zlacker

Many people who are not "internet nut-jobs" support violent protest when necessary. we've had many years of "voting to effect change" already, and it hasn't worked! Recall the four boxes of democracy: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. If you get to the ammo box, you can damn well bet there's going to be violence.

In this particular case, I do find some of the violence justified, and I think it has more effect than a simple non-violent protest would. We get to see exactly how police respond when a few thousand dollars worth of property is being damaged versus when they have someone's life in their hands. The police are digging themselves into a hole here, and it's glorious.

That said, we aren't at the point where violence against people is a legitimate form of protest. In self defense, sure, but protesters should not, at this point, be attacking people. Burn down all the Targets, police stations, and cop cars you want. Let it be the cops who do all the violence against people. That's what's actually going to get peoples' attention.

>>pmille+(OP)
Something tells me you wouldn't support this were it your business being burned. They're gonna run into some roof Koreans, get shot, then more people will get mad even though it's completely justifiable to defend one's property with lethal force from an angry mob.

>>mmm_gr+i7
It's actually not justifiable to protect property with lethal force, and doing so is unlawful in many jurisdictions. Protecting the life of yourself and others is a justifiable reason to use lethal force.

I'm trying to be charitable here, so I will ask you to reflect on the reasons why you think protecting replaceable (or even irreplaceable) property is worth extinguishing a human life.

>>mmm_gr+i7
And, something tells me that if you and your family had been oppressed by the police for hundreds of years, you would support this. Moreover, businesses have insurance that covers these kinds of losses.

As I said, violence against people is simply not acceptable here. Showing how violence is often the first resort of police rather than a last resort is the entire point of these protests.

>>Saucie+7g
I'm aware that most states don't allow for it, though in Texas, my home state, that's somewhat in question and may be allowed[0][1] under certain circumstances. Regardless of the current legal situation, I believe all states ought to allow deadly force to defend or recapture property.

In light of your magnanimous question (inquiring after the views of another is called conversation, not charity), here's my rationale as to why one is justified in using lethal force to defend property.

Let's take an extreme case: Say I'm an immigrant from a third-world nation who arrives in America at a young age. I spend my life working to build a successful small business. I pour my blood, sweat, and tears into it. Now, someone comes along, full of "justified anger" and ready to burn it down. By doing this, he is destroying a huge portion of my life. While this is less severe than murder, it's on the same spectrum of evil; one is destroying another's entire life, the other, only part of another's life. Therefore, a man is justified in any amount of force necessary to protect his property.

I'm aware this isn't a common way to view, but I'm happy to answer more questions and defend it further. I don't believe life has any absolute importance over property because property represents a part of another life. While a person represents more life than a thing in most cases, a thief or arsonist forfeits his rights by committing crimes against another.

[0]: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

[1]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=316114562717856...

>>mmm_gr+i91
Get insurance.

>>pmille+q92
That's your entire answer? Get insurance? Pretty inadequate for a discussion that's shifted to what's moral and not. People don't carry insurance on everything. A business, maybe, but I picked that as an example through which I could more easily illustrate the point. Same thing applies to a television.

>>mmm_gr+th2
I said I was being charitable earlier because I think only a truly monstrously evil person could believe any property could have worth comparable to a human life, and I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt that you are not such a monster.

>>Saucie+jw2
a few thousand dollars worth of insured inventory in a corner store is certainly not worth killing someone over. but surely you can envision a scale of destruction where use of violence is justified. suppose for instance a group of people is rampaging through the countryside burning fields and destroying a meaningful portion of the food supply for a country. is it still wrong to do what it takes to stop these people before everyone starves?

>>leetcr+sF2
Sure, yes I agree with your pillaging the countryside example. I would qualify that though by asserting that the pillaging army is not threatening just property but the ability of the victims to survive. So yes there is a threshold of destruction that threatens life itself, and that would probably justifiably be met with deadly force.

>>mmm_gr+th2
Yes, that's my answer. You want to protect your property, buy a product designed to protect your property. Don't fucking kill people over it.

BTW, yes, people do have insurance on their televisions. It's called "homeowners' insurance" or "renters' insurance."

>>Saucie+lL2
I couldn't have said it better myself. Looting some stores, burning down a couple police stations, and torching some police cruisers doesn't even come close to the threshold where violent retaliation is necessary. Scorched earth, mass destruction doesn't even come close to comparing to the scale of the protests going on right now. It's literally comparing war to a citizens' demonstration.

>>pmille+OL2
It's not incumbent upon me to spend money to protect against the crimes of others. The reason I questioned your answer is that a potential practical solution doesn't answer the moral framework I proposed: property represents part of one's life and therefore can be defended as such.

>>Saucie+jw2
I don't believe I equated property to a life. I stated that property represents a part of one's life, which is obviously less than the whole, and still believe it's right to choose a person's life over a thing. However, a person committing a crime against me negates that. When a part of a person's life is threatened, he is justified in responding with any amount of force if that is the best way to recover it. The life of the criminal, at that point, is simply out of consideration as the instigator of force against another.

>>mmm_gr+2S2
> It's not incumbent upon me to spend money to protect against the crimes of others.

Then, don't cry when you lose your stuff.

>>pmille+TS2
No, I'm not losing my stuff (as I might in a natural disaster), my stuff is being stolen/burned/whatever. You still failed to address my point that I believe it's justifiable to defend my property with any amount of force necessary. My perspective is simply that if one attempts to steal or damage the things of another, "Then, don't cry when you get shot." Or they could just not loot/steal/burn.