No, it won't, for the term "rational criminal" is an oxymoron. #1. Criminals ALWAYS know there is a fair amt of danger that their endeavor will end badly--even with their deaths. The know this, because it has happened exactly that way countless times over the decades, and has been reported upon countless times in the last few years on every single type of media imaginable--whether it be in connection with the execution of a misdemeanor, minor traffic stop, or felonious behavior. People--innocent and quilty, get killed every single week either by citizens, police, angry shopkeepers, or motorists as they attempt to perpertrate their crime or in the process of getting away. This is no secret of any kind, and is common knowledge to anyone over the age of about 12.
#2. These are (were) either the most naive pair ever to walk the planet, or they thought everyone else was.
#3. On top of that, it wasn't the crime that led to their deaths--it was the acts that followed--running, not stopping when told to, and then of course, entering a flooded creek.
I've been in big box stores before, checked out, paid for everything, and when I went to exit, the alarm at the door goes off, because a cashier didn't get the little anti=theft tag deactivated or removed. I stop IN MY TRACKS, because I fully know someone, is going to stop me one way or another if I don't, even tho I know for a fact i've done nothing wrong. You don't have to be a genius to know something bad will happen if you don't stop.
Are you saying almost every person who commits any kind of crime realizes the possability that they could DIE during it? I would bet almost all of them don't even consider that they might die.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 08-07-2011).]
So their deaths are worth it if the store gets back their 20 dollar shirt.
so life = $20 ( plus tax )
Nope, not their lives. Their lives are worth NOTHING. Sounds like this wasn't their first rodeo either. I personally wish we had stiffer punishment for criminals.
Nope, not their lives. Their lives are worth NOTHING. Sounds like this wasn't their first rodeo either. I personally wish we had stiffer punishment for criminals.
1 - As i said above, i totally disagree with that attitude towards others' lives. 2 - They are NOT criminals concerning this event. They were suspects. We have this thing in this country called due process, and until proven in court you are presumed innocent ( and if you are shown innocent of the crime, then the case is over, regardless of what people may think ). This is not a country of self-made vigilantes any longer.
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 08-07-2011).]
That's only if one accepts that the act of commiting a crime is rational thought.Most people value their freedom quite a lot but I know of no one who thinks doing something that might result in losing their freedom is rational considering the very real and possible outcome.
I do understand, that theft has become so commonplace, that there are now hudreds of thousands (millions?) of people just in this country who justify it simply because "everyone does it", but that doesn't change the fact that anything that might jeopordize one's freedom is simply an irrational act.
I can assure you, that 1 second before these two swallowed that last lungful of water that they would sertainly agree that everything they had done that afternoon was anything but rational.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 08-07-2011).]
IP: Logged
08:12 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
1 - As i said above, i totally disagree with that attitude towards others' lives. 2 - They are NOT criminals concerning this event. They were suspects. We have this thing in this country called due process, and until proven in court you are presumed innocent. This is not a country of self-made vigilantes any longer.
1. I don't care that you disagree with that attitude, it is simply your opinion and you are entitled to it. I am not trying to persuade you to a different opinion. I was merely answering your question, albeit I figured it was rhetorical. To me their life is of no value. 2. You are right, at this point they were just suspects. Had they been executed (extreme I realize) for their previous crimes we wouldn't be discussing this "tragedy".
That's only if one accepts that the act of commiting a crime is rational thought.Most people value their freedom quite a lot but I know of no one who thinks doing something that might result in losing their freedom is rational considering the very real and possible outcome.
I do understand, that theft has become so commonplace, that there are now hudreds of thousands just in this country who justify it simply because "everyone does it", but that doesn't change the fact that anything that might jeopordize one's freedom is simply an irrational act.
I can assure you, that 1 second before these two swallowed that last lungful of water that they would sertainly agree that everything they had done that afternoon was anything but rational.
I do accept the act CAN be rational thought. Was it in their case? Who knows, we aren't them. But a rational person can sit back and design out a crime, then commit it. I do think the girls were more irrational about their choice in where they ran to, not in the act of the theft, but that's just me
Note i wasn't justifying crime, or making judgments on the personal moral implications of those that do.. just that i *know* you can be rational while doing it.
1. I don't care that you disagree with that attitude, it is simply your opinion and you are entitled to it. I am not trying to persuade you to a different opinion. I was merely answering your question, albeit I figured it was rhetorical. To me their life is of no value. 2. You are right, at this point they were just suspects. Had they been executed (extreme I realize) for their previous crimes we wouldn't be discussing this "tragedy".
Don't take it personally but I'm glad yo don't make the rules when it comes to human life. ( or anything to do with crime and punishment )
Don't take it personally but I'm glad yo don't make the rules when it comes to human life. ( or anything to do with crime and punishment )
I don't take it personally and I agree that is an EXTREME measure. I think that the consequences for crimes in this country are extremely lax. We harbor criminals. We feed them. Educate them. Take care of them. Yeah I realize they go in a cage, but if everyone was made responsible for their actions how many people wouldn't commit crimes. If t meant my life, I would really consider my actions MUCH more and I am a pretty honest guy (at least I think I am).
IP: Logged
08:23 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Are you saying almost every person who commits any kind of crime realizes the possability that they could DIE during it? I would bet almost all of them don't even consider that they might die.
Considering how many HAVE died from commiting what is generally viewed as very minor crimes, it is irrational NOT to consider that very real possibility.
I don't take it personally and I agree that is an EXTREME measure. I think that the consequences for crimes in this country are extremely lax. We harbor criminals. We feed them. Educate them. Take care of them. Yeah I realize they go in a cage, but if everyone was made responsible for their actions how many people wouldn't commit crimes. If t meant my life, I would really consider my actions MUCH more and I am a pretty honest guy (at least I think I am).
Yes there should be consequences for peoples actions.. but death for stealing a shirt? No, the consequence should be appropriate to the crime..
Yes there should be consequences for peoples actions.. but death for stealing a shirt? No, the consequence should be appropriate to the crime..
I haven't read every reply but I don't see where anyone said that the consequence of stealing a shirt (IF they did in fact steal one) should be death. However, the law in many places DOES in fact say that deadly force may be used to protect property. That law, does not specify at what level the value of said property has to be.
Considering how many HAVE died from commiting what is generally viewed as very minor crimes, it is irrational NOT to consider that very real possibility.
More people have died from driving to work in the morning than criminals during their acts. Even more have died in wars ( on both sides, who always feel they are on the right side.. ) Does that mean we are all irrational and should expect to die instantly no matter what we do? I agree with Boonie
I haven't read every reply but I don't see where anyone said that the consequence of stealing a shirt (IF they did in fact steal one) should be death. However, the law in many places DOES in fact say that deadly force may be used to protect property. That law, does not specify at what level the value of said property has to be.
It was said several times they got what they deserved ( even before a trial ). The crime being accused of was simple shoplifting. I agree I used the shirt example since we don't know what they took but it doesn't matter to me what it was, as it is the same concept be it a shirt or an ipod.. or some meat for dinner.
I could be wrong since laws vary across the country i have never heard of 'castle law' being extended to cover property in a 'open to the public' business. Some amount of illegal entry would be needed for that to take effect ( like breaking into your house.. ), which isn't possible when you are a public business, during business hours...
We just had an incident here at a local gun store, where a woman asked to see a gun out of the case, and walked out. Legally all they could do is ask them to stop ( and call the police ) since the person stealing the gun did not make any threatening moves or even tried to steal any ammunition. Now, if it was loaded, or she tried to grab some ammo too, then all bets are off as it would be a 'self defense' situation, and not protecting the stores property.
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 08-07-2011).]
IP: Logged
08:37 PM
Blacktree Member
Posts: 20770 From: Central Florida Registered: Dec 2001
Originally posted by Boondawg: Are you saying almost every person who commits any kind of crime realizes the possability that they could DIE during it? I would bet almost all of them don't even consider that they might die.
Most do not consider their own mortality, until it's too late. As a matter of fact, most of the time the criminals think they won't get caught.
Like the saying goes, the easiest person to fool is yourself.
I have to agree that they got what they deserved--not for the simple theft--but for the stupidity of not stopping when caught, and entering a swollen stream instead. Stupid acts result in unintended consequences--and this was one of the more stupid. That part has nothing to do with the law or justice. They'd most likely be alive today and probably already out on bail (assuming they were even remanded) had they just stopped. They did bring it on themselves, thru the reported criminal act, as all the individual events are certainly linked together. They alone, made every single bad and irrational decision that afternoon. Their choices.
Most do not consider their own mortality, until it's too late. As a matter of fact, most of the time the criminals think they won't get caught.
Like the saying goes, the easiest person to fool is yourself.
If they thought they were going to get caught, they wouldn't have committed the crime in the first place ( well, unless they had emitional issues and wanted to be caught.. )
Now if they are going to rob a bank or break into someones house, sure, the possibility of being killed would come into play and one would be 'irrational' not to consider it. But shoplifting? Embezzlement? Insider trading? Considering them a mortal risk would be irrational. ( sure, your freedom is at risk.. but that is a decision one makes, if the risk is low enough to offset the potential gain )
I have to agree that they got what they deserved--not for the simple theft--but for the stupidity of not stopping when caught, and entering a swollen stream instead. Stupid acts result in unintended consequences--and this was one of the more stupid. That part has nothing to do with the law or justice. They'd most likely be alive today and probably already out on bail (assuming they were even remanded) had they just stopped. They did bring it on themselves, thru the reported criminal act, as all the individual events are certainly linked together. They alone, made every single bad and irrational decision that afternoon. Their choices.
Others have said it the theft alone was deserving, which is what i was referring to, not you in particular. I do agree that the choice of hitting the water was a bad move, but still don't feel they 'deserved' to die for it.
To me the only people that 'deserve' to die, are ones that take another life ( self defense and war not included ). And even then i don't agree with the death penalty as its too easy. They should be made to suffer for what they have done.
IP: Logged
08:53 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
They took the risk. I don't believe anyone is liable for their deaths except them. If they ran out the front of the store into traffic and got run over, would it be their fault or the stores? How about if they tried to jump from the store roof to a nearby building but didn't make it?
I also believe that if a LEO or anyone else dies during the pursuit, then the criminal should not be held liable either. They take on that liability themselves when they choose to pursue unless the criminal actively tries to kill or harm the pursuer. One way to view it is during a pursuit, if a police car looses control and crashes into a house or other property, guess who is liable for the damages? The police department.
Most do not consider their own mortality, until it's too late. As a matter of fact, most of the time the criminals think they won't get caught.
Like the saying goes, the easiest person to fool is yourself.
Most HOPE they won't get caught. All know, that the very real possibility of getting caught exists, otherwise, they wouldn't bother hiding their identity, being sneaky about it or any of the other things so connected to criminal acts. And as I have said, some states have passed laws authorizing the general public to use lethal force to protect property, and these laws are well known where applicable. It no longer has to be a bank--a convenient store or sandwich shop owner has the same rights under the law as a homeowner, resident, or even someone's neighbor in as far as protecting property goes--as well of couse as protecting health and life. Criminals generally know these laws as well or better than the law abiding public, and yet choose to continue in spite of this knowledge, which in my opinion, reeks of irrational thought process. I have no idea what the law says where this took place tho. It may well be, that BCF had no right under the law to do anything.
Originally posted by maryjane:I've been in big box stores before, checked out, paid for everything, and when I went to exit, the alarm at the door goes off, because a cashier didn't get the little anti=theft tag deactivated or removed. I stop IN MY TRACKS, because I fully know someone, is going to stop me one way or another if I don't, even tho I know for a fact i've done nothing wrong. You don't have to be a genius to know something bad will happen if you don't stop.
I'm the opposite. To me that alarm going off and the Lady or Man running after me yelling is pure bs. I have not, and will not be stealing anything, and if they bothered to actually watch the camera's instead of waiting for an rfid tag to go off they would know that. I keep walking, I don't run, but I don't stop. I'm waiting for one of those people to grab me, that is what it will take to stop me. Anything up to that point is their right. If they detain me I will use legal means in every way possible. I'm a free person, and will not be treated by a criminal by people I support with my hard earned money. As said before, they can ban me, lock me out, or whatever and I will respect that (didn't say I would like it). But I will not submit to being treated like a criminal if I did nothing wrong. I am really surprised that you of all people on here stop and wait to be treated like crap. (to each his own, but I'm really surprised)
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:I No, it won't, for the term "rational criminal" is an oxymoron. #1. Criminals ALWAYS know there is a fair amt of danger that their endeavor will end badly--even with their deaths. The know this, because it has happened exactly that way countless times over the decades, and has been reported upon countless times in the last few years on every single type of media imaginable--whether it be in connection with the execution of a misdemeanor, minor traffic stop, or felonious behavior. People--innocent and quilty, get killed every single week either by citizens, police, angry shopkeepers, or motorists as they attempt to perpertrate their crime or in the process of getting away. This is no secret of any kind, and is common knowledge to anyone over the age of about 12.
You do realize that by using this statement you are saying that everyone on the planet is irrational since they could die at any moment. I agree that we are all irrational beings , I'm just saying that you are taking a blanket statement that applies to everyone, and applying it to one group, then using that to prove your point. (which to me proves nothing )
quote
#2. These are (were) either the most naive pair ever to walk the planet, or they thought everyone else was.
I'm betting they were your run of the mill people, and scared of getting caught, they split up and ran when confronted as many would. I'm also betting they normally walked across that creek so it wasn't even thought about.
quote
#3. On top of that, it wasn't the crime that led to their deaths--it was the acts that followed--running, not stopping when told to, and then of course, entering a flooded creek.
I agree, they could have walked away and been fine.
Keep in mind the suspect was 16, and not a legal adult, laws that would apply to an adult may not have applied to her.
Brad
IP: Logged
01:02 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 36748 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by twofatguys: I'm the opposite. To me that alarm going off and the Lady or Man running after me yelling is pure bs. I have not, and will not be stealing anything, and if they bothered to actually watch the camera's instead of waiting for an rfid tag to go off they would know that. I keep walking, I don't run, but I don't stop. I'm waiting for one of those people to grab me, that is what it will take to stop me. Anything up to that point is their right. If they detain me I will use legal means in every way possible. I'm a free person, and will not be treated by a criminal by people I support with my hard earned money. As said before, they can ban me, lock me out, or whatever and I will respect that (didn't say I would like it). But I will not submit to being treated like a criminal if I did nothing wrong. I am really surprised that you of all people on here stop and wait to be treated like crap. (to each his own, but I'm really surprised)
You shouldn't be (surprised). I didn't live to this age by being stupid. I live in a state where the law allows businesses to protect their property with lethal force, where a suspected shoplifter from my town was killed at a Walmart not 20 miles from here by store security a few years ago, and where everyone and their brother & sister has access to or is permitted to carry firearms, and will use them to aid in the prevention of a crime. "Live free or die" is a wonderful sounding axiom, but it matters little at the end of the day if you've done something illegal or not if you are dead simply because you decided to keep walking after being asked or told to stop. You're still dead with your family weeping at your funeral. Any action or inaction that you knowingly attempt that reduces your liklihood of being alive at the end of the day is irrational behavior.
quote
I agree, they could have walked away and been fine.
Keep in mind the suspect was 16, and not a legal adult, laws that would apply to an adult may not have applied to her.
Brad
I do not know what the legal age is in N.C., whether it was the 16 yr old, or the 42 yr old mother (or both) that were suspected of criminal activity, but I know that 16 yr olds go to a jail of one description or another all the time. As I said, just before they last gasped for air, I suspect they wished they had done any one of several things differently that day.
IP: Logged
08:54 AM
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
Im so tired of hearing 'suspect' in place of criminal. If it looks and walks like a duck, its a duck. If she had store items on her and left without paying for them, shes a CRIMINAL....not a friggin suspect. The justice system does allow her the right to claim shes not guilty and the state attempts to prove she is and shes either judged not guilty or recieves a sentence. Casey Anthony is a perfect example, there is not one minisule bit of evidence to show she was innocent. She got away with it and it just shows others they can too. If I seen her walking down the street, Id run her over and feel good about it....and get off by claiming it was a crime of passion.
Im so tired of hearing 'suspect' in place of criminal. If it looks and walks like a duck, its a duck. If she had store items on her and left without paying for them, shes a CRIMINAL....not a friggin suspect. The justice system does allow her the right to claim shes not guilty and the state attempts to prove she is and shes either judged not guilty or recieves a sentence. Casey Anthony is a perfect example, there is not one minisule bit of evidence to show she was innocent. She got away with it and it just shows others they can too. If I seen her walking down the street, Id run her over and feel good about it....and get off by claiming it was a crime of passion.
There doesn't need to be 1 iota of evidence proving one's innocence. You know that Roger.
IP: Logged
10:22 AM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by maryjane: where a suspected shoplifter from my town was killed at a Walmart not 20 miles from here by store security a few years ago,
I did not know that.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane: There doesn't need to be 1 iota of evidence proving one's innocence.
It was discussed here back when I still lived in San Angelo. I'll have to see if I can find it in archives, but since moving here, I have found out a little more about it, but as it is all hearsay, I'll not post that info. The guy was stopped at the door by security, (wouldn't stop actually) and was tackled in the hot summer parking lot and held on the ground, with someone (I believe it was Walmart security) sitting on the guy in the hot summer Texas parking lot--on the asphalt. A bystander pleaded for the guard to let him up (iirc, the bystander was a local attorney) and long story short, the guy died either there in the parking lot or shortly thereafter from heat exposure and suffocation. That, was as it was reported at the time, tho I have not looked at it since. "The death of Stacy Clay Driver, of Cleveland, Texas, was ruled a homicide by the Harris County Medical Examiner's Office. It was caused primarily by asphyxia from compression to the neck and chest."
This happened btw, several years before the current law went into effect regarding property protection and deadly force.
I am NOT in favor of this type thing, and was pretty angry back when this happened, and still would be today, even tho the law may allow for things to occur in a different light under current legislation. Comon sense and rational thought needs to prevail in all things, and thusly, this event and the current legislation changed how I react in regards to security at big box stores. Not afraid one bit of death but no sense rushing it.
Just when I was starting to like Texas, they seriously allow a police, or private security officer to be judge, jury and executioner and they don't have to prove a thing?
I'm 100% for protecting private property...But this gives me pause.
Let me make my stance a little clearer.
If someone is on my property they are trespassing, and I have no problem shooting and killing them, at all. This is a store that people are welcome to walk in and out of all day long, I know it's a private business, but it's not trespassing. The people that were shoplifting are suspects until a judge, or a jury of their peers decides they are guilty or innocent. If you want to sit here and think anything else, AND you consider yourself an American you really need to take a closer look at what freedom actually means. All these men that fought so we could have these rights and you are willing to throw it away for nothing? I'm sitting here reading posts from a Marine, and I'm starting to think that all those men that died for our freedom died for nothing at this point. What you are sitting here saying is that if you see someone in a store that looks suspicious, they should be killed, or it's ok for them to be killed, they get scared by something, kill em. Where did this become OK? It's certainly not the standard I was raised by.
Brad
[This message has been edited by twofatguys (edited 08-08-2011).]
Im so tired of hearing 'suspect' in place of criminal. If it looks and walks like a duck, its a duck. If she had store items on her and left without paying for them, shes a CRIMINAL....not a friggin suspect. The justice system does allow her the right to claim shes not guilty and the state attempts to prove she is and shes either judged not guilty or recieves a sentence. Casey Anthony is a perfect example, there is not one minisule bit of evidence to show she was innocent. She got away with it and it just shows others they can too. If I seen her walking down the street, Id run her over and feel good about it....and get off by claiming it was a crime of passion.
This again?
Brad
IP: Logged
12:52 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 32127 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
Every step we take is one step further down the road to our ultimate desination. Deciding the path we're going to take can make that trip easier, shorter, longer or more difficult but, we're all going to get there. The decisions these two made are what lead them to the end of their paths sooner than an alternative decision. They have no one to blame but themselves.
Two fat guys and nurb. You guys actually would keep walking if someone politely asked you to hold up for a quick second so they can deactivate your items? Hell if it goes off on me i walk back in and say deactivate this thing. I don't want to walk into another store with a pair of shoes that sets off there rfid and creates more annoying days. I mean come on its not all ways the cashiers fault the rfid does not deactivate. Your dealing with electrical equipment. If more people would stop then it would make it easier to acknowledge the thieves. Do you guys relize that when you walk threw that big door the guy next to you may have stolen an item and used you as his diversion? Dont sit here saying well they should look at their cameras first. with over 10 cameras in a small retail environment by the time you are hitting the door they would have not had the time to review the footage. It takes less then a minute to look at a receipt and deactivate an item. Its the stupid attitude that its not my fault let them deal with it that gets us to the point we are at now a days. This artical the guard is completely in the wrong for chasing. I don't chase at my store I follow to property line walking behind and let the officers do there job from there. I never call unless I see them conceal an item. and I don't rely on them damn rfid system we have. My dumb ass store manager chases and has been in trouble with the law multiple times over. Even charged with trespassing while chasing a guy who ran into a yard. His only accepted chase was the damn kid who punched my boss cause we followed him out after seeing him steal a freaking candy bar. Also our local laws state we can not call the police on any one who has concealed an item untill they left the store. Thats right you can see it on tape you can see it with your eyes there guilty as hell but you can not charge them until they left the store. Its the differnce between thinking about it and actually committing a crime.
Im so tired of hearing 'suspect' in place of criminal. If it looks and walks like a duck, its a duck.
This is how our system works. Until you are proven guilty ( or admit to the crime ) you are only a suspect. and presumed innocent. As it should be.
And if you are proven not guilty by reasonable doubt in court the discussion is over and you are not guilty in the eyes of the law and should be treated as such. Any one who takes it upon themselves that think they are above the law shouldn't be here.
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 08-08-2011).]
Two fat guys and nurb. You guys actually would keep walking if someone politely asked you to hold up for a quick second so they can deactivate your items?
I would, and have. Personally 'hey get back here', ' hey stop right there', or a hand on a shoulder ( which would get ugly fast ), would not be considered a polite request and is what you normally would get. Really, its not my problem if the system failed or the ball was dropped by a cashier. It is their fault, I'm the customer, it doesn't effect what i just bought and its really not my problem. i'm not there to cause problems i'm there to purchase product, screw em if they cant get their act together.
IP: Logged
04:13 PM
FriendGregory Member
Posts: 4833 From: Palo Alto, CA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
I wont stop, screw them if they made a mistake, its not my problem, and if they touch me they can expect a suit ( and a punch in the face due to self defense or worse if they push their luck ). The alarm going off in a retail store is not enough grounds to stop someone. its grounds to ASK them to stop.. There are a lot of rules about not losing sight, etc or they are liable for stopping a innocent person.
EDIT: Now they can banish me from their store for that and if i return it would be considered trespassing but they still cant do anything other than call the police and hope I'm still there by the time they arrive ( well i guess they could lock the doors so i couldn't enter, but they cant lock me IN the building ). While you may not understand the rational, I just refuse to be treated like a criminal due to THEIR f-up.
I think I choose not to hang out with you in public. I try to avoid trouble and not encourage extra scrutiny. Cooperating during a mistake just makes life run smoother and keeps stupid things from happening later, like a gun in the face two miles down the road.
actually nurb I as an associate can place the blame on you as a consumer if I would like. You as a customer more then likely watch each item you purchase be rung up correct? You as a consumer scrutianize the pricing of each item correct? Well why the heck cant you relize the item normally marked that it has an rfid does not deactivate? You can hear the item be deactivated it makes a buzzing or beeping noise when its deactivated.The beep is clearly different then any other sound at the register. So if you can stand there and ***** up a storm over a .05 cent price issue listen for the damn beep. Serioiusly start growing up and accepting your choices effect others as well your not perfect so why do you think others should be for you.
) 
I'm sitting here reading posts from a Marine, and I'm starting to think that all those men that died for our freedom died for nothing at this point. What you are sitting here saying is that if you see someone in a store that looks suspicious, they should be killed, or it's ok for them to be killed, they get scared by something, kill em. Where did this become OK? It's certainly not the standard I was raised by. 
