> Greentext

7519 readers

6 users here now

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

738

Math (files.catbox.moe)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

100 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (4 children)

While I don't condone deadly force a mugger asking for your wallet first is probably not going to stop there and so it may be better not to cooperate at all. Magdumping seems a little harsh though.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

a mugger asking for your wallet first is probably not going to stop there

Source? That seems extremely counterintuitive

[+] [email protected] -13 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Common sense. Someone who threatens you and tries to mug you probably isn't keen on not breaking the law. People who are not keen on not breaking the law might just be liars. I'm not saying all muggers will cut your throat after taking your wallet, phone and jewlery, but a good amount of them might just.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Common sense is that people who want to steal the cash in your pocket don't want a murder charge, and the percentage who would get violent when it isn't even profitable is vanishingly small

The idea that robbery and "slitting your throat" are the same kind of crime is absolutely insane, what's next, if you jaywalk you're probably a murderer too?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

I mean, that's logical, practical, reasonable thinking there...but I don't want to have to hope and trust that someone who was able to think themselves into mugging me can be counted upon to think themselves out of doing anything else.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago

This isn’t common sense.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Maybe if jail sentences were based on a binary "did they crime?" legal test you'd have the beginnings of a point with respect to deterrence, but we'd also have to throw aside any innate morality the person has.

If you're also of the opinion there's no such thing as a crime of need.

In fact it's just a really dumb point.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Really? I don't live in a country with guns. If I did, I would expect to get shot at if I attempted robbery. How could you possibly be surprised if you got shot?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Much like this person being shot.

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/national-international/video-shows-encounter-between-youtube-prankster-and-food-delivery-driver-who-shot-him/3317256/

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago

Dumping a mag on a criminal alright. Reloading and dumping another one might be a little too much.