A 10-Year Battery for AirTag

A lot of those thiefs are not hardened criminals, because the payoff for this kind of crime is usually a small fraction of the actual value of the things stolen. Most of time it is the average wimpy addict and the reason he resort to this kind of criminal activity is preciselly because he is not ready for the violent potential of more profitable criminal activities.

If you relativelly fit, and have some experience with actual fights or training in martial arts, it is not that stupid to try to recover your stuff.

If you don't feel confortable with the prospect of any kind of violent confrontation or don't have the street smarts to evaluate the risk potential of saidconfrontation, you'd still have the hope that the police would do something anyway if you have the location of your goods.

Really, at some time we need to stop glorifying cowardice and reclaim a little bit of dignity.

  Really, at some time we need to stop glorifying cowardice and reclaim a little bit of dignity.

As a society, yes, but do you want to be the one to sacrifice your life or livelihood, for the slim chance of having an impact on society?

  A lot of those thiefs are not hardened criminals

Right, but I wonder how long a stolen bike is in the original thief's possession, before it's sold to a fence? And perhaps the fence is in better shape or has buddies for protection against retheft?

>stop glorifying cowardice

I mostly agree. I don't think its cowardice most of the time though. Its that laws now favor criminals if you attempt to do anything yourself. Its become public policy that "rich" people buying things can simply absorb the loss and the police don't even have to do anything because no one bothers to report it. The police win because crime stats go down, thiefs win because they get the goods, the victim absorbs all the cost and if they try to do anything the victim goes to jail for whatever charges that made the police have to get up and work.

What does dignity and cowardice have to do with manhood? That's a weird projection of toxic masculinity. Not wanting to get your stuff stolen helplessly isn't about manhood at all, it's more about dignity, which is a basic human right.

"if you don't let people steal your stuff you're not a real man!"

That was awfully presumptuous and condescending. I think the people advocating we let thieves take our things are the ones who need some updates.

Ad hominem attacks aside, you're presenting a false dichotomy. There is nothing mutually exclusive about analysis and violence.

You made up a fake quote to respond to. What's the point of that?

> There is nothing mutually exclusive about analysis and violence.

Of course not. That's just the hypothetical presented here, though. The post I replied to argued that it is better to be both stupid and violent rather than smart when it comes to protecting dignity. Of course there are cases where it's smart to be violent (and stupid to use analysis, for that matter).

> Its that laws now favor criminals if you attempt to do anything yourself.

That just reads like a general "this is why I'm a coward" excuse.

Also what you want is spelled "It's".

It’s a good excuse because it’s a fair description of why cowardice is rational in many western legal contexts.

"If you relativelly fit, and have some experience with actual fights or training in martial arts, it is not that stupid to try to recover your stuff."

Anyone with actual experience will tell you that no amount of training will save you from the lucky stab/shot/unknown. Sure, you might win 9/10 times, but is that worth it? Sometimes maybe, other times no. Usually it's better to notify police and let the system handle it. If you handle it yourself, the system in many jurisdictions will fuck you just as bad as the real criminal unless you actively witnessed it or were attacked first.

> Really, at some time we need to stop glorifying cowardice and reclaim a little bit of dignity.

And getting into a physical fight with real injury potential because of an item?

If it is a cheap thing it is not worth it. If it is more expensive usually the law is on your side. Either way, there's no need for physical confrontation.

> the reason he resort to this kind of criminal activity is preciselly because he is not ready for the violent potential of more profitable criminal activities.

That's a gamble. What if the reason is that, although the thief _could_ be violent, they were smart enough to realize that they can get more results with less personal risk? In which case, your 'martial arts' training is meaningless when you have a knife or a bullet going through you.

Eh. Recognition that the state having a monopoly on violence is a better system than individuals exercising it isnt cowardice. This is one area where cops actually can and will do what you want them to, might as well let them if possible.

And yeah maybe any reasonable human can beat up most tweakers, but one could have a knife or gun. Even if that’s a 5% shot, my life is worth more than 20x my bike.

> Either way, there's no need for physical confrontation.

Nahh, you just outsource your physical confrontation to a cop. You still belief in confrontation for resolving the issues, you’re just being a coward and not doing it yourself.

Can I get a source on any of these claims?

Tbf, I am generally anti-police in the sense that they’re pretty institutionally bad at preventing or deterring crime in the current model, but I don’t really understand the argument you’re making here

Being fit doesn’t do anything against a knife or a fire-gun, is not being a coward, it’a just the logical conclusion. The people who want to stay fit in order to potentially fight burglars/thieves are doing it wrong, they should train in either gun use or how to better handle a knife. And, of course, have an expensive lawyer at the ready in case something goes wrong and you actually get to physically hurt said thief/burglar.

It is actually pretty stupid to try to recover things.

I knew a guy that tried to stop someone from stealing his neighbor's car stereo.

He was extremely fit, young, and a fighter.

That didn't stop him from getting stabbed to death by the thief.

You can decide your life is worth a $100 car stereo, but I know mine is worth more than that.

Not a source (and I'm also not GP), but 'duty to retreat' laws exist even in many states in the US. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat

Just google property crime + [any largeish US city] + reddit and youll find dozens of anecdotal stories from citizens.

Property crime seems to have essentially become a problem dealt with exclusively by citizens. Hell, SPD wouldnt even do anything to help when my car was stolen a few years ago. I got a call from the bar where it was abandoned and had to have it towed myself.

I think the argument GP was making was that of incentives. Police department have essentially zero incentive to devote time+manpower to petty theft or property crime, so the easiest solution is to simply encourage citizens to not 'resist' so to speak. If you get mugged, its a lot easier to deal with as a police officer if you simply hand them your wallet, vs starting a fist/knife/gun fight in the streets.

Which physical confrontations you handle yourself and which ones you outsource to police is a difficult question. The problem is not so much how you answer the question, but how many people in a large society will choose the "wrong" one.

And I think it's better not to refer to strangers on the internet as cowards. How would you feel if somebody responded to your opinion by calling you a name?

> If you relativelly fit

Most people are not this

> have some experience with actual fights or training in martial arts

And significant amounts of people also have neither of these things. At the very least “martial arts” training is particularly unlikely.

I’m the only one I know in my circle with practical fight experience and it’s because I grew up in shitty places. That probably says more about the privileged area I now live, and the kinds of people it attract though to be fair.

I don't agree with citizenpaul

But I do know if you're a homeless drug addict and you commit a crime that makes the cops throw you in jail - that's three meals a day, somewhere warm to sleep, and no lost income because you didn't have any income.

Whereas if you're a member of the middle class and you commit the same crime and get thrown in the same jail? Mucho lost income, you can't pay your mortgage, you get fired for not showing up at work, and as a convict your employment prospects become much, much worse.

So a "rational" member of the middle class might opt not to fight a homeless drug addict over $500 simply because they've got a lot more to lose.

>that's three meals a day, somewhere warm to sleep

I don't know why people always parrot this like a fact. Plenty of prisons serve only two woefully inadequate meals a day (like, Fyre festival sandwich levels of inadequate) and prisons generally have atrocious climate control. In the southern states, they don't have air conditioning and it gets genuinely dangerous for the prisoners.

Some jurisdictions give the Warden a budget for feeding the prisoners, and any dollar they don't spend, they get to KEEP. This predictably results in malnourished prisoners, but Americans do not have the empathy to care most of the time.

> any dollar they don't spend, they get to KEEP

I'd love a source on that.