4 ms·
It presumes before the fact that all police killings are justified (Obviously there was a clear and present danger to others!), and holds up remorselessness abo
by soledades 6y ago
It presumes before the fact that all police killings are justified (Obviously there was a clear and present danger to others!), and holds up remorselessness about killing as a sort of quasi-enlightened state.
- yeetawayhn 6y agoYou misconstrue the content to describe it like that. The justification is predicated on the a clear and present danger to others. What reasoning do you have to support being remorseful for saving others from a clear and present danger?
- deathgrips 6y agoNormal people have nightmares for years after killing someone, even in the most perfectly justified cases of self defense. You don't easily recover. If you can kill someone and be more or less OK after that, you probably have antisocial personality disorder or you've had a lot of training to desensitize you to killing. Neither of those are good qualities in public service.
- yeetawayhn 6y ago> Normal people have nightmares for years after killing someone, even in the most perfectly justified cases of self defense. This isn't an answer to the question. It is in fact a non-answer that endorses the irrational as an enlightened state.
- deathgrips 6y agoDo you think people need a justification to have feelings?
- yeetawayhn 6y agoYour comment implies that people do: > If you can kill someone and be more or less OK after that, you probably have antisocial personality disorder or you've had a lot of training to desensitize you to killing. Or were you wrong about that?
- soledades 6y agoWhat you call misconstruing I call reading between the lines. Edit: and I think remorse is a healthy and useful check on the excess of police violence we've been seeing. I suppose if you think it's all just fine, we're not going to have much common ground for understanding.