How to fight crime.

[AntiBlitz]

1)  lol im not jumping up and down with joy because he killed him, im more or less patting the man on the back for taking the initiative to control the situation, and in my opinion yes, he was asking to, and was shot.

2)  Scum of the earth, my definition; someone willing to steal, assault, rape, murder, or any other act of violence that would put harm to or deprive citizens of something, whether it be life or property.  In this case the man decided to rob someone for a bike, a fucking bike, not a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, a FUCKING BIKE.  im sorry but i cant see how you can make the view that he was cast into bike robbery because his family is starving in a dirt hovel, he didnt run up to the man screaming "im stealing this for my children" like some sort of Robin hood.

3)  Why shouldnt a law enforcement official be allowed to carry off duty, all of a sudden they go off duty and they have to lock their firearm away in a container and blind themselves to the world?  you do know that they live within the society that they must enforce right, sometimes those people like to confront them while they arent at work, and normally they arent to shake their hand for giving them a ticket, or putting them in jail.

4)  I wouldnt claim him as a hero for shooting someone, but im sure in the eyes of the man who was just robbed at gun point that man is his hero.

5) Yes the norm of society does not steal, assault, murder one another, yes the normal civilized society of any culture on these boards dont do this to one another.  It doesnt matter that your countries society is somehow different, it was a general statement to society of humans as a whole.

6) yes im pointing out that you are a foreigner, because we have done these discussions in other topics, which lasted for 20-30 pages, and the conclusion came down to, European countries dislike firearm usage, and Americans do.  For some reason every time we get in to this debate, its "well he should have yelled at him first", "well he should have fired off 3 warning shots first", "human life is precious, dont kill armed robbers, only maim them by shooting them in the legs and arms", "guns are bad, they kill people", "knives do less damage", " knives dont kill people, guns do", etc etc. 

7) Criminals do not reform, as much as we strive for this Utopia bullshit that you perceive as reformation in prison, it doesnt work, why do they not work you ask?  because its the same shit heads that constantly come back to the fucking places time and time again, they never learn, they dont care to learn.  They sit in a fucking prison for 6 years and come out worse then they were, and then 4 months later bam, back in prison again.  The only person that a imprisonment sentence works on are citizens who abide the laws of, things like violent crimes and instead are sentenced for things like stealing/shoplifting, those people are in such fear of their lives that they would not dare do it again.  However the scum of the earth as i put it before dont care, they would risk life for the reward.  So in the end i guess you can claim its the prison systems fault for its failure, but is it really? or is it that the person doesnt care to change even when given the opportunity?

[zagibu]

This scum of the earth, is it scum, because it steals, rapes, etc., or does it steal, rape, etc. because it's scum?

[Sir_Hans]

Made this post and went to bed...

Woke up to 4 pages 

I can't believe how many hippies want to argue the value of this scums life. Like he was forced into a life of bike stealing.

It's not like the cop walked into a slum and found a criminal and shot him to death for little reason.
Cop witnessed an armed vehicle theft in progress, weighted his options and solved a crime. The fact that is completely took one armed criminal who points a firearm in peoples faces to take their vehicle off the face of the planet is the tastiest icing on cake I've ever had.

Again, If more criminals faced this kind of justice, people would think twice before committing serious crimes. I would very merrily trade countless criminal lives like this one for a reduction in major crimes... and I will cheer and applaud every time someone catches it on their helmet cam. 

Wish cops in California would get the green light to start doing this, I would have more faith in our justice system.

Is there a 'scum line' which if you cross it you should be hunted down and killed asap, and if so, who decides that line and based on what?

It should work like this: If you use violent/deadly force to commit crimes such as theft, you should be prepared or expect to be met with equal violent/deadly force.
(without the sad internet hippies crying about the value of said criminals life.)

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

Ideallya cop killing a thief isn't all that great, it's still greater than letting a thief escape with the property of someone else though, should've preferably aimed for the leg or something, but eh. If law enforcement valued the lives of thieves in the process of stealing something less than what is being stolen anyone could steal anything and as long as no one attempted murder they'd never see justice unless they willingly turned themselves in, you can say warning shot first or whatever, but really, would just give the guy the opportunity to escape on the vehicle he was stealing in any case, or he could've used his gun, and we would all love that, wouldn't we? The guy isn't a hero, he certainly isn't a criminal either, he's just a guy doing his job.

Teeth, do you have any reason to believe the hijacked is much richer than the hijacker (and his buddy)? If he's so poor that stealing would seriously help his family, would the hijacked guy who is probably about as poor as the hijacker not have just as much need for the bike? Is it fair to let him be robbed and seeing as that bike totally would've feed families, let the robbed guys children starve? If anything your statement supports shooting the hijacker. This statement might come from living amongst Balkanites, but is looks seriously unlikely that the guy was trying to feed his family, he was more likely than not just another dumb admittedly low income kid who wanted a bike, if he wanted food for his fucking family, how is it justifiable robbing people for their bikes when you still got a perfectly good gun and bike to sell?

[Vodner]

Is there a 'scum line' which if you cross it you should be hunted down and killed asap, and if so, who decides that line and based on what?

Lethal action should be taken if it is necessary to prevent the criminal from hurting somebody, to prevent the criminal from damaging private property (i.e. in the case of vandals), or to prevent the criminal from stealing private property.

If it's possible to get the guy to surrender without risking damage to life or property, then that should be done. If this is not possible, then frankly the life of the criminal should be the absolute last priority.

Take, for example, the Vancouver riots. The instant people started lighting cars on fire and looting stores, the police should have started shooting.

[Christo]

Take, for example, the Vancouver riots. The instant people started lighting cars on fire and looting stores, the police should have started shooting.

Like that never ends up with the riot police going overboard and shooting, lynching innocent people

[Bjord]

Riots are a completely, completely different matter.

Look at the events of Bloody Sunday. One small group of IRA members openly displayed hostility to the British and this resulted in innocent protesters getting killed.

Even in riots, there are always some small group of people who incite aggressive behaviour, and usually, people who partake in riots are not crooks and thugs, but ordinary people driven to desperation by social issues. Non-lethal force, sure, even highly violent non-lethal force is okay too, but killing people in riots is pouring fuel on the fire.

[Leshma]

Again, If more criminals faced this kind of justice, people would think twice before committing serious crimes.

No, they would not. Crime is prevalent in underdeveloped countries and has little to do with terror you put upon your citizens. Actually, the more terror there is, means people will commit more crime.

There's a reason why folks from nice european countries where crime rates are low are having what you call "a hippie" opinion.

[Kafein]

Lethal action should be taken if it is necessary to prevent the criminal from hurting somebody, to prevent the criminal from damaging private property (i.e. in the case of vandals), or to prevent the criminal from stealing private property.

If it's possible to get the guy to surrender without risking damage to life or property, then that should be done. If this is not possible, then frankly the life of the criminal should be the absolute last priority.

Lethal action is to be taken when it's the last recourse or as defense. I think the policeman should have shouted something like "drop your gun" before shooting, even if it's just allowing the thief to do so for a fraction of a second, and certainly not shoot twice if the first bullet hit. I can understand the cop's action in the heat of the moment but if he had thought this through that's what he should have done.

Take, for example, the Vancouver riots. The instant people started lighting cars on fire and looting stores, the police should have started shooting.

So how's this trip to Tiananmen going ? "people" is much too vague, as only those actually lighting cars, pillaging and doing damage should be arrested. The best riot polices in the world are capable of isolating violent groups among peaceful protesters so I don't see why it is necessary to blindly go for global violent suppression.

[Bjord]

They would think twice if crime did not pay off. Crime thrives hand in hand with poverty, yes, but not only "rich" people are affected by crime. I'm talking about gangs and other types of criminal culture that subjugates the majority of people in slums. Even in slums, you will find that they have their own economy; price of food and living space is affordable through work. It is not impossible to lead a good life, a happy life if you will. There are just some people who, through interactions with their surroundings, are shaped into criminals. Mostly kids, orphans or neglected kids who are kicked out into the night to beg money for their parents. This is a societal issue, but that does not make a criminal exempt from moral judgment. Quite the opposite.
I do feel sorrow for these kids, but when you have lost your touch with humanity so as to be able to rape, murder and rob without remorse, you are too far gone. Just like a gangrenous limb, it is necessary to cut it off before it spreads too far.

The more poverty stricken or the more contrasted the rift is between rich and poor in a country, the more extreme the crime fighting is. As is the case in the video in the OP. And even the crime fighters are sometimes criminals themselves, bribing is not uncommon in Kenya at all, or as they call it "finger oiling". The places with the most poverty rates are fucked up, no doubt.

I visited two slums when I was in Kenya this year, these two were Kibera and Korogocho, Korogocho being the more habitable of the two. In Korogocho, you had breakfast diners, furniture shops, motorbike repair shops, internet cafés, grocery stores where you could pay with mobile credit etc etc. The community of people in slums learn to support each other. It's far from perfect and their life quality is abysmal, but happiness is achievable.
In Kibera, however, it was a step up on the poverty scale. When I arrived to Kibera, almost within 5 minutes I see our guide chasing off some inebreated guys who were eyeing our cameras with a nasty look.

So I would like to claim that I have stood face to face with this type of poverty and it's a nasty thing, but far from all poor people are driven to crime. If anything, they are more inclined to hate crime than us cozy westerners in our social welfare bubbles. We just have more channels to express ourselves, so it must seem like we are more vocal. I have some Kenyan friends on FB who have happened to link a crime related news article or two, and the animosity in the comments toward criminals is quite scary.

[zagibu]

No, they would not. Crime is prevalent in underdeveloped countries and has little to do with terror you put upon your citizens. Actually, the more terror there is, means people will commit more crime.

There's a reason why folks from nice european countries where crime rates are low are having what you call "a hippie" opinion.

You don't understand. Crime is prevalent in underdeveloped countries, because they have a higher scumbag density. Naturally, this should mean that police over there should shoot more criminals as well, which DOES happen to some degree, but not enough to keep their scumbags busy so they can't evade other countries. So what you learned today is that police should shoot and kill more often, it would improve this world. Even better would be if not only police could shoot scumbags, but all non-scumbags could. This would lead to an extinction of scumbags, which would be cool and everyone could have more burgers.

So how's this trip to Tiananmen going ? "people" is much too vague, as only those actually lighting cars, pillaging and doing damage should be arrested. The best riot polices in the world are capable of isolating violent groups among peaceful protesters so I don't see why it is necessary to blindly go for global violent suppression.

All protesters are scumbags. They tolerate their co-scumbags to light cars and pillage, which means they forfeit their lives and the lives of all their relatives. And the lives of their livestock as well.

[AntiBlitz]

No, they would not. Crime is prevalent in underdeveloped countries and has little to do with terror you put upon your citizens. Actually, the more terror there is, means people will commit more crime.

There's a reason why folks from nice european countries where crime rates are low are having what you call "a hippie" opinion.

Please provide evidence of such claims, because that doesnt make sense.  Telling people you will cut their hands off if caught stealing means more people will steal because they're poor?  makes sense

your opinion is flawed because your comparing a country the size of one of our 50 states to yours, you cant make the comparison, so knock it off while your ahead.  Like i said we have made these discussions before, they always end the same.  Our views here, yours over there, like way the fuck over there.

Zagibu keep it up man, im getting quite a chuckle out of ur posts lol.  Like that cartoon animator in the paper making the funny pictures of events.

[Bjord]

Your =/= You're

[Laufknoten]

It should work like this: If you use violent/deadly force to commit crimes such as theft, you should be prepared or expect to be met with equal violent/deadly force.
(without the sad internet hippies crying about the value of said criminals life.)

If the robber shot and killed the biker noone would care about all of this. Just another murder with robbery in Brazil.
But when a cop actually does his job all the libmy old friends go: "oh my god, that poor young valuable member of society, shot down by a fat ugly evil cop!", "he was just buying skittles and iced tea!"...oh wait...

[Radament]

saw that on liveleak , the robber's gun seems a toy-gun for me but he deserved to be shot.
the bike's owner is a douche , he was like a scared girl while he was robbed and after robber was downed , he acted like a tough guy insulting him.