Reasonable Force

Reasonable force refers to the amount of force that is necessary for a person to defend himself or his property, without going overboard. It is especially important to prove whether or not the force a person used was reasonable in order to determine his level of liability for the crime. Hence why reasonable force is also referred to as “legal force.” For instance, a father who gets into an argument with his son’s baseball coach, shoving him with his hands, has started the conflict. If the coach, in defending himself, picks up a baseball bat and slams it into the father’s head several times, it could not reasonably be considered self defense.

If a person can prove that he used reasonable force to defend himself, he may be able to avoid being prosecuted for a crime.

If a person uses more force than what would be considered necessary to protect himself from an aggressor, then this would be considered excessive or unreasonable force. Once excessive force has been proven, then the defendant’s self defense argument is considered forfeited. For instance, a defendant is justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or severe injury if someone violently enters his home, and he believes such force is necessary to prevent harm from coming to himself, or to another person in the home.

https://legaldictionary.net/self-defense/

I don’t care. Like I said, in some states you can employ deadly force to keep someone from making off with your shit. I do not value those people more than my property. Straight up. I’m not deflecting or side stepping or mincing words. They’re trash and I do not morn them should they be shot and killed during the course of taking things that aren’t theirs.

None of that is “defending yourself”.

you sound like you’re out for revenge

They’ve taken the mask off and said the quiet part out loud: They’re just out to kill people they think of as less than human.

I don’t care. Like I said, in some states you can employ deadly force to keep someone from making off with your shit. I do not value those people more than my property. Straight up. I’m not deflecting or side stepping or mincing words. They’re trash and I do not morn them should they be shot and killed during the course of taking things that aren’t theirs.

I would once again like to remind you where this conversation started:

When the solution is “Vigilantism” you know the situation is fucked.

Not only have you shown you lied with your original argument on “self defense”, you’ve also revealed that you are a monstrous person who simply wants the excuse to murder “undesirables”. Dehumanizing others is an action encouraged by terrible people to excuse abhorrent behaviour, and they should not be listened to as their words and arguments are less than worthless.

There’s one weird trick to not being shot for stealing shit.

You’re just trying to deflect from my statement:
The criminal punishment for theft is not the death penalty, and you are actively encouraging vigilantism issuing death sentences without a judge or jury.

Instead of arming civilians for vigilantism pressure should be put on the government to deal with the root causes of criminal behaviour.

As far as I was aware the legal punishment for theft wasn’t the death penalty, but here you are saying a citizen dealing out that punishment without a judge or jury isn’t only acceptable but should be actively encouraged.

If citizens have a “Constitutional Right” to have a gun, why does exercising the right so often result in law enforcement killing them without a trial?

I have sympathy for someone who’s actually been a victim of violent crime, and it’s a shame therapy isn’t a more viable option. However, there’s a big difference between
“I was a victim of violent crime and feel more comfortable having a means of protection on me” and
“This might lead to robberies.”
“That’s what guns are for.”

I have no problems with people carrying mace for self defense. There are highly effective less lethal options.

“murder and rape are a fact of life.”

I’d just like to take a moment to remind you of how this conversation started:

https://lemmy.ca/comment/11978138

Oh no, I meant the consequences for other people when he misuses his gun are much more severe than the consequences for other people if someone steals from them.

The dystopian attitude is “you better be ready to severely harm someone at a moment’s notice every day, otherwise you’re just unprepared for day to day life.”

So vigilantism then.

So completely irrelevant to the topic that “Needing to have a gun on you just to be prepared for your day is fucked up.”

But consider the consequences if I misuse my gun. They’re quite a lot more serious than those caught stealing.

I agree with you completely.

Was my statement wrong in any way?

Do you know how analogies work? Of course the two things I compared are different.

That doesn’t answer my question as to if my statement was incorrect.

You’ve made an analogy about preparedness and let the assumption hang that that makes both things equal.

Just like saying “a fish swimming is like a bird flying” isn’t an argument that a bird would be able to fly underwater, saying “I’ve never been in an accident and still wear a seatbelt” is not an argument for “always have a deadly weapon on you when you leave the house” not being evidence of a completely fucked up situation.

The people with guns are different people and not me. Why should I trust them?

There’s also laws governing what constitutes theft. Your entire argument about needing a gun is dependent on people not following the law.

Was my statement wrong in any way?

If it’s getting old stop trying to argue against it by saying the dystopian attitude is necessary.