BF2S Forums Shoplifter killed over toothpaste

Remind me not to give you the finger on the road. It's also about common sense and restraint. Don't let your rage make you the victim just because someone else instigated a situation.

That guy is probably nuts. Why you would put someone you already have in a choke-hold, I do not know. Ultimately though:

lowing wrote:

THey ask why would you kill someone over toothpaste. I ask why would you risk your life over toothpaste?

lowing wrote:

...when you commit a crime you stand a real chance of fucking with someone crazier than you.

well i bet they won't have any more shoplifting there

CVS is screwed, they will be successfully sued on this one.

And the clerks should be charged with manslaughter.

As Lowing said, you take the chance of running into someone crazier than you, and what these clerks did was completely crazy and completely out of bounds... in fact it was down right insane... fortunately the law is neither crazy nor insane. They strangled the guy and if they kept the choke hold on him after he lost consciousness, after the threat of violence and threat of him running away was gone, then its murder.

If these CVS guys go to jail over this one, it will be a tribute to their stupidity, running down and killing a guy for toothpaste, now there is something for their families to be proud of. Anyway I suspect that if you did any follow up on this one you'll find that these guys will get fired, if they haven't already. In fact I may even write a letter to CVS and tell them that I can't shop at their stores anymore if they have a policy of killing people over toothpaste, I mean I want low prices, but not if those low prices come at the expense of someones life. it sounds so ridiculous to say it, but it really puts the proper perspective on it.


What's next... "Do you like low prices punk... well do yah...because this 44 magnum will blow you head clean off... so don't be touch'n that toothpaste... punk."
..just when you thought it was safe to shoplift

Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2010-05-10 18:05:17)

Id choke someone to death if they went in my house and stole tooth paste from my bathroom tbh.  I know how too

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You break the social contract, don't be surprised when society breaks you.

How Sharia Law of you....

i'll take Turquoise for the daily double please

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You break the social contract, don't be surprised when society breaks you.

How Sharia Law of you....

mmmm that's a nice dose of empty rhetoric you served up there

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

How Sharia Law of you....

mmmm that's a nice dose of empty rhetoric you served up there

I'm all for the social contract, but I'm not exactly sympathetic to disproportionate punishment.

Crime and punishment is not a zero-sum game. The results of crime are not of a nature that can be "paid back" to society by the offending party, assuming the justice system even gets a hold of the perpetrator. To maintain the rights of people that break the social contract is to either 1) assume no crime will exist or 2) accept a state where society will crumble in a relatively short period of time. If people think they can get away with anything and face at worst consequences equal to their crime then the incentive is there to commit crime. It is impossible to maintain order in a system with that characteristic.

That's why for the period of time you are actually breaking social contract, you are absolutely on your own. If you break it, escape, and later turn yourself in then of course it is imperative that limits are placed on the system to maintain the rights of the possibly innocent, that's what the Bill of Rights is for. When someone is actually in the act of burglary, rape, murder etc. and to extend those same rights to them as if they are a member of society is to provide protection to those that have shrugged the responsibilities of being a member of society.

That's why though he clearly should not have been killed, I feel no sympathy for the thief. As I would feel no sympathy for the man who killed him if another person tried to stop the man from killing the thief if he had accidentally killed him. When you are actively working against a stable society you forfeit your rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Crime and punishment is not a zero-sum game. The results of crime are not of a nature that can be "paid back" to society by the offending party, assuming the justice system even gets a hold of the perpetrator. To maintain the rights of people that break the social contract is to either 1) assume no crime will exist or 2) accept a state where society will crumble in a relatively short period of time. If people think they can get away with anything and face at worst consequences equal to their crime then the incentive is there to commit crime. It is impossible to maintain order in a system with that characteristic.

That's why for the period of time you are actually breaking social contract, you are absolutely on your own. If you break it, escape, and later turn yourself in then of course it is imperative that limits are placed on the system to maintain the rights of the possibly innocent, that's what the Bill of Rights is for. When someone is actually in the act of burglary, rape, murder etc. and to extend those same rights to them as if they are a member of society is to provide protection to those that have shrugged the responsibilities of being a member of society.

That's why though he clearly should not have been killed, I feel no sympathy for the thief. As I would feel no sympathy for the man who killed him if another person tried to stop the man from killing the thief if he had accidentally killed him. When you are actively working against a stable society you forfeit your rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Well, like I said, not all of us look at it in draconian terms, and I would posit that your assumptions are incorrect as shown by various societies that do not dole out draconian punishments nor accept vigilante justice but still have low crime -- much lower than ours in fact.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Crime and punishment is not a zero-sum game. The results of crime are not of a nature that can be "paid back" to society by the offending party, assuming the justice system even gets a hold of the perpetrator. To maintain the rights of people that break the social contract is to either 1) assume no crime will exist or 2) accept a state where society will crumble in a relatively short period of time. If people think they can get away with anything and face at worst consequences equal to their crime then the incentive is there to commit crime. It is impossible to maintain order in a system with that characteristic.

That's why for the period of time you are actually breaking social contract, you are absolutely on your own. If you break it, escape, and later turn yourself in then of course it is imperative that limits are placed on the system to maintain the rights of the possibly innocent, that's what the Bill of Rights is for. When someone is actually in the act of burglary, rape, murder etc. and to extend those same rights to them as if they are a member of society is to provide protection to those that have shrugged the responsibilities of being a member of society.

That's why though he clearly should not have been killed, I feel no sympathy for the thief. As I would feel no sympathy for the man who killed him if another person tried to stop the man from killing the thief if he had accidentally killed him. When you are actively working against a stable society you forfeit your rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Well, like I said, not all of us look at it in draconian terms, and I would posit that your assumptions are incorrect as shown by various societies that do not dole out draconian punishments nor accept vigilante justice but still have low crime -- much lower than ours in fact.

mmmm another serving of that rhetoric

What about that is draconian exactly? Besides of course the fact that legally we don't dole out what even by your standards would be considered "draconian punishments", and that what I wrote specifically pertains to the period in which the contract is broken.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

What about that is draconian exactly? Besides of course the fact that legally we don't dole out what even by your standards would be considered "draconian punishments", and that what I wrote specifically pertains to the period in which the contract is broken.

You're clearly trying to justify vigilante justice.  I'm explaining why it isn't logical.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm all for the social contract, but I'm not exactly sympathetic to disproportionate punishment.

What do Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau have to do with sharia law?

Well, for that matter...  what does vigilante justice have to do with the social contract?

Do you believe you have the right to defend your home? How does that differ from 'vigilante justice'? Shouldn't you call the police instead of interfering with the intruders as they rape your wife/daughter/mother/gf/dog/sheep/cow/goat etc? How do you feel about 'citizens arrests'?

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-05-10 21:23:48)