Reply #109: perhaps you didn't understand what you read

[iverglas]

I said:

The property offenses shown there aren't the kind generally committed when the victims are even in the vicinity -- theft, burglary, vehicle theft. If people are there, they tend to fall into the "robbery" category, and get included in the violent/against the person numbers.


You said:

This is simply untrue.

Theft of a motor vehicle is a property crime. Now there may be assault charges depending on the situation but it is a property crime.


Now, what is simply untrue?

You said exactly the same thing I said -- the property offences listed where I was referring to are NOT generally committed when the victim is in the vicinity. That is WHY they are categorized as property crimes. If a theft is committed from the victim, i.e. not from the victim's garage when the victim is on vacation or from business premises after hours, it is a robbery. Robbery is a crime against the person. Theft from a garage when nobody is home is a property crime.


I said:

If people are there, they tend to fall into the "robbery" category, and get included in the violent/against the person numbers.

You said:

Robber is a specific subclass of theft which involves someone stealing directly from ones person. It is categorized separately due to the face to face nature and the higher risk of violent outcome.

Duh. What did you actually think I was saying?

If someone accosts you on the street and threatens violence and demands your money, that is robbery.

If someone breaks into your home and threatens violence and demands your VCR, that is robbery.

If someone opens your car door and threatens violence and demands your car, that is robbery.


It's really wise to start from the assumption that the person you are talking to is not stupid, and has not said a stupid thing. You can sometimes avoid looking stupid yourself, that way.


A situation where someone confronts a thief in his front lawn attempting to break into his car, shows a firearm and the thief leaves would be auto theft not robbery.

A situation where someone breaks into a garage and a lady is reading emails and fires a shot and the thief leaves would be burglary.

So the idea that DGU can't happen in "property crimes" is not true.

Well, let's say that the idea doesn't coincide with your allegations.

I wonder whether old Gary Kleck has some facts to back anything up.

I wonder how many of the 15% who were convinced someone would have got killed if they hadn't done something with a gun were defending their lawn mowers from garage burglars?

Since, if they had just left well enough alone, the crime itself would have involved no risk to anyone's life or limb, that really would put a whole new slant on the thing, wouldn't it?

Someone probably would have died if they hadn't had their gun, but if they hadn't had their gun, the situation would not have arisen.

Because IF THEY WERE PRESENT when the theft attempt was made, it was ROBBERY, not a property crime. Creating a situation in which somebody "probably" would have died, by taking action to avert a property crime, and then escaping that probability by doing something with a gun, and telling Gary Kleck how you used your gun to prevent a death ... well, I'm sure you can see my eyes rolling from here.