5 ms·
In Texas, if you drop rocks on someone or destroy their property, they are, in many instances, free to use deadly force to stop you. Such "protests" would be m
by giardini 1y ago
In Texas, if you drop rocks on someone or destroy their property, they are, in many instances, free to use deadly force to stop you.
Such "protests" would be much rarer and shorter in Texas.
- unethical_ban 1y agoYou'd have police shoot into a crowd of people because rocks got thrown? edit: I got throttled, as is the case on HN when things get "active". Here is my response to koolba: --- At a head? Sure. Do I think police can get rough and "in it" with civilians without live fire and without the use of the US Military? Yes. Do I think, when a sufficient bloc of a city rebels against its law enforcement, then maybe the law enforcement should reconsider what they're enforcing? Also yes. I disagree with the premise that the State is always right and that their monopoly on violence is absolute. We celebrate the US revolution and revolutions across the world when governments act illegally and against the will of the people, violating civil rights. I would not support firing into a crowd of people because of minor property damage.
- koolba 1y agoDon’t you think a properly sized rock thrown at someone’s head is assault with a deadly weapon?
- avidiax 1y agoSo you are saying, some people in the crowd throw rocks, therefore, innocent people in the crowd should also die? So you are saying, guy throws rock. Now he has no rock. He should be shot despite having no rock? So you are saying, police riot gear is useless against rocks?
- koolba 1y ago> So you are saying, some people in the crowd throw rocks, therefore, innocent people in the crowd should also die? I'm not suggesting they police should just blindly open fire on the crowd. But if you are in a crowd that turns violent and starts attacking the police, I think it's reasonable to expect some collateral damage in whatever their response is going to be. > So you are saying, guy throws rock. Now he has no rock. He should be shot despite having no rock? Yes. Or are you suggesting that if a guy shoots a gun and misses, then we should we wait for him to reload too? If the guy does not drop down on all fours and assume the position, I think it's reasonable for police to shoot someone throwing rocks at them. > So you are saying, police riot gear is useless against rocks? I doubt it's some invincible force field. They could still get hurt. And the police are there not just for their own safety. They are there to protect everybody. If someone is throwing rocks it could hit non police as well. I do find it incredible the lengths people will go to argue in favor of violence to defend law breakers.
- avidiax 1y ago> I do find it incredible the lengths people will go to argue in favor of violence to defend law breakers. I'm arguing against disproportionate and escalatory violence. Police in other countries somehow deal with rock throwing without shooting.
- Spooky23 1y agoFolks of a certain ilk fantasize that sort of thing.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- lupusreal 1y agoThe Constitution gives you the right to peacefully assemble, not to throw rocks.
- MaxHoppersGhost 1y agoThis is the reason these protests are/were actually peaceful in Texas.
- vkou 1y agoAnd if someone starts shooting you with less-lethal bullets for no good reason, do you have the right to use deadly force to stop them?
- brewdad 1y agoYes. They are “less lethal” not “non lethal”.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- spencerflem 1y agoI suspect that while they have the moral right to do so, the courts will not take their side.
- aaronbaugher 1y agoOne 17-year-old in Kenosha put a stop to these "protests" going to places where Americans are allowed to defend themselves.