zlacker

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.

>>sasasa+(OP)
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+(OP)
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+(OP)
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+N5
> 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.

>>dfxm12+g8
But arson is.

>>packet+pf
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+QW
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+X31
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+da1
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+nb1
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+(OP)
Credible treats will be met with incredible tricks.