Can we trust you to accurately determine which situations are "clear cut" (and therefore justify summary execution)? Can we trust any random with a gun to make that determination? And can we trust them when they're the only surviving witness?

Is it a crime worthy of death when someone wanders onto your property due to some kind of mental illness? Is it a crime to accidentally open the wrong door? What about when you accidentally open the wrong door (see Amber Guyger)? Is it a crime to be in a store 1 minute after closing time? Or to walk on someone's property to deliver a package?

Is it a crime to upset someone at the bar and then turn up dead on their property, "in the process of committing a robbery"?

You are advocating for giving everyone the power of judge, jury, and executioner, regardless of whether they are qualified or honest. And you are encouraging those people to engage in gun battles where the "victim" is also at risk of death.

Spend more time thinking about your opinions.

One does not have the luxury to perform moral analyses of this nature when somebody hostile is running toward them with ill intent. In the heat of the moment, you have to make split second decisions to survive.

Also keep in mind that while it’s happening, you have no idea how far this individual intends to go. Were they just intending minor theft? Or maybe they broke into your car because they were trying to get to you? If they announce their intentions, do you even believe them?

Of course it’s easy to make the decision in the middle of the day with perfect information. Now picture waking up at 2am to sounds in your drive way and there’s 2 or 3 guys out there fucking with your car.

I don't know if you are putting on the airs of being a brave knight, or you truly are detached, but there's such a thing as visceral fear that people are coming to take your stuff or hurt you. Be glad that you've lived a privileged life where you've never known such a fear

That is crazy to me. Truly insane. If they tried to enter my home or harm my loved ones, that’s a different story. But if I saw people destroying my property, not attempting to get to me, I would call the police and lock the doors, not go fucking hunting.

Here people are saying, "Well I can't just let them have this valuable part of my car (that I might not be able to afford to replace). And I'm pretty sure the police aren't going to help me. And I don't think they will stop if I ask them. So I guess I have to shoot"

If you've already judged those people in your head as "hunters", then you're the one who's lost, not them. You have this completely distorted perception of your fellow human perhaps based on the media reporting on 0.0001% of crazy people in the world, and now you believe everyone who lives in texas thinks that way or something.

I'm not misinterpreting a thing you said. No, I'm looking at exactly the situation you are describing:

I'm in my house. It's 2am. I see a couple of people in my driveway fucking around under my car.

And you're saying that a valid moral decision is to leave my house with the intention to kill someone?

That is seeing a situation that you know you could leave alone, and choosing to introduce lethal force. That is fucking hunting for conflict to a degree that is absolutely frightening.

You are not saying "I would confront the thieves and bring a weapon in case I am attacked".

You are not even saying "I would use a weapon to threaten them into compliance".

You are saying you would shoot on sight. Instead of de-escalating, you would take the opportunity to ambush and kill. Can you see why some people might call that "hunting"?

I'm sorry you live in a world where the theft of a car part is a life-threatening event. I can see how vigilante justice would make a crazy sort of sense in that situation. However, in a stable society, those actions would be considered a serious crime.

Do you think that 'visceral fear'? only exists in the USA? Normal people in England, Canada, Australia, Ireland, Spain, France, Germany, Sweden, etc have had their home invaded or the car broken into and have dealt with the situation without guns.

https://youtu.be/jgjEbKc6jXk

You can judge us if you want. It really doesn't matter what some far away people who have no understanding of the way of life here think. It's good a thing we have a system where we are judged by a jury of our own peers here.

You say 'not as good as the countries you listed.' Yet you dismiss the thoughts of someone from who is trying to explain why people like YOU think we are 'good' countries.

Your last sentence is the summation of the modern American attitude that is so problematic, it is parochial, arrogant and unable learn from the rest of the world unless it is for profit.

And re jury, who do you think the jury is in each of those countries I listed? In Australia my jury is made of my 'peers' too buddy. It just my peers in my system don't believe crime against property justifies summary execution.

Don't tell me, tell the perp. He's the one who determined what his life was worth.

What sort of moral framework do you subscribe to that makes that okay?

This does not absolve them of responsibility for crimes or harm done to others (In the cat converter discussion, this is the punishment a court would give them if they were prosecuted. Not a citizen executing them.) , but it does grant them the same humanity as everyone else. This is a part of why we don't believe in court ordered execution in Australia.

You conclusion feels very representative of the US on killing each other, clearly the superior option to being a psycho or being the victimized 'decent folks' is to improve the quality of life for the thief and create disincentive for criminality by providing opportunities.

Instead you focus on the retribution/threat element, using your almighty constitutional rights to enforce the protection of a car part. Look, it has been many many many years now in which US citizens have had guns and the right to shoot motherfuckers, how's that violent crime rate? what about thefts? muggings? any less cat converters getting stolen? Funnily enough, yes! Just in others countries that aren't so focused on punitive bullshit that they think its at all ethical to kill anyone for a car part.

If an individual is committing a crime against your property, I do not believe you have the right to kill them. In this thread a lot of people are relying on the logic that stealing your cat converter could lead to you losing your job and spiraling into homelessness.

If someone is doing something that you can reasonably interpret as trying to kill you (or assault you) then you are allowed to defend yourself. This may be shocking to people of your perspective (not a personal attack), but in Australia individuals have been sent to jail for the second punch they have thrown after the first punch had effectively reduced the risk of death or injury to 0 (eg knocked out the criminal, the criminal began fleeing). This is exactly what I am referring to when I said that we grant criminals the same humanity as everybody else. In Australia (and some countries in Europe), Criminals DO expect mercy or pity from their victims, lest the victim risk legal trouble themselves, and if you go and compare the crime rates and violent crime rates of these countries with those that do not practice this philosophy, I think you will find that our harm minimization policy works better.

For a single parent who needs that car to provide for their kids and risks losing their job if they don’t have it? Perhaps.

I would argue that the fact that one would be so scared of losing money would be that they fear losing their shelter, food, water etc., no?

Would it therefore not be more condemnable that a society is pitting people against each other in such a way that money is survival? Isn't this Squidgame's whole point?