[jasonjayr]

> After all, why should I pay if others can steal without consequences?

I think that cuts to the heart of the basis of morality.

Do we need the threat of consequences in the afterlife, if there are no immediate consequences to the self? Are we allowed to do whatever we want now, if we can absolve ourselves of consequences in the afterlife?

And if you don't believe in an afterlife, Do we recognize that these actions can hurt others? Do we have empathy for those that were hurt and try to make them whole? Do we more strictly punish those that abuse that empathy? How about people who simply don't feel any empathy for others, how is that dealt with?

I don't have any good answers for these questions.

[pc86]

> if there are no immediate consequences to the self

Fixing this is the answer, isn't it? Make sure there are consequences. Watch any video of people riding bikes into a CVS and filling trash bags with goods. The employees are scared to do anything. Not only do they not try to stop them, many times they're actively preventing customers from trying to stop them. A minority of the time one of the other customers, who has probably seen this bullshit way too many times, tries to do something.

How about a law saying "if you are an employee of a store charged with loss prevention, security, or anything like that, you have qualified immunity when trying to stop an active theft?" The idea that I can run into a store and start stealing things, then turn around and sue the security guard AND the corporate store for punching me in the face while I'm doing it is ludicrous.

We already have laws that if someone is killed in the commission of a crime you're committing, it's the same as if you killed them. It's not unheard of to say that if you're committing a crime, the laws of liability change.

[ryandrake]

> How about a law saying "if you are an employee of a store charged with loss prevention, security, or anything like that, you have qualified immunity when trying to stop an active theft?"

Qualified immunity from what, though? Pointing and yelling "thief"? Blocking their way? Laying hands on them to detain them? Assault and battery? Deadly force? You can't just allow people to do anything to stop someone from stealing a $5 tube of toothpaste. Where do you draw the line?

Also, what if the employee himself/herself is the one that gets injured? Who has qualified immunity from being responsible? The store?

[pc86]

> > We already have laws that if someone is killed in the commission of a crime you're committing, it's the same as if you killed them. It's not unheard of to say that if you're committing a crime, the laws of liability change.

At least to your last point, if you're stealing from a store and someone gets hurt trying to stop you, you should be responsible whether you hurt them or not, whether it was intentional or not. They slip on something and break their shoulder while they're running after you? No different than you assaulting them and breaking their shoulder directly. Again this isn't the case (at least not to this level) but I think it would be a good change.

I agree with your other point that it's not cut-and-dry, and honestly probably will vary based on state and municipality. There are certainly municipalities where you can do a lot, up to what would otherwise be assault or battery, to prevent theft. And there are some where you can't. But I think in general being a little more permissive with what is allowed, especially in these large corporate stores in large urban areas where this smash & grab type of theft seems to be more prevalent (or maybe just reported on more?), might be a good thing.