Dunno if anyone heard about this, but apparently some guy shot a trick-or-treater because he thought the kid was some kind of robber. I'm not quite sure what to make out of this. On one hand, I believe that the man has a right to property and to defend that property. I'm a pretty strong supporter of the so-called "castle doctrine." On the other, the man has to be pretty stupid to actually shoot a trick-or-treater.
Anyways, here's the story:
Police: Shooter feared trick-or-treater was robber SUMTER, S.C. – An ex-convict who thought he was being robbed gunned down a 12-year-old trick-or-treater, spraying nearly 30 rounds with an assault rifle from inside his home after hearing a knock on the door, police said Saturday. Quentin Patrick, 22, is accused of killing 12-year-old T.J. Darrisaw on Friday night. T.J.'s 9-year-old brother, Ahmadre Darrisaw, and their father, Freddie Grinnell, were injured but were released after being treated at a hospital. The family attended a Halloween celebration in downtown Sumter, 45 miles east of Columbia, then stopped at Patrick's house because the porch light was on, police said. Another sibling was with them, but wasn't hurt. Police said at least two of the boys were wearing ghoulish masks when they knocked on the door. The boys' mother and a toddler stayed in the car nearby. Patrick emptied his AK-47, shooting at least 29 times through his front door, walls and windows after hearing the knock, Police Chief Patty Patterson said. He told police he had been robbed and shot in the past year. "He wasn't going to be robbed again, and he wasn't going to be shot again," Patterson said Saturday at a news conference. She said T.J., a bright young man, suffered multiple wounds, including a fatal shot to his head. No one answered the door at the family's home Saturday. "This is by far one of the worst tragedies that I have had to personally experience," Patterson said. "It happened basically because kids were out doing what they would normally do on Halloween." Patrick has been charged with murder, three counts of assault and battery with intent to kill, and one count of assault with intent to kill. Police said they also charged a 19-year-old in his home, Ericka Patrice Pee, with obstruction of justice when she was caught trying to run away after the shooting with $7,500 in cash. Patterson did not give an explanation for the money. Pee's 2-year-old daughter was inside during the shooting and is now being cared for by family members. Patterson said Patrick had multiple drug convictions but police do not believe he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol during the shooting. Authorities did not know if Patrick or Pee had attorneys. Both are being held without bond. A man who identified himself as Patrick's brother but declined to give his name said in a call to The Associated Press that he believed Patrick was suffering from post-traumatic stress after a break-in last December. The man's account matched the information police provided. "We want to let his family know that this is a total tragic accident," he said. "He was trying to protect his family." Patrick's home is off a busy, two-lane road in Sumter, a city of about 40,000 people. On Saturday, shattered glass still covered the front stoop and about 20 bullet holes peppered the front door and a front-window casement. A firefighter used a hose to wash bloodstains away. The shooting shocked residents of a neighborhood where most people know each other well. "I just hate it that that little kid got killed. It used to be the quietest place. I knew everybody and everybody knew me," said Vivian Johnson, 81, who lives two doors from Patrick and Pee but said she did not know them. County Councilman Charles Edens said he lives just a few blocks away and passed the crime scene on his way back from trick-or-treating with his 13-year-old daughter, who was upset by the news. "It's going to put a dampening on Halloween," Eden said. "I would think twice about going to a door that we don't know who lives behind."
Political Atheists Blog
Yes the man does have a right to property, it's to do with proportionality though. It's ridiculous to empty 29 rounds the moment anybody steps on your property. What the hell does the guy expect on halloween.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
The right to property is absolute, true, but aggression and consent come into play with this event. Walking onto someone else's property (while not causing damage) can only be considered an act of aggression (a trespass) if it is understood to be aggression by both parties. So the killing could only be justified if it was in proportionate self-defense. The boy made no aggression against the man's property (he didn't ignore commands or requests made by the man, he did not threaten the man, he didn't cause damages, he didn't climb over barriers to access like fences). Self-defense is only justified by the natural rights philosophy, if the defense is reasonably proportionate to the offense, and if the aggression is understood, intentional, and threatening. You cannot shoot and then ask questions later. The man's a murderer. Militant self-defense is not consistent with libertarianism.
Thank You - Brandon
I agree with the part that the reaction or punishment should be proportionate to the crime/violation/whatever. For example, I do not see how it is justifiable to kill someone who simply punches you in the stomach.
But what if Person A steals Person B's $20,000 Rolex watch. Must Person A agree to the compensation/recourse, or can Person B go and take Person A's $20,000 automobile as just compensation?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel: I agree with the part that the reaction or punishment should be proportionate to the crime/violation/whatever. For example, I do not see how it is justifiable to kill someone who simply punches you in the stomach.
Easy. If a person attacks me physically, I have no responsibility to see how much damage they intend to do to me before I defend myself. I consider myself justified in doing whatever is effective in stopping the attack, and if it happens to cause severe damage or death to the person who is attacking me, tough - they should not have decided to attack me.
Those who open the door to physical violence have no right to complain about how much violence comes through the door.
If Person A is unwilling to negotiate a settlement that Person B considers fair, I have a hard time objecting to whatever action Person B takes to get recompense.
A willingness to casually initiate violence or theft should NOT be a survival trait.
As to the situation at the beginning of this thread, it is not considered assault to knock on someone's door - not in current law or common practice. The idiot with the AK-47 was not defending himself, he was committing lethal assault. He may have some merit to his case if his property had been posted 'No Trespassing' - but I doubt that it was, and simple trespass does not warrant a violent response.
Danno, feeling pretty Old-Testament for someone who isn't Judeo-Christian.
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
If the attack is immediate you may use any amount of force necessary to defend yourself, If a person punches you, you have the right to use any amount of force to defend your current health and to deter the immediate threat, even if this causes severe damage or death it is still justified because you cannot judge the actions of the the offender. You don't know if he'll end the attack after the punch or if he'll begin to strangle you after he knocks you out or if he pursues some other horrendous act of violence.
If, on the other hand, you are knocked out by the punch and a week later you find the man who punched you, you may not kill him. You still would qualify for compensation, but killing him, now, would not justify self-defense. Killing a man who is not an immediate threat cannot classify as self-defense, or be justified. (Hence, death penalties are theoretically impossible in a purely libertarian anarchy.)
Daniel: But what if Person A steals Person B's $20,000 Rolex watch. Must Person A agree to the compensation/recourse, or can Person B go and take Person A's $20,000 automobile as just compensation?
Essentially yes. Realistic, though? No.
After "Person A" pirated "Person B's" $20,000 Rolex watch, "Person B's" right to his watch did not dissolve, nor did any of "Person A's" property rights. So, essentially "Person A" assumed a coercive trade, a $20,000 watch in exchange for, well... nothing, against the will of "Person B". "Person B", then has the right to regain his watch. But if "Person A" is uncooperative, then "Person B" has no other choice but to "equalize" the trade, by claiming the property of "Person A" with a similar or equal value (Plus extra value, serving as an interest rate(or fine), for the inconvenience of the thieved property). This act, though, creates several conflicts.
-Simply claiming someone else's property is risky and dangerous.
-It is difficult to determine how much property "Person B" has the natural right to "take" back. "Person B" may take a $100,000 car in compensation, which isn't fair to "Person A"
-There is no protection that prevents "Person A" from assuming that "Person B" took too much, and then goes back and takes property from "Person B", eventually leading to a cycle of thievery and violence.
These conflicts provide an incentive for a Third party to help resolve the conflicts. Here's how this situation might go down with private governance. "Person B" realizes his Rolex watch is stolen and believes it was stolen by "Person A", he calls his local private theft-protection and compensation agency and reports his claim. They investigate his claim, and DO find substantial proof that "Person A" did in fact steal the watch. They schedule an arbitration court date, where "Person A" may defend himself and determine how much compensation is justified, if found guilty, if he does so choose to do so. He refuses to show, claiming that he does not even know "Person B" and never stole his watch. With "Person A" absent, they decide in favor of "Person B". The court decides that $20,000 of property plus $10,000 for inconveniences and court costs, may be justifiably taken. Repo-men take the property. But "Person A" calls up his private theft-protection and compensation agency, saying that "Person B" stole HIS property, now. "Court A" will represent "Person A" and "Court B" will represent "Person B". Both courts may be biased toward their customer, so, they agree to end disputes with another 3 party court, to cut costs. The third party court does find "Person A" guilty of theft, but also finds that "Person B" was over-compensated. In the end "Person B" has to give back $4,000 to "Person B" and $1,000 to the third party court, to pay for the costs.
10Brandonr: Daniel: I agree with the part that the reaction or punishment should be proportionate to the crime/violation/whatever. For example, I do not see how it is justifiable to kill someone who simply punches you in the stomach. If the attack is immediate you may use any amount of force necessary to defend yourself, If a person punches you, you have the right to use any amount of force to defend your current health and to deter the immediate threat, even if this causes severe damage or death it is still justified because you cannot judge the actions of the the offender. You don't know if he'll end the attack after the punch or if he'll begin to strangle you after he knocks you out or if he pursues some other horrendous act of violence.
Agreed.
Not so fast. If, indeed, the earlier attack was an anomaly, and there is no reasonable expectation of it being repeated, you're right. If, however, this guy who cold-cocked me last week has a reputation for such behavior, and there is cause to believe that it may be repeated, I'll claim the right of preventative maintainance, and reserve the right to prevent future attacks in any fashion that seems effective.
Daniel: But what if Person A steals Person B's $20,000 Rolex watch. Must Person A agree to the compensation/recourse, or can Person B go and take Person A's $20,000 automobile as just compensation? Essentially yes. Realistic, though? No. After "Person A" pirated "Person B's" $20,000 Rolex watch, "Person B's" right to his watch did not dissolve, nor did any of "Person A's" property rights. So, essentially "Person A" assumed a coercive trade, a $20,000 watch in exchange for, well... nothing, against the will of "Person B". "Person B", then has the right to regain his watch. But if "Person A" is uncooperative, then "Person B" has no other choice but to "equalize" the trade, by claiming the property of "Person A" with a similar or equal value (Plus extra value, serving as an interest rate(or fine), for the inconvenience of the thieved property). This act, though, creates several conflicts. -Simply claiming someone else's property is risky and dangerous.
One would hope that taking the Rolex in the first place would be risky and dangerous.
-It is difficult to determine how much property "Person B" has the natural right to "take" back. "Person B" may take a $100,000 car in compensation, which isn't fair to "Person A" -There is no protection that prevents "Person A" from assuming that "Person B" took too much, and then goes back and takes property from "Person B", eventually leading to a cycle of thievery and violence. These conflicts provide an incentive for a Third party to help resolve the conflicts. Here's how this situation might go down with private governance. "Person B" realizes his Rolex watch is stolen and believes it was stolen by "Person A", he calls his local private theft-protection and compensation agency and reports his claim. They investigate his claim, and DO find substantial proof that "Person A" did in fact steal the watch. They schedule an arbitration court date, where "Person A" may defend himself and determine how much compensation is justified, if found guilty, if he does so choose to do so. He refuses to show, claiming that he does not even know "Person B" and never stole his watch. With "Person A" absent, they decide in favor of "Person B". The court decides that $20,000 of property plus $10,000 for inconveniences and court costs, may be justifiably taken. Repo-men take the property. But "Person A" calls up his private theft-protection and compensation agency, saying that "Person B" stole HIS property, now. "Court A" will represent "Person A" and "Court B" will represent "Person B". Both courts may be biased toward their customer, so, they agree to end disputes with another 3 party court, to cut costs. The third party court does find "Person A" guilty of theft, but also finds that "Person B" was over-compensated. In the end "Person B" has to give back $4,000 to "Person B" and $1,000 to the third party court, to pay for the costs.
If I can prove an honest effort to resolve said conflict, such effort being without result, and also have evidence that the property-grabbing was initiated by 'Person A', I claim the right to bill whatever fee I like to recover damages. He took my watch (and I have evidence), he refused to negotiate reparations (and I have evidence) - as far as I'm concerned, anything I can get from him is mine. Non-consensual reparations is a risky, dangerous business - and for risky, dangerous work, I want high wages.
If someone steals my property (let's call him Clyde - my cat's name), and I have evidence he did so, I can go to Clyde and demand reparations. If he refuses to negotiate directly, and refuses a reasonable mediation, and does not offer a reasonable alternative mediation, then I'll have to obtain reparations by either stealth or force. My nominal fee for stealth or force is 100,000 ounces of gold, or property of equivalent value. If this fee seems steep, it can be avoided - by refraining from stealing my property, or by acceeding to reasonable mediation. But if Clyde stole my stuff, and won't play nice in the reparations game - then I don't feel obligated to play nice myself, and will take anything of Clyde's that I can get my hands on.
Sometimes, this 'third party mediator' stuff is overthought. In an anarchy (or any reality you can think of), a person who cannot protect their property does not own that property - it belongs to the first person who comes along who is strong enough to take it. Defense of self and property is a needful skill - which is, admittedly, one of the downsides of anarch^H^H^H^H^H^Hreality.
Danno, proud primate to Clyde, the cat who knows better than to take my property.
krazy kaju:On the other, the man has to be pretty stupid to actually shoot a trick-or-treater.
I think we can all agree on that. Stupid or insane. Certainly unjustified. But here's the part of the story that I don't get:
krazy kaju:Police said they also charged a 19-year-old in his home, Ericka Patrice Pee, with obstruction of justice when she was caught trying to run away after the shooting with $7,500 in cash. Patterson did not give an explanation for the money.
Um, what? What does any of this have to do with the shooting?? Why does she need to explain the money away? How was she obstructing justice by trying to leave the premises? There's nothing in the story to indicate her involvement in the shooting incident.
Danno: Not so fast. If, indeed, the earlier attack was an anomaly, and there is no reasonable expectation of it being repeated, you're right. If, however, this guy who cold-cocked me last week has a reputation for such behavior, and there is cause to believe that it may be repeated, I'll claim the right of preventative maintainance, and reserve the right to prevent future attacks in any fashion that seems effective.
No one has the right to 'Preventive maintenance', or whatever. You only have the right to self-defense, just compensation and, just restitution.
Danno: If someone steals my property (let's call him Clyde - my cat's name), and I have evidence he did so, I can go to Clyde and demand reparations. If he refuses to negotiate directly, and refuses a reasonable mediation, and does not offer a reasonable alternative mediation, then I'll have to obtain reparations by either stealth or force. My nominal fee for stealth or force is 100,000 ounces of gold, or property of equivalent value. If this fee seems steep, it can be avoided - by refraining from stealing my property, or by acceeding to reasonable mediation. But if Clyde stole my stuff, and won't play nice in the reparations game - then I don't feel obligated to play nice myself, and will take anything of Clyde's that I can get my hands on. Sometimes, this 'third party mediator' stuff is overthought. In an anarchy (or any reality you can think of), a person who cannot protect their property does not own that property - it belongs to the first person who comes along who is strong enough to take it. Defense of self and property is a needful skill - which is, admittedly, one of the downsides of anarch^H^H^H^H^H^Hreality.
No, No, No. Anything more than just compensation or just restitution is theft. The thief still has the right to his property he justifiably and honestly owns. The above example is an example of militant self-defense and retribution, which is not libertarian. Libertarianism provides the right to proportionate self-defense to immediate aggressions, just restitution for gains-based recovery, and just compensation for loss-based recovery.
I also disagree with your belief that anarchy is a battle of strengths. Humans usually don't just compete, but rather they cooperate competitively. Most men are stronger than children, yet few would harm a child, no matter the gains. And few would invade their unarmed neighbor, for their new flat-screen TV. These decisions are made just on moral grounds. Aggression is expensive and dangerous. In a free market anarchy, both self-defense, private defense, and morals will prevent this "battle of strengths". I think you could agree with this.
macsnafu: {...} But here's the part of the story that I don't get: krazy kaju:Police said they also charged a 19-year-old in his home, Ericka Patrice Pee, with obstruction of justice when she was caught trying to run away after the shooting with $7,500 in cash. Patterson did not give an explanation for the money. Um, what? What does any of this have to do with the shooting?? Why does she need to explain the money away? How was she obstructing justice by trying to leave the premises? There's nothing in the story to indicate her involvement in the shooting incident.
{...} But here's the part of the story that I don't get:
She was reportedly attempting to leave with the shooter, he'd already been convicted of retailing cocaine (which makes the money suspect), and fleeing the scene of a crime with the accused is 'aiding and abetting'. I got this from a mass-media news source, so any of this information could be wrong.
Danno, who would have applauded her for running away from the shooter...
10Brandonr: Danno: Not so fast. If, indeed, the earlier attack was an anomaly, and there is no reasonable expectation of it being repeated, you're right. If, however, this guy who cold-cocked me last week has a reputation for such behavior, and there is cause to believe that it may be repeated, I'll claim the right of preventative maintainance, and reserve the right to prevent future attacks in any fashion that seems effective. No one has the right to 'Preventive maintenance', or whatever. You only have the right to self-defense, just compensation and, just restitution.
Just compensation or restitution won't do me much good if I die in the next assault. If I have good reason to expect such an assault, I have the right to prevent it in any fashion that'll be effective. Mayhaps not Libertarian, but it's a survival trait.
Danno: If someone steals my property (let's call him Clyde - my cat's name), and I have evidence he did so, I can go to Clyde and demand reparations. If he refuses to negotiate directly, and refuses a reasonable mediation, and does not offer a reasonable alternative mediation, then I'll have to obtain reparations by either stealth or force. My nominal fee for stealth or force is 100,000 ounces of gold, or property of equivalent value. If this fee seems steep, it can be avoided - by refraining from stealing my property, or by acceeding to reasonable mediation. But if Clyde stole my stuff, and won't play nice in the reparations game - then I don't feel obligated to play nice myself, and will take anything of Clyde's that I can get my hands on. Sometimes, this 'third party mediator' stuff is overthought. In an anarchy (or any reality you can think of), a person who cannot protect their property does not own that property - it belongs to the first person who comes along who is strong enough to take it. Defense of self and property is a needful skill - which is, admittedly, one of the downsides of anarch^H^H^H^H^H^Hreality. No, No, No. Anything more than just compensation or just restitution is theft. The thief still has the right to his property he justifiably and honestly owns. The above example is an example of militant self-defense and retribution, which is not libertarian. Libertarianism provides the right to proportionate self-defense to immediate aggressions, just restitution for gains-based recovery, and just compensation for loss-based recovery.
I see. Who decides what "just" is, or what "proportionate" is?
I prefer a society in which the initiator of such situations is risking considerable loss. In my personal life, I insist upon it.
I believe that you are mistaken. Aggression is inexpensive and often highly profitable, or it wouldn't be so bleedin' popular. Sudden, vicious retaliation is, however, an effective deterrent. I've been attacked, now and again, in a long and too-interesting life. The only one who did not regret the decision to attack me got away - and even he may have decided that it had been a bad idea.
Danno, who flies the Gadsen flag.
Danno: Just compensation or restitution won't do me much good if I die in the next assault. If I have good reason to expect such an assault, I have the right to prevent it in any fashion that'll be effective. Mayhaps not Libertarian, but it's a survival trait.
A survival technique, sure, maybe. But still outright murder. Just because he made an aggression in the past, does not mean he will again, you cannot judge future actions of an individual in such a way morally. If you have good reason to suspect an assault in the future, protect yourself or hire someone to protect you.
Danno: I see. Who decides what "just" is, or what "proportionate" is? I prefer a society in which the initiator of such situations is risking considerable loss. In my personal life, I insist upon it.
Either the aggressor and victim can negotiate restitution or compensation privately, or private mediators can be used to give a fair judgment of what "just" could be considered.
Proportionate will be decided mostly by the initial victim. If the aggression is against your life (If it has any possibility of being fatal), you may use any amount of force necessary to defend your life. If it is an aggression against your property and is intentional, you may use just enough force to reclaim your property and/or to end the aggression against your property. This means it could be justifiable to end the life of the aggressor, if it is necessary. If the aggressor feels that your self-defense was not proportional, he may pursue legal action. Where a private court can decide.
Danno: I believe that you are mistaken. Aggression is inexpensive and often highly profitable, or it wouldn't be so bleedin' popular. Sudden, vicious retaliation is, however, an effective deterrent. I've been attacked, now and again, in a long and too-interesting life. The only one who did not regret the decision to attack me got away - and even he may have decided that it had been a bad idea.
Aggression is inexpensive and highly profitable in our current landscape, but in a society where many individuals may be well-armed, and defense is private, efficient, affordable, fair, and reliable, I can't imagine the risk being worth the profit in most circumstances.
Danno:I believe that you are mistaken. Aggression is inexpensive and often highly profitable, or it wouldn't be so bleedin' popular.
Aggression is not inexpensive. It is, however, highly profitable when you can socialize the costs, i.e., force other people to pay for them, as our current governmental system does. Without that system, it would be much more difficult to socialize the costs of aggression, thus creating a tipping point in favor of maintaining anarchy, once established.
You all argue about complicated property laws, but the fact of the matter is the kid knocked on the door (on Halloween no less)...what robber knocks on the door and says "i'm here!".
This guys deserves what comes to him.
Rad Schneider:You all argue about complicated property laws, but the fact of the matter is the kid knocked on the door (on Halloween no less)...what robber knocks on the door and says "i'm here!"
Someone waiting for you to open the door so they can shove a .45 in your face?
The guy was obviously previously a victim of a drug robbery. He is forced to defend his property personally because of the state's drug prohibition, this is the result. Murder? No way. If anything the murder charge is the result of a stigma against personal gun ownership.
Peace
JonBostwick: Rad Schneider:You all argue about complicated property laws, but the fact of the matter is the kid knocked on the door (on Halloween no less)...what robber knocks on the door and says "i'm here!" Someone waiting for you to open the door so they can shove a .45 in your face?
While there are, doubtless, scams that involve knocking upon the victim's door, they're mostly confidence games. Perhaps more to the point would have been to ask how likely it would be for a robber to be a 12-yo kid, accompanied by some buddies and his father?
I'm pretty fond of personal gun ownership, and may even give a pass to a convicted felon having an AK-47. I don't have much sympathy for a guy shooting a kid trick-or-treating, though. Paranoia is fine, but one really does need to be clear about what they're shooting before they pull the trigger.
If he'd been out hunting, and shot at a movement in the bushes, bagging another hunter, it'd still be murder. Carelessness with firearms is, indeed, criminal behavior. Shooting someone for knocking on your door cannot be excused by any previous unrelated event.
Danno, reflecting that violence is, indeed, expensive - have you seen the price of ammo lately?
JonBostwick:The guy was obviously previously a victim of a drug robbery. He is forced to defend his property personally because of the state's drug prohibition, this is the result. Murder? No way. If anything the murder charge is the result of a stigma against personal gun ownership.
That may be so, but surely he could have just not answered the door? If someone actually broke into his property then he would have reason to shoot, but as far as I can see he can't use the defense-of-property argument.
Base model cars of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but quarter-mile races.
wasnt me i swer.
theugh he disercd it >: asken me fur my stuf
Danno:Danno, reflecting that violence is, indeed, expensive - have you seen the price of ammo lately?
You miss the point.
Killing someone is cheap. Keeping yourself alive after having done so is expensive.
Danno:Perhaps more to the point would have been to ask how likely it would be for a robber to be a 12-yo kid, accompanied by some buddies and his father?
The father wasn't 12, and the children were wearing masks.
If a cop had shoot a kid with a toy gun this same court would have let him walk, and this same reporter would be talking about a tragic accident and our post 9-11 reality. Anyone who thinks justice will be reached by putting his man back in a cage is a fool.
These are the sorts of things that happen when the institution of property and society begin to break down. And trust me, the state is breaking them down.
JonBostwick: Danno:Danno, reflecting that violence is, indeed, expensive - have you seen the price of ammo lately? You miss the point. Killing someone is cheap. Keeping yourself alive after having done so is expensive.
Not invariably. I've seen the expensive stuff - cost me a year of my time and another decade of inconvenience, once upon a time. I've seen the cheap - walked out of that park with a light sweat and a happy smile, and I strongly doubt that anyone filed a police complaint, though there were injuries requiring medical treatment. There have been other incidents - though I can honestly claim that I've only initiated violence once in 25 very odd years, and that one time was non-damaging (and widely viewed as being entirely called for).
In a long and interesting life, I've been assaulted with intent to commit serious damage twice - keeping oneself alive can be expensive no matter what violence you have committed in the past. I've been nearly killed by people who didn't even notice me - motorcycle riding has hazards, too.
The anarchic "violence is expensive, so nobody will, mostly" has always struck me (pun intended) as having quite the flavor of whistling one's way past the cemetary - violence is available in the most structured, controlled societies, and a lack of central control is not gonna make it less of an issue. I suspect that the percentage of people out there who would be willing to commit casual violence to strangers for sport (never mind profit) would amaze you.
We're a violent species, and any philosophy that does not deal with that effectively is impractical.
Danno, not really lookin' for a fight
JonBostwick: Danno:Perhaps more to the point would have been to ask how likely it would be for a robber to be a 12-yo kid, accompanied by some buddies and his father? The father wasn't 12, and the children were wearing masks.
Wearing masks on Halloween? Of course they were.
Even in a mask, a 12-yo has the stature and physique of a 12-yo. I've seen some big 12-yo kids - but they don't look like adults, not even at first glance. I don't much care what face you want to put on it - it was remarkably poor judgment on the part of the shooter, and there's no getting around that.
If a cop had shoot a kid with a toy gun this same court would have let him walk, and this same reporter would be talking about a tragic accident and our post 9-11 reality.
I disagree. Had that kid with a toy gun been trick-or-treating on Halloween night, with no evidence of any crime being committed but the mask and the toy gun, the community would be howling for the cop's blood. The courts often allow horrid behavior from cops - but this was over the line, even if the shooter had been a cop.
Anyone who thinks justice will be reached by putting his man back in a cage is a fool.
Justice? Probably not available in any fashion. The closest you could get would be restitution, and that's not gonna happen, either. Putting the fool in a cage won't improve anyone's life, either.
Begin to break down? They've been going steadily downhill for my whole life, and reportedly, for well before that. The neighborhood I grew up in, with never a locked door, I won't walk through in daylight without defensive hardware today. But the state is not the only culprit, either - abolishing the state, while arguably a step in the right direction, won't be a cure-all. There are lots of causes and contributing factors - save some ire for them, too.
Danno, noting that his teen complained today about society's having gone downhill - in her short recollection.