both named perils and "all risk" policies....the policy doesn't exclude riot, civil commotion, or vandalism so the damage to his property should be covered."

Property Coverage for Riots, Vandalism, and Civil Commotion