3 ms·

You support killing rioters, eh? Care to define rioter? At what point does a worked up crowd of protestors become a riot? What if the police use agitators? What

You support killing rioters, eh? Care to define rioter? At what point does a worked up crowd of protestors become a riot? What if the police use agitators? What if a couple of protestors start damaging things, but the rest of the crowd remains peaceful? What if the rioters are running away, is it still okay to kill them? What if the rioters are legitimately trying to prevent a fascist regime from taking over? Do motivations count at all? Is it rioting to run from black-blocks? Is it rioting to shout at police lines? Is resisting arrest rioting?

sershe 6y ago
You lost me at "What if the rioters are legitimately trying to prevent a fascist regime from taking over?". I bet many at the Capitol believed they are "legitimately trying to prevent a communist regime from taking over"... what you are basically saying is "violence is ok as long as I personally believe it's ok". I'd say require the police line to wear body cams, have them on, and then require connecting a shot to a specific act. That would also serve as good Pavlovian training for people who think violence is ok as long as they personally think it's ok. The definition of what act can vary, but what I meant above is limited to this instant, targeted reaction - what I want to see is a specific "protester" throw a rock at police, or force entry, or set something on fire, and instantly gets shot; with camera evidence of both. Of course, I'd also accept arresting (and prosecuting with real punishment, not releasing after a few hours), but I don't believe it matters which one is used in the case of violent riots.
- lolc 6y ago
  > Of course, I'd also accept arresting [...], but I don't believe it matters which one is used in the case of violent riots. It matters a lot when you decide that rioting people can simply be shot. Because it means you've given them up as humans. One of our claims to civilization is that we handle violence sufficiently, not proportionally. And certainly not excessively.

sershe 6y ago

You lost me at "What if the rioters are legitimately trying to prevent a fascist regime from taking over?". I bet many at the Capitol believed they are "legitimately trying to prevent a communist regime from taking over"... what you are basically saying is "violence is ok as long as I personally believe it's ok". I'd say require the police line to wear body cams, have them on, and then require connecting a shot to a specific act. That would also serve as good Pavlovian training for people who think violence is ok as long as they personally think it's ok. The definition of what act can vary, but what I meant above is limited to this instant, targeted reaction - what I want to see is a specific "protester" throw a rock at police, or force entry, or set something on fire, and instantly gets shot; with camera evidence of both. Of course, I'd also accept arresting (and prosecuting with real punishment, not releasing after a few hours), but I don't believe it matters which one is used in the case of violent riots.

lolc 6y ago
> Of course, I'd also accept arresting [...], but I don't believe it matters which one is used in the case of violent riots. It matters a lot when you decide that rioting people can simply be shot. Because it means you've given them up as humans. One of our claims to civilization is that we handle violence sufficiently, not proportionally. And certainly not excessively.