Assuming you mean allowing them to use violence against shoplifters, I’m curious how far you think we should take this. Should we allow employees to use violent force to recover stolen wages from their employers? After all, orders of magnitude more is stolen via wage theft than shoplifting.
Whataboutism aside, in a more just world, law enforcement and the judicial system handle things so townspeople don't have to. And that's a great thing. But what do you do when those systems stop doing anything?
So again, if let’s say a waiter assaults their manager who isn’t covering the difference between their tips and minimum wage, that would be allowed? What if I slash the tires of an illegally parked car with an expired police placard?
The bizarre examples you keep bringing up are retaliatory actions, not preventative ones.
These are punishments after the fact. Nobody is suggesting to allow people to go around exacting punishment. We are suggesting to allow people to defend self, family, and property.
Assaulting the manager would not be allowed because it has nothing to do with physically preventing the crime from being carried out. Same with slashing tires.
Allowing people to defend themselves and their property has been done many times in history. It is, in fact, the historical standard, including in the history of your own community. If you want a practical example of how this could look, simply look into that history, just decades ago. Please dispense with these unproductive gotcha attempts.
> These are punishments after the fact. Nobody is suggesting to allow people to go around exacting punishment. We are suggesting to allow people to defend self, family, and property.
No, I’m describing crimes in progress. If a waiter confronts their manager while they’re they’re paycheck, that isn’t a “punishment after the fact”. They are defending their property by using violence to prevent wage theft from being carried out, in exactly the same way you’re suggesting shopowners be allowed to.
When the GP says “reasonable force,” that “reasonable” is doing all the heavy lifting. It’s whatever he considers reasonable. Let’s also ignore that “provable” is decided by the courts which these vigilantes are meant to bypass.
Doesn't everyone use words to mean what they want to mean by the words?? I seriously though your post was a defense at first. Why would their rule not protect you from liability also?
If it's legal it isn't vigilantism. Isn't it the law in some states that you are allowed to use force to prevent theft? I assume that's what they meant. Yes it has its drawbacks but I think the current pacifist course has us headed for 24/7 surveillance.
OK so we have something like this: Stand Your Ground laws. A bunch of states passed then recently and saw a large increase in shooting deaths that legally weren't proven to be either self-defense or murder, becuause the witness is dead. Now what?
