I have said it before, extremism begets extremism.

Watching what the radical Left has done to society has turned me into an extremist and I’m not going to apologize for that.

Yesterday, Miguel had a post with video of people stealing household goods from a store in Connecticut.

Today I see this:

This is all the product of extreme Leftists decriminalizing theft.

But there are real ramifications for this.  A small boutique cannot absorb that much loss.  That is food taken out of the mouth of the owner.

Watching this product of Leftist extremism has turned me into an extremist.

I absolutely believe that violence, up to and including lethal force, is morally justified and should be legal in the defense of property.

When I see scenes like these:

I believe unequivocally that a store employee should have every right to simply shoot these people where they stand.

Crime will expand according to our willingness to put up with it.

Society should not put up with it.

The government has abdicated its responsibility.

Criminals need to be put back in check.

Store owners should put stickers on their windows of how many shoplifters they bagged like WWII fighter pilots with their kills.

The word on the street needs to be “don’t try and rob that store, the guy who owns it is an ace.”

Maybe after the first few dozen career criminals with sticky fingers get hauled out of stores in bags, society will right itself.  But what we have here is untenable.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

15 thoughts on “Violence in defense of property should and needs to be legal”
  1. As comments were made, a lot of those store owners voted for this and this is what they got. As the stores close, the ever present cry will be ‘racism’.

    Honestly though, it’s not worth it for bystanders to get involved. Why risk your health or livelihood not only from the criminal but their defenders in the media? Get some news camera at your door demanding why you opposed that poor victim from getting what he/she needed.

    1. If I’m a customer in the shop, I’m not going to intervene over shoplifting – that’s between the thief and whoever owns the store. It’s a different situation if the thief is threatening someone with harm.

      On that note, I wouldn’t expect chain stores to have their employees able to do anything; rather, they’ll just close in the unprofitable locations, as CVS I think is already doing in San Francisco. Small shopkeeps and small business owners, however, I can see reverting to a service-at-a-counter model. It’d be a nuisance for clothing stores; on the other hand, a good return policy might make it workable.

  2. I was having this discussion with my kid the other night. In summary…
    My “property” is my life’s work to date; ergo my property is my life. taking my property is in effect taking of my life, both my past (blood, sweat, tears, time, money, etc.) and future (the same and more to “recover” from the loss. which in my opinion you can never do.)
    there my be a fine dividing line between what is and what isn’t worth killing a thief over, but I suspect that’s an individual choice, so hard if not impossible to codify into law.

  3. The answer to this is obvious: Stores who wish to remain open without getting robbed into bankruptcy will have to restrict entry to the store with a gate that requires the customer to swipe a valid credit card in order to enter the store. Whatever you steal is then automatically billed to the card. If you dispute the charge, the business owner responds with video of the theft as proof that the customer did indeed receive the merchandise.
    This will shift the cost of theft to the bank, once the thief refuses to pay. The bank will then trash the credit score of the thief, which will mean no credit cards, thus locking them out of stores because they have no credit.
    Problem solved.

    1. Hudson News and Amazon have partnered to build just this kind of store into, I think it was, Midway airport, at the end of one of Southwest’s terminals. I’ve not been in one of the dedicated Amazon stores, so I don’t know how their entrance system works; in this one, you have to swipe a card to enter through a set of gates.

      Seemed to work okay. But, as you say, without a credit card you can’t shop there. I’d rather not hasten our transition to a cashless (and thus 100% trackable) economy any faster than it’s already going.

      I was also thinking you could go back to the old-time approach, where you tell the shopkeep what you need, and they bring what you ask for to the counter. That might work better for customers who prefer to pay in cash.

    1. On your side of the equation, yes.

      Of course, on the thug’s side, the question should be, is your stuff more valuable to the thug than his own life? Having more call to ask themselves that question might go some ways to reducing burglary.

  4. “Watching what the radical Left has done to society has turned me into an extremist and I’m not going to apologize for that.”

    This, along with constantly hearing I’m bad because of the color of my skin, my age, and my relative success in my chosen field.

    One of the things I despise most about the Left is the attitudes they’ve engendered. It didn’t have to be this way.

  5. 100% agree. I’ve always thought that using force, including deadly force, to stop property crime is morally valid. I understand that a lot of laws don’t agree, but they are wrong. I’ve worked hard and earned for my properly. I should be able to use any moral means to stop them.

  6. If police are not going to arrest/prosecute surveillance cameras are useless. If I owned a small store I would be tempted to turn off the cameras and dispense some justice on my own. “Officer he threatened me with a knife. Oh sorry the cameras don’t work so you just have to take my word.” Better yet if you can just break their arm or something then let them run away and don’t bother reporting it.

  7. >I absolutely believe that violence, up to and including lethal force, is morally justified and should be legal in the defense of property.

    It used to be, because for much of history there wasn’t any kind of safety net. You’d just eat the loss, and often go broke and starve as a result. So people fought for their stuff like their lives depended on it, because they did.

Login or register to comment.