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

[Sentox6]

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.

 

[mcattack92]

Just hope this doesnt turn into a case of 'OMG, I ROBBED YOUR HOUSE AND THEN TRIED TO KILL YOU BUT YOU MANAGED TO SHANK ME, I SUE FOR MONEYZ'

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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.

I think in Texas its different, because if I remember correctly, there is a law that is called "a man's house is his castle" and by that it means, you can shoot somebody if they are trying to break into your house and steal your belongings.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

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.

Here in California, we're told to leave the house and let the thief steal everything. The only time we can show any force is if there is a direct verifiable threat to our life, i.e. they are brandishing a gun and even then it's still a grey area. Yay for human rights!!

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

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.

 

[Treblaine]

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?

 

[snakeakaossi]

Dear Escapist,

This is NOT gaming news. This Xbox just happened to be at the crime scene. It might have been a reason to burgle the place, but this news does not trigger a discussion about gaming. If it were a VCR, the article wouldn't even be considered, but the gist would still be the same.

I visit this site to read about my anticipated games and the whole gaming community around it. It's this kind of articles I try to get away from when I visit sites like the Escapist.

I am all for a good discussion and I already see a healthy one blossoming right here, but please keep news like this restricted to the forums and do not put it in your official news, it just looks unprofessional.

 

[D64nz]

Can anyone explain to me why the criminals have any rights once it's proven they are criminal?

I'll do benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise but if you steal my shit Imma gonna fuck you up. And I encourage others to do the same.

 

[Anthony Wells]

Not sure what to say. I think the guy overdid the stabbing since the cops were already there, but then again he had the right to since the thief pulled out his knife first. What makes me wonder is why would the guy pull a knife out in the first place.. when you're caught in the act of thievery. For all he knew, the owner could of had a gun. Knives aren't bad but a gun would kill you instantly over a knife even with multiple stabs.

Wouldn't consider an Xbox and TV worth the trouble. Save up a bit is all I would say.

well he stabbed him BEFORE police arrived. they found them brawling in the street after he had already been stabbed.

 

[Tyrant T100]

In Britain we have stupid defence laws that try to stop the home owners rights to self defence despite the Bill of rights giving the home owner the right to defend his property to the death.
I keep a sword next to my bed for that reason.

 

[bismarck55]

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...

When someone pulls a knife on you, it's not about your Xbox anymore. It's about sticking him before he sticks you.

If you don't want to get stabbed, shot or beat don't steal shit.

 

[VondeVon]

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...

Well if the thief pulled a knife first, then it was entirely probable that the fight was no longer over some stolen equipment, but in self defence.

If someone came at me with a knife and I happened to have one too? You bet your arse I'd stab the attacker as often as I could. Would probably alternate between blinding or lethal locations, as well.

I'm not trained to subdue an opponent, therefore if I can manage to get my attacker down, the most logical thing to do is to make sure he/she can't get back up again.

 

[TardStrength]

@PaulH
I bet you also think that it's okay for criminals to walk away with your shit and laws should be more strict on the victim, huh?
Also, you think that we shouldn't be using the law as a weapon? How narrow minded can you be? Police and the law don't do jack fucking shit, they only appear after the crime has been committed, not before. Are you just going to stand there and use the law as a shield while sick people take advantage of you, or are you going to defend yourself and your right to your "negligible assets"?

People these days

 

[D64nz]

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?

It's sad that color would matter either way but that is just another issue we have here. But this is no case, no decision to be made. It's one of the very few things the american colinists got right, you have the right to defend your land.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

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...

Insane? He had Skyrim to play!
But seriously yes I think he is insane. If someone came to steal stuff from me I would probably tell them where I keep my money then help them carry it to wherever they want. Just don't hurt me sir!

 

[aeontide]

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?

...

Surrendering in this instance could have been every bit as lethal a gamble. By not fighting back, you're trusting a guy who just drew a knife on you (and stole your stuff) to be using it solely to get you to back off. Given that the resident tries to scare the thief off with his own knife and the thief responds by initiating a knife fight... instead of running away... I'd say the odds are pretty good that the resident just surrendering could have landed him in the hospital. At that point, it's just a fight for survival. I don't see how that makes the resident mentally unstable -- the thief kept coming, the thief still had a knife and the intent to use it.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Well if the thief pulled a knife first, then it was entirely probable that the fight was no longer over some stolen equipment, but in self defence.

If someone came at me with a knife and I happened to have one too? You bet your arse I'd stab the attacker as often as I could. Would probably alternate between blinding or lethal locations, as well.

I'm not trained to subdue an opponent, therefore if I can manage to get my attacker down, the most logical thing to do is to make sure he/she can't get back up again.

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.

 

[lemby117]

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?

In the U.K they would have been fine if they were black, white or oriental, but we have a heavily anti eastern european and anti midle eastern attitude here,and that disgusts me

 

[J-meMalone]

So wait, the thief pulled out a knife in the foyer, and the "victim" pulls out his own. In the foyer. In other words he deliberately a) took a knife from the kitchen or b) carries a knife with him. Honestly both come across as excessive, especially b). And the thief was stabbed multiple times, once would be debilitating enough, the rest is just over-kill.

And people are agreeing that this guy was in the RIGHT?!

You don't carry a knife to that situation unless you intend to hurt someone, stabbing someone over a 360 and television hardly seems worth it.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Well if the thief pulled a knife first, then it was entirely probable that the fight was no longer over some stolen equipment, but in self defence.

If someone came at me with a knife and I happened to have one too? You bet your arse I'd stab the attacker as often as I could. Would probably alternate between blinding or lethal locations, as well.

I'm not trained to subdue an opponent, therefore if I can manage to get my attacker down, the most logical thing to do is to make sure he/she can't get back up again.

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 (and let's face it, this is what people seem to be arguing for) is a fundamentally broken system. The thief was confronted ... nothing wrong with that, but by the sound of the story it seems there were mnultiple instances where the resident could have broken the engagement.

I mean lets 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.

Actually, the thief is fully at fault here. I mean, look at it. He was the one who not only broke into the guy's residence, but also the one who brandished a weapon. There's a rule of weaponry: Never pull something you're not willing to use. Therefore, the resident could assume that the criminal was willing to use the weapon.

You are aware that "Defense of property" is something enshrined under British, and thus, American common law, right? Had the thief at any point surrendered, or dropped the stuff and ran, then yes. The resident fighting would not have been justified. But we've no proof that that's what happened. You're assuming. And you know what happens when you assume... You make an "ass" out of "u" and "me"