zlacker

>>danso+(OP)
As President, or any public figure, you are responsible not only for the intention of your words, but also every feasible interpretation of your words, as well as the impacts of your words, regardless of intention.

I say this not to imply that Trump didn't know that this statement could be taken in multiple ways, but to remind people that even if it can it doesn't matter. It's tragic this has happened, and also tragic to have a leader who reacts to the situation in this way, and that a large swath of the country applauds him for it.

Vague and menacing threats are much more thuggish behavior than emotional reaction to the killing of an unarmed civilian.

As for what Twitter is doing, I'm curious whether they follow this path to it's logical conclusion, which is, eventually Trump being banned from Twitter. He's a huge driver of traffic for them, but perhaps they're thinking about life after Trump at this point, months away from the election.

>>darker+pA
Vague and menacing threats are admittedly thuggish behavior, but I think it's hard to argue that it's more thuggish than burning down a police station.

>>SpicyL+HA
I believe there’s a suitable MLK speech in which it explains property violence in response to human violence is an attempt to push the majority to action using loss of property when it is clear loss of life means nothing.

Given that it’s clear literal loss of life meant very little to people but property damage gets multiple multiple news coverage and POTUS coverage etc etc. it’s hard to consider burning down a police station when the police killed someone on camera to be completely improper. All attempts to appeal peacefully to the people who are supposed to deliver justice have failed, and in fact, those who are supposed to deliver justice have done the unjust thing...

>>TeaDru+1C
If the protesters decide it's your neighborhood that needs to be burned down next, would you be okay with that?

>>SpicyL+GD
I think I’d be upset that this happened, but I’d lie the blame on the feet of the original people in authority who decided not to investigate and bring into custody someone who had killed a man on camera while people were begging him for mercy.

>>TeaDru+qE
The people in authority are responsible for maintaining a stable, peaceful society, where police don't kill people for no reason and hooligans don't run around smashing things. When the peace is broken, they can't push it off onto other people. They've failed, and the responsibility for that failure lies wholly with them.

I also agree that we can't blame the hooligans; I don't think the kind of person who burns down a police station has a sufficient moral compass to be blamed. But that doesn't diminish the need to urgently stop them.

>>SpicyL+mG
I agree that there is a need to respond to the ongoing property damage. Unfortunately, the ongoing property damage is in response to an ongoing injustice- the person who killed a man is still walking free and has not been charged or arrested for killing someone pleading for their life on camera.

>>TeaDru+8I
Yeah, I agree. It was very questionable to not arrest him the instant he got fired, and inexcusably stupid to not bring him into custody yesterday.

>>SpicyL+DI
My understanding is that he still hasn't been brought into custody. In that case it makes attempting to stop the protests through authoritarian means instead of addressing the original problem makes it... rough.

>>TeaDru+JK
Yeah, it's completely mystifying. The mayor has "called for" the guy's arrest - can't he just order his arrest? Can't the governor do the same?

>>SpicyL+AM
This is not how legal jurisdictions and due process work. I'm not an expert, but if the suspect has fled to another state at this point, this is likely a federal matter that will need FBI involvement.

But, I'm glad you two came to an understanding. Gives me hope.