but righteous indignation at the concept of people acting to protect private property, which is the entire purpose of having laws, is somehow a criminal act has reached utterly insane levels.
"the entire purpose of having laws" - no more so than protecting lives, yet those people out there "protecting the lives" of black people by protesting are considered to be criminals, and those people having killed people "protecting" black lives while "protecting" private property are considered heroes.
By protecting private property, you protect lives. Of course, living in a post-industrial society, we don't appreciate scarcity in the same way as they did 200 years ago.. Or even 100 years ago for that matter. In the post-industrial setting "property is easy to replace"(insurance, government assistance) up to a point, so it is easier to prioritize lives over property.
But that doesn't change the reality that the post-industrial world still rests firmly on the foundations of the pre-industrial one. It still requires private property to be protected, and for that private property to be able to perform its purpose. Sure a business owner may still have "private property" even after that rioter burned their business to the ground, but in the interim while they go through insurance and government hurdles to try to rebuild, they are out of an income, and their employees are too. The people they served in the community are no longer able to receive that service from a location convenient to them. (And that the riots are mainly hitting impoverished neighborhoods within limited mobility makes it that much more perverse)
YOU may just see a building that can be replaced. But
for the people who live there, that was their in job, that was the difference between a 5 minute walk and an hour+ transferring between various buses to get where they're going. It is damage to their community and neighborhood that may not heal in their lifetime, South-Central LA still had neighborhoods recovering from the Rodney King riots before BLM came rolling through.
I'll begrudge the property owners their right to protect their property, even if it means some thugs end up dead. If you either think burning down your own neighborhood, or worse, somebody else's neighborhood is going to improve the prospects of that neighborhood, you don't deserve to be part of society. And if you cannot be dissuaded by non-lethal means, then lethal is certainly on the table. You are messing with lives there, and not just the lives of the business owner, or the people there defending it.
As an aside, the destruction of private property is not yet a capital offence, even in the USA, and nobody has yet given self appointed Judge Dredds carte blanche to arrest, try, convict, sentence and execute those who destroy private property.
They wouldn't have carte-blanche, they'd be subject to review for their actions. Nobody has made claims otherwise? So why are you asserting a position nobody is claiming? However, having their actions reviewed by LEO's and maybe even the courts, is not the same thing as being sent to prison for their acts. Which is what you're probably truly talking about.
News Flash: Self-Defense/Defense of Others enables crimes that would not otherwise see a capital punishment effectively become capital crimes
at the moment the offense is taking place,
and only in that moment.
And why is that? Because pretty soon, you'll have Judge Dredds on all sides walking around and executing the law as they see fit.
It doesn't work the way you think it does.
