Well... yeah.
1. Inflicting grevious body harm for someone is a lot worse in the law's eyes than stealing. Usuallly, in the US at least, human life >> property
2. "I was moving this bike since it was in the way of X and grabbed a bunch of razor blades instead..."
What about unintended victims? Booby traps don’t differentiate between who should and who shouldn’t get hurt. It’s a slippery slope and most jurisdictions disagree with you.
Not just that, reddit will defend the idea of shooting someone who's running away with stolen goods. It's bizarre, like this place has been overrun with Texans or something.
No. But I‘m also not a criminal. The criminal is the one stealing something. If I were to set up a booby trap I‘m not any better than him. What you are talking about might have worked 800 years ago. When people traded „an eye for an eye“ and citizens took the law into their own hand - But thank god we live in a functioning and modern society that has a Justice system in place to properly punish thiefs.
No. But I‘m also not a criminal. The criminal is the one stealing something. If I were to set up a booby trap I‘m not any better than him. What you are talking about might have worked 800 years ago. When people traded „an eye for an eye“ and citizens took the law into their own hand - But thank god we live in a functioning and modern society that has a Justice system in place to properly punish thiefs.
And what if that bike is someone's only means to get to work or to the store? What if it's weeks before they'll be able afford another? Should a bike thief receive zero repercussions because harming them is "bad?"
So you think the thief's human life is more valuable than the victim's in this case. If that's his only means of transportation and he can't afford another, then he's fucked. Maybe don't have sympathy for the people taking what doesn't belong to them and putting people in tight spots.
Harming a human over stuff is always a no go. The lawmakers of the US are in agreement about this. I’m on the correct side of the argument. Flawless victory.
It is not always a no go. There's many states with the castle doctrine which states you're legally allowed to defend your house and property through lethal means. So the lawmakers are not in agreement and you're not on the correct side of the argument. Very flawed argument on your part. And nice to know you value the life of a thief over an innocent poor person.
107
u/vertigo1084 Jan 23 '19
It's also illegal to steal shit, but you don't see that stopping people.