4 ms·

So he doesn't believe that one should be able to protect their property? If looting is not the one that should be discouraged with shots, then what about rape?

• vmception 6y ago
  yeah the property is unfortunate, but why are police killing citizens with little accountability? thats the focus here, don't get it reversed
  • s_y_n_t_a_x 6y ago
    When you don't prevent looting the looters will be confronted by cops and they will then choose to take the cops life or go to jail. This is what happened to David Dorn.
  • pc86 6y ago
    Luckily most of us have the ability to focus on as many as two things simultaneously. You can be in favor of protesting in general, these protests specifically, and still have a problem with seemingly random destruction of innocent people's property. I hate whataboutism as much as anyone, but just as insidious is the same mental failing on the other side of the spectrum where you're "not allowed" to look at anything other than whatever "the focus" is.
    • vmception 6y ago
      Yes, we are able to. Many of us are choosing to separate the looters from the protesters, primarily because there is accuracy in that, and there is no need to dilute the message. We are choosing to reframe the "its bad he died, whats up with the property damage" to "the property damage is bad, lets fix why he died", to make the message and focus less diluted. And for people that aren't in that particular filter bubble and gravitate to focusing on ways of discrediting the civil unrest, I will help reiterate the message of how to realign that focus.
  • krzyk 6y ago
    > ... why are police killing citizens with little accountability? Any statistics to back that up? "it is known" is not good data
    • vmception 6y ago
      which part would you like data on? police killing citizens? what is your goal post on accountability? I'll try to match those standards with sources once I know what your standards are
• snarfy 6y ago
  Property can be replaced. People cannot. In my state it is illegal to protect property with deadly force. They have to threaten your life before you can shoot.
  • luckylion 6y ago
    Out of interest, which country is that? Germany requires proportionality, e.g. you obviously can't shoot people because they try to steal candy, but you can very much protect your car. I have zero objections to that. You will not get money from an insurance company if somebody robs you or breaks into your house to clean the place out. It's really not "what do you care, it's only money, a human life cannot be replaced". The money will also not be replaced.
    • snarfy 6y ago
      It's the USA. Some states you can shoot trespassers. Others, like mine generally require a life threatening situation before deadly force is authorized.
      • luckylion 6y ago
        That's quite the range though. If somebody breaks into your house and you have the ability to leave through the back door, would you be required to do so and would be charged if you didn't, a fight ensues and you kill the person? What if they walk out with your computer, can you try to stop them, knowing that it will escalate the situation to what is likely life-threatening?
        • snarfy 6y ago
          If it's not life threatening, you are not allowed to physically hold someone. They'll be guilty of theft and you'll be guilty of assault. It has to be self-defense, then you can only response with equal force. Other than self-defense, only the police are authorized to use force.
• yifanl 6y ago
  It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with the quote, the concern OP had was that Facebook was refusing to apply its policies against glorifying violence (and the quote absolutely is) to specific individuals. (Certainly the POTUS is not the average person, but Twitter's solution of marking that his comment was against terms of use is an extremely easy compromise.)
  • pedro_hab 6y ago
    This argument is the best I found here, doesn't pander to emotions. But Trump even clarified he meant that this is what he thought it would happen, and it did happen. We could pointlessly argue if he did mean that or if he was trying to cause violence. I'm not sure we should censor someone based in what we think the person meant for it. I still think this is all nonsense caused by a sensitive topic, nonsense being calling for Trump to be censored. I am arguing if he should be censored and people are responding as if I think people should be killed for protesting.
• ollerac 6y ago
  This is a culturally important moment in which people in all 50 states are holding valid, peaceful protests in response to centuries of injustice. And we have a president who is not only unwilling to listen, but encourages division and hate on a daily basis. When he says "when the looting starts, then the shooting starts" he's encouraging a general atmosphere of unrest, fear, and vigilante justice against all protestors, not just violent ones. You'll notice he didn't say, "looters and violent individuals only will be subject to violence in return." He's saying once the protests even have a small group in them that disregards the law, then the entire protest is invalid. and he's okay with people participating getting killed even if they're not the ones looting. I think, in order to understand just how much hatred and division he's sewing on a daily basis, you have to understand how many of his supporters have guns, are open to conspiracy theories and violence against fellow citizens, and are intolerant of people of different races. There is a mature and masterful way of handling civil unrest on a national scale. This isn't it.
  • krzyk 6y ago
    > This is a culturally important moment in which people in all 50 states are holding valid, peaceful protests in response to centuries of injustice. Not that peaceful, even from my side of ocean (Europe) I see stores being looted (e.g. Apple store https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-SqQBuDbRE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-SqQBuDbRE, Louis Vuitton https://streamable.com/mniwap https://streamable.com/mniwap ) It is possible that there are groups that just mix with protesters to loot stuff, but it doesn't look good for the peaceful stuff. As for centuries of injustice, is it still happening? And why are e.g. Asians not protesting? > When he says "when the looting starts, then the shooting starts" he's encouraging a general atmosphere of unrest, fear, and vigilante justice against all protestors, not just violent ones. For me it is just a warning, either you protest peacefully or something bad will happen. Your right to protest is limited by right of other people to go on with their life peacefully - that is democracy 101 - your liberty is limited by other peoples liberty. You can protest, but you can't break windows.