4 ms·
Because the exact phrase has historical context [1] in a sense of: if you loot, we shoot. Clearly it wasn’t said in a sense of: looting inevitably leads to viol
by wmkn 6y ago
Because the exact phrase has historical context [1] in a sense of: if you loot, we shoot. Clearly it wasn’t said in a sense of: looting inevitably leads to violence.
That makes it sound like Trump used it in a similar fashion.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-when-looting-starts-shooting-starts-come-n1217676 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-...
- gweinberg 6y agoLooting doesn't lead to violence, looting is violence.
- wmkn 6y agoFair point. ‘Looting inevitably leads to innocent people getting shot’ is probably not what Trump meant.
- jtbayly 6y agoLooting will and must lead to the police taking action to do their most basic job—protecting the life and property of the people. This means almost certainly people will be shot, some guilty, some innocent.
- wmkn 6y agoShooting should not be the starting point of law enforcement. Shooting should be a last resort. Implying that looting indiscriminately means shooting is a call to violence.
- jtbayly 6y agoHe never said it was the first resort, or that shooting should or will be indiscriminate. I'm done here. You're not arguing. You're simply begging the question.
- mthoms 6y agoHis words directly connected the <act of looting> with the <act of shooting>. There is no other way to interpret it. If he meant something more measured, he should have said something more measured.
- FireBeyond 6y agoYou ever watch how the police behave in some cities when there's looting and rioting because their team won a football or hockey championship. Because that absolutely proves that looting and rioting apparently don't have to lead to police action. They can stand by, or join the celebrations.