Which dollar amount precisely do you place on a human life? Or to put that differently, at which dollar amount is suspected theft punishable by death?

Unpopular answer here, but: seems like the criminal decides that when they make the decision to risk their life to steal a given dollar amount.

Like...I get why we have a legal system and the channels to "resolve" this sort of thing, but for me personally, as someone who's not creating policy or managing the justice system?

Fuck em.

If they're stealing shit by force, and someone they've victimized ends up turning them into a grease spot, they shouldn't spend even a single day in jail or face any charge.

[–] MonkRome@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So does the victim by choosing to retaliate over that dollar amount. Had he been shot, he also placed that same value on his own life.

[–] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Three counter points:

First, the two robbers would have not been shot by the victim had they not threatened and stole from the victim in the first place, meaning their decision to visit violent crime on the victim is still the precipitating event.

Second, the victim here is responding after the criminals decided to both commit a crime as well as to escalate the stakes of that crime to life and death. The victim, given the choice only between being victimized and responding on the terms they set, chose the latter.

Third, your last sentence is a wildly warped view, only tenable by a completely disconnected third party spectator and ridiculously impractical in the situation. It takes a severely out of touch perspective to place the blame for "devaluation of life" on a robbery victim for nothing more than having the audacity to possess a valuable and be the victim of a crime. It's entirely possible for a victim in this case to be shot whether they resist or not, and implying that any of the blame for that is on them is as heartless as it is ridiculous.

The robbers created the situation. The robbers determined the life or death stakes. Anyone faulting the victim for anything in this situation is doing nothing but suggesting that anything beyond simply submitting to violent criminals is a bigger evil than actually being a violent criminal in the first place, which is certainly an opinion you're entitled to hold, but one that shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone with a shred of common sense, confidence, or justice.

[–] MonkRome@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I was merely pointing out the contradiction in what you said.

seems like the criminal decides that when they make the decision to risk their life to steal a given dollar amount.

You were responding to a comment about the dollar value placed on life, I was pointing out that if the victim is prepared to protect that value then they are also placing that dollar value on their own life. The aggressors had already fled, I agree with you that I don't much care if the aggressors live or die.

I believe that anyone that shows others they are prepared to kill, are therefor prepared to die themselves. If you wield that type of power you are accepting that risk. It's not a moral judgment, it is a reality judgment, it is simply true that you are increasing you own risk of death. But by recognizing that truth you also must recognize that when that danger passes and you chose to follow someone to retaliate, you are also accepting that risk, even if you believe you are in the "right". The universe does not care about right or wrong, moral judgments be damned, if you put yourself into danger, then you are accepting the consequences of your actions. For those reasons, it's just silly to follow someone after danger has passed. Once they do that they have become someone who has potentially forfeited their life.