I disagree. Sometimes lawmakers get it wrong. Laws have varied all over the world and all through history, but the right to defend ourselves and our property is inherent, and self evident.
Divine right? A "legal right" can only exist if the lawmakers make it so. Hard to have a civilization based on divine rights.
Not Divine right, but natural rights. John Locke and others believed in "natural rights" as "life, liberty, and estate [property]." Private property rights were extremely important in USA formation, and these natural rights became inherent in The Declaration, the Constitition, and the Bill of Rights, becoming legal rights. Of course, state laws differ in the interpretation of these rights, and some have been determined unconstitutional at times.
Any "right" not codified in law is detrimental to the social order. There is no binding social contract and what you consider a natural right, someone else might not.
For example, several/many people here believe that death is an appropriate sentence for thievery. Given the quote, they may also believe it is right via divine ordinance. I don't want to speak for others but to me the interpretation seems pretty clear. These people are firm in their belief.
I and many others are equally firm in our beliefs that even criminals have inalienable rights, whether they are good people or no.
Who is right? Whose beliefs trump the others' beliefs?
(The Constitution and innumerable other laws have already decided this but that is a different conversation.)
I find this thread disturbing... and not because of the thief.
Isn't it better for us if there's a perception out there that coin people have sort of edgy ideas about their coins and their rights to shoot people who take their coins? I'll contribute another idea we might think in the heat of the moment - coins are like our babies, so if anyone takes them, it's like taking our babies.
I disagree. Sometimes lawmakers get it wrong. Laws have varied all over the world and all through history, but the right to defend ourselves and our property is inherent, and self evident.
Divine right? A "legal right" can only exist if the lawmakers make it so. Hard to have a civilization based on divine rights.
Not Divine right, but natural rights. John Locke and others believed in "natural rights" as "life, liberty, and estate [property]." Private property rights were extremely important in USA formation, and these natural rights became inherent in The Declaration, the Constitition, and the Bill of Rights, becoming legal rights. Of course, state laws differ in the interpretation of these rights, and some have been determined unconstitutional at times.
Any "right" not codified in law is detrimental to the social order. There is no binding social contract and what you consider a natural right, someone else might not.
For example, several/many people here believe that death is an appropriate sentence for thievery. Given the quote, they may also believe it is right via divine ordinance. I don't want to speak for others but to me the interpretation seems pretty clear. These people are firm in their belief.
I and many others are equally firm in our beliefs that even criminals have inalienable rights, whether they are good people or no.
Who is right? Whose beliefs trump the others' beliefs?
(The Constitution and innumerable other laws have already decided this but that is a different conversation.)
I find this thread disturbing... and not because of the thief.
Isn't it better for us if there's a perception out there that coin people have sort of edgy ideas about their coins and their rights to shoot people who take their coins? I'll contribute another idea we might think in the heat of the moment - coins are like our babies, so if anyone takes them, it's like taking our babies.
I have no problem if that perception were widespread. But I think it's much more likely that thieves perceive the average coin collector as a rich, harmless, old guy. An easy mark. It would take an awful lot of killings for that perception to change.
The average thief is most likely a male, maybe 16-25ish? I don't think many law-breaking 16-25yo men pay attention to the news. Hard to break through the fog of girls and a social media feed.
For those going on about the use of lethal force to protect property, Texas does indeed allow lethal force to protect property in some cases as part of its Castle Doctrine. I provided the text of two relevant statutes. I do not believe these “protections” apply or protect the shooter in this case.
Selling a coin (then a so-called rare coin) on an online marketplace -???? Could have been a double scam meeting. Then having a weapon - WHOA. This may have been a safer meeting place
USN & USAF retired 1971-1993
Successful Transactions with more than 100 Members
I disagree. Sometimes lawmakers get it wrong. Laws have varied all over the world and all through history, but the right to defend ourselves and our property is inherent, and self evident.
Divine right? A "legal right" can only exist if the lawmakers make it so. Hard to have a civilization based on divine rights.
Not Divine right, but natural rights. John Locke and others believed in "natural rights" as "life, liberty, and estate [property]." Private property rights were extremely important in USA formation, and these natural rights became inherent in The Declaration, the Constitition, and the Bill of Rights, becoming legal rights. Of course, state laws differ in the interpretation of these rights, and some have been determined unconstitutional at times.
Any "right" not codified in law is detrimental to the social order. There is no binding social contract and what you consider a natural right, someone else might not.
For example, several/many people here believe that death is an appropriate sentence for thievery. Given the quote, they may also believe it is right via divine ordinance. I don't want to speak for others but to me the interpretation seems pretty clear. These people are firm in their belief.
I and many others are equally firm in our beliefs that even criminals have inalienable rights, whether they are good people or no.
Who is right? Whose beliefs trump the others' beliefs?
(The Constitution and innumerable other laws have already decided this but that is a different conversation.)
I find this thread disturbing... and not because of the thief.
Isn't it better for us if there's a perception out there that coin people have sort of edgy ideas about their coins and their rights to shoot people who take their coins? I'll contribute another idea we might think in the heat of the moment - coins are like our babies, so if anyone takes them, it's like taking our babies.
Better the perception that someone might use force to stop them if they decide to steal than the perception that we're all required to submit to theft.
Convincing the world that you are willing to escalate us as likely to cause the thieves to use violence from the beginning. In this case, if the thief suspected he would be shot when trying to run, he might have just incapacitated the seller before running.
@jmlanzaf said:
Convincing the world that you are willing to escalate us as likely to cause the thieves to use violence from the beginning. In this case, if the thief suspected he would be shot when trying to run, he might have just incapacitated the seller before running.
Agree. More and more criminals possess guns, I think we can all agree.
Why carry and risk a gunfight? Coins are not babies, you get out of there with your life, property be damned.
Do not put yourself in a situation that can go sideways and you will not have to worry about weapons and laws.
Even if the shooter “wins” and is acquitted (far from guaranteed), the cost of his attorney’s fees will likely far exceed the value of the merchandise. He may even face a civil suit. He accomplished nothing.
If I were a scumbag, I believe that I would not rob someone in Texas. I mean, he was asking for it, really.
edit: Then again, the seller was kind of asking for trouble, too. Meeting a stranger in a parking lot to make a coin deal like you're making a drug deal...no.
I disagree. Sometimes lawmakers get it wrong. Laws have varied all over the world and all through history, but the right to defend ourselves and our property is inherent, and self evident.
Divine right? A "legal right" can only exist if the lawmakers make it so. Hard to have a civilization based on divine rights.
Not Divine right, but natural rights. John Locke and others believed in "natural rights" as "life, liberty, and estate [property]." Private property rights were extremely important in USA formation, and these natural rights became inherent in The Declaration, the Constitition, and the Bill of Rights, becoming legal rights. Of course, state laws differ in the interpretation of these rights, and some have been determined unconstitutional at times.
The things called "natural rights" are not automatically guaranteed status as Federal law. In fact, the government is the worst offender when it comes to denying those natural rights. (Dang, that's political. Guess we need to move this conversation to Facebook before we get booted.)
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@jmlanzaf said:
Convincing the world that you are willing to escalate us as likely to cause the thieves to use violence from the beginning. In this case, if the thief suspected he would be shot when trying to run, he might have just incapacitated the seller before running.
This is just ridiculous. Why don’t you just cue up at the local robbery hot spot and donate your valuables? The threat of being met with force is the only deterrent to anarchy. This is common sense and is best exemplified by mutually assured destruction. Or perhaps we should surrender our nuclear weapons and rely on the benevolence of our nuclear armed foreign adversaries?
Having fun while switching things up and focusing on a next level PCGS slabbed 1950+ type set, while still looking for great examples for the 7070.
@jmlanzaf said:
Convincing the world that you are willing to escalate us as likely to cause the thieves to use violence from the beginning. In this case, if the thief suspected he would be shot when trying to run, he might have just incapacitated the seller before running.
This is just ridiculous. Why don’t you just cue up at the local robbery hot spot and donate your valuables? The threat of being met with force is the only deterrent to anarchy. This is common sense and is best exemplified by mutually assured destruction. Or perhaps we should surrender our nuclear weapons and rely on the benevolence of our nuclear armed foreign adversaries?
We all must agree to live by the rule of law or we would have anarchy. As I understand it, the law is that you can only legally shoot (at) someone if a reasonable person would believe their life was being threatened. Simply not liking that your coin was stolen is not enough.
You presumably have the right to try to stop someone from walking off with your stuff, and if the bad guy responds in such a way that puts you in fear of your safety then BLAM!
But it's best to avoid those scenarios altogether. In the OP's example the buyer as well as the seller could each have been walking into a trap. Imagine if both sides of the transaction had been staged by bad guys.
@jmlanzaf said:
Convincing the world that you are willing to escalate us as likely to cause the thieves to use violence from the beginning. In this case, if the thief suspected he would be shot when trying to run, he might have just incapacitated the seller before running.
This is just ridiculous. Why don’t you just cue up at the local robbery hot spot and donate your valuables? The threat of being met with force is the only deterrent to anarchy. This is common sense and is best exemplified by mutually assured destruction. Or perhaps we should surrender our nuclear weapons and rely on the benevolence of our nuclear armed foreign adversaries?
The threat of force is the only thing that makes us arm ourselves in the first place. It works both ways. It creates both deterrent as well as arms races. But your metaphor is "ridiculous" and actually proves my point more than yours. You are talking about deterring war/ violence with the capacity to wage war/ violence. That is exactly MY point: if you make yourself the purveyor of violence, it creates the incentive for the other party to use violence.
No one likes thieves. But firing at pick pockets makes no one safer.
Comments
Isn't it better for us if there's a perception out there that coin people have sort of edgy ideas about their coins and their rights to shoot people who take their coins? I'll contribute another idea we might think in the heat of the moment - coins are like our babies, so if anyone takes them, it's like taking our babies.
I have no problem if that perception were widespread. But I think it's much more likely that thieves perceive the average coin collector as a rich, harmless, old guy. An easy mark. It would take an awful lot of killings for that perception to change.
The average thief is most likely a male, maybe 16-25ish? I don't think many law-breaking 16-25yo men pay attention to the news. Hard to break through the fog of girls and a social media feed.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
For those going on about the use of lethal force to protect property, Texas does indeed allow lethal force to protect property in some cases as part of its Castle Doctrine. I provided the text of two relevant statutes. I do not believe these “protections” apply or protect the shooter in this case.
Selling a coin (then a so-called rare coin) on an online marketplace -???? Could have been a double scam meeting. Then having a weapon - WHOA.
This may have been a safer meeting place
USN & USAF retired 1971-1993
Successful Transactions with more than 100 Members
Better the perception that someone might use force to stop them if they decide to steal than the perception that we're all required to submit to theft.
Convincing the world that you are willing to escalate us as likely to cause the thieves to use violence from the beginning. In this case, if the thief suspected he would be shot when trying to run, he might have just incapacitated the seller before running.
Agree. More and more criminals possess guns, I think we can all agree.
Why carry and risk a gunfight? Coins are not babies, you get out of there with your life, property be damned.
Do not put yourself in a situation that can go sideways and you will not have to worry about weapons and laws.
Even if the shooter “wins” and is acquitted (far from guaranteed), the cost of his attorney’s fees will likely far exceed the value of the merchandise. He may even face a civil suit. He accomplished nothing.
If I were a scumbag, I believe that I would not rob someone in Texas. I mean, he was asking for it, really.
edit: Then again, the seller was kind of asking for trouble, too. Meeting a stranger in a parking lot to make a coin deal like you're making a drug deal...no.
Early American Copper, Bust and Seated.
The things called "natural rights" are not automatically guaranteed status as Federal law. In fact, the government is the worst offender when it comes to denying those natural rights. (Dang, that's political. Guess we need to move this conversation to Facebook before we get booted.)
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Been sitting back and watching this thread develop over the weekend.
I must say for the most part the conversations have been quite civil on this very controversial topic.
A lot of good information is being presented by some very knowledgeable forum members.
It appears that the apparent rise in numismatic crime has struck a nerve here.
Thank you all.
Do not put yourself in a situation that can go sideways and you will not have to worry about weapons and laws.
This!
This is just ridiculous. Why don’t you just cue up at the local robbery hot spot and donate your valuables? The threat of being met with force is the only deterrent to anarchy. This is common sense and is best exemplified by mutually assured destruction. Or perhaps we should surrender our nuclear weapons and rely on the benevolence of our nuclear armed foreign adversaries?
Having fun while switching things up and focusing on a next level PCGS slabbed 1950+ type set, while still looking for great examples for the 7070.
We all must agree to live by the rule of law or we would have anarchy. As I understand it, the law is that you can only legally shoot (at) someone if a reasonable person would believe their life was being threatened. Simply not liking that your coin was stolen is not enough.
You presumably have the right to try to stop someone from walking off with your stuff, and if the bad guy responds in such a way that puts you in fear of your safety then BLAM!
But it's best to avoid those scenarios altogether. In the OP's example the buyer as well as the seller could each have been walking into a trap. Imagine if both sides of the transaction had been staged by bad guys.
The victim did the right thing. Maybe not the legal thing, but the right thing.
The threat of force is the only thing that makes us arm ourselves in the first place. It works both ways. It creates both deterrent as well as arms races. But your metaphor is "ridiculous" and actually proves my point more than yours. You are talking about deterring war/ violence with the capacity to wage war/ violence. That is exactly MY point: if you make yourself the purveyor of violence, it creates the incentive for the other party to use violence.
No one likes thieves. But firing at pick pockets makes no one safer.
No idea what the coins were or their approximate $$$ value ?
$8. The buyer was trying to avoid a large international shipping expense from a Chicago dealer.
Always take 2 guns.
One to use and one to plant on the body
My Saint Set