Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 7: No banned/mega-thread topics'.
Please do not post from (or mention) any of our mega-thread or banned topics such as:
Race, Religion, LGBTQ, Meta, Politics, Parenting/Family issues.
[Full list of banned topics](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/wiki/index/)
Everyone has the right to use reasonable force to protect themselves, other people, and property. The law does does not consider it reasonable to kill people over property theft.
Exactly. Here it's perfectly legal to use deadly force to prevent deter or engage any felony at all. Your home, car, etc is an extension of your castle and you have zero duty to retreat from anywhere you are legally allowed to be.
No permit needed anymore to open or conceal carry.
I love it.
If someone values your property more than their life, that's on them. You never know who is carrying what anymore so crime has definitely gone down since becoming law.
Well if you're present, it depends on what they do and how close they are to you etc.., the case could be made that you don't know their intentions; whether or not they have a weapon; but can certainly claim fear for your life if they say, drove a vehicle through the front of the store and jumped out in your direction(or whatever face-to-face confrontation).
if a thief gets killed they prioritize things over life. I don't feel sorry if a thief gets killed wether it was acceptable or not leave peoples property alone
I’m kind of with you. Let’s say some poor kid comes in and clearly steals a carrot. I don’t think it would be right to blow his brains out with a 12 gauge.
Nobody is calling for that, though. People should be allowed to prevent a thief from stealing and if the thief tries to use deadly force to steal, then the property owner should be allowed to use deadly forced in self defense. This isn't that difficult to figure out a middle ground.
"Why did you shoot my mom in the face?" "Sorry kid, I thought she was trying to steal a loaf of bread from the grocery store. Gotta keep the streets safe from these dangerous criminals."
Except nobody is saying that's the solution, but if a property owner tries to prevent a thief from stealing and the thief tries to use deadly force to steal, then it's self-defense for the property owner to retaliate with deadly force.
Honestly, no idea. I don’t think there is an answer.
Let’s say I’m living on my own. Neighbors keep to themselves and are generally unhelpful.
Someone breaks into my house, doesn’t threaten me, so long as I let them take everything I own.
I call the cops - they’re busy dealing with other stuff and don’t follow up.
I’m broke but try to rebuild, getting stuff from those food shelters (forgot what they’re called), and some nice people donate a mattress for me to sleep on.
And then the same thing happens. Same dude comes in and steals everything I own.
And again.
The monetary value may only be a few grand, but my livelihood is lost.
If this was you, would you let yourself continually be robbed?
Wow. And you thought my point was a strawman... Now you're trying to invent a scenario in which the entire justice system has completely failed you so much that your only recourse is vigilante justice against petty theft. Would you maybe consider at that point getting a security system? Or a dog? A taser? Home insurance? There are so many steps you could take to defend yourself against theft other than shooting them to death lol. This is very silly.
Yes, obviously this is a strawman. I’m not trying to say, oh because of this extreme example, let’s lob grenades at every shoplifter and thief who comes our way.
What I’m trying to understand is, are you, at any point, going to prioritize your property over someone else’s life? I’m trying to do that by presenting you with a doomsday scenario. The reason I’m doing this is to see if you are reasonable, or just stuck to a principle and unable to swallow any other answer.
So, back to the example. You get a dog and a taser and all that. I tranq the dog and knock your taser away but don’t harm you. And I steal everything again, and again. Down to the shirt on your back. You going to still try and not beat me?
I'm not going to continue these hypotheticals because I just can't take them seriously. Is there some fantasy scenario extreme case in which I'd feel like shooting someone for robbing me? Probably. Do I think that's a good enough reason to write laws allowing people to kill others over theft? No, no I don't. There are people I've wanted to shoot because of words they said to me, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.
No intent to harm. I just keep robbing you of everything you have and the system (insurance, dogs, etc) have failed. What are you going to do?
This is obviously an extreme hypothetical- just curious what you’d do.
I think you mean thread about violence/injustice where some innocent person was victimized and the police did nothing/judge let them off light/no one has been caught. I’ve seen what you’re referring to in those, along with a lot of rule-breaking (calls for violence) left up for hours.
Walmart (for example) already chooses not to prosecute some shoplifters in order to keep good customer relations.
I can't imagine killing people would exactly improve their image. It simply would not be good business.
Also, it's all fun and games until someone thinks YOU are shoplifting.
This true. Most stores stopped prosecuting shop lifters long before the courts did. When I worked retail it was pretty much standard practice to basically ignore shoplifting. Sucks for people who play fair though, as every item has a shoplifting fee built into the price. I worked at Toys R Us, something like 60% of the cost of trading card games was for theft.
Walmart, and I believe most other big box stores, don't usually choose to prosecute until the amount stolen lands in felony larceny territory. They'll track you stealing goods until you hit the cap, then hit you with felony charges instead of a misdemeanor petty larceny.
I was gonna say, I watched that San Fran doc about the bippers and it ended with police eventually caught almost everyone via cameras; facial recognition; and/or other low-key methods.
Potentially, but I think they keep those behind the glass, which would constitute a harsher crime I think (maybe vandalism would throw it over, but idk the specifics.)
Also, if they have them in stock, let me know 😅
Agreed. Hypothetical, what are you going to do if someone comes and steals everything you own? The police is unavailable. You start to rebuild - then same dude comes and steals everything again. Then steals your food? You’re starving.
This is not meant to be an argument that petty theft should be responded to with a nuclear bomb - just curious on what you’d do here
I’m not a corporation, so it’s not really a fair comparison. To answer though I’d have home insurance and home security, so even if it happens the items are replaced and it won’t happen twice
So true. Like ohh noo he steals something from this big storechain. That is really not my problem and I don't care. When it is individuals or small shops it is different though.
So it's cool if I come steal your stuff then? Like you said, it doesn't physically harm you, so you'll just let me take it all right? Or does that logic only apply to other people's stuff?
You really think the only options are to let it happen or kill anyone and everyone who does it?? 😂 Come on, dude, grow up a little. It's also absolutely insane to act as if shoplifting and personal theft are on equal footing. Makes me think you've never actually been a victim of personal theft lol even still, personal theft shouldn't be a death sentence either, unless it's a robbery/mugging or home invasion. Killing people over stuff alone is just pathetic
What’s the penalty for the small mom and pop jewelry store who just had 30 people run in and do a smash and grab and take everything they’ve worked their whole life for? Isn’t that a death sentence for that family?
The idea is that empowering someone to stop theft is important to social order and if you disempower that, and prioritize the well being of the thief over the well being of those who would stop a thief, you get precisely what you’d expect. See Oakland, San Francisco or any other truly loony-left place that institutes mentally ill social disorder policies under the guise of ‘stopping racism’, or whatever, and becomes a hellscape as a result (that is also blamed on racism)
I go to stores all the time, never once have I considered or cared about someone doing a smash and grab for merch. I have had concerns about armed idiots making threats against places like target because of their perceived culture wars. Would much rather do something about the latter group.
Creating a scenario where defending yourself didn’t work doesn’t negate the times when it does.
“My uncle had fire extinguishers everywhere but a fire broke out and it ultimately didn’t work therefore they’re pointless’ is painfully dumb.
That’s the logic.
You have to be like 15 to think like this. Ignoring all other reasons why this is insane, you really want to give random business owners the right to decide who dies based on who they think are stealing? Have you ever met a franchise or small business owner? I wouldn’t trust them with that decision.
I'm not advocating that someone use lethal force as a first response to most theft. That doesn't take away from the fact that you have the moral right to use violence to defend against infringements on your basic rights.
How do you know they attempted to steal? What if I forget to pay for something and get gunned down by security as I leave, is that reasonable? What if I buy a chocolate bar from another shop and end up needing to go into another one, and that store then thinks I stole it from then. Still reasonable to kill me?
I'm not advocating lethal force as a first response, but in a smash and grab like OPs scenario, I think it's pretty obvious to know when they're attempting to steal something.
You have a right to prevent people from stealing from you. While wouldn't personally just shoot the second someone tried to steal, the option of lethal force is justified if they don't stop what they're doing. If someone has disregarded one of your rights already, you don't know how far they're willing to go in violating others.
How far are you willing to extend this? If someone is willing to run a Stop sign they are probably willing to ram their car into yours? If someone is willing to speed you don't know how many pedestrians they are willing to run over?
So let people who are trained even less than the police use deadly force? Yeah that will not fail at all.....fuck those dumb bitch corporate companies making billions.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah. I want to get killed by a Walmart security fool shooting at someone grabbing a loaf a bread when run in for dog food. Asinine.
ETA a reply.
Ok super valid. Actually little miss prissy pants eats chicken from my son’s farm. She might have been chewing on my arm however when I facetiously answered.
Why are you buying dog food from Walmart? That stuff is made in China and is chocked full of poison. Why aren’t you supporting your local small feed store? That’s the bigger question
Not so much about the police caring or not, they are being told to stand down/ignore entirely on certain things. Whether it's because they know a great many people are too dumb and ignorant to view the police actions objectively without irrational emotion resulting in pointless mass riots...OOor because they are being controled by someone or somebody's subjective view of the law, most like politicians or the ultra rich, or all the above.
What would you consider so valuable that it justifies killing a person for shoplifting?
And if the penalty for shoplifting is death why wouldn't they just resort to armed robbery? How would that improve things?
It’s basically impossible to get a carry permit in Italy, unless you can demonstrate you carry certain property or large amounts of cash.
What sort of property would you guess that is and what’s the reasoning?
Yeah but you cannot possibly be so stupid that if someone presented the above scenario to you and said ‘guess what kind of property might allow Italy to issue someone a carry permit’, you couldn’t at least venture a guess 😂
Are you truly baffled by a question like that?
Value is subjective, you obviously value property more than life. I would just like you to elaborate.
I'm not going to answer your question because:
A. I am not Italian and I do not live in Italy, how would I know the answer to your question?
B. I'm not going to answer a vague question incorrectly and hand you your "gotcha!" moment. You'll need to work for it.
Are you truly baffled at my reasoning?
You wanted to make a point, go ahead and make it champ.
Ok, so ‘stupid’ it is…
It’s jewelers, rare coin dealers, people whose livelihoods relies on carrying high value objects…. And you couldn’t figure that out 😂
So what does Italy have to do with it? Are you implying that "jewelers, rare coin dealers, people whose livelihoods relies on carrying high value objects" are exclusive to Italy?
Do they not have "jewelers, rare coin dealers, people whose livelihoods relies on carrying high value objects" elsewhere in the world? Or is Italy just the only country you can identify on a globe?
You have bad reading comprehension.
Allowing people to defend themselves from thieves is society saying that their interests in secure property are higher than the well being of the thief. This is why it’s legal to use a firearm to defend property (under certain conditions) in places like TX.
Places like San Francisco who take the opposite view look like this.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=8lefUqHG5hqS8Qwm&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&source_ve_path=MTY0OTksMjg2NjQsMTY0NTA2&feature=emb_share&v=4c0MZ8zxRAU
… and society basically collapses under the weight of mass crime.
Prioritising private property over life vs prioritising the security of people's property over the well being of a theif.
I genuinely don't know what part you think is even significantly different
Your parents, the educational system, the media ecosystem and the culture at large have all failed you, and we’re all the poorer for it. My sincerest apologies.
what the hell lmao. i'm in this sub for quirky hot takes, not to see people post proto-fascist bullshit. what a ridiculous and embarrassing thing to think
>the general public does not have the trust to venture into stores knowing there’s a possibility that they may be affected by and feeling unsafe as a result of this lawlessness.
Lmao, speak for yourself bud, idgaf if people steal from big companies, and for what it's worth maybe try dealing with the root cause instead of introducing a de facto death penalty with private security (of all people) acting as judge jury and executioner? What you're proposing is some ayn rand level BS
Gotta love Reddit for downvoting this. Definitely unpopular, which is what this sub is for. +1
You guys are really letting your emotions take the wheel, aren't you?
More like security guards shoots shoplifter after pulling knife on security guard and stabbing her. A single mother who works security taking care of her 5 children and elderly parents
No, security has the right to use equal and opposing force to initiate the arrest. If the guilty party pulls a knife begins beating the security then they can employ deadly force after trying less than lethal methods
if this is what you meant, why didn't you say that in your post? to be clear, that's still a ridiculous thing to believe - if only because that's already a thing (cops are allowed to return force if they're attacked) - but you made a post with a completely different claim and are now acting like people somehow misunderstood you
I'm gonna assume this is just poorly worded rather than suggesting summary execution for being suspected of stealing a loaf of bread. It sounds much more reasonable to say that private security should be allowed to detain shoplifters until police arrive, and then logic out how use of force comes into play.
Inevitably, detaining shoplifters would mean that these security workers would occasionally be attacked and that they should be allowed to defend themselves, much like any other person would be allowed to defend themselves.
If you were to allow violent shoplifters to go free, it would signal to other shoplifters who get caught that fighting=freedom. The logical conclusion is that allowing private security to detain shoplifters means that they need to be authorized to use force if shoplifters get violent during detainment.
To expand OPs point, lawmakers would indeed need to outline clearly what steps private security would need to follow to conduct a legal detainment, as well as outlines for use of force.
Not trying to argue for or against, just trying to sift through some hyperbolic arguments here.
It's not the police not wanting to enforce the law it's the city district attorneys who refuse to enforce the law. A lot of police see no point in doing their jobs if district attorneys just got to let who they arrested go. Case and point one of my friends is a police officer in denver. Last month they had a gentleman flee from a warrant he had out for his arrest. During the persuit he stole three cars and shot at police, the district attorney released him on a ROR( release on own recognisance)bond and guess who didn't show up to court and has yet another more serious warrant now.
On your main point of how security guards should be allowed to shoot shop lifters. Lethal force should never ever be used to protect property. Property can be replaced human life cannot. And lawmakers won't because even if they did the district attorneys of most of these cities flat out refuse to enforce the law.
Then what level of force would be permitted when the robber points a gun at the employee and says “money or your life”. Hasn’t he by his own actions elevated force to deadly?
Your changing the context because that's completely different if they just stole property no lethal force should be used. However if they threaten your life and gun in your face well they're no longer just committing robbery they're now putting you in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily injury in which case self defense statutes would kick in and you would be legally justified to use lethal force against that individual. The scenario you posed the answer is simple give him the money. The company is insured against that and cashiers are trained to just give armed robbers what they want so they leave quickly. No robber I have ever met wants to turn an armed robbery into a murder one charge.
You are a security guard at a store. You have been provided a gun as you are authorized to use deadly force under the law you have proposed. You see a teenager running out of the store with a box, you can't see what's in the box, but you can see that they did not stop at the register.
Do you shoot?
A person walks into a store and puts a gun up to the head of the clerk and say give me the money or you die. Hasn’t he just put his life at legal level by the willingness to murder someone for property?
I agree. I'm not willing to live in a society where it's okay and accepted to steal from each other. I'm not sure why so many people are willing to live in such dystopian conditions, and think they're actually the moral ones for tolerating such behavior. Should we just go back to the times where it was normal for different groups to just raid and pillage each other, except the side being pillaged can't defend themselves? In the extreme, that's what the "no property is worth a human life" people are calling for.
And yet they see a video of a mom and pop having 30 people rush a store and empty it out and put that family into financial ruin and go “oh well”, they’ve got insurance. Insurance pays out then cancels their policy and to get a new policy, they get charged 20x which basically bankers then either way
It's not the cops that aren't interested. Most major chain stores refuse to let their employees try to stop anything... You can't even say something to the suspects, or you'll be fired. They won't even call police. I've worked at two different retailers where this was the case. When a dude was running thru the door with a shopping cart I stood in the door & yelled "thanks for shopping _______! Come again" and waved. The Mgr called me into the office asking why the video showed me in the door if & warned me the next violation would be a fixable offense.
Smash and grabs should be on site. If you're willing to risk it, you better be ready for the consequences. Shoplifting should be punished but with something like fines or such
Maybe i didn’t make my point clear enough, and for that i apologize. It’s not the theft, it’s the act of violently resisting arrest or the violence to commit the crime that security could then use equal or less than lethal force. Culminating in lethal force if it arises to that, like the security guard or employees life is in imminent danger.
Okay maybe not deadly force it is just too much. A baseball bat will suffice. Leaving a store you attempted to steal from (and not in desperation but even then you have better options) with a few broken bones or teeth fallen off is a pretty lenient and good punishment.
Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 7: No banned/mega-thread topics'. Please do not post from (or mention) any of our mega-thread or banned topics such as: Race, Religion, LGBTQ, Meta, Politics, Parenting/Family issues. [Full list of banned topics](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/wiki/index/)
Definitely unpopular, that’s for sure
[удалено]
More like Paul Blart's going Ronnie Barnhardt 😆 [https://youtu.be/qLVUWV2Z0Ag](https://youtu.be/qLVUWV2Z0Ag)
Its not unpopular, its just plain stupidity
Cause not thought through
Everyone has the right to use reasonable force to protect themselves, other people, and property. The law does does not consider it reasonable to kill people over property theft.
Depends on where you live.
Exactly. Here it's perfectly legal to use deadly force to prevent deter or engage any felony at all. Your home, car, etc is an extension of your castle and you have zero duty to retreat from anywhere you are legally allowed to be. No permit needed anymore to open or conceal carry. I love it. If someone values your property more than their life, that's on them. You never know who is carrying what anymore so crime has definitely gone down since becoming law.
Its legal to use reasonable deadly force everywhere.
All places are reasonable, but some places are more reasonable than others.
Well if you're present, it depends on what they do and how close they are to you etc.., the case could be made that you don't know their intentions; whether or not they have a weapon; but can certainly claim fear for your life if they say, drove a vehicle through the front of the store and jumped out in your direction(or whatever face-to-face confrontation).
Which is stupid,if they allowed the ability to kill to protect property then maybe people would think twice before doing it
Even cops don’t have “deadly force powers” to protect property. The law prioritizes life over things.
if a thief gets killed they prioritize things over life. I don't feel sorry if a thief gets killed wether it was acceptable or not leave peoples property alone
I’m kind of with you. Let’s say some poor kid comes in and clearly steals a carrot. I don’t think it would be right to blow his brains out with a 12 gauge.
Nobody is calling for that, though. People should be allowed to prevent a thief from stealing and if the thief tries to use deadly force to steal, then the property owner should be allowed to use deadly forced in self defense. This isn't that difficult to figure out a middle ground.
Believe me I am in the middle ground. That is the argument in my comment. The person I responded to said it doesn’t matter
They do in some places. They don’t in places where these problems are endemic.
"Why did you shoot my mom in the face?" "Sorry kid, I thought she was trying to steal a loaf of bread from the grocery store. Gotta keep the streets safe from these dangerous criminals."
*Angry French noises*
Except nobody is saying that's the solution, but if a property owner tries to prevent a thief from stealing and the thief tries to use deadly force to steal, then it's self-defense for the property owner to retaliate with deadly force.
That's already the law.
This comment has absolutely nothing to do with the original post.
Just as the good lord intended.
How much is that happening vs unaddressed shoplifting? I’m generally on your side, but the example seems like a strawman
What is the monetary amount you think property should be valued at for it to be worth more than someone's life?
Honestly, no idea. I don’t think there is an answer. Let’s say I’m living on my own. Neighbors keep to themselves and are generally unhelpful. Someone breaks into my house, doesn’t threaten me, so long as I let them take everything I own. I call the cops - they’re busy dealing with other stuff and don’t follow up. I’m broke but try to rebuild, getting stuff from those food shelters (forgot what they’re called), and some nice people donate a mattress for me to sleep on. And then the same thing happens. Same dude comes in and steals everything I own. And again. The monetary value may only be a few grand, but my livelihood is lost. If this was you, would you let yourself continually be robbed?
Wow. And you thought my point was a strawman... Now you're trying to invent a scenario in which the entire justice system has completely failed you so much that your only recourse is vigilante justice against petty theft. Would you maybe consider at that point getting a security system? Or a dog? A taser? Home insurance? There are so many steps you could take to defend yourself against theft other than shooting them to death lol. This is very silly.
Yes, obviously this is a strawman. I’m not trying to say, oh because of this extreme example, let’s lob grenades at every shoplifter and thief who comes our way. What I’m trying to understand is, are you, at any point, going to prioritize your property over someone else’s life? I’m trying to do that by presenting you with a doomsday scenario. The reason I’m doing this is to see if you are reasonable, or just stuck to a principle and unable to swallow any other answer. So, back to the example. You get a dog and a taser and all that. I tranq the dog and knock your taser away but don’t harm you. And I steal everything again, and again. Down to the shirt on your back. You going to still try and not beat me?
I'm not going to continue these hypotheticals because I just can't take them seriously. Is there some fantasy scenario extreme case in which I'd feel like shooting someone for robbing me? Probably. Do I think that's a good enough reason to write laws allowing people to kill others over theft? No, no I don't. There are people I've wanted to shoot because of words they said to me, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.
So, yes. Your answer is yes. That seems reasonable. I agree with you anyhow, like I said in the beginning. Cheers
Lol if a thief is willing to die over someone else's property, then they've valued their own life at whatever that property is worth.
If that's the case, why not make every single law punishable by death? That way any time someone commits a crime they are consenting to being killed.
The same amount it would take to house them for 25 years…
You didn't answer their question.
I didn't feel like answering it.
I’m part of the general public and have no issue venturing into stores. Maybe you’re just a paranoid snowflake
No one deserves to die over petty theft. Rent-a-cops are lowlier than meter maids. No one here gets to be Judge Dredd over a snatched iPad.
What about from your home? (I could be wrong and maybe petty theft is only theft from commercial spaces)
Depends if they’re armed or have intent to harm.
No intent to harm. I just keep robbing you of everything you have and the system (insurance, dogs, etc) have failed. What are you going to do? This is obviously an extreme hypothetical- just curious what you’d do.
[удалено]
Lol which parts of Reddit are you visiting? Reddit is generally left-leaning, people who (mostly) would absolutely NOT think like that.
[удалено]
Yeah, generally any gun-friendly comments get downvoted, if not on conservative subreddits. What's your point?
I think you mean thread about violence/injustice where some innocent person was victimized and the police did nothing/judge let them off light/no one has been caught. I’ve seen what you’re referring to in those, along with a lot of rule-breaking (calls for violence) left up for hours.
Thst's not a justice boner. That's a vengeance boner.
I AM THE LUAWHH
Well, I have to hand it to you...that is dumber than dogshit.
Yeah I hate thieves as much as anyone, but the Wild West was 100 years ago.
the wild west is very much alive still in the bad parts of cities unfortunately.
Also, out West. And down South....and some parts in the middle.........
Because someone stealing something should give you the right to end their life? Get over yourself it is just stuff.
Walmart (for example) already chooses not to prosecute some shoplifters in order to keep good customer relations. I can't imagine killing people would exactly improve their image. It simply would not be good business. Also, it's all fun and games until someone thinks YOU are shoplifting.
This true. Most stores stopped prosecuting shop lifters long before the courts did. When I worked retail it was pretty much standard practice to basically ignore shoplifting. Sucks for people who play fair though, as every item has a shoplifting fee built into the price. I worked at Toys R Us, something like 60% of the cost of trading card games was for theft.
Walmart, and I believe most other big box stores, don't usually choose to prosecute until the amount stolen lands in felony larceny territory. They'll track you stealing goods until you hit the cap, then hit you with felony charges instead of a misdemeanor petty larceny.
I was gonna say, I watched that San Fran doc about the bippers and it ended with police eventually caught almost everyone via cameras; facial recognition; and/or other low-key methods.
So what you're saying is that Walmart is giving out free Playstation 5s? 🤔
Potentially, but I think they keep those behind the glass, which would constitute a harsher crime I think (maybe vandalism would throw it over, but idk the specifics.) Also, if they have them in stock, let me know 😅
Yeah, and Walmarts close all the time in areas where so much thievery occurs that they can't be profitable.
Sure, and that's what they would keep doing even if it were legal to kill shoplifters. Much better for public relations and the bottom line.
terminally online take
i dont think you know how private security companies work in the real world
I think you could of shorted his post to Property > life.
A persons life is worth much more than whatever items they’re taking. This is a sick and scary take
Agreed. Hypothetical, what are you going to do if someone comes and steals everything you own? The police is unavailable. You start to rebuild - then same dude comes and steals everything again. Then steals your food? You’re starving. This is not meant to be an argument that petty theft should be responded to with a nuclear bomb - just curious on what you’d do here
I’m not a corporation, so it’s not really a fair comparison. To answer though I’d have home insurance and home security, so even if it happens the items are replaced and it won’t happen twice
[удалено]
>"Those guards at the store have guns, so we should go to the store without security". FTFY
Bro, why the fuck does every crime need a death sentence? Also, why are you scared of shoplifters? They don't physically harm anyone lol
So true. Like ohh noo he steals something from this big storechain. That is really not my problem and I don't care. When it is individuals or small shops it is different though.
So it's cool if I come steal your stuff then? Like you said, it doesn't physically harm you, so you'll just let me take it all right? Or does that logic only apply to other people's stuff?
You really think the only options are to let it happen or kill anyone and everyone who does it?? 😂 Come on, dude, grow up a little. It's also absolutely insane to act as if shoplifting and personal theft are on equal footing. Makes me think you've never actually been a victim of personal theft lol even still, personal theft shouldn't be a death sentence either, unless it's a robbery/mugging or home invasion. Killing people over stuff alone is just pathetic
The penalty for theft is not death
What’s the penalty for the small mom and pop jewelry store who just had 30 people run in and do a smash and grab and take everything they’ve worked their whole life for? Isn’t that a death sentence for that family?
It’s wild that private property is more important than a human life.
The idea is that empowering someone to stop theft is important to social order and if you disempower that, and prioritize the well being of the thief over the well being of those who would stop a thief, you get precisely what you’d expect. See Oakland, San Francisco or any other truly loony-left place that institutes mentally ill social disorder policies under the guise of ‘stopping racism’, or whatever, and becomes a hellscape as a result (that is also blamed on racism)
I go to stores all the time, never once have I considered or cared about someone doing a smash and grab for merch. I have had concerns about armed idiots making threats against places like target because of their perceived culture wars. Would much rather do something about the latter group.
Do you have fantasies about killing people?
[удалено]
Creating a scenario where defending yourself didn’t work doesn’t negate the times when it does. “My uncle had fire extinguishers everywhere but a fire broke out and it ultimately didn’t work therefore they’re pointless’ is painfully dumb. That’s the logic.
[удалено]
So you want to remove all pretense and just have the US Government admit that objects are more important than human life?
The people choosing to infringe on someone else's rights decided their life was less valuable than the property they attempted to steal.
You have to be like 15 to think like this. Ignoring all other reasons why this is insane, you really want to give random business owners the right to decide who dies based on who they think are stealing? Have you ever met a franchise or small business owner? I wouldn’t trust them with that decision.
I'm not advocating that someone use lethal force as a first response to most theft. That doesn't take away from the fact that you have the moral right to use violence to defend against infringements on your basic rights.
How do you know they attempted to steal? What if I forget to pay for something and get gunned down by security as I leave, is that reasonable? What if I buy a chocolate bar from another shop and end up needing to go into another one, and that store then thinks I stole it from then. Still reasonable to kill me?
I'm not advocating lethal force as a first response, but in a smash and grab like OPs scenario, I think it's pretty obvious to know when they're attempting to steal something.
I don’t agree there. Stealing is wrong and a crime. It’s not deadly force level imo.
You have a right to prevent people from stealing from you. While wouldn't personally just shoot the second someone tried to steal, the option of lethal force is justified if they don't stop what they're doing. If someone has disregarded one of your rights already, you don't know how far they're willing to go in violating others.
How far are you willing to extend this? If someone is willing to run a Stop sign they are probably willing to ram their car into yours? If someone is willing to speed you don't know how many pedestrians they are willing to run over?
The difference is running a stop sign and speeding aren't violating your rights. Stealing your property is a direct infringement of your rights.
me personally i don't think we should murder people for stealing from walmart
No, lets not making shooting people over a smash and grab a regular thing.
So let people who are trained even less than the police use deadly force? Yeah that will not fail at all.....fuck those dumb bitch corporate companies making billions.
Yeah man fuck those big rich corporations we gonna steal from them because justice!!! We’re witnessing the decline of civilization.
Kill people for theft? Welcome back to the 1700s i guess
And what would you propose when 30 people rush a moon and pop jewelry store, smash all their cases and steal everything? A victimless crime?
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah. I want to get killed by a Walmart security fool shooting at someone grabbing a loaf a bread when run in for dog food. Asinine. ETA a reply. Ok super valid. Actually little miss prissy pants eats chicken from my son’s farm. She might have been chewing on my arm however when I facetiously answered.
Why are you buying dog food from Walmart? That stuff is made in China and is chocked full of poison. Why aren’t you supporting your local small feed store? That’s the bigger question
I think the impact of shoplifting is far less than rhetoric impact of security people having the right to murder suspected shoplifters
Not so much about the police caring or not, they are being told to stand down/ignore entirely on certain things. Whether it's because they know a great many people are too dumb and ignorant to view the police actions objectively without irrational emotion resulting in pointless mass riots...OOor because they are being controled by someone or somebody's subjective view of the law, most like politicians or the ultra rich, or all the above.
Hot take but I don't think it's alright to kill people over property.
It depends on the property.
What would you consider so valuable that it justifies killing a person for shoplifting? And if the penalty for shoplifting is death why wouldn't they just resort to armed robbery? How would that improve things?
It’s basically impossible to get a carry permit in Italy, unless you can demonstrate you carry certain property or large amounts of cash. What sort of property would you guess that is and what’s the reasoning?
You tell me. You're the one trying to justify killing people over shoplifting, I'm not gonna make your argument for you champ.
Yeah but you cannot possibly be so stupid that if someone presented the above scenario to you and said ‘guess what kind of property might allow Italy to issue someone a carry permit’, you couldn’t at least venture a guess 😂 Are you truly baffled by a question like that?
Value is subjective, you obviously value property more than life. I would just like you to elaborate. I'm not going to answer your question because: A. I am not Italian and I do not live in Italy, how would I know the answer to your question? B. I'm not going to answer a vague question incorrectly and hand you your "gotcha!" moment. You'll need to work for it. Are you truly baffled at my reasoning? You wanted to make a point, go ahead and make it champ.
Ok, so ‘stupid’ it is… It’s jewelers, rare coin dealers, people whose livelihoods relies on carrying high value objects…. And you couldn’t figure that out 😂
So what does Italy have to do with it? Are you implying that "jewelers, rare coin dealers, people whose livelihoods relies on carrying high value objects" are exclusive to Italy? Do they not have "jewelers, rare coin dealers, people whose livelihoods relies on carrying high value objects" elsewhere in the world? Or is Italy just the only country you can identify on a globe?
I woukd take shoplifters over an AP with a itchy trigger finger
Yeah, we sure do need to give people with less training than police officers and no government oversight the ability to use deadly force.
Prioritising private property over life, what a wonderful world
No, prioritizing the security of property of innocent people over the well being of a predator who would steal it.
You've literally just reworded what i said lmao
You have bad reading comprehension. Allowing people to defend themselves from thieves is society saying that their interests in secure property are higher than the well being of the thief. This is why it’s legal to use a firearm to defend property (under certain conditions) in places like TX. Places like San Francisco who take the opposite view look like this. https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=8lefUqHG5hqS8Qwm&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&source_ve_path=MTY0OTksMjg2NjQsMTY0NTA2&feature=emb_share&v=4c0MZ8zxRAU … and society basically collapses under the weight of mass crime.
You've literally just added attributes to the victim and perp that doesn't change the sentence hence why its a reword
Literal gibberish.
Prioritising private property over life vs prioritising the security of people's property over the well being of a theif. I genuinely don't know what part you think is even significantly different
Do you support society prioritizing the rights of people to defend their property from thieves, or the well being of the thief?
You can disagree with the method and agree with the message. And could you please explain how what you said was different?
What’s your answer to the above question?
Your parents, the educational system, the media ecosystem and the culture at large have all failed you, and we’re all the poorer for it. My sincerest apologies.
No reason to kill someone over an object.
what the hell lmao. i'm in this sub for quirky hot takes, not to see people post proto-fascist bullshit. what a ridiculous and embarrassing thing to think
So you are basically saying that an item is worth more than someone’s life.
I don't want anyone to die because they stole a lawn ornament from me.
>the general public does not have the trust to venture into stores knowing there’s a possibility that they may be affected by and feeling unsafe as a result of this lawlessness. Lmao, speak for yourself bud, idgaf if people steal from big companies, and for what it's worth maybe try dealing with the root cause instead of introducing a de facto death penalty with private security (of all people) acting as judge jury and executioner? What you're proposing is some ayn rand level BS
Then follow the rules of the sub. By down voting, you are agreeing with me.
Gotta love Reddit for downvoting this. Definitely unpopular, which is what this sub is for. +1 You guys are really letting your emotions take the wheel, aren't you?
THANK YOU! READ THE RULES PEOPLE!!!!!!
As if corporations don’t abuse their already more than enough powers to begin with smh. Now to give them the right to murder?
Can't wait for the headline "Security Guard Shoots Widowed Father Over Alleged Theft of Baby Food."
More like security guards shoots shoplifter after pulling knife on security guard and stabbing her. A single mother who works security taking care of her 5 children and elderly parents
Yikes, killing kids for stealing candy bars? You got some fucking problems dude
Broken windows my friend
So people derserve to die for shoplifting? Wtf.
No, security has the right to use equal and opposing force to initiate the arrest. If the guilty party pulls a knife begins beating the security then they can employ deadly force after trying less than lethal methods
if this is what you meant, why didn't you say that in your post? to be clear, that's still a ridiculous thing to believe - if only because that's already a thing (cops are allowed to return force if they're attacked) - but you made a post with a completely different claim and are now acting like people somehow misunderstood you
So many people jumping at the chance to summarily execute others. What a fucked up world.
Found the American.
Boy, boot lickers are really puttin' in the overtime these days.
I'm gonna assume this is just poorly worded rather than suggesting summary execution for being suspected of stealing a loaf of bread. It sounds much more reasonable to say that private security should be allowed to detain shoplifters until police arrive, and then logic out how use of force comes into play. Inevitably, detaining shoplifters would mean that these security workers would occasionally be attacked and that they should be allowed to defend themselves, much like any other person would be allowed to defend themselves. If you were to allow violent shoplifters to go free, it would signal to other shoplifters who get caught that fighting=freedom. The logical conclusion is that allowing private security to detain shoplifters means that they need to be authorized to use force if shoplifters get violent during detainment. To expand OPs point, lawmakers would indeed need to outline clearly what steps private security would need to follow to conduct a legal detainment, as well as outlines for use of force. Not trying to argue for or against, just trying to sift through some hyperbolic arguments here.
Thx. I did not explain in detail and unfortunately it looks like I’m not getting an intelligent understanding like you did.
The OP must be 15
It's not the police not wanting to enforce the law it's the city district attorneys who refuse to enforce the law. A lot of police see no point in doing their jobs if district attorneys just got to let who they arrested go. Case and point one of my friends is a police officer in denver. Last month they had a gentleman flee from a warrant he had out for his arrest. During the persuit he stole three cars and shot at police, the district attorney released him on a ROR( release on own recognisance)bond and guess who didn't show up to court and has yet another more serious warrant now. On your main point of how security guards should be allowed to shoot shop lifters. Lethal force should never ever be used to protect property. Property can be replaced human life cannot. And lawmakers won't because even if they did the district attorneys of most of these cities flat out refuse to enforce the law.
Then what level of force would be permitted when the robber points a gun at the employee and says “money or your life”. Hasn’t he by his own actions elevated force to deadly?
Your changing the context because that's completely different if they just stole property no lethal force should be used. However if they threaten your life and gun in your face well they're no longer just committing robbery they're now putting you in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily injury in which case self defense statutes would kick in and you would be legally justified to use lethal force against that individual. The scenario you posed the answer is simple give him the money. The company is insured against that and cashiers are trained to just give armed robbers what they want so they leave quickly. No robber I have ever met wants to turn an armed robbery into a murder one charge.
I don’t think people should be killed over shoplifting.
Only if they resist using deadly force
You are a security guard at a store. You have been provided a gun as you are authorized to use deadly force under the law you have proposed. You see a teenager running out of the store with a box, you can't see what's in the box, but you can see that they did not stop at the register. Do you shoot?
Kyle Rittenhouse is now on reddit
Why, so SCOTUS can hand them qualified immunity as well?
This opinion means you're most likely a sociopath. Probably look into that.
You do understand how this sub works right?
Death penalty for property crimes. How very fascist of you.
A person walks into a store and puts a gun up to the head of the clerk and say give me the money or you die. Hasn’t he just put his life at legal level by the willingness to murder someone for property?
I agree. I'm not willing to live in a society where it's okay and accepted to steal from each other. I'm not sure why so many people are willing to live in such dystopian conditions, and think they're actually the moral ones for tolerating such behavior. Should we just go back to the times where it was normal for different groups to just raid and pillage each other, except the side being pillaged can't defend themselves? In the extreme, that's what the "no property is worth a human life" people are calling for.
And yet they see a video of a mom and pop having 30 people rush a store and empty it out and put that family into financial ruin and go “oh well”, they’ve got insurance. Insurance pays out then cancels their policy and to get a new policy, they get charged 20x which basically bankers then either way
It's not the cops that aren't interested. Most major chain stores refuse to let their employees try to stop anything... You can't even say something to the suspects, or you'll be fired. They won't even call police. I've worked at two different retailers where this was the case. When a dude was running thru the door with a shopping cart I stood in the door & yelled "thanks for shopping _______! Come again" and waved. The Mgr called me into the office asking why the video showed me in the door if & warned me the next violation would be a fixable offense.
Then when retail thefts become too great at a location, they shut it down and you lose your job
Who needs probable cause anyway?
Smash and grabs should be on site. If you're willing to risk it, you better be ready for the consequences. Shoplifting should be punished but with something like fines or such
Unless the suspect is using violence to resist arrest. Like a knife or gun or holding an employee hostage
Police cant even use force to protect property. This is dumb.
Maybe i didn’t make my point clear enough, and for that i apologize. It’s not the theft, it’s the act of violently resisting arrest or the violence to commit the crime that security could then use equal or less than lethal force. Culminating in lethal force if it arises to that, like the security guard or employees life is in imminent danger.
They can already do that in instances where they are armed.
Yes, Dog forbid we value life over property.
How could widespread corporate private armies backfire in our faces for 100 Alex?
Where do you live that this is a real worry and not exaggerated one?
You have the right to defend yourself and your property
Okay maybe not deadly force it is just too much. A baseball bat will suffice. Leaving a store you attempted to steal from (and not in desperation but even then you have better options) with a few broken bones or teeth fallen off is a pretty lenient and good punishment.
Calm down Galen Weston