3 ms·

> Your comment removes so much context that it's nearly deceptive. How much more "context" do you need? You don't go around dispatching the military to shoot a

by waon 6y ago

> Your comment removes so much context that it's nearly deceptive. How much more "context" do you need? You don't go around dispatching the military to shoot at your own citizens, not in a state governed by the rule of law. No amount of civil unrest will let an accountable government get away with that. > Do you propose this behavior should be met with praise and not violence? Please don't put words in my mouth.

0xy 6y ago
>Please don't put words in my mouth. It's a simple question, and I never implied your response either way. Do you think violence by police or military is justified when individuals are setting fire to occupied buildings?
- waon 6y ago
  It's the job of the police to de-escalate. Sometimes, this may fail and some harm might be done in the hands of the police. However, being a police officer should never be a free ticket to inflict violence with impunity, and this is what people are advocating for. As for the military, it simply isn't their job to police their own citizens. Frankly, I don't know why I'm having to say this. I'm just stating the obvious here.
  - 0xy 6y ago
    How do you de-escalate an occupied building on fire with violent protestors preventing emergency services from saving children? The police are obviously totally overwhelmed, and like it or not the military has the legal authority to operate domestically and without them being there more people could've died. I don't understand your position. There's an occupied building on fire, with children inside. Protesters are attacking fire crews. What is the ideal outcome? I didn't see a fireman with his knee on anyone's neck. Why attack them, if not to cause destruction and murder people? Arson against residential buildings is terrorism. That's it.
    - waon 6y ago
      How do you stop civil unrest by ordering (or threatening to, at the moment) the military to shoot at people? You're making it sound like shooting is the only solution, but it's not. There are many forms of non-lethal force you could use to deal with the kind of situation you're talking about. Anyways, you're ignoring the bigger picture, the mountain of bodies that led to this situation in the first place. The civil unrest we're seeing wouldn't have happened at all if policing across the country was done in a sane manner. The numerous reports of unjustified police violence in the midst of this crisis is already making things worse, and there's no need for the military to add to that.
  - gnaritas 6y ago
    > It's the job of the police to de-escalate. No, it isn't. It's the job of the police to enforce the law, if necessary with overwhelming force.

by waon 6y ago

0xy 6y ago

>Please don't put words in my mouth. It's a simple question, and I never implied your response either way. Do you think violence by police or military is justified when individuals are setting fire to occupied buildings?

waon 6y ago
It's the job of the police to de-escalate. Sometimes, this may fail and some harm might be done in the hands of the police. However, being a police officer should never be a free ticket to inflict violence with impunity, and this is what people are advocating for. As for the military, it simply isn't their job to police their own citizens. Frankly, I don't know why I'm having to say this. I'm just stating the obvious here.
- 0xy 6y ago
  How do you de-escalate an occupied building on fire with violent protestors preventing emergency services from saving children? The police are obviously totally overwhelmed, and like it or not the military has the legal authority to operate domestically and without them being there more people could've died. I don't understand your position. There's an occupied building on fire, with children inside. Protesters are attacking fire crews. What is the ideal outcome? I didn't see a fireman with his knee on anyone's neck. Why attack them, if not to cause destruction and murder people? Arson against residential buildings is terrorism. That's it.
  - waon 6y ago
    How do you stop civil unrest by ordering (or threatening to, at the moment) the military to shoot at people? You're making it sound like shooting is the only solution, but it's not. There are many forms of non-lethal force you could use to deal with the kind of situation you're talking about. Anyways, you're ignoring the bigger picture, the mountain of bodies that led to this situation in the first place. The civil unrest we're seeing wouldn't have happened at all if policing across the country was done in a sane manner. The numerous reports of unjustified police violence in the midst of this crisis is already making things worse, and there's no need for the military to add to that.
- gnaritas 6y ago
  > It's the job of the police to de-escalate. No, it isn't. It's the job of the police to enforce the law, if necessary with overwhelming force.