It's just a whole different philosophy. If the bad guys don't feel threatened by the people they rob, they will be less likely to use force against them. If we hear a burglar in our home, we europeans tend to hide and call the police, not confront them. It's the police's role to capture the burglars and justice's role to prosecute them.
The law protects everyone.
I mean that many europeans do not believe in the right for a victim to defend their property, ie. if they get away they get away, whereas a robber’s choices in America when the victim is armed are to comply or be forced to. And if they are caught, EU police will stick them in a cosy waterfront prison to play with iPads and eat Michelin star food, probably costing the victim more in taxes then whatever was being stolen from them.
I see the difference in the way the victim and perpetrator are treated.
If someone robs your house and you see them running away, television strapped to your back, you call the police and give testemony. You say what you saw and the jury judges on the merits of the case.
What doesn't happen, in a robbery, is the defense team lining up a slew of witnesses talking about all the times you left your house unlocked, all the times you invited other suspicious people over, all the times you sold something on Craigslist and all the times you Googled the price of the TV that got stolen. The defence doesn't use this testemony to show that you really wanted to give your TV away, and it wasn't actually stolen, and even if it was, weren't you sorta asking for it anyway?
I've never really understood this logic, if you encourage people to be passive against theft then it makes becoming a criminal easy and you will have more of them and likely be targeted again.
I can understand if you have a real reason to fear for your life like being cornered by dangerous looking people or someone who is armed. I have resisted muggings in the past and always walked away with my life and possessions in tact.
Theft is taking off with something that is in plain view. Burglary includes breaking in, and robbery involves violent force. Lawgivers the world over especially detest violence, so no surprise that the latter two traditionally attract stiffer penalties.
No - the idea that individuals are able to practically defend their possessions against determines thieves doesn't make sense in most societies where violence is not accepted as a normal part of life. Instead, most of us rely on the state to provide a police force.
Somalia seemed like somewhere your statement might hold true.
Its nice to think that people factor benevolent principles into situations like this. However, when people fight back under high stress situations like a robbery, it is probable that the moment is not about defending society; its about survival.
Statistics say if you cooperate, you're less likely to be harmed. If you decide to push a physical confrontation, then you're more likely to be harmed. If you measure the cost/benefit ratio to each action, its a no brainer.
The idea that it is an individual’s duty to stand up for their rights by using force has, albeit being somewhat romantic, no place in a modern society.
If someone robs you, the best way is indeed not to resist and let law enforcement and the judicial system to handle the case. This is ideally less risky, less troublesome and also more effective.
They literally are not. If I have my pocket picked or my house burgled when I'm out, I may not find out until later. There was no violence or threat of violence employed against my person.
Robbery and theft are legally defined as separate crimes. The former is treated far more harshly than the latter.
Your logic is strange. With robbery, the primary crime is the violence (or para-violent threat), and not the theft. This is easy to demonstrate: the punishment for breaking into someone's home in many jurisdictions is essentially the same, even if you steal nothing.
Seems like a matter of game theory strategy vs. tactics. If everyone were to fight back against muggers, it seems like there would be fewer muggings. But tactically, it might be best for an individual to hand over the wallet.
If thieves have repeatedly shown that "proportional" (i.e. nonviolent) deterrents do not phase them, what do you do? Let them steal as they please? Close down your stores? Ruin what could be a high trust society?
When people care so little about your livelihood and your cultural rules, violence becomes an acceptable deterrent. And people who take issue with this perspective seem to act as though thieves have no control over their actions. It's actually very simple: if you don't want to risk being shot at, don't steal from people. The majority of burglary and robbery in the US is emphatically not committed out of desperation over food and/or shelter. Welfare covers that.
And giving in to intruders isn't training them to fearlessly rob? Don't understand how removing any impediment to stealing, can help the situation.
Its hard for some to imagine standing up for themselves. They fantasize about retreat; rational conversations with thieves; happy outcomes when one has already broken all social constraints.
Finally, by definition, an intruder who's shot on sight isn't going to know, later, that you're going to shoot them. They'll not be robbing anybody, later.
However, I think that your average smash and grab robbery, at least in the UK, is usually handled by the insurance companies rather than the police. The police provide a crime ref so you can claim that it is a crime and that's it. There's very little prevention or follow up done.
I doubt it'd change that much if they deployed it here.
reply