4 ms·

> The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens for looting, that's the line. Is this supposed to be

> The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens for looting, that's the line. Is this supposed to be bad? I actually wish that our own PM had done the same. I am sure that the citizens of a lot of countries that live under the rule of criminal syndicates, looters, and highwaymen would agree. It seems that the US citizens are fine with state mandated violence as long as it does not include them. Nothing happened regarding https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018041 for example.

tunesmith 6y ago
> Is this supposed to be bad? Yes. > I actually wish that our own PM had done the same. That would be bad. > I am sure that the citizens of a lot of countries that live under the rule of criminal syndicates, looters, and highwaymen would agree. They are also bad. What is better is to have a functional police system that responds proportionately.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  Why would that be bad exactly? Anyway, I am glad that you did not have to survive through something like that. > What is better is to have a functional police system that responds proportionately. In times of mass-looting? I doubt that even the most functional police system could be able to help. That being said we are talking about the extremely dysfunctional American police system. I doubt that they can change it into a functional one within an hour. What would you suggest for right now?
  - modoc 6y ago
    It would be bad because it would be enforcing a death penalty for theft, and because it's extra-judicial (no arrest, no jury, no conviction, etc...).
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      > because it would be enforcing a death penalty for theft Looting is not just theft > because it's extra-judicial (no arrest, no jury, no conviction, etc...). Is it still bad if the police shoot someone attempting to murder someone else?
  - tunesmith 6y ago
    > Why would that be bad exactly? Because shooting looters is disproportionate. You arrest them and charge them for burglary, and then determine mitigating factors. The looters aren't shooting people. As for why it is bad to kill someone that isn't a killer, we have to go back to general moral philosophy and common law. Extremely generally, aside from the moral cost of taking a life, it's also because it is systematically escalatory that invites a further escalatory response. > Anyway, I am glad that you did not have to survive through something like that. Me too, but I fail to see the relevance. I understand that someone living through that might make someone more willing to shoot looters, but that doesn't mean it is proportionate or appropriate. > In times of mass-looting? Yes, in times of mass-looting, it would be better to have a functional police system that would be able to arrest, charge for burglary, and then determine mitigating factors by looking at the overall context. And I agree, our current police system is not up to that task. > What would you suggest for right now? I think we should not move past that the answer is not right now, but a few days ago - we should not have a system where it is even thinkable that police officers can kneel on people's necks and kill them. That exposed that it is a dysfunctional American police system (in that area and many others). Societal cohesion does not operate based off of the overwhelming strength of a police system, but common trust, mores, and belief in the overall system. If you break those bonds by kneeling on someone's neck and killing them, then many other things can break as well. As for right now, the aim is to re-assert control in a non-escalatory fashion, and then let justice-driven investigations run their course. That's the right thing to do.
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      > Because shooting looters is disproportionate Debatable > You arrest them and charge them for burglary, and then determine mitigating factors This is not possible to be done in scale in a mass-looting situation. > The looters aren't shooting people The looters are looting while using the threat of violence. > As for why it is bad to kill someone that isn't a killer, we have to go back to general moral philosophy and common law You say that as if it is some form of universal truth. I do not share your personal morals regarding this. > Yes, in times of mass-looting, it would be better to have a functional police system that would be able to arrest, charge for burglary, and then determine mitigating factors by looking at the overall context Certainly, but my argument is that no police force on the planet would be able to handle mass-looting in scale and in the way that you propose. This is like saying "just stop putting bugs in your code". Anyway, this whole thread is about trump saying that he will send the military if the governor is not able to handle it his own way - which is likely similar to the way that you are proposing. > the aim is to re-assert control in a non-escalatory fashion How are you planing to do that? Especially in a way that has the least amount of looting happen.
- zo1 6y ago
  We wouldn't be here at all if the police were allowed to address this properly. It either wouldn't have escalated, or they'd be overwhelmed and the army would have had to have been called in to assist. I don't understand why this is so complicated. People pay taxes to be protected from such violence. It's the reason we're told to shut up and go to Somalia when we complain about taxes. But when it comes down to it, nothing happens. Local acts of terrorism and people are left to defend themselves, possibly without the capability to own a firearm too.
Valgrim 6y ago
It is bad because the value of human life (even people you don't like) is infinitely greater than material goods. A looted store can be repared, restocked, rebuilt. A dead human stays dead forever and yields a mountain of grief around him. They are not comparable at all.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  > It is bad because the value of human life (even people you don't like) is infinitely greater than material goods The human life of the people looting your property is more important than the well-being of you and your family who will be in debt after that, I see. Regardless, this seems to be your personal value, something that I (and most people that I know) do not seem to share - even the US constitution and laws do not seem to share it, after all it is legal to shoot someone invading your home. I have no grief to give to someone who died while trying to invade my home and loot my property. They are dead due to their own choices. > A looted store can be repared, restocked, rebuilt For free? It can be a lifetime's worth for some. Are you willing to pay it out of your own pockets? If there were enough people willing to do so I would support your statement, but that does not seem to be the case.
  - ncallaway 6y ago
    > The human life of the people looting your property is more important than the well-being of you and your family who will be in debt after that, I see. Your argument here seems to be that human life is worth less that the value of looted goods. So, if someone looted a TV, you think their life holds less value than a TV? I want to interpret your reply charitably, but I’m really struggling with this sentence. The answer seems self evident: Yes. Obviously. Without a doubt of course a human life (even a life that is doing something like looting) is worth more than the value of what it’s carrying. Should we stop someone looting things? Yes. Should we kill them just over the theft? No, of course not.
    - Proziam 6y ago
      If your entire store gets looted or burned down, completely eviscerating your livelihood (potentially leading to homelessness for you and your family) or threatening your well being and safety then it's probably not about one guy carrying a TV.
oarsinsync 6y ago
> It seems that the US citizens are fine with state mandated violence as long as it does not include them. Nothing happened regarding https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018041 for example. I don't think it's fair to paint this as unique to US citizens. I'd go as far as saying this is generally true across the world, with few people protesting state sanctioned violence abroad, and significantly more people protesting domestic state sanctioned violence. I don't think that's unusual. I think it's normal that we care more about our own lives than we do others lives, we care more about people dying at home than we do abroad. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is normal human behaviour. A good example of this is watching how peoples perceptions of this latest coronavirus unfolded. There's too much going on in all of our lives to have time for every bad thing happening elsewhere. You pick your battles. That's ok. You still have to live your life for yourself at the end of the day, nobody else is going to live your life for you.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  I think that you forgot to mention that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018041 was an act done by the US military, and it was not the only one of its kind. I would understand if most USA citizens did not give a shit if it was done by a 3rd party, but it was done by their own military which they fund via their own taxes.
  - oarsinsync 6y ago
    Apologies for not being clear > few people protesting state sanctioned violence abroad I was referring to their local state committing acts of violence abroad. As you correctly note, the example mentioned is not the only one of its kind. This happens far too frequently. It falls into the "every bad thing happening elsewhere" bucket.

tunesmith 6y ago

> Is this supposed to be bad? Yes. > I actually wish that our own PM had done the same. That would be bad. > I am sure that the citizens of a lot of countries that live under the rule of criminal syndicates, looters, and highwaymen would agree. They are also bad. What is better is to have a functional police system that responds proportionately.

dependenttypes 6y ago
Why would that be bad exactly? Anyway, I am glad that you did not have to survive through something like that. > What is better is to have a functional police system that responds proportionately. In times of mass-looting? I doubt that even the most functional police system could be able to help. That being said we are talking about the extremely dysfunctional American police system. I doubt that they can change it into a functional one within an hour. What would you suggest for right now?
- modoc 6y ago
  It would be bad because it would be enforcing a death penalty for theft, and because it's extra-judicial (no arrest, no jury, no conviction, etc...).
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    > because it would be enforcing a death penalty for theft Looting is not just theft > because it's extra-judicial (no arrest, no jury, no conviction, etc...). Is it still bad if the police shoot someone attempting to murder someone else?
- tunesmith 6y ago
  > Why would that be bad exactly? Because shooting looters is disproportionate. You arrest them and charge them for burglary, and then determine mitigating factors. The looters aren't shooting people. As for why it is bad to kill someone that isn't a killer, we have to go back to general moral philosophy and common law. Extremely generally, aside from the moral cost of taking a life, it's also because it is systematically escalatory that invites a further escalatory response. > Anyway, I am glad that you did not have to survive through something like that. Me too, but I fail to see the relevance. I understand that someone living through that might make someone more willing to shoot looters, but that doesn't mean it is proportionate or appropriate. > In times of mass-looting? Yes, in times of mass-looting, it would be better to have a functional police system that would be able to arrest, charge for burglary, and then determine mitigating factors by looking at the overall context. And I agree, our current police system is not up to that task. > What would you suggest for right now? I think we should not move past that the answer is not right now, but a few days ago - we should not have a system where it is even thinkable that police officers can kneel on people's necks and kill them. That exposed that it is a dysfunctional American police system (in that area and many others). Societal cohesion does not operate based off of the overwhelming strength of a police system, but common trust, mores, and belief in the overall system. If you break those bonds by kneeling on someone's neck and killing them, then many other things can break as well. As for right now, the aim is to re-assert control in a non-escalatory fashion, and then let justice-driven investigations run their course. That's the right thing to do.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    > Because shooting looters is disproportionate Debatable > You arrest them and charge them for burglary, and then determine mitigating factors This is not possible to be done in scale in a mass-looting situation. > The looters aren't shooting people The looters are looting while using the threat of violence. > As for why it is bad to kill someone that isn't a killer, we have to go back to general moral philosophy and common law You say that as if it is some form of universal truth. I do not share your personal morals regarding this. > Yes, in times of mass-looting, it would be better to have a functional police system that would be able to arrest, charge for burglary, and then determine mitigating factors by looking at the overall context Certainly, but my argument is that no police force on the planet would be able to handle mass-looting in scale and in the way that you propose. This is like saying "just stop putting bugs in your code". Anyway, this whole thread is about trump saying that he will send the military if the governor is not able to handle it his own way - which is likely similar to the way that you are proposing. > the aim is to re-assert control in a non-escalatory fashion How are you planing to do that? Especially in a way that has the least amount of looting happen.
zo1 6y ago
We wouldn't be here at all if the police were allowed to address this properly. It either wouldn't have escalated, or they'd be overwhelmed and the army would have had to have been called in to assist. I don't understand why this is so complicated. People pay taxes to be protected from such violence. It's the reason we're told to shut up and go to Somalia when we complain about taxes. But when it comes down to it, nothing happens. Local acts of terrorism and people are left to defend themselves, possibly without the capability to own a firearm too.

Valgrim 6y ago

It is bad because the value of human life (even people you don't like) is infinitely greater than material goods. A looted store can be repared, restocked, rebuilt. A dead human stays dead forever and yields a mountain of grief around him. They are not comparable at all.

dependenttypes 6y ago
> It is bad because the value of human life (even people you don't like) is infinitely greater than material goods The human life of the people looting your property is more important than the well-being of you and your family who will be in debt after that, I see. Regardless, this seems to be your personal value, something that I (and most people that I know) do not seem to share - even the US constitution and laws do not seem to share it, after all it is legal to shoot someone invading your home. I have no grief to give to someone who died while trying to invade my home and loot my property. They are dead due to their own choices. > A looted store can be repared, restocked, rebuilt For free? It can be a lifetime's worth for some. Are you willing to pay it out of your own pockets? If there were enough people willing to do so I would support your statement, but that does not seem to be the case.
- ncallaway 6y ago
  > The human life of the people looting your property is more important than the well-being of you and your family who will be in debt after that, I see. Your argument here seems to be that human life is worth less that the value of looted goods. So, if someone looted a TV, you think their life holds less value than a TV? I want to interpret your reply charitably, but I’m really struggling with this sentence. The answer seems self evident: Yes. Obviously. Without a doubt of course a human life (even a life that is doing something like looting) is worth more than the value of what it’s carrying. Should we stop someone looting things? Yes. Should we kill them just over the theft? No, of course not.
  - Proziam 6y ago
    If your entire store gets looted or burned down, completely eviscerating your livelihood (potentially leading to homelessness for you and your family) or threatening your well being and safety then it's probably not about one guy carrying a TV.

oarsinsync 6y ago

> It seems that the US citizens are fine with state mandated violence as long as it does not include them. Nothing happened regarding https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018041 for example. I don't think it's fair to paint this as unique to US citizens. I'd go as far as saying this is generally true across the world, with few people protesting state sanctioned violence abroad, and significantly more people protesting domestic state sanctioned violence. I don't think that's unusual. I think it's normal that we care more about our own lives than we do others lives, we care more about people dying at home than we do abroad. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is normal human behaviour. A good example of this is watching how peoples perceptions of this latest coronavirus unfolded. There's too much going on in all of our lives to have time for every bad thing happening elsewhere. You pick your battles. That's ok. You still have to live your life for yourself at the end of the day, nobody else is going to live your life for you.

dependenttypes 6y ago
I think that you forgot to mention that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018041 was an act done by the US military, and it was not the only one of its kind. I would understand if most USA citizens did not give a shit if it was done by a 3rd party, but it was done by their own military which they fund via their own taxes.
- oarsinsync 6y ago
  Apologies for not being clear > few people protesting state sanctioned violence abroad I was referring to their local state committing acts of violence abroad. As you correctly note, the example mentioned is not the only one of its kind. This happens far too frequently. It falls into the "every bad thing happening elsewhere" bucket.