[vunie]

> I’m just assuming the above is not in good faith

Not GP, but your assumption is wrong.

It's not about the laptop. It's about standing up for yourself and doing your part towards society. You obviously don't agree with this stance and that's fine, but it's not your place to dictate what values are worth standing up for and what aren't.

I, like GP, fully intend to go after a thief. If he goes after my life, then I go after his. Either he gives up the laptop, or one of us gets killed.

It's as simple as that.

[elric]

> It's as simple as that.

Nothing is ever as simple as that. Not only is it a foolish, immoral and illegal, you've also just communicated murderous intent. Have fun spending 20-to-life in a cell because you thought ultraviolence would be a good way to do your part towards society.

I've had more than my fair share of violent confrontations, and I assure you, no matter how well you think you are prepared, once the metallic taste of adrenaline hits you, all your plans and delusions of grandeur go out the window.

A bit of violence can be acceptable. Murder over property is not.

[vunie]

> you've also just communicated murderous intent.

No I have not. It's your bias that colored it that way. Reread my comment. I never said I want kill a thief for stealing. I simply stated that I will take back what is mine. If, and only if, the thief tries to kill me will I respond in kind.

Again, it has nothing to do with grandeur and everything to d with doing what is right. I will take back what is mine, and threatening my life wont stop me.

[natmaka]

I agree with the underlying principle, however force on force is always a dangerous proposition, especially when it's not planned. Even without weapons it can seriously hurt a bystander (you run into a weak or child, he falls down on concrete...), and all bets are off if a gun is drawn (especially in a crowded area).