Thief Attempts to Steal Xbox 360, Instigates Knife Fight, Loses

[AzrealMaximillion]

Not sure if you read carefully, but it states, that the thief took out a knife first when confronted. So it was self defense, and the fact that the said thief sucked at knife-fighting doesn't make someone a murderous bastard who will kill someone over a sandwich. And yes, I believe that the law is fucked up, as in Poland, an old granny was assaulted in her home and stabbed the thief in the hand with a knife (she was doin something in the kitchen), and she's supposed to pay him for permanent inability to continue his trade (burglary). That's something that makes no sense. The other part, that it's a "tiny ass tv (...) and a 200 dolar gaming console", doesn't add up, cause he had to work in one way or another to obtain those, so none has the right to take it away from him...blah, I'm talking too much again...in short, they should rethink the law, so that the criminals are afraid of the victims, thus reducing crime rate, instead of people not being even able to defend themselves.

I would have shot the guy, then reloaded and shot again.

A lot of people carry guns/knives/what have you as a matter of course. Thats not that odd in america.

If he comes into my home and try to steal my shit then draw a weapon on me he deserves to die.

And really? a 200 dollar gaming system AND a TV are negligible assets to you? That shit is expensive! Especially with how the economy is right now, damn right someone should defend themselves and whats theirs.

Its really not him that needs to be examined, anyone who would let someone like this threaten their life and steal their shit while just rolling over and taking it are the ones that need to be examined.

I can understand confronting a person, I really do. If I saw someone stealing myself I would confront them, if only to get a better look at the criminal. But you don't at all feel as if when a knife is drawn that's when you back away? As funny as the whole 'you call that a knife?' routine, you're actively going to gamble your -life- for your tv and xbox?

The resident had drawn his knife ... -his knife-, so one can only presume thats when the violent exchange occured.

The Man also, presumably, chased the thief (as the fight was intercepted by police when both men were outside the foyer) where the thief was stabbed, multiple times and evidently the resident was not seriously injured at all.

Sure the thief is an arsehole, but this whole picture paints a fairly violent indivdual. And yes, it's negligible assets ... unless it's a family member, or someone about to torch your home or your car, it's a negligible asset. Losing your xbox and tv isn't exactly going to scar you as, say, a knife wound ... nor is it going to impede upon your quality of life.

It's a negligible asset ... if someone 'borrowed' my t-shirt and after repeated requests to have it returned, I chased the guy with a knife the next time I saw him you'd say I was batshit insane. You would say the same thing of a person who stole a hotel pillow because they wanted something to sit on for the long trip to the airport .... etc etc.

Be honest with yourselves, it's an overetly violent act ... one that has more than enough proof that it was not simply a matter of self-defence either, but pure vengeance for someone taking something of negligible worth. Question remains how stable the individual is, and wohether he can be trusted not to do something like this o0ver a sandwich, or because someone double parked him.

You're completely ignoring the fact that the thief pulled out the knife first. And after he was confronted by the victim, who hadn't had his knife out yet.

At that point it's self defense from what we are told. It's no longer about the "negligible assets", it's about a guy who pulled a knife on another man without good reason. And judging by the police letting the victim go without charge, I'd say he was within his rights. This is an apartment complex, security tapes probably had a hand in the victim's very quick release.

You're thinking that the thief was stabbed over the Xbox and T.V. when that's not the case. He was stabbed because he pulled out a knife and threatened someone. That's self defense if I've ever seen it.

 

[SouthpawFencer]

Property owners should be allowed to defend their own property with lethal force, if necessary. I do not make this statement in support of vigilantism, but for fear of it.

Most people respect the law because they understand that, while no legal system is perfect, that the system strives to protect their rights from people attempting to victimize them, and to punish people who attempt to violate the rights of others.

The police are, barring strokes of extraordinary luck, not going to be present when somebody attempts to rob you, either in person or by breaking into your home. As a result, trying to say that only the police should be allowed to detain criminals in the act is akin to saying that criminals in the act of a committing a crime should be allowed to act with impunity. That approach means that nobody has any right to any property that somebody else wants to take for themselves. A society cannot continue to function in the midst of such a blatant injustice. And why should it? If a government makes no attempt to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens, then its of no value to law abiding citizens.

Some people will meekly submit to a system like this. Most will not. They'll simply choose not to involve the police if it's likely that defending their rights will be considered illegal, and will instead settle the matter themselves, and that settlement will probably involve a six foot hole in the ground and a bag of lye.

So, in short, I'm glad that this property owner was not punished by the legal system for defending his rights with potentially lethal means, because it's LESS likely that vigilantism will grow as a result.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

But it's not self defence... and it's certainly a US specific case. See the one thing I don't get is that people think that vigilantism works if only because of sympathies for the thievery victi,, (and let's face it, this is what people seem to be arguing for) but it's is a fundamentally broken system because it sympathizes at all. The thief was confronted ... nothing wrong with that, but by the sound of the story it seems there were multiple instances where the resident could have broken the engagement.

I mean let's look at this in terms of other weaponry shall we?

Let's say there were some thieves who had guns, instead of knives ... you confronted them. They draw their pistols and tell you to fuck off... do you think that society would be better if it mandated you had a right to retrieve your firearm as they were leaving the place and take shots at them in a public place?

What about chasing them down with your car if they tried to get away?

If the fight started, and ended in the foyer I could understand. Even if the thief was dead I could understand. It was a deadly conflict between the unlawfully aggravating and the lawful aggrieved party. But that wasn't the case.

See now you've just the circumstances in your hypothetical point with the guns. In your point you thieves pull out a gun first and walk away getting shot as they leave. That's not at all comparable to the thief pulling out a weapon, then having a weapon pulled on him at that moment. If you're going to make a point by using a hypothetical situation, your point should be parallel to what happened.

Regardless I don't really like arguing hypothetical points because they usually assume that the same results would've happened with the change of something that made the situation what it actually is, i.e. guns instead of knives. We already have the situation in front of us here. And it's more descriptive than most crime article that pop up on the Escapist. Why make a hypothetical point if the situation is described decently enough in the article?

Hell, reading the Chicago Tribune article in the link provided explains it even further. Apparently the cops had to pull the two men apart. That means the thief was trying to stab the robbery victim instead of just leaving. This is a clear case of self defense.

 

[Starke]

They say crime doesn't pay, which it doesn't, unless you count being stabbed in the thorax as currency.

I know this is technically correct, but you make it sound like the man was some kind of giant insect.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

How exactly did the thief manage to have a "thorax" to be stabbed in in the first place? Have the beetle people finally risen to form the empire that will usher in the next great civilization of Earth and mark the downfall of humanity, only to have their victory snatched from them by the watchers out of time?

 

[The Great JT]

I love hearing about criminals getting their asses kicked for being dumbasses.

 

[The Funslinger]

Had this been in Sweden. The man who defended himself and his belongings would've been jailed, forced to pay a huge fine to the thief. And the thief would've gotten little to no punishment.

Hope the thief dies or becomes crippled for life. Scumbag.

Same thing in America, actually.

I've been told by a police officer that if someone breaks into your house and you shoot them, empty the entire clip into them to make sure they die. If they survive, they can sue you for everything you own. If they break into your house.

Then you plug him in the head just to be sure. Sorry but people lose their right to live the moment they threaten family, me, or my belongings in my home. It's ridiculous that they punish people for protecting their own property.

I'm pretty sure you can defend yourself publicly, though it'd vary from state to state. That's why people can get carry licenses for handguns.

No, not in my country. If he attacks you and you knock him out, you pay fines for assault. Not he, who attacked you first.

That's stupid. So are you American, or one of these Dutch and Swedish people who have these stories of injustice?

Really, some government officials need to be made to step down... from life.

 

[Darkmantle]

Had this been in Sweden. The man who defended himself and his belongings would've been jailed, forced to pay a huge fine to the thief. And the thief would've gotten little to no punishment.

Hope the thief dies or becomes crippled for life. Scumbag.

not really, the thief pulled the knife first, so it falls into self defence. That's what saved this guy.

 

[iLikeHippos]

Had this been in Sweden. The man who defended himself and his belongings would've been jailed, forced to pay a huge fine to the thief. And the thief would've gotten little to no punishment.

Hope the thief dies or becomes crippled for life. Scumbag.

Same thing in America, actually.

I've been told by a police officer that if someone breaks into your house and you shoot them, empty the entire clip into them to make sure they die. If they survive, they can sue you for everything you own. If they break into your house.

Then you plug him in the head just to be sure. Sorry but people lose their right to live the moment they threaten family, me, or my belongings in my home. It's ridiculous that they punish people for protecting their own property.

Not entirely sure that's morally correct... Something sounds off with slaying living people in the means to defend non-living items.

Self-defense is another matter however, although I doubt they will lose their right to live. I'd rather argue, that once they pull a knife at you, they have put their life on that blade, and it's their poker hand. They lose, they die. They win, they get to go away victorious. And those are the rules for such fighting.
If they are not ready to put their lives on stake in means to potentially kill you or anyone else, not ready to die, than they should never have resorted to a battle to the death; only themselves to blame, really.

Just my go at it, though. Fighting to begin with is more often than not ever right.

Morals are bullshit. And always subjective. He stole from me and by being in my house, lets say I have children. Yeah, he's burgled into my house. He's a complete stranger, taking my things. His presence is a threat to the lives of my children or me. The moment he entered MY HOME without MY permission. He has lost his right to live. Because I cannot sit down and have a long chat with him about his motivations and decisions in life. He's in my house, he's a threat and dangerous.

And with the whole "punish people for defending their own property and lives" shit that seems to be the running joke of western worlds these days. The criminals are more likely to be killed and put in a garbagebag and dumped in a forest, than jailed. It's easier to kill a man with an axe or knife. Then it is to subdue him. And those things I can own legally, while owning pepper-spray and stun-guns is illegal without proper authority. Sorry man, your dreamworld doesn't exist. Wish it did. But if someone threatens me or my own, they die and end up in a forest somewhere.

I believe, good sir, that you have mixed the conundrum of trifling thieves with murdering marauders, a lone-wolf burglar with a rage-induced viking. It's but my guess, since you're coming off as a tad psychopathic, as you seem to pose the same solution for both of them.

Thieves will enter your home when no one's inside and try to leave without creating a ruckus.

A marauder will bash in your door, loot your shit, and if you're home, he'll gut you and rape your wife and twist the necks of your children.
And, for good measure, light a cigar, look himself in the mirror and than light your house on fire with a grin on his ugly face.

I find your solution to be perfectly viable against the latter; the marauder. That is quite logical, actually, and not to mention necessary. One life in means to defend your family and property you wouldn't want to fund him with. And yeah, I do suspect that the conversation option is not available.

However, it's just psychotic to propose the same bloody solution towards the thief, as he's most likely to be more scared than you are if he'd find you home. He'll run away at the merest sight of you and never look back. Or, if he thinks he's in the clean, act innocent and stroll away.

It's 'The easier option + what is necessary' against 'The easier option + what is unnecessary' . The easier option is evil in the latter, but necessary in the former formula. But if you happened to have no qualms with neither, than who am I to dictate?

 

[Darkmantle]

Had this been in Sweden. The man who defended himself and his belongings would've been jailed, forced to pay a huge fine to the thief. And the thief would've gotten little to no punishment.

Hope the thief dies or becomes crippled for life. Scumbag.

Same thing in America, actually.

I've been told by a police officer that if someone breaks into your house and you shoot them, empty the entire clip into them to make sure they die. If they survive, they can sue you for everything you own. If they break into your house.

Then you plug him in the head just to be sure. Sorry but people lose their right to live the moment they threaten family, me, or my belongings in my home. It's ridiculous that they punish people for protecting their own property.

I'm pretty sure you can defend yourself publicly, though it'd vary from state to state. That's why people can get carry licenses for handguns.

No, not in my country. If he attacks you and you knock him out, you pay fines for assault. Not he, who attacked you first.

That's stupid. So are you American, or one of these Dutch and Swedish people who have these stories of injustice?

Really, some government officials need to be made to step down... from life.

I'm pretty sure he's wrong, because at least here in canada, if someone pulled a knife on me that's provocation enough to knock him out. of course if I knocked him out, then shot him/stomped on his neck, I would be taken in, because he is no longer a threat at that point. that's probably what most people are doing when they get arrested for "self defence"

 

[Substitute Troll]

Had this been in Sweden. The man who defended himself and his belongings would've been jailed, forced to pay a huge fine to the thief. And the thief would've gotten little to no punishment.

Hope the thief dies or becomes crippled for life. Scumbag.

In Sweden we may protect ourselves by rendering the attacker incapable of causing harm, but we can't injure them without any sort of punishment. Most people don't think rationally while being stabbed with a knife though, so the court usually looks over exaggerated self defense.

 

[Alma Mare]

Thief had it coming. Well deserved.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Am I the only one who thinks anybody stabbing a thief multiple times rather than just letting him go, over a tiny ass tv (Fits in a suitcase afterall) and a 200 dollar gaming console is perhaps a sign that the owner of said equoipment should be psychologically examined? The guy walks around with a knife as a matter of course, and is willing to kill a guy to protect negligible assets. And they just let him go about his business ...?

Ehhhh ... stop the world, I want to get off. Please tell me I'm not the only one who thinks the resident is batshit insane and should be examined -multiple times- for possible violent malignancies. If only to know whether this guy is the type of person who will slit the throats of any coworker that steals his sandwich.... please~ tell me this guy is now seeing a psychiatrist for evaluation...

Honestly, you make me sick to my stomach. Your attitude is more reprehensible, to my mind, than the behaviour of the criminals themselves.

It's far more than just the value of the assets in question: I subscribe to the idea of a social contract. Once you violate that contract, by failing to respect the rights of others (including their rights to their personal property), you forfeit your own rights in turn (like the right to be free of harm). Certainly if you pull a knife on someone you entirely deserve what's coming to you.

Frankly, what is and isn't an appropriate response shouldn't matter. We shouldn't be discussing what is an acceptable level of action to take when defending your property. The thief shouldn't be stealing in the first place. It's not a challenging concept. He's not stealing bread to live on. He's stealing luxury goods that someone else worked for. Hell, if he gets killed in the process, I don't really care. He shouldn't be stealing.

So long as the resident isn't stabbing random innocent people on the street, good on him. Shame on you.

one that has more than enough proof that it was not simply a matter of self-defence either, but pure vengeance for someone taking something of negligible worth

Please, do share this evidence to which you are apparently (quite solely) privy. I see no such evidence in the original report whatsoever:

The resident confronted the burglar in the building foyer, and the burglar pulled out a knife, police said.

After the resident pulled a knife to defend himself, the two got into a fight that spilled out onto the street, Mirabelli said.

this x1000

i mean, are you fucking kidding me "PaulH" ? please, put your address up so we know who to rob if we ever get desperate enough, because obviously your the person to steal from in a go to situation.

If someone was stealing my shit, and i catch them in the act, you bet your ass they aren't leaving WITH my stuff, and on top of that, they pull a knife, and i have one too? you bet your ass i'm pulling that out and taking every last stab at him i can, MY stuff becomes negligible for the moment, that shit just got real and the asshole is asking for it.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Now normally I'd be a little hesitant to applaud someone for running the risk of injury over something as trivial as an Xbox 360, but providing "multiple" isn't police-speak for "a thousand," this sounds like a fairly clear-cut case of perfectly justifiable self defense.

Erm...isn't it unreasonable to criticize the victim for "running the risk of injury over...an Xbox 360" when you yourself said that the thief was carrying it in a briefcase? And that the guy pulled a knife when confronted? The owner wasn't pulling a knife and leaping at him when he saw him carrying his Xbox. He fought against a man who he confronted as a thief and had drawn a knife on him. That's a basic fight-or-flight response for the owner, and this guy chose to fight.

As a side note, Jesus Christ, what kind of briefcase can carry an Xbox and a flat-screen TV?

 

[Quellist]

Please, do share this evidence to which you are apparently (quite solely) privy.

Because the story doesn't add up. The man was confronted in the foyer, when a knife was drawn. The resident just so happened to have a knife on him. In which case the fight proceeded outside (where the police had intercepted the pair) with the man not incurring any significant injuries (or atleast none requiring medical aid) whilst the thief ends up stabbed multiple times.

So let's say the thief engaged the resident in the foyer and was stabbed there. Evidently then, somehow the fight proceeded onto the street where he was stabbed multiple times whilst the resident defended himself?

Or the more likely ... thief draws a knife hoping to intimidate the individual, the resident draws a knife himself. In which case the thief attempts to flee and is chased down on the streret and stabbed multiple times. Of which of those two stories makes more sense? It also doesn't sound like a case of self defence either...

In either scenario, there is an adequate case to be made that the thief was beaten and the resident could have escaped unharmed.

It sounds like an act of vengeance and impassioned crime. And B: your rationalisation before makes a case for vigilantism, which I willnever endorse because it has -never worked-. The law exists to protect all it's members of society, and the second we start using the law as a weapon rather than a shield first and foremost we degenerate as a culture and we can kiss our civility goodbye.

The moment the thief pulled a knife REGARDLESS OF INTENT he took the game up a level and justified the response. You want the victim to politely ask if he intends to use the knife or is just trying to intimidate before he drew his own?

And while we are in the realm of your wild speculation perhaps the thief did attempt to run away all the while screaming "You're dead man, soon as i come back here with my friends we're going to rape your family in front of you then kill you" in a case like that i sure would have given chase and attacked...

 

[D0WNT0WN]

In UK I think it's different - reasonable force to defend person and property, but if, for example, you obstruct someone who is fleeing, then you can get in a lot of trouble. The definition of reasonable gives some problems as well.

Although of course it also depends on the jury. There was a case of a man recently, can't find the exact case because I can't remember the relevant details quite clearly enough, but effectively, family and himself tied up, brother or uncle or someone came home and released man, and they pursued attacker with cricket bats and beat him to a bloody, brain-damaged pulp.

Ah, found it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8469850.stm

I wonder if it had been a white family, would he have ever gone to jail?

Actually there was another story like that, a group of thieves broke into a farmers house and the farmer shot and killed one of them while they were running away, he went to prison understandably but the cops tried to talk him into changing his story to that they thieves were running towards him.