If it's not worth a violent confrontation over personal property

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Why are there so many burglars and thieves?

It seems to me if the message is to minimize violence over personal property the proper target audience (pardon the pun) would be those who commit crimes against potentially armed home/business-owners. Get them to stop and VIOLA!

[ileus]

1. you are incorrect the target should be rude baser killing machine owners.

If we could just get rid of the gunz....think of the criminals won't you? It's costing billions of bucks a year treating their bullet wounds and stuff.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. I'm all for decreasing workplace violence by telling criminals to get a new line of work. n/t

[DrDan]

3. what does this have to do with a viola?

[jeepnstein]

5. Busking

Good money to be had if you're on the right kind of corner.

[DrDan]

6. ahhhh. . . of course

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. heh. good one!

:thumbsup:

[rrneck]

4. Hence the phrase, "Shoot to stop". nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

62. +1

[SteveM]

7. But what of "romancin' the thug?" Of "poor sick puppy" syndrome?

Aren't punks & thugs far more deserving of our understanding, support, counsel, romance, resources than the poor shmuck trying to get by in a peaceful and boring manner? Isn't the shmuck a direct threat toward all those breathless attractions we see on T.V.?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. Why are there so many burglars and thieves? complicated question

with as many variables in the answer as there are individuals. Do you really want an answer?

I hate that desperate people feel the need to do desperate things and that in desperation I will protect myself desperately.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. I don't care how desperate a person feels, there is no excuse for victmizing innocent people

It isn't the palaces of the rich that are being burglarized.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. yes, duly noted

it is obvious that you don't care. goody for you!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. Care for who?

Why don't you care for the innocent family being victimized by a criminal?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

13. who said I didn't? DON'T EVEN TRY to put words in MY MOUTH

you evidently asked a rhetorical question. sorry, I even bothered

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. Your medicine, so the aftertaste belongs to you.

Please don't feign indignation over having words put in your mouth after telling me I don't care about people. I defy you to find a single post in my time here at DU where I would disparage assistance to needy families. But assistance does not include acting as if criminals get a free pass for harming their neighbors who are probably in the same damn economic boat but are trying to do their best to get through life without being criminals.

The point of the OP is simple: the best remedy for reducing shootings over property crime is to refrain from committing property crime. It is the obligation of people, regardless of their circumstances, to refrain from victimizing innocent people. For the life of me I cannot see how that is a controversial statement requiring allegations that I do not care for those fallen on hard times.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

16. you have some real empathy for people doncha now...

loving your democratic, progressive, liberal view of things...

you are such a little cutie pie :*

how is Lover Boy?

[hack89]

19. There are no democratic, progressive, liberal excuses for preying on your fellow man

Criminals don't deserve empathy

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. there are root causes that bring people to do desperate things --

it would behoove us to try and prevent a lot of these causes in the first place. Do you not agree?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. Nobody here disagrees with that.

But that isn't an excuse to victimize innocent people.

Granted that what I'm about to say is strictly a personal anecdote but -- my dad is a GC. When I was in middle school one of his employees broke into his truck and stole several thousand dollars worth of tools. My dad couldn't afford to insure his tools at the time. No tools, no work. He lost longtime clients. It was crippling to us for years. There were a lot of Tuna Helper meals for my brother and I. My dad had to start over with a belt and a framing hammer as an employee until he could save up the money to get back on his own. The crook, the thief, the criminal WAS employed and fairly so. He stole my dad's tools and pawned them to support his habit.

Sorry, but I cannot muster a no-questions-asked blanket pity for pitiless criminals.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

41. one anecdote does not evidence make

as you can see, the theif was an addict. He needed medical help long before his addiction put him on the path to criminal behavior.

That you can not pity is why I pity you.

[PavePusher]

52. Actually, it is evidence. But by itself is not indicative of a trend. n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

54. I will agree with that but, this forum is rife with it and it is used to "prove"

both sides of the 2A issue and for this reason I tend to shy away from it.

[PavePusher]

74. Understood. n/t

[hack89]

26. Sure - but it does not excuse it. Especially in my own house. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

43. I never said it did.

[one-eyed fat man]

33. They may be miserable,

but they ain't Les Miserables. A German mother trading her ass for half moldy potatoes out of a Russian mess hall in 1946 so she can feed her kids is a crime of desperation.

Stabbing a college student to steal his laptop, is just robbery and greed.

17-year-old Steve Terrett was found shot to death and shoeless in a South Side alley, killed for his new Nike Air Jordans.

Another misunderstood, disenfranchised, fallen on hard times, father desperately getting food for his sneaker eating orphans?

what a crock!!!

Poverty makes people poor. It doesn't not make them thieves, murderers or rapists. What those criminals feel is not desperation, it is entitlement. They see something they want, they take it. If they have to kill you for it, so be it. It's no skin off their nose.

You can pretend it was desperation

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/n_7836/

He wiped her blood off his hands and went home. Left behind, in a shallow ravine near Central Park's 102nd Street transverse, was the brutalized body of a 28-year-old woman. Matias Reyes says he had raped and beaten her so viciously that he assumed she would die. The curly-haired 17-year-old boy calmly strolled north, into the night.

Five teenagers were convicted of the attack on the Central Park jogger, in two stormy trials. All pleaded not guilty and claimed that their videotaped confessions were concocted by the cops. Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Raymond Santana, Yusef Salaam, and Kharey Wise served sentences ranging from five to thirteen years. Wise got out of prison August 12 -- just months after the only DNA collected at the crime scene, which was never tied to any of the accused, was matched to Reyes.

Yes, Reyes was so distraught, he let five others take the fall for his crime.

Not a one of the bastards I see on the police blotter page of my local paper are there for stealing a loaf of bread.

Shoplifting cigarettes or booze is as close as I have seen it.

[petronius]

Excuse and empathize are not the same thing. I've never been fond of the

one-dimensional view of criminals that pops up here; rather I agree with TA that it's worth taking the time to find out why people take that path, what methods are available to divert them, rehabilitate as possible, punish justly, and yes, empathize with some of those who went down the wrong road out of fear, ignorance, weakness, desperation or whatever.

But, as TA also implied in the 'desperation' post above, that isn't at all the same as excusing criminal behavior, or saying that it should be overlooked, ignored, or unpunished...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. FWIW I'm taking flak in a GD thread because I advocate prisoners learning

marketable trades while incarcerated. NOT for private for-profit industries but strictly for government/charitable/prison maintenance. I'm told I'm turning them into slaves.

Apparently if I fail to sympathize with criminal activity I'm bad because I refuse to address the underlying causes; but if I address the underlying cause by offering them a career path after their sentences are served I'm a slave driver.

Someone please tell me when did progressives advocate leaving people in a life of crime. When did that become progressive for society, the victims or -- for that matter -- the criminal? Don't criminals deserve a life better than constantly being hunted by civil authorities (or risk being shot)?

[MedicalAdmin]

36. I agree completely.

Rehabilitation would include learning a usefull skill or trade so that gainful employment is possible.

People who haven't been in make a lot of assumptions. One thing many don't understand is the boredom of the place. Any diversion is welcome- One that adds a sence of worth is priceless. Rehab works. And the funds for rehab started being cut under the realm of raygun.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

38. thank you, petronius

for being a voice of reason.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. wow

You can't justify putting words into my mouth so you attack my husband. What next? "Yo mama!" jokes? Sexism to boot.

Now please tell me where I have ever disparaged job retraining, social welfare assistance, food stamps, etc. In your mania to insult me you keep forgetting the middle and lower class families that are the victims of the criminals you berate me for refusing to empathize with.

More in line with the OP, if you have such high sympathies for criminals wouldn't it make sense to advise them to leave their life of crime rather than intrude upon the homes and businesses of people who might be armed?

[Atman]

24. NU, your tactics have grown old.

"Shout down" anyone who disagrees with you. That's all you've got.

I grow weary.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. Not too loud, someone might stuff you into one of those none-too-secret secret prisons

You're just cranky because you were tossing out loony conspiracy theories and got challenged on the details. That's not shouting down, that's asking you to speak-up and defend your position. Apparently I can be accused of being non-Democrat, non-progressive without basis or citiation but that isn't "shouting down" only pointing out that the interlocutor can't answer on the merits is "shouting down."

I grow weary

But my dad signed my permission slip!

Seriously dude, don't overrate yourself. I never told other guy he wasn't allowed to debate the issue. I welcome the debate. I've encountered plenty of less-than-civil sorts and I haven't put one of them on Ignore so as to deny them their say, not even you.

If you can explain how my husband or me being a "cutie pie" are valid lines of argument in the context of the OP I'll be happy to entertain the dialogue.

[Atman]

31. Thanks for illustrating my point perfectly.

It doesn't matter what anyone actually says, the only thing that matters to you is what you think you hear. It's boring and tiresome, and I could give a shit what you think. Barely a week after my post wherein you imagined some sort of conspiracy theory, DU was all abuzz about the military detention law which was just passed. Despite that I never said anything about prison camps or rounding up OWS protesters, your stupid bullshit shut down an otherwise worthwhile thread, and you're trying the same thing here. It's a sorry-ass tactic, but you're very good at it...never let facts get in your way.

I didn't even your last post, because I already know it's just more of the same -- juvenile bullying tactics.

:eyes:

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. "I could give a shit what you think"

Is that why you joined this thread?

And feel free to speak-up and explain how the originator of the sub-thread dragging my heretofore unmentioned husband or calling me "cutie pie" has anything to do with the OP.

Or if you're feeling really kicky, the OP is about how it makes more sense to seek ask criminals to abstain from victimizing innocent people over property than it is to convince innocent people to accept the redations of criminals. You're invited to weigh-in with your thoughts, observations and feelings. I reserve the right to disagree but -- who knows.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

42. "you're very good at it" ---

I have to give credit where credit is due.

This is one of the best it has been my incredulous pleasure to behold.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

46. Oh goodie. Two people who can't stay on topic congratulating each other on ad hom dodges

can either of you actually address the topic at hand?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

51. oh goody

first you don't want to talk about the topic you introduced -- Now, you do. Please see reply below.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

39. I will tell you why

becuase of all your cutie pie posts made in the Lounge.

Where you made public accounts of your sex acts with your Lover Boy.

That is why.

This place is bigger than the Gungeon and unlike some of my fellow members, I get around this place.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. Apparently I get around as well, as evidenced by your post, but I left it in the Lounge.

Yeah, I'm happily, madly, romatically in love. Sorry, but I won't apologize (that's a pun, BTW). Am I not allowed to have a romantic life, lest it be used as some sort of indictment during a serious discussion?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

48. just saying

all is fair in love and war.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

55. "all is fair in love and war." is shorthand for

"anything to keep from having to defend the indefensible or addressing the OP."

[Tuesday Afternoon]

56. oh Honey, I tried to address the issue from the get go. You must have

the attention span of gnat.

Shiny squirrel.

indeed.

either that, or there are more than one of you using this account and you guys can not keep up with what the other one has said....

hmmmm?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

66. Whatever.

It never ceases to amze me how those who cannot defend an absurd statement have to resort to paranoid assertions to deflect from that fact.

Victimizing innocent people is never excusable or pitiable regardless of the underlying conditions. Innocent people are just that -- innocent. That you cannot pity the innocent vicitm makes you pitiable.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

67. good lord TRYING to put words in my mouth

I spit them out in your general direction --

I NEVER SAID THAT and it is disingenuous of you (to say the least) to post otherwise!!!

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneshooter]

73. Hey there is nothing wrong with that...............

I have been " happily, madly, romatically in love" with my wife for the last 26+ years.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

37. me too, Atman. very bored with this one

[Tuesday Afternoon]

40. advice??

yeah, that is what desperate, hungry, hurting, homeless people need....

words.

empty words.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. It's amazing how you reply to threads and completely mischaracterize them

As if people aren't paying attention.

You ask for empathy for people committing crimes. Sorry, can't do that but more to the point: empathy is less than words. Meanwhile, you ignore a post that lists job training, food stamps, public housing and other TANGIBLE forms of assistance as "mere words."

OK, fine. You have lots of indictments, let's see if you have actually solutions. What is your proposed course of action for reducing the desperate straits that drive people commit crimes, obstensibly to save them from starvation? After all, the OP is about getting people to stop committing crimes that may bring them into an encounter with an armed home/business owner. What is the best means for achieving this?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

49. you are the AMAZING ONE.

I see you are finally willing to entertain answers to your original question ...

What do you think about the social programs being defunded?

ever heard of The High Point Strategy?
Providence, RI -- For years, Wanda Perry was scared to visit her family in Chad Brown, a housing project in Providence that had long been known as a violent drug haven.

In 2008, police began trying a strategy that combined traditional enforcement with more community involvement, more social services and second chances for a select few non-violent dealers.

"It changed a hell of a lot," said Perry, who moved into Chad Brown in 2010 because police had cleaned it up and kept it safe. "No loud music at night, nobody fighting, no cops coming in except to do their rounds. You can actually sit outside with your kids and do a cookout."

Named for the North Carolina city where it started, the "High Point strategy" used at Chad Brown is one of several unconventional and sometimes controversial methods that cities are using to shut down open-air drug markets, cut gun violence, prevent drunken driving and keep probationers from going back to prison.

more at link:
http://www.digtriad.com/news/article/195456/1/Cities-Re...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. Sounds like an awesome idea that has awesome potential

On numerous levels. I could write paragraphs about why I think it is a good program and should be expanded and why pols should consider seeing it spread.

Of course that does NOT change my opinion in my OP; I actually think it reinforces it: get rid of the crime -- including its underlying causes -- and we will have less gun violence. Law-abiding people keep guns to protect themselves from criminals. Law-abiding people are not the problem, criminals are. Criminals are also a substantially smaller segment of the population. Getting rid of criminals makes more sense than disarming the law-abiding people upon whom they prey.

The program described in your article seems as if it would go very far in achieving that end. It reduces prison overcrowding for trivial offenses while incarcerating the truly bad eggs. It builds communities. It provides outlets. Coupled with other programs that get people educated, working and contributing would be an all-out assault on the causes of poverty and crime.

Sorry, I still cannot see my way clear to excusing those who victimize others. I can't, regardless of their underlying conditions. Preying upon people cannot be acceptable and as One-Eyed Fatman (as always) so astutely observes, much of the crime is driven by personal gain than actual desperation.

Would that you had included this in your dialogue hours ago.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

61. I did not include it because if I may so gently remind you --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=485318&mesg_id=485404

[Nuclear Unicorn]

63. And I stand by that statement. There is no excuse for victimzing innocent people

I don't see how that makes me a bad person nor do I see how not excusing crime while doing everything to alleviate the underlying conditions of crime are mutually excluding. Let's reach the people in poor communities and give them the tools they need to improve their lives. But that has to be coupled with the firm declaration that they cannot be allowed to harm others who are, more than likely, in the same impoverished neighborhoods. I think even your article says as much when it speaks to getting the truly violent while helping the non-violent.

Perhaps we have more to agree about than disagree about.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

65. just because you have decided to see reason in this one instance

and we finally met in the middle does not mean that we did not approach the issue from opposite sides. I find that this has been like a discussion with a Republican.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

50. dupe/delete/glitch.

[PavePusher]

17. I think you've mis-read something. N.U. tends to be pro-rights and pro-self-defense.

I urge you to read her comments with that in mind.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

20. she (?) asked a question.

I understand that in an emergency dire measures will have to be taken but, to get to the root of the problem is way more complicated than that.

I urge you to read my replies with that in mind.

[Logical]

14. Some people would not mind killing someone over a car. I disagree with those people. n-t

[PavePusher]

18. I don't think you'll find anyone here who "would not mind".

You will certainly find some who would attempt to stop the thief and would kill if the thief attempted to use deadly force when confronted. Very different things.

[Logical]

25. OK, some people here would kill someone for stealing a car. I do not share their values.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. They use to hang horse thieves the same as murderers

I'm not pro-death penalty but I think that speaks to the severity of the crime WRT how economically crippling it could be to the victim.

[Logical]

30. There is a reason that capital punishment does not apply to car theft.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. True but if you shoot a carjacker you're generally safe from legal repurcussions.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

69. operative word being "generally"

and don't think that a lawyer will not introduce your emotional state at the time of the shooting.

[rrneck]

32. It's a complicated metric.

The United States is almost a third world country when it comes to social services and it's a lot easier and cheaper to fix a kid than an adult. We should be a much more compassionate society. Unfortunately, when someone is crawling in your window or about to cave in your skull with a baseball bat it's just too damn late.

I don't think there is any equitable way to legislate the value of property against the value of a life. If someone steals something you need to survive he has to be stopped since the loss of goods could result in serious injury or death just as if he were attacking you. Very few people (on this forum) would be willing to shoot someone over a TV. That metric, whatever it is, will depend on exigent circumstances involving our overall culture. We are a wealthy country and it's easy, right now, to say it isn't worth killing someone over something. When oil gets to be four hundred dollars a barrel the loss of what little stuff we may have may make it a whole lot more dangerous to try to steal it.

In the end the burglar and the homeowner are going to have to work out all those details in a matter of a few seconds. It would well behoove the burglar to give careful consideration to how much time he is willing to allow a homeowner to asses his motives since the price of a mistake could be fatal.

So while it's impossible to legislate exactly what one should do, word gets around. As I recall there are a lot fewer burglaries in areas (like the south) where the chances of the homeowner being armed are greater.

[GeorgeGist]

44. Are you over 13?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

53. I sometimes wonder if, it is in fact, the same person posting or,

if, in fact, there are several people with an agenda posting under this account.

[jpak]

57. Yes, everyone a Gun Hero!

stupid

yup

[Tuesday Afternoon]

59. this is one rare occasion when you and I are in agreement -

let us savor the moment. . .

[Nuclear Unicorn]

64. Who said anything about a gun hero?

If criminals weren't committing crime self-defense would be obviated.

yup

[Tuesday Afternoon]

68. your attitude about the whole issue has suggested otherwise

but, I think you know this all along.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

70. No. That's the whole point of the OP. Remember this? --

if the message is to minimize violence over personal property the proper target audience (pardon the pun) would be those who commit crimes against potentially armed home/business-owners.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

71. you are going to have go around in this circle by yourself. btdt. I am outta this thread

[SteveM]

76. A raucous fart from the cages in back! nt

[jeepnstein]

58. Desperation, well, makes people desperate.

Locally, we have a legion of people swarming our streets at night stealing anything not nailed down to buy pills, heroin, and meth to feed their addictions. They chose to start taking the drugs but now they have no choice but to continue. Until they see another way to live that's all they know. These kinds of people probably didn't get the same memo that we all signed and initialed about burglary being a bad idea.

They did start trying to get into the home invasion business last year but after almost every attempt ended up with a dead or seriously wounded addict it fell out of favor. For the most part they are pretty diligent about hitting unoccupied dwellings, parked cars, and closed businesses.

[SteveM]

75. Jesus. Remind me to never step foot in the "Lounge."

Actually, you have a point in this. I don't know how any "message" will be delivered, or even what it would be, but it would seem that thugs and thug wannabees should in fact be a target audience in an effort to get the word out that there is an increasing likelihood that you will be met with force, the consequences being death/maiming/severely-long prison sentences. I don't know if this is done or not. Perhaps there are "model" programs for prisoner indoctrination on the dangers of armed robbery, home invasion, muggings, and car jacking.

[chrisa]

77. I can agree with you, but it has to be assumed that someone committing a home invasion

has hostile intent against you.

Sometimes confrontation just can't be avoided, especially if burglary isn't the only intent of breaking in, if you know what I mean.

The best realistic result of a burglary, imo, is one where the burglar gets away with nobody being hurt, and is arrested in his underpants some time later with no chance to do anything harmful. If a burglar happens to get shot in the process of what they're doing, though, I can't feel sorry for them.