zlacker

Are you honest to god defending the president saying that American citizens should be shot?

>>ashton+(OP)
I'm not sure how that's the conclusion you drew from my comment.

>>TechBr+53
> This tweet, while in bad taste IMO, was a threat to those who are planning to continue looting and burning buildings in Minneapolis.

Because I read what you said. You are saying it’s okay for the president to say that looters should be shot, it’s just “in bad taste”.

>>ashton+(OP)
Are you honest to god deducing that the president said American citizens should be shot?

>>ashton+(OP)
American citizens should be shot in the same circumstances any other citizens should be shot, like when all other reasonable countermeasures fail and they are posing a credible treat to other people's lives.

>>strong+X3
How else would you interpret “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”?

>>sasasa+p4
Lethal force is occasionally necessary, and I agree it should be applied in as minimal as a way possible.

That’s pretty orthogonal to whether or not the political leader of the US should publicly say that looters should be shot.

>>sasasa+p4
There are better options than killing people. Even shooting legs is better than shooting to kill. I will never advocate violence on your own citizens because that creates a never ending cycle of violence and vendettas. It’s as stupid and fruitless as populist politics

>>sasasa+p4
like when all other reasonable countermeasures fail and they are posing a credible treat to other people's lives.

...neither of which is an outcome in this situation, and looting is not a credible treat to people's lives.

>>onemor+ca
> Even shooting legs is better than shooting to kill.

No it isn't. Legs are hard to hit compared to center-mass, and the only reason you should be shooting at somebody is if you need to because they are an imminent threat; therefore you should be aiming for a part of the body that you have a higher probability of hitting and that, having been hit, has a higher probability of effectively stopping the threat.

>>ashton+(OP)
An alternative interpretation is that he was simply observing that violence begets violence, rather than encouraging it. My take is that he was deliberately ambiguous in order to taunt his opponents whilst also giving himself plausible deniability.

>>dfxm12+Fc
But arson is.

>>ashton+q4
It's a (perhaps too) succinct plea to not loot, and a warning that people will defend themselves and their property accordingly.

>>strong+Kp
You can not take someones life to defend your property in Minnesota. There are not "Stand Your Ground" laws afaik. A use of lethal force must be intended to protect someone's life.

>>strong+Kp
That’s an implausibly charitable interpretation, especially given that Trump has repeatedly expressed positive sentiments towards police violence, and advocated for the death penalty for citizens accused of crimes. He paid $85k to take out a full page ad calling for the Central Park five to be executed.

This is also the same guy who promised to pay the legal fees of anyone who attacked protesters at his rally, and suggested that we should shoot migrants crossing the border. It strains credulity to believe that this time Trump was just asking people to not loot.

>>jaredm+Fr
Pedantry time.

“Stand your ground” isn’t about defending property with lethal force. Stand your ground is about whether or not you have a duty to attempt to flee (if possible) before applying lethal force. Castle doctrine is a similar rule, but more narrowly scoped to your own home. Without stand-your-ground, you have to demonstrate that you tried to, or were incapable of retreating before applying lethal force.

That being said, there are very few states of the union where applying lethal force to protect property is legal. Texas is the only one I know of. In Texas you could shoot someone to protect property even if you feel that your life and limb are not at risk, but that’s not the norm in other states.

All states allow some level of force to stop a fleeing felon, the well named “Fleeing Felon” rule, but Tennessee vs. Garner limited this to non-lethal force. So you could tackle a fleeing robber legally, but shooting one would be illegal outside of Texas.

Now Minnesota only has castle doctrine and stand your ground from your own vehicle. If one reasonably feels that life and limb are at risk in Minnesota you can apply lethal force, but if you’re outside of your home and car you have a duty to attempt to retreat first. In my opinion this makes shooting at looters to protect your business a dicey proposition legally, as arguably you should have just fled.

As always, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

>>ashton+(OP)
I think he probably meant exactly what everyone thinks, but you can shoot things other than bullets. Rubber bullets and gas canisters are also “shot.” He could have even been referring to the rioters shooting. I’m sure it would have been worded better if it wasn’t on Twitter, but that’s definitely on him.

The point is if you’re going to censor the president (or anyone, IMO) you should give them the full benefit of the doubt first.

>>ashton+ux
That's very interesting information, thank you for taking time to research this and explain it in a friendly and informative way. I am from Texas, so I admit most of my knowledge comes from my own state's laws. If I'm not mistaken we are in agreement that the looters lives should not be at risk in this situation and that Minnesota law will likely not protect an equivalent of what the Korean population did in LA during their riots, when they took to protecting their shops by getting on their roofs with rifles.

>>packet+Oj
There are two different questions here, which are only tangentially related.

First, are there circumstances in which a citizen could apply lethal force to protect life and limb? Obviously yes; shooting someone trying to light your house on fire is certainly something that is both plausible and plausibly legal.

Second, is it appropriate for the political leader of a nation to imply that people committing a crime will be shot for it on the street? Not "we will deploy the national guard to provide safety and security to the citizens" but "looters will be shot". I think the answer here is obviously no, that is not appropriate.

>>ashton+f11
I'm not going to defend that part of the statement, it was obviously wrong to anyone with more than 2 brain cells if interpreted literally. However the situation has rapidly declined to a state where I personally think the use of non-lethal force is justified, and lethal in the case of an imminent threat (ie. armed and threatening or literally firebomb in hand). A number of dwellings and business have been set on fire, in addition to the police precinct. These are individuals (and some large corporations) that are unrelated, and those taking advantage of the chaos and creating more should be punished appropriately. Obviously appropriate measures do not involve shooting people.

>>packet+m81
That’s perfectly reasonable.

I will also add that this is also a case of tensions boiling over. While that doesn’t justify the arson, meaningful reform to defuse long standing tensions would be a wise move.

>>ashton+Ce1
I'd also argue the recent pandemic and subsequent crash of the economy has an underplayed role in the riots. When many haven't left their homes (much) in months and have been laid off, it's no surprise they'd be looking for an excuse to get out and focus their energy. People are desperate and stressed and it makes for some abnormal dynamics.

>>packet+Mf1
To quote Mike Duncan about a historical incident that ended up toppling a government: “Everyone was just feeling a little bit mutinous”.

You’re right, everyone’s on edge, which has people acting funny.

>>sasasa+p4
Credible treats will be met with incredible tricks.