• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Two 13-year-olds shot while trying to steal car in Southwest Philadelphia: Police

They are actually a high theft item, as is laundry detergent.

The only place I found diapers and baby food of any kind was in the 3rd link, but they are in their own category so for all we know they represent 0.5% of thefts. I admit I may have been off a little with the 0% estimation but I couldn't have been off by much.
Let me know if you find different numbers anywhere. I tried following a link to the National Retail Federation who apparently do research on this kind of thing but got a Page Not Found error. I don't plan on spending hours researching this but I highly doubt baby food and diapers are high on the list. Prove me wrong if you can.
 
I used the word "statistics" for a reason. An article doesn't prove anything. You can call me ignorant if you want, but I don't know of a single person who will change their opinion the instant they are introduced to an article that disagrees with it. You can find an article to support just about any opinion you can possibly have.
No offense.
Yep.

A single article is not representative of anything common.

There are so many stupid people who believe whet the read on the internet without validating any of it.
 
If kids don’t want to get shot stop trying to steal other peoples property. Duh….
 
If kids don’t want to get shot stop trying to steal other peoples property. Duh….

So, you really think shooting kids is an ok response to theft?

No wonder the US is so ****ed up.
 
So, you really think shooting kids is an ok response to theft?

No wonder the US is so ****ed up.
Wouldn’t you think kids realizing they could be shot would make them think twice before stealing someone else’s property? If they consider it acceptable risk then so be it.
 
Wouldn’t you think kids realizing they could be shot would make them think twice before stealing someone else’s property? If they consider it acceptable risk then so be it.

This may amaze you but sometimes kids do stupid things.
It's why they aren't held to the same legal standards as adults.

Then again I don't think anyone should be shot for car theft.
It's just a car.
 
This may amaze you but sometimes kids do stupid things.
It's why they aren't held to the same legal standards as adults.

Then again I don't think anyone should be shot for car theft.
It's just a car.
The ones who do stupid things are not the same ones who do things at the risk of being shot.

They make calculated decisions.
 
The ones who do stupid things are not the same ones who do things at the risk of being shot.

They make calculated decisions.

Again, the UK police seem to deal with car thieves without needing to shoot them.
Out how that somehow works.
 
So, you really think shooting kids is an ok response to theft?

No wonder the US is so ****ed up.
The USA is so screwed up because people think theft is OK.
 
Wouldn’t you think kids realizing they could be shot would make them think twice before stealing someone else’s property? If they consider it acceptable risk then so be it.
Other deterrents are not working. Hopefully this as a national story will be a wake-up call.
 
This may amaze you but sometimes kids do stupid things.
It's why they aren't held to the same legal standards as adults.

Then again I don't think anyone should be shot for car theft.
It's just a car.
I think they should.

Where do you draw the line for being shot?

$1,000?

$100,000?

A million?

Where do you draw the line?
 
??WHA...?? You think shooting a car thief makes us safer?!? On what planet does that happen?
I guess there's no sense in asking you about whether or not the punishment should fit the crime. Too complicated a question for you. As Trump's biggest fanboy, I'm sure you were tickled to hear him say he'd have the National Guard shoot shoplifters. There's a country you'd delight in living in.

In Trumpistan, everyone found guilty of stealing diapers and baby food would be sentenced to death.

🫤
But if he confronted them outside the precious angels might have blown his head off.
 
Yep.

A single article is not representative of anything common.

There are so many stupid people who believe whet the read on the internet without validating any of it.
I think one problem is misinterpreted data. An article can be written to prove a certain point without providing any actual evidence grounded in reality.
People get their opinions from other people instead of from their own reasoning abilities and/or common sense.
Then in order to defend that opinion they look up an article written by someone who agrees with them.
Looking back, at the 3rd article I posted, that had Diapers and Baby Formula as commonly shoplifted Children's Items... #1 - they are in the category of Children's items meaning they don't have to be at the top of the overall list to make the article. They just have to be at the top of the Children's Items list. And #2, I also just noticed, that section of the article is talking about organized retail crime.
I still think it makes no sense to think that parents would steal diapers and baby food for their child. If they're extremely poor and are going to steal something they'll steal something not kid-related, and pay for the stuff for their kid. There's got to be something more expensive, and easier to get away with stealing, than diapers. It just makes no sense.
 
That only removes an excuse. People who harm others physically or financially need to be dealt with. Since past practices have proven not to work, we need to make them fear committing the aggression to start with. make the penalty so great, that they do not commit the crime to start with.
Aside from violating the 8th amendment, and bearing in mind that not even the death penalty deters violent crimes, what other ideas do you have?
 
I think they should.

Where do you draw the line for being shot?

$1,000?

$100,000?

A million?

Where do you draw the line?

I don't think thieves should be shot.
I don't care how expensive the car is it's not worth the possibility of ending a human life to keep.
 
??WHA...?? You think shooting a car thief makes us safer?!? On what planet does that happen?
They just didn't steal cars sometimes they kill others in collisions
I guess there's no sense in asking you about whether or not the punishment should fit the crime.
It wasn't punishment it was defense. If you don't want to get shot don't steal people's cars should we promote stealing cars?
Too complicated a question for you. As Trump's biggest fanboy, I'm sure you were tickled to hear him say he'd have the National Guard shoot shoplifters. There's a country you'd delight in living in.

In Trumpistan, everyone found guilty of stealing diapers and baby food would be sentenced to death.

🫤
Better than your world where teenagers get to steal cars and smash them into houses and kill people all with no consequences at all.
 
I don't think thieves should be shot.
But if they're stealing a TV no. If there's still like a car however they're more likely to kill somebody with that then a gun.
I don't care how expensive the car is it's not worth the possibility of ending a human life to keep.
But it's thought about the price of the car if you ask me it's about who they're going to kill with it.
 
They just didn't steal cars sometimes they kill others in collisions
No more than anybody else driving a car. Your desperate overreach is embarrassing.
It wasn't punishment it was defense. If you don't want to get shot don't steal people's cars should we promote stealing cars?
Uh, no. And for the last time, because I can see that you will never admit that unless a person is in your house, or on your property, or directly endangering you, shooting someone for theft alone is a felony. Period. End of discussion.
Better than your world where teenagers get to steal cars and smash them into houses and kill people all with no consequences at all.
You have no ****ing idea what my world view is, so don't bother making one up just to satisfy your own fantasy.
 
Aside from violating the 8th amendment, and bearing in mind that not even the death penalty deters violent crimes, what other ideas do you have?
I think it needs to be tested in the courts. Capitol punishment is still permitted. It just cannot be cruel like quartering, or unusual. I think some state needs to start making first degree crimes against another individual a crime worth at least considering the death sentence.

The evil in our society is growing out of control. We have to do something.
 
I think it needs to be tested in the courts. Capitol punishment is still permitted. It just cannot be cruel like quartering, or unusual. I think some state needs to start making first degree crimes against another individual a crime worth at least considering the death sentence.

The evil in our society is growing out of control. We have to do something.
States have argued what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for many decades, coming to various conclusions and writing their laws accordingly.

Although I do support capital punishment for certain violent crimes, the death penalty would be excessive, IMO, for the “first degree crimes” of burglary, armed robbery (no no serious injuries or deaths involved), arson (again, no deaths or serious injuries involved), etc..

No serious conversation on how to reduce violent crime can be had without taking a broad view of our society.

The U.S. has the highest violent crime rate of any first world country.

Simply increasing the severity of punishment for committing violent crimes hasn’t done squat to change that.
 
States have argued what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for many decades, coming to various conclusions and writing their laws accordingly.

Although I do support capital punishment for certain violent crimes, the death penalty would be excessive, IMO, for the “first degree crimes” of burglary, armed robbery (no no serious injuries or deaths involved), arson (again, no deaths or serious injuries involved), etc..
Why?

Some people steal drugs. What is the person needing them died because they didn't have their meds?

What if a family was expecting a baby. the woman's water breaks, and they go out to the car to find it gone. Their 5 minute trip to the hospital may now take long enough and if a complicated pregnancy, result in death.

The possibilities are the problem.

The intent to deprive another person of anything in the first degree should never be tolerated.
No serious conversation on how to reduce violent crime can be had without taking a broad view of our society.
Their are different levels of violent crimes even. I am speaking of crimes that are premeditated.
The U.S. has the highest violent crime rate of any first world country.
So we need to do something about it. Right?
Simply increasing the severity of punishment for committing violent crimes hasn’t done squat to change that.
Maybe because we do not sentence harsh enough.
 
Back
Top Bottom