7 ms·

The National Guard would go to stop violence, wouldn't it? Pretty interesting how people even here try to invert the situation for political reasons.

by 101404 6y ago

profunctor 6y ago
Wouldn't they cause violence?
midasz 6y ago
You tell me, he quite literally says the military is with him and ready to shoot when people start looting. Please tell me how I am inverting the situation? Or should I use your translation book to make sense of his tweets?
- liaukovv 6y ago
  If those "people" started looting my property i would have very much liked for someone to shoot them
  - midasz 6y ago
    Ah so now they are "people"? The people who loot should be arrested and tried. Once you start using force many innocent people will be caught in the crosshairs, this will only further escalate the situation.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > Once you start using force many innocent people will be caught in the crosshairs, this will only further escalate the situation. I don't have a dog in your fight, but you are aware that "arresting them" is literally done by force, right? And from what I hear, whether you send in the National Guard or a militarized police force is primarily a political difference, not so much a question of escalation.
      - totalZero 6y ago
        You can't arrest someone whom you've just shot dead.
    - liaukovv 6y ago
      Yes, using violence in politics reduces their humanity in my eyes. They started using force, giving in only invites more violence in the future.
      - totalZero 6y ago
        This "if I back off, I will show weakness" mentality is precisely what leads so many police officers to use excessive force despite being surrounded by bystanders pleading for mercy on behalf of their fellow citizens. When the people have to resort to violence to get public servants to do their jobs and relieve the wounds of injustice, the only appropriate response is to give them justice. Lastly, I remind you that the public did not initiate the use of force in this riotous controversy. A police officer did.
        liaukovv 6y ago
        You will show weakness and that weakness will be exploited again. How is that debatable is beyond me. Police are allowed to use violence, that's their reason for existing, if that violence was misused it can be handled in non-violent way, that's what society is built around. It might not be instant or easy, but that's the difference between civil discourse and terrorism.
        anigbrowl 6y ago
        It's not OK for the police to terrorize people. If they do so repeatedly, their authority can be revoked. I might remind you that people tried protesting this peacefully a couple of days with the conventional things like signs and chanting and got tear-gassed for their efforts. This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.
        liaukovv 6y ago
        So in this case you are advocating civil war?
- roenxi 6y ago
  > You tell me, he quite literally says the military is with him and ready to shoot when people start looting. He didn't literally say that. The National Guard would be acting in a role very similar to the police when there is rioting.
  - midasz 6y ago
    > Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!
    - blackflame7000 6y ago
      And that's bad because...? We can't succumb to lawlessness if people don't respect the law and expect no penalties. If they did the same thing at Area51 and were shot, would you say it's the fault of the guard who swore to protect their post just as the National Guard does? Is the value of civility not greater than a single life?
      - dannyw 6y ago
        Should people be shot for looting? Is looting a capital crime?
        blackflame7000 6y ago
        The reason a prosecutor makes an example of someone is so that they serve as a deterrent to others. It's not because they desire to make an example of everyone. The problem is that you disguise widely complicit violations of societal order by comparing them to single instances of pilfering. Looting doesn't justify deadly force, but a riotous and unlawful mob certainly can.
        dannyw 6y ago
        I don't follow the logic that a crime against property should become a capital crime just because it is down by a large(unorganised) group of people. Furthermore, the constitution guarantees a fair right to a jury trial, no matter how egregious, and police or the national guard shooting to kill looters goes against that. Should drug smugglers be shot too? They are also going against societal order.
UncleMeat 6y ago
The national guard shooting citizens isn't "stopping violence".

The National Guard would go to stop violence, wouldn't it? Pretty interesting how people even here try to invert the situation for political reasons.

by 101404 6y ago

The National Guard would go to stop violence, wouldn't it? Pretty interesting how people even here try to invert the situation for political reasons.

profunctor 6y ago

Wouldn't they cause violence?

midasz 6y ago

You tell me, he quite literally says the military is with him and ready to shoot when people start looting. Please tell me how I am inverting the situation? Or should I use your translation book to make sense of his tweets?

liaukovv 6y ago
If those "people" started looting my property i would have very much liked for someone to shoot them
- midasz 6y ago
  Ah so now they are "people"? The people who loot should be arrested and tried. Once you start using force many innocent people will be caught in the crosshairs, this will only further escalate the situation.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > Once you start using force many innocent people will be caught in the crosshairs, this will only further escalate the situation. I don't have a dog in your fight, but you are aware that "arresting them" is literally done by force, right? And from what I hear, whether you send in the National Guard or a militarized police force is primarily a political difference, not so much a question of escalation.
    - totalZero 6y ago
      You can't arrest someone whom you've just shot dead.
  - liaukovv 6y ago
    Yes, using violence in politics reduces their humanity in my eyes. They started using force, giving in only invites more violence in the future.
    - totalZero 6y ago
      This "if I back off, I will show weakness" mentality is precisely what leads so many police officers to use excessive force despite being surrounded by bystanders pleading for mercy on behalf of their fellow citizens. When the people have to resort to violence to get public servants to do their jobs and relieve the wounds of injustice, the only appropriate response is to give them justice. Lastly, I remind you that the public did not initiate the use of force in this riotous controversy. A police officer did.
      - liaukovv 6y ago
        You will show weakness and that weakness will be exploited again. How is that debatable is beyond me. Police are allowed to use violence, that's their reason for existing, if that violence was misused it can be handled in non-violent way, that's what society is built around. It might not be instant or easy, but that's the difference between civil discourse and terrorism.
        anigbrowl 6y ago
        It's not OK for the police to terrorize people. If they do so repeatedly, their authority can be revoked. I might remind you that people tried protesting this peacefully a couple of days with the conventional things like signs and chanting and got tear-gassed for their efforts. This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.
        liaukovv 6y ago
        So in this case you are advocating civil war?
roenxi 6y ago
> You tell me, he quite literally says the military is with him and ready to shoot when people start looting. He didn't literally say that. The National Guard would be acting in a role very similar to the police when there is rioting.
- midasz 6y ago
  > Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!
  - blackflame7000 6y ago
    And that's bad because...? We can't succumb to lawlessness if people don't respect the law and expect no penalties. If they did the same thing at Area51 and were shot, would you say it's the fault of the guard who swore to protect their post just as the National Guard does? Is the value of civility not greater than a single life?
    - dannyw 6y ago
      Should people be shot for looting? Is looting a capital crime?
      - blackflame7000 6y ago
        The reason a prosecutor makes an example of someone is so that they serve as a deterrent to others. It's not because they desire to make an example of everyone. The problem is that you disguise widely complicit violations of societal order by comparing them to single instances of pilfering. Looting doesn't justify deadly force, but a riotous and unlawful mob certainly can.
        dannyw 6y ago
        I don't follow the logic that a crime against property should become a capital crime just because it is down by a large(unorganised) group of people. Furthermore, the constitution guarantees a fair right to a jury trial, no matter how egregious, and police or the national guard shooting to kill looters goes against that. Should drug smugglers be shot too? They are also going against societal order.

UncleMeat 6y ago

The national guard shooting citizens isn't "stopping violence".