Kvetch said:1872walker said:
Fear of imprisonment should be a sufficient deterrent for property crimes. It's inexcusable that big cities are not enforcing laws.
However, you're ignoring the legal, monetary and emotional consequences for the shooter should they choose to use deadly force against someone who took something from them.
To clarify, this was absolutely a good shoot. There is clearly a threat to the persons in the restaurant. Keep the justification there.
Hate to break it to you, but prison is not an adequate deterrent. I'm so sick of the bleeding hearts saying "think of the situation of the criminal!" How about you think about the victims. I care about the people who wake up in the morning and don't decide to stick a pistol in the face of others to obtain their worldly belongings.
You can mourn the loss of life while also recognizing that they were hoist upon their own petard. They chose their fate. An armed society is a polite society, and every conceivable study proves that. Let's not act like the police catch every single one of these guy.
It's quite obvious you've never been robbed.
Separate issues. Prison not being an adequate deterrent is a failure of law enforcement and the justice system. Separate issue.
I'm not mourning a damn thing here. Look at the second post on this thread.
This scumbag decided his own fate and I won't shed a tear about him not stealing money or even oxygen from this world ever again.
This was a clear threat to life and completely justified. I was responding to a particular post and stating that risk of loss of property alone while legal is a poor choice of use of deadly force.
And yes. I have been robbed. It sucks.