zlacker

>>void_n+(OP)
Not an argument for this site I guess. But this is what happens when you have political leaders picking sides in violence. Trump literally tweeted "when the looting starts the shooting starts" (not before this event, of course -- it's an example). You think rhetoric like that doesn't have the effect of empowering police to abuse their power against people they don't like?

>>newacc+24
> when the looting starts the shooting starts

Harsh words, but at the end of the day, people will defend their property with a gun and have every right in doing so.

>>sparkl+J6
Trump was talking literally about directing the military to shoot looters (it's right there in the tweet!), not expressing an abstract right of people to defend their own property.

So no, downvoting you isn't anything to do with the constitution.

>>newacc+Da
> Trump was talking literally about directing the military to shoot looters

Uhm, no

>>sparkl+uc
> ....These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won't let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!

[sic]

Taken from https://news.sky.com/story/george-floyd-death-twitter-flags-...

>>MaxBar+8i
So, were did he say "to shoot looters"?

That's just one possible interpretation, if you really want to understand him that way.

>>101404+Qv
No, it isn't one of several reasonable interpretations, it's what he quite plainly wrote.

What else could 'shooting' possibly refer to, if not the shooting of looters?