5 ms·

Are you honest to god defending the president saying that American citizens should be shot?

by ashtonkem 6y ago

rileyteige 6y ago
POTUS is not saying they should be shot, no.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  This is the same word games that edge lords use to avoid social consequences; there’s no “I was just kidding” excuse when the president of the United States of America discusses the use of lethal force on American citizens.
- dathinab 6y ago
  He is saying exactly that. If they loot shot then, that's what he is saying. It would be fine if it's: if they loot arrest them and if they treat to prevent this by using weapons like guns then you can shoot them if there is no other way.
TechBro8615 6y ago
I'm not sure how that's the conclusion you drew from my comment.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  > This tweet, while in bad taste IMO, was a threat to those who are planning to continue looting and burning buildings in Minneapolis. Because I read what you said. You are saying it’s okay for the president to say that looters should be shot, it’s just “in bad taste”.
stronglikedan 6y ago
Are you honest to god deducing that the president said American citizens should be shot?
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  How else would you interpret “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”?
  - stronglikedan 6y ago
    It's a (perhaps too) succinct plea to not loot, and a warning that people will defend themselves and their property accordingly.
    - jaredmosley 6y ago
      You can not take someones life to defend your property in Minnesota. There are not "Stand Your Ground" laws afaik. A use of lethal force must be intended to protect someone's life.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        Pedantry time. “Stand your ground” isn’t about defending property with lethal force. Stand your ground is about whether or not you have a duty to attempt to flee (if possible) before applying lethal force. Castle doctrine is a similar rule, but more narrowly scoped to your own home. Without stand-your-ground, you have to demonstrate that you tried to, or were incapable of retreating before applying lethal force. That being said, there are very few states of the union where applying lethal force to protect property is legal. Texas is the only one I know of. In Texas you could shoot someone to protect property even if you feel that your life and limb are not at risk, but that’s not the norm in other states. All states allow some level of force to stop a fleeing felon, the well named “Fleeing Felon” rule, but Tennessee vs. Garner limited this to non-lethal force. So you could tackle a fleeing robber legally, but shooting one would be illegal outside of Texas. Now Minnesota only has castle doctrine and stand your ground from your own vehicle. If one reasonably feels that life and limb are at risk in Minnesota you can apply lethal force, but if you’re outside of your home and car you have a duty to attempt to retreat first. In my opinion this makes shooting at looters to protect your business a dicey proposition legally, as arguably you should have just fled. As always, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
sasasassy 6y ago
American citizens should be shot in the same circumstances any other citizens should be shot, like when all other reasonable countermeasures fail and they are posing a credible treat to other people's lives.
- comfyinnernet 6y ago
  Credible treats will be met with incredible tricks.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Lethal force is occasionally necessary, and I agree it should be applied in as minimal as a way possible. That’s pretty orthogonal to whether or not the political leader of the US should publicly say that looters should be shot.
- onemoresoop 6y ago
  There are better options than killing people. Even shooting legs is better than shooting to kill. I will never advocate violence on your own citizens because that creates a never ending cycle of violence and vendettas. It’s as stupid and fruitless as populist politics
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    > Even shooting legs is better than shooting to kill. No it isn't. Legs are hard to hit compared to center-mass, and the only reason you should be shooting at somebody is if you need to because they are an imminent threat; therefore you should be aiming for a part of the body that you have a higher probability of hitting and that, having been hit, has a higher probability of effectively stopping the threat.
- dfxm12 6y ago
  like when all other reasonable countermeasures fail and they are posing a credible treat to other people's lives. ...neither of which is an outcome in this situation, and looting is not a credible treat to people's lives.
growlist 6y ago
An alternative interpretation is that he was simply observing that violence begets violence, rather than encouraging it. My take is that he was deliberately ambiguous in order to taunt his opponents whilst also giving himself plausible deniability.
AuryGlenz 6y ago
I think he probably meant exactly what everyone thinks, but you can shoot things other than bullets. Rubber bullets and gas canisters are also “shot.” He could have even been referring to the rioters shooting. I’m sure it would have been worded better if it wasn’t on Twitter, but that’s definitely on him. The point is if you’re going to censor the president (or anyone, IMO) you should give them the full benefit of the doubt first.

Are you honest to god defending the president saying that American citizens should be shot?

rileyteige 6y ago

POTUS is not saying they should be shot, no.

ashtonkem 6y ago
This is the same word games that edge lords use to avoid social consequences; there’s no “I was just kidding” excuse when the president of the United States of America discusses the use of lethal force on American citizens.
dathinab 6y ago
He is saying exactly that. If they loot shot then, that's what he is saying. It would be fine if it's: if they loot arrest them and if they treat to prevent this by using weapons like guns then you can shoot them if there is no other way.

TechBro8615 6y ago

I'm not sure how that's the conclusion you drew from my comment.

ashtonkem 6y ago
> This tweet, while in bad taste IMO, was a threat to those who are planning to continue looting and burning buildings in Minneapolis. Because I read what you said. You are saying it’s okay for the president to say that looters should be shot, it’s just “in bad taste”.

stronglikedan 6y ago

Are you honest to god deducing that the president said American citizens should be shot?

ashtonkem 6y ago
How else would you interpret “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”?
- stronglikedan 6y ago
  It's a (perhaps too) succinct plea to not loot, and a warning that people will defend themselves and their property accordingly.
  - jaredmosley 6y ago
    You can not take someones life to defend your property in Minnesota. There are not "Stand Your Ground" laws afaik. A use of lethal force must be intended to protect someone's life.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      Pedantry time. “Stand your ground” isn’t about defending property with lethal force. Stand your ground is about whether or not you have a duty to attempt to flee (if possible) before applying lethal force. Castle doctrine is a similar rule, but more narrowly scoped to your own home. Without stand-your-ground, you have to demonstrate that you tried to, or were incapable of retreating before applying lethal force. That being said, there are very few states of the union where applying lethal force to protect property is legal. Texas is the only one I know of. In Texas you could shoot someone to protect property even if you feel that your life and limb are not at risk, but that’s not the norm in other states. All states allow some level of force to stop a fleeing felon, the well named “Fleeing Felon” rule, but Tennessee vs. Garner limited this to non-lethal force. So you could tackle a fleeing robber legally, but shooting one would be illegal outside of Texas. Now Minnesota only has castle doctrine and stand your ground from your own vehicle. If one reasonably feels that life and limb are at risk in Minnesota you can apply lethal force, but if you’re outside of your home and car you have a duty to attempt to retreat first. In my opinion this makes shooting at looters to protect your business a dicey proposition legally, as arguably you should have just fled. As always, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

sasasassy 6y ago

American citizens should be shot in the same circumstances any other citizens should be shot, like when all other reasonable countermeasures fail and they are posing a credible treat to other people's lives.

comfyinnernet 6y ago
Credible treats will be met with incredible tricks.
ashtonkem 6y ago
Lethal force is occasionally necessary, and I agree it should be applied in as minimal as a way possible. That’s pretty orthogonal to whether or not the political leader of the US should publicly say that looters should be shot.
onemoresoop 6y ago
There are better options than killing people. Even shooting legs is better than shooting to kill. I will never advocate violence on your own citizens because that creates a never ending cycle of violence and vendettas. It’s as stupid and fruitless as populist politics
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  > Even shooting legs is better than shooting to kill. No it isn't. Legs are hard to hit compared to center-mass, and the only reason you should be shooting at somebody is if you need to because they are an imminent threat; therefore you should be aiming for a part of the body that you have a higher probability of hitting and that, having been hit, has a higher probability of effectively stopping the threat.
dfxm12 6y ago
like when all other reasonable countermeasures fail and they are posing a credible treat to other people's lives. ...neither of which is an outcome in this situation, and looting is not a credible treat to people's lives.

growlist 6y ago

An alternative interpretation is that he was simply observing that violence begets violence, rather than encouraging it. My take is that he was deliberately ambiguous in order to taunt his opponents whilst also giving himself plausible deniability.

AuryGlenz 6y ago

I think he probably meant exactly what everyone thinks, but you can shoot things other than bullets. Rubber bullets and gas canisters are also “shot.” He could have even been referring to the rioters shooting. I’m sure it would have been worded better if it wasn’t on Twitter, but that’s definitely on him. The point is if you’re going to censor the president (or anyone, IMO) you should give them the full benefit of the doubt first.