3 ms·

I think the extrajudicial use of these types of surveillance is an illegitimate use of power and thus fine to be destroyed.

bko 1mo ago
[flagged]
- none2585 1mo ago
  Of course you can, just you likely won't get any sympathy in the large number of cases where the public or government doesn't agree with you (police, abortion clinics). In this case looks like the people agree with destroying these things. Violence is increasingly the only path forward in America.
- unclad5968 1mo ago
  Well you can do whatever you want but those are hardly equivalent to destroying a camera.
- Gormo 1mo ago
  The comment you're responding to didn't formulate the argument as "I am against [X], therefore I am justified in destroying property used to do [X]", but is rather closer "[X] is itself illegal and therefore I am justified in potentially destroying property in order to stop imminent lawbreaking". You can argue the point as to whether this particular "[X]" actually does constitute illegal activity that a citizen is justified in responding to with force, but I don't think it's valid to mischaracterize the argument as the response being justified solely by personal opposition.
  - bko 1mo ago
    If someone thinks abortion is illegal because it's against right to life. So bombing abortion clinics is justified. Is that how this works? Nonsense obviously
    - deleted 1mo ago
      [deleted]
    - Gormo 1mo ago
      > If someone thinks abortion is illegal because it's against right to life. So bombing abortion clinics is justified. Is that how this works? No, that's definitely not how it works, and your example clearly doesn't compare to what we're talking about. First, "right to life" is not a law that's being objectively violated, just a moral principle that certain people feel emotionally compelled to defend. This puts your example squarely on the "act to assert personal feelings" side of the divide, definitely not "act to stop imminent lawbreaking". Second, while essentially all jurisdictions absolutely do allow citizens to intervene and use force to stop imminent lawbreaking, the rules around that usually require proportionality, and require that one's own actions merely be targeted at stopping the illegal activity, and not use disproportionate force beyond that. So even in a situation where abortion was illegal, bombing an abortion clinic would be a grossly excessive action that goes far beyond merely stopping the illegal activity. By comparison, disabling or blocking cameras that have been set up to commit illegal espionage is a clearly proportionate response, narrowly targeted at the illegal activity, and not causing damage beyond that.

bko 1mo ago

[flagged]

none2585 1mo ago
Of course you can, just you likely won't get any sympathy in the large number of cases where the public or government doesn't agree with you (police, abortion clinics). In this case looks like the people agree with destroying these things. Violence is increasingly the only path forward in America.
unclad5968 1mo ago
Well you can do whatever you want but those are hardly equivalent to destroying a camera.
Gormo 1mo ago
The comment you're responding to didn't formulate the argument as "I am against [X], therefore I am justified in destroying property used to do [X]", but is rather closer "[X] is itself illegal and therefore I am justified in potentially destroying property in order to stop imminent lawbreaking". You can argue the point as to whether this particular "[X]" actually does constitute illegal activity that a citizen is justified in responding to with force, but I don't think it's valid to mischaracterize the argument as the response being justified solely by personal opposition.
- bko 1mo ago
  If someone thinks abortion is illegal because it's against right to life. So bombing abortion clinics is justified. Is that how this works? Nonsense obviously
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Gormo 1mo ago
    > If someone thinks abortion is illegal because it's against right to life. So bombing abortion clinics is justified. Is that how this works? No, that's definitely not how it works, and your example clearly doesn't compare to what we're talking about. First, "right to life" is not a law that's being objectively violated, just a moral principle that certain people feel emotionally compelled to defend. This puts your example squarely on the "act to assert personal feelings" side of the divide, definitely not "act to stop imminent lawbreaking". Second, while essentially all jurisdictions absolutely do allow citizens to intervene and use force to stop imminent lawbreaking, the rules around that usually require proportionality, and require that one's own actions merely be targeted at stopping the illegal activity, and not use disproportionate force beyond that. So even in a situation where abortion was illegal, bombing an abortion clinic would be a grossly excessive action that goes far beyond merely stopping the illegal activity. By comparison, disabling or blocking cameras that have been set up to commit illegal espionage is a clearly proportionate response, narrowly targeted at the illegal activity, and not causing damage beyond that.