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

[Scarim Coral]

Note to self- If I ever go to Chicago, always wear some kind of body armour. I mean seriously I startle by the fact that one resident had carry a knife with him!

I just think he over did it in stabbing the thief. Sure he is in the right to reclaim his stuff and self defence but to almost killing the thief for it is not worth it.

 

[Vault Citizen]

It would be great if this story spread, a cautionary tale of sorts for thieves.

 

[VondeVon]

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.

I think that between the very scant information in the article and the fact that the police let him go free, we can't make the assumption that there was any chasing or hunting down.

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

Those U.N. nation happiness figures are just looking better and better. For me and my fellow norwegians that is, not americans from the looks of things.

OT: In Chicago i won't blame anyone for wanting to carry some kind of weapon on him at all times, and as you can see he clearly needed it to defend his stuff and his "rights".

I expect it'll only be called a case of self defense and that'll be the last we hear. Unless the thief wants to sue the guy, but from there on i have no idea how things would turn out. Not sure what the Illinois policy is on self defense cases.

 

[Zeren]

One of the very few reasons I like living in Wyoming is the Castle Doctrine. Basically it states that if someone breaks into your home, it is assumed they are there to deal you bodily harm and you are fully within your right to use lethal force. However, this would have not counted in the fact he was on the stoop. The defender got off lucky. I hope that thief does time.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

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"

So, it's wrong to assume that a man that carries a knife and is able to repeatedly stab a man without incurring physical injury even as the fight spilled into the city streets (and not within one's home, leading to grievous harm as in the major clause for the British 2008 Criminal Justice Act someone was kind enough to post a story about), therefore, have any capacity for extreme violence?

The simple fact that the assault ended outside someone's home would have been enough to land a person in gaol in Britain. And yes, they would have been clinically assessed in many other 1st World nations to see if there is a psychological abnormality, because it sounds like an act of impassioned violence ending in grievous bodily harm.

 

[Mufujumon]

It's totally ridiculous that people are talking about right or wrong in this situation as if they saw it go down. Stop quoting situational evidence you weren't given.

 

[duchaked]

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.

I gotta agree with you on this. It's one thing to stop a thief from taking my stuff if he's trying to flee or throw a punch, but once he draws a weapon...well then it gets real :/

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I think that between the very scant information in the article and the fact that the police let him go free, we can't make the assumption that there was any chasing or hunting down.

True enough, which is what I kinda find shocking. Here's a guy who has shown a marked capoacity for violence, who carries a weapon with him and it ends up with near manslaughter on the street. I mean, that's ATLEAST a one day-er with further questioning if I heard of one.

 

[Flames66]

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.

If I had a knife with me and the confidence to use is (I have never been in that situation so I don't know for certain how I would react) I hope I would do the same. I would be calm and reasonable about it, saying something along the lines of "You can't leave here with those, drop them and go". If they did not comply and came at me with a knife in their hands, it's stabby time.

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

Note to self- If I ever go to Chicago, always wear some kind of body armour. I mean seriously I startle by the fact that one resident had carry a knife with him!

I take it from that that you do not condone carrying a knife? I always have one on my person but not for defence reasons. I carry it because it is a useful tool (it is a multi-tool with screwdrivers and such). If there was someone coming at me armed and I thought using my multi-tool would stop their advance, it would be in them without a second thought.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

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"

So, it's wrong to assume that a man that carries a knife and is able to repeatedly stab a man without incurring physical injury even as the fight spilled into the city streets (and not within one's home, leading to grievous harm as in the major clause for the British 2008 Criminal Justice Act someone was kind enough to post a story about), therefore, have any capacity for extreme violence?

The simple fact that the assault ended outside someone's home would have been enough to land a person in gaol in Britain. And yes, they would have been clinically assessed in many other 1st World nations to see if there is a psychological abnormality, because it sounds like an act of impassioned violence ending in grievous bodily harm.

Here's the biggest problem: We don't know the WHY as to why it ended up on the streets. What we do know is this:

1. Criminal breaks into a person's home and steals
2. Resident confronts him
3. Criminal pulls knife
4. Resident pulls knife
5. They fight
6. Criminal ends up stabbed.

Going from what we know now, I'd say it's justified.

 

[Insanity_Zero]

That robber is lucky he didn't take his sweet roll. Otherwise I don't think he would have survived.

 

[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.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Chicago, huh? I guess we should be glad there were no firearms involved. But more importantly: Who attempts to rob a home during LUNCH BREAK hours?

Someone with a job.

OT: As someone who knows a bit of Kali, this is the kind of scenario I think about when I'm bored. Kind of neat to see it happen, but yeah, mothafucka knew he was getting into shit when he decided to burglarize.

 

[aeontide]

Is it really all that weird that people own pocket knives? By the reactions of some people, you'd think it was a damn machete and that this resident was just looking for an excuse to hack some limbs off.

 

[hensethe1]

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.

And Faroe Islands!

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I take it from that that you do not condone carrying a knife? I always have one on my person but not for defence reasons. I carry it because it is a useful tool (it is a multi-tool with screwdrivers and such). If there was someone coming at me armed and I thought using my multi-tool would stop their advance, it would be in them without a second thought.

Just 'posing that a criminal has more proficiency with his blade than you do with your swiss army knife .. In this, the realm of inifinite possibilities that not everybody is Batman?

Just 'posing you're an average boy or girl, of whom doesn't fight crime in the dark of night and has fifteen black belts in various Far East martial arts and can kill people by tearing out their hearts through their chest. I think the most logical, and by far the most -common- (thankfully) rationale is to not go trying to beat down on people.

Let's say I do win the fight ... I get my xbox and tv back (huzzah!!) I've still put a man in intensive care with blood on your hands, and that shit sticks with you for fucking years and you never forget it. Conversely let's say I lose the fight, and I end up in hospital for weeks on end, and have to live with the multitude of health complaints till the end of my days.

There are reasons why vigilantism is frowned upon. And frankly, good reasons why law enforcement tells you that you should back away and not impede people in such a case. Things are things ... they can be replaced. And even if they can't be you're still alive and your conscience is free.

In either case it's still better than a measly tv and an xbox going missing.