William Flynn Wallace
foozler83 at gmail.com
Fri Apr 17 21:03:17 UTC 2020
There is an interesting mental disorder, a fetish, in which the person
cannot have an orgasm unless they break into a house (think Freudian
symbolism). This explains those cases where there is a breakin but nothing
stolen. But the good part comes (so to speak) when the police catch him
and find out the reason he breaks in but do not believe him. They set up a
window and yell at him: All right you! Go through that window!! They then
arrest the ones with the wet pants.
Actually true (though not about the police test)
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 1:06 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 2:15 AM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:50 PM Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 7:11 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 9:58 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat <
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 16, 2020, at 5:30 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat <
>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote
>>>>> ### I actually agree with you that keeping serial burglars in prison
>>>>> is a poor solution to the problem. My inclination would be to just kill
>>>>> Which would result in, no doubt, many cases of serial burglars
>>>>> becoming more violent. In other words, likely a case of the cure being
>>>>> worse than the disease.
>>>> ### A increased threat of being killed (by homeowners indemnified for
>>>> shooting invaders, or by automated security devices, or by constables
>>>> identifying you from security or traffic camera footage or by the hangman
>>>> after a quick trial) would be an inducement to commit more violence, rather
>>>> than back down?
>>>> How would that inducement to violence work, precisely?
>>> Destroy the cameras and kill all witnesses. It's one thing if they're
>>> just going to jail, but if they will probably die if they leave anyone or
>>> anything that would recognize them, the cost of such destruction becomes
>>> worth it in more cases.
>> ### Well, destroying *all* cameras? That's a tall order, mechanically,
>> whenever premises are protected by hidden or cloud-connected cameras. If
>> destroying cameras is easy, they would do it even if not threatened with
>> death. If it's difficult - they won't burglarize, knowing they will die for
>> their crime.
> Their perceived choices:
> * Burgle but don't destroy, get caught, and die.
> * Don't burgle, starve, and die. (This is almost always a false
> perception - there are many other ways to not starve - but it is what they
> * Burgle and be as destructive as possible, leaving no witnesses
> mechanical or living, and don't die.
> Pillaging - thorough destruction - is remarkably easy, if one is committed
> to destruction as one's only choice for survival.
>> I would like to have the option of killing burglars who invade my house,
>> or having them killed by hired enforcers, without fear of prosecution
> You have that option today, if you are bloody minded enough. Just make
> sure to kill them all, and that all surviving witnesses will agree there
> was the perception of a threat that merited deadly force in response.
> Should the burglar escape wounded - or should some burglars escape while
> others in the same burglary die - then the escapees may sue.
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat