More thefts last night

[JB_AOL]

Originally Posted by Bigwoodsman

I disagree, take someones hand for stealing or being in possession of stolen property and you will reduce the theft rate.

If they cut the hands off of those who steal or were caught in possession of stolen property, crime rates would drop. I don't think you could ever eliminate theft, but you sure as hell can reduce the rate of it.

I wonder what the theft rate is in places like Saudi Arabia. I'm sure some internet wizard will be able to figure it out.

BW

We're talking two different things.

1.) Castle law allows you to protect your property with whatever force required, with little (or no) consequences on the property owner.

2.) Cutting someone's hand off, would be punishment for a crime which they are found guilty of.

I agree with you on #2. Yes it would reduce thefts.

Most of these thefts are not armed robberies, 9 out of 10 times they are already waiting til the homeowner leaves the property. So castle law would do nothing, aside from prevent those rare armed invasions/robberies.

Whereas #2 (increasing punishment) would definitely change things.

You're right, it wouldn't eliminate theft, but it would reduce it.

[wags]

Saudia Arabia is low - 2.8 thefts per 100000 people. (as reported to police).

Of course, Japan is close to them at 4, so not sure about the validity of your argument.

The Vatican reports at 0. I also question the validity of the chart

Cheers

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

We're talking two different things.

1.) Castle law allows you to protect your property with whatever force required, with little (or no) consequences on the property owner.

2.) Cutting someone's hand off, would be punishment for a crime which they are found guilty of.

I agree with you on #2. Yes it would reduce thefts.

Most of these thefts are not armed robberies, 9 out of 10 times they are already waiting til the homeowner leaves the property. So castle law would do nothing, aside from prevent those rare armed invasions/robberies.

Whereas #2 (increasing punishment) would definitely change things.

You're right, it wouldn't eliminate theft, but it would reduce it.

Castle laws reduce crime in two ways. The first is that people are less likely to commit a theft if they know that the victim is allowed to use deadly force against them, without fear of repercussion. The second way, is that thieves that are shot dead, are not capable of committing more thefts.

[JB_AOL]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Castle laws reduce crime in two ways. The first is that people are less likely to commit a theft if they know that the victim is allowed to use deadly force against them, without fear of repercussion. The second way, is that thieves that are shot dead, are not capable of committing more thefts.

I know how it works. But there's one factor you missed. 99.9% of Canadians (pretty much everyone on this forum) would wet their pants and get shot or shoot themselves if faced with an armed criminal (Let's face it, if castle law came in, criminals would also get armed) who has nothing to lose.

I know that's contrary to what all us hunters (who shoot at innocent animals) "think" but when you're staring down the barrel of a gun, being able to actually shoot another human is something very few humans could do (including LEOs).

(Here come all the keyboard warriors)...

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by colin455

Girls, girls, girls!
Am I going to have to separate you?
I generally try to mind my own business but this nattering is getting out of hand.
Ken is a respected poster who pulls no punches with his opinion. Good.
I disagree his feelings about civilian carry. Good
We both have opinions. Good

Stop whining and bitching about someone else's opinion and stop trying to dictate what others can and cannot do.

JB you are evidently a Liberal/NDP feel good, coddle criminal type who feels that we shouldn't be allowed to keep the property we earned if someone else wants to take it by theft. Good. you have an opinion.
I think you are very wrong on all accounts. Good. I have an opinion.

I personally feel that something needs to be done and a form of Castle Law should be allowed. Thievery is getting out of hand and there is little or no punishment. That is called Negative Reinforcement and usually leads to a gradual escalation of the offences as the offender becomes bolder.

Do I think my stuff is worth someone's life, not really.
Why does the thief think his life is worth less than what I earned?
My defending my family and/or property would harm no-one but someone breaking the Law.
Really, it's the choice of the offender to be safe or potentially be put in harms way. If injured, show them the sympathy they feel for those they steal from.

Good.

Good reply too.

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by super7mag

True story!! And I have heard it many times, I don't want so and so to have the hardships or work like I had to to get ahead!! Ya well that's why you have character if you coddle and baby and pave the way when it's time to step up it easier to choose grand theft auto lifestyle rather then getting up at 6 and going to work.
My opinion anyway .
I bought my house , I bought my stuff , if your in a bind I have no problem helping out. If you think you deserve my stuff because I have it and you don't , you might be eating breakfast thru a straw for a few weeks!! ( by you I mean theives not U personally) I think it's high time we get a castle law , because home owners are not the ones out looking for trouble. We should be able to defend our property and home by any means necessary in a given circumstance.

My brother from another mother!!!

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

Become a law enforcement officer. You want the perks without the responsibility or liability. Let the professionals do the job as they are trained while you hide behind the safety of your keyboard and yell at people.

Not sure where you get your info, but I never wanted to be a cop. i don't even like donuts. Not sure what other perks there are. Odd really when you think about. Those people on AO who are cop wannabes. Hope they never make the cut.

I'm not hiding anywhere never had a reason to.

I'm also not paranoid or a pot head. I have no idea what those drugs are you are prescribing, cause I prefer reality.

I hope you don't get any hassle as you patrol the streets of Paradise with your baseball bat and machete looking for internet trolls and assorted riff raff.

stay safe big guy.

[RandyBoBandy]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

I'm afraid it's not that simple.. Guess who raised those millennials?

^ THIS.... all day long !!

[redcoat01]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

I know how it works. But there's one factor you missed. 99.9% of Canadians (pretty much everyone on this forum) would wet their pants and get shot or shoot themselves if faced with an armed criminal (Let's face it, if castle law came in, criminals would also get armed) who has nothing to lose.

I know that's contrary to what all us hunters (who shoot at innocent animals) "think" but when you're staring down the barrel of a gun, being able to actually shoot another human is something very few humans could do (including LEOs).

(Here come all the keyboard warriors)...

Have you ever had experience as a Law Enforcement Officer !

[JB_AOL]

Originally Posted by redcoat01

Have you ever had experience as a Law Enforcement Officer !

Nope, but as mentioned, many of my friends and relatives are. And when they say "so & so will purposely delay going to a call to avoid a confrontation", tells me, I'm right, on my comment.

I fully respect what LEO's do, and it is NOT something I could (or would want) to do.

[JeanCretien]

Originally Posted by Opa

Looks like the gestapo are parked at Timmies, probably busy stuffing doughnuts into the doughnut hole and slobbering down their 3rd or 4th cup of coffee. A call out might cut into their valuable bs time!!!

Not sure what part of the article gave you that impression.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeanCretien]

Originally Posted by Rancid Crabtree

Why doesn't this article name the vermin ??

Because it would be racist to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeanCretien]

Originally Posted by Chuck_Wagon

http://rdnewsnow.com/article/531278/...er-man-suspect

A case of mistaken identity has prompted Ponoka RCMP to issue an apology.



One of three men arrested following an incident last week near Crestomere was identified by police as Miles Appenrodt of Red Deer.



However, Mounties now say the man they arrested and later released had been possessing Appenrodt’s driver’s license, and was pretending to be him while in custody.



Police say Appenrodt was not involved in any offenses whatsoever.



“The RCMP deeply regrets this error and apologizes to Mr. Appenrodt for the difficulties this has caused,” says Cpl. Curtis Peters, RCMP Media Relations.



The RCMP says it has now correctly identified the male responsible and a warrant is being sought. The charges against him will now include personation and possession of identity document, in addition to the original offences.

What a joke.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NCC]

Originally Posted by colin455

Girls, girls, girls!


I personally feel that something needs to be done and a form of Castle Law should be allowed. Thievery is getting out of hand and there is little or no punishment. That is called Negative Reinforcement and usually leads to a gradual escalation of the offences as the offender becomes bolder.

.

Negative reinforcement would be catching a baseball bat in the side of the head every time a thief walked through a door where he wasn't welcome. Eventually the thief would change his behaviour.

Positive reinforcement is when you steal and only get caught 10% of the times you commit a crime, are allowed to profit 90% of the times you commit a crime, and when you do get caught the punishment is playing pool in the reman center for a few weeks.

[colin455]

Originally Posted by NCC

Negative reinforcement would be catching a baseball bat in the side of the head every time a thief walked through a door where he wasn't welcome. Eventually the thief would change his behaviour.

Positive reinforcement is when you steal and only get caught 10% of the times you commit a crime, are allowed to profit 90% of the times you commit a crime, and when you do get caught the punishment is playing pool in the reman center for a few weeks.

nope.
In negative reinforcement, a response or behavior is strengthened by stopping, removing or avoiding a negative outcome or aversive stimulus.

[NCC]

Originally Posted by colin455

nope.
In negative reinforcement, a response or behavior is strengthened by stopping, removing or avoiding a negative outcome or aversive stimulus.

I should have done some research before spouting off; you're 100% correct.

[Red Bullets]

Loping off hands might not work nowadays. With today's technologies the perps would have new and improved mechanical hands they could attach thieving tools too. I say pop their eyes out instead.

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by Red Bullets

Loping off hands might not work nowadays. With today's technologies the perps would have new and improved mechanical hands they could attach thieving tools too. I say pop their eyes out instead.

I think that idea has been around for years. I often hear the guys at the coffee shop say keep an eye out for thieves. That might be what they mean.