5 ms·

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,

by 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?
        anigbrowl 6y ago
        Is there something unclear about my choice of words?
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        It just seems like you're failing to acknowledge the logical consequences of the idea. If the looters in Minneapolis are conducting a civil war, military force against them is justified and appropriate.
        anigbrowl 6y ago
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  Looting and even property damage is different from violence, and when it happens to a business it's different from when it happens to a person. It's not that you should like or always accept such things, but the unpleasant part of being robbed is the fear of violence, besides which the lost property itself is usually a transient annoyance. Actual violence against your person is a great deal worse.
  - liaukovv 6y ago
    So if someone is robbing you, you should not be allowed to defend your property with violence unless you are threatened directly? Interesting
    - anigbrowl 6y ago
      You're allowed to defend your person with violence. I think you understand quite well that I am drawing a distinction between your person and property, and that while you can certainly resist being robbed to the extent that you feel personally threatened, your property is of distinctly secondary importance. In the case of corporate property, it's of tertiary importance for reasons I hope are obvious.
    - morsch 6y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)

by midasz 6y ago

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?
      - anigbrowl 6y ago
        Is there something unclear about my choice of words?
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        It just seems like you're failing to acknowledge the logical consequences of the idea. If the looters in Minneapolis are conducting a civil war, military force against them is justified and appropriate.
        anigbrowl 6y ago
anigbrowl 6y ago
Looting and even property damage is different from violence, and when it happens to a business it's different from when it happens to a person. It's not that you should like or always accept such things, but the unpleasant part of being robbed is the fear of violence, besides which the lost property itself is usually a transient annoyance. Actual violence against your person is a great deal worse.
- liaukovv 6y ago
  So if someone is robbing you, you should not be allowed to defend your property with violence unless you are threatened directly? Interesting
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    You're allowed to defend your person with violence. I think you understand quite well that I am drawing a distinction between your person and property, and that while you can certainly resist being robbed to the extent that you feel personally threatened, your property is of distinctly secondary importance. In the case of corporate property, it's of tertiary importance for reasons I hope are obvious.
  - morsch 6y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)