Hacker News Reader

Comment by ikeyany | Hacker News Reader

People are wondering "How far does this go? How can Twitter say this is not cool, but allow something like violent movies or games? Where's the line?"

The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens for looting, that's the line.

View on HN

We have laws in the UK that curtail speech like that, "Inciting violence" is a crime.

Which I agree with to some extent, you're not innocent of a crime because you convinced a person to harm another, just because you were too cowardly to get your hands dirty yourself.

But the US is rather famously not British, so I'm not sure if it's a relevant thing to add to the discussion.

I'm also on the other* side of the Atlantic from this circus, but a little googling over lunch led me to the "Brandenburg Test" for when "Inciting violence" is no longer protected by the 1A. (NB: 1A is an entirely different subject than Twitter's TOS, which I addressed in the original thread)

Briefly: speech which both incites imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action fails to be protected as US "free speech".

In this case, my IANAL analysis would be that the tweet had imminent application, but would be unlikely to produce action, for reasons given in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23347453 (tl;dr lethal force is the last resort of a well-regulated militia when restoring public order)

* and am therefore fond of "On the fact..." https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd06xx/EWD611.PDF

There's plenty of "speech" criminalized in the US: many crimes are just matters of conspiring to X, or fradulently X... which may have been conducted entirely in speech.

The relevant kind of speech for "free expression" is that which seeks to express an idea/opinion/belief of the speaker.

That isn't criminalised in the UK as far as I'm aware, and would fall under the EHCR protections in any case which are in UK law as the human rights act.

You could even argue that Copyright law itself, and particularly the DMCA provisions, are a violation of free speech.

Obviously practically this wouldn't be possible, but if I were to write down all binary digits that my blu-ray of John Wick has, give it to a friend, and they wrote those digits down in their computer to watch the movie, that would be illegal for copyright violation.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have copyright in any capacity (though I do think that US's model is especially draconian), just giving an example of a curtailment of free speech that isn't really controversial.

If you want to go all absolutist reductio ad absurdum, you would argue that even treason (in the form of divulging state secrets) is protected by free speech.

Part of the issue is if you're hostile to the speaker, you can interpret a call for peace to mean a call for violence. Try to imagine for a moment, that this comment was not made by an evil racist orange man, but someone you like... maybe Ghandi. If Ghandi said: "Looting leads to shooting." Which interpretation would you more likely choose?

1. Please don't loot, it escalates violence and people will get killed

2. Let's kill all the looters

Whether it's Trump or Ghandi, we're imagining we know something about the internal state of the speaker's mind that we don't know.

This seems like attempting to weasel-word. If Ghandi said "We have a lot of guns, and looting leads to shooting", it's a lot more clear that the meaning is (2). Trumps tweet didn't just say that one sentence, it said, in order:

* "the Military is with [the governor]"

* "any difficulty and we will assume control"

* "when the looting starts, the shooting starts"

There's a clear causal relationship between these three statements, this is not a plea for peace, it is a threat of violence.

A threat of violence and a call for peace are not mutually exclusive.

Regardless, all that's in evidence is the federal government is going to back the state and if this keeps going people are going to die. Anything else is something you've imagined/projected into someone else's mind.

People in the US will say the First allows him say such things. They'd be wrong.

I believe the person in question has crossed the line long time ago.

And Twitter should improve their fact-checking and restricting algorithms and apply it all the time.

I am in agreement that waiting to do something is foolish, but I can see why they did not wait any longer.

> The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens for looting

That's an extremely literal interpretation of his words. Most people would interpret that phrase to mean "you better think twice before looting because I'm not going to sit idly by and let you do it" but in the form of a vaguely threatening, yet catchy rhyme.

> The phrase was used by Miami's police chief, Walter Headley, in 1967, when he addressed his department's "crackdown on ... slum hoodlums," according to a United Press International article from the time.

> Headley, who was chief of police in Miami for 20 years, said that law enforcement was going after “young hoodlums, from 15 to 21, who have taken advantage of the civil rights campaign. ... We don't mind being accused of police brutality."

This is where the quote comes from.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-...

Edit:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-quotes-cop-sparked-rac...

> The National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence found that Headley's remarks and policing policies had been a significant factor in sparking the riots.

> Headley died four months after the riots. The Times in its obituary noted his policies had caused "growing resentment" among black Miami residents.

Our President fully understands the gravity of those words. This is what he wanted to say. This is what he meant. This is what he believes. This is WHO HE IS.

There are many ways I would describe Donald Trump, but “deeply knowledgeable about American civil rights history” is not one of them. I can almost certainly guarantee you that Trump’s statement was not intended as an homage or reference to a Miami police chief from the 1960’s.

Two paths here: - Trump is old enough to conceivably remember such quotes, he doesn't have to have a deep knowledge of American Civil Rights history, just a few memories of catchy rhymes - If Trump is not penning his tweets, then the choice of quotation is even more likely to be intended

I think it’s entirely possible that he remembered a catchy rhyme. I don’t think that supports the theory that he is deliberately referencing Walter Headley. Lots of people repeat catchy sayings without even knowing and endorsing who originally said them or even what those sayings originally meant.

>Lots of people repeat catchy sayings without even knowing and endorsing who originally said them or even what those sayings originally meant.

This I disagree with, particularly since he doesn't have to consciously "know" or acknowledge anything explicitly for him not to understand the basic import of the statement.

I don't think anyone's saying he's capable of giving a brief one paragraph statement for an SAT question concerning Civil Rights activism in mid-20th century Florida, cause biases and prejudices don't need that much formal verification to commerce

So by that logic, would you agree that anyone who cites “shouting fire in a crowded theater” in discussions about free speech is in favor of imprisoning pacifists for distributing pamphlets?

Its not catchy. Say the words out loud. Everything about those words are ominous.

He knew what he was saying. But, coward that he is, he’s claiming to not know where the words came from now that a reporter asked him.

So you might remember about a year back, a doctor got rather violently removed from a United Airlines flight after boarding because they overbooked the flight. There was a joke about it afterwards, some gallows humor: “Not enough seating? Prepare for a beating.”

I remembered that admittedly tasteless joke because (a) it rhymes and (b) it’s pretty violent and offensive, which makes it somewhat vivid. And honestly, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” hits the same notes.

Being catchy and being ominous are not mutually exclusive.

The White House retweeted it. Trump has many advisors. There is NO way this got past all of them without someone knowing what it meant.

No, Trump did this on purpose. The simplest explanation is the most likely.

You’re implying the existence of a filter on Trump’s public comments that, by all evidence, does not seem to exist.

The President keeps surprising me. Like, I keep thinking I have an accurate mental model of him being generally hateful and clueless and instinctive, but then things like this happen and underscore to me that he is deeply knowledgeable and sophisticated with these kinds of historical cultural references. So, still hateful, but not a dummy. That phrase was not an accident.

Agreed, it was not an accident. He hired Miller and Gorka. Also not by accident. Gorka left after Bannon, but Stephen Miller is pretty knowledgable as well as open about his views on race and fascism, and often seems involved in messaging strategy.

Could be it was just a catchy rhyme that stuck in his head and bubbled out, rather than a deep and sophisticated understanding of history.

> That's an extremely literal interpretation of his words

Yes, which is better than a reasonable interpretation of his words would show them to be, because going beyond a mere literal reading to consider the deliberate historical reference and the implicit subtext makes the statement worse, not better.

He's fairly good at riding that line of plausible deniability.

Just yesterday, he retweeted a guy calling for Democrats to die. "Well, not literally of course"... wink wink.

People are choosing to give him plausible deniability because he's white. If Obama sent a tweet calling for Republicans to die, all politicians whether Democrat or Republican would forcefully condemn him.

He's really not a mastermind genius playing 4-D Chess. He is openly calling for violence, and has already inspired terrorists to mail bombs to prominent politicians, and people are choosing to play dumb about how evil he is.

> People are choosing to give him plausible deniability because he's white.

People are choosing to grant him deniability even when it is rather implausible because (insofar as race is relevant, there's other things that work similar for some that aren't race-related) they are white racists and his deniability on that point is also their deniability when he is speaking to their interests.

> Most people would interpret that phrase..

Even if you're right, which you're not, what is "Most" here? 51%? 63%? 90%?

Are you saying that it's bad if the majority of people are riled up to engage in violence following his tweet, but OK if 40% do? 10%? 1%?

Probably depends on what you think of the intentions of the person. Some people think Trump is the devil and assume he means the worst-case thing when he says something, others look at it in other lights.

Previous US presidents were careful with their words, as they know people will interpret them in different ways if they aren't crystal clear. Trump just does stream-of-through -> keyboard -> twitter, and we get to see the results. Which tends to leave lots of what he says open to interpretation based on the perspective of the reader.

What's vague about 'When the looting starts, the shooting starts'? It seems extremely specific to me.

> Most people would interpret that phrase to mean "you better think twice before looting because I'm not going to sit idly by and let you do it"

What do you base the knowledge of how most people will have interpreted this statement on?

The historical experiences of different classes of people can have a profound impact on the perspectives they have in relation to the government. An 80 year old black man might have a very different relationship with governmental authorities than a 30 year old Latino, or a 40 year old Caucasian.

Do you think it is morally wrong for a store owner to protect his store using guns? Do you think it was morally wrong for the Koreans to sit on their rooftops with guns to protect their stores from looters during the LA riots ( https://warisboring.com/the-legacy-of-the-roof-koreans-28-ye...)?

If the "people" you reference are incapable of telling the difference between movies/games and the POTUS threatening violence on his own people (and arguably a majority of the country), than this is exactly why Twitter needs to do what it's doing.

So on the one hand people can tell the difference between presidential tweets and movie violence... but on the other hand they take all his tweets and interpret them in the most literal way?

Sword rattling is pretty standard behavior for leaders everywhere throughout history.

Sure, alongside slavery, genocide and mass murder. Perhaps we might draw a line on occasion?

If you're not familiar with the phrase, "sword rattling" is something you do when you're trying to avoid conflict. If you want to attack someone, you just do it.

Disagreement doesn't imply misunderstanding.

> ...shoot American citizens for looting...

When the government uses violence to enforce the law... that's part of the system.

...but the more fundamental question is "Who gets to decide?". Should it be a corporation or an elected body?

It is literally the president’s job to command the military. If he gives a warning that looting will lead to shooting, it is not glorifying violence. It is a statement of fact.

And looting always leads to shooting, regardless of who is saying it.

First of all, look up the Posse Comitatus Act.

Next, the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments to the United States constitution. Telling armed forces to shoot unarmed people because they happen to be looting (e.g. when there is no imminent threat to life) is summary execution and unconstitutional.

The Posse Comitatus act only applies to the Army and Air Force. It's DoD policy to pretend that it also covers the Marines and other branches, but AFAIK not a legal requirement. Even then, the Insurrection Act gives the Feds power to use the military as law enforcement in case of severe civil unrest (like the LA riots)

Sure and let's ignore the fact that if anyone stayed in those shops and tried to prevent protestors from "protesting", they'd just be peacefully left alone by those violent criminals because... Some random X-th amendment?

How about martial law, seeing as we're throwing around unrelated legal laws and concepts?

Either way, these ridiculous "protests" indicate a complete break down of society and the government should be sending in the military to arrest people.

Martial law doesn't allow summary execution either.

The national guard does not work like that. Also, no the military cannot just shoot people on the spot for being in the area of looting, it is not a "statement of fact." You just made this up and pulled it out of thin air so don't respond with "well prove it" or some other BS. Quit being a racist troll and reflect on your hateful little life.

> It is literally the president’s job to command the military.

Even if one views the Tweet as a legitimate military command, which it is not, unless the government has seized Twitter with just compensation as required by the 5th Amendment, it is not Twitter's obligation to ignore its own standard sfor the purpose of relaying such orders by the President.

Otherwise, except as to explaining why Twitter opted for the public interest notice rather than simple removal, the President’s job is irrelevant here.

> If he gives a warning that looting will lead to shooting, it is not glorifying violence.

That doesn't follow from the preceding, and the statement as written glorifies violence, both potential future violence and specific historical violence by the government against it's citizens, in much better the same way (though far more proximate historically and thus much worse) that it would if Trump said “Kill them all, and God will know his own.”

> It is a statement of fact.

It is quite possible to state a fact (or make a threat which one has the power to declare execute, which is more the case here than statement of fact) while glorifying the outcome that would be produced and/or the past historical antecedent which is invoked.

Well, so do you censor things like Dr Dre’s 187 because it might be interpreted as inciting violence against (corrupt) police? A public figure of renown among fans.

Media companies have applied censorship or content warnings to rap music and other art forms - voluntarily or otherwise - for decades without a word of protest from those people determined to make the case for the POTUS' immunity to Twitter's rules

Two notes: 1) I am not Jack Dorsey and Twitter is not my product, so I'm not sure why you said "you". 2) Dr Dre is not the president of the United States and does not have the authority to direct law enforcement and the military... surely you see the difference.

"Do you" in a sentence like this is equivalent to "does one;" it doesn't actually refer to the listener, at least in American English.

People “affiliated” certainly can direct violence.

I think Dr Dre would be censored if he were president.

I think Dr. Dre is a sensible human being who's able to distinguish between art that he made 30 years ago and his current hypothetical circumstance, in which he would presumably act w/ the the dignity, prestige and responsibility of the office.

That’s a good thought experiment. They might. It seems they would under current rules. Maybe can run for mayorship somewhere and see what happens when he tweets.

I think you could argue the authority level difference between the president and Dr. Dre means something.

You know, the answer is yes and no. Yes the president has more legal authority and perhaps moral authority, and greater reach, but don’t underestimate the authority of people within their circles. Be it a J Gotti ot Suge Knight.

> The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens for looting, that's the line.

Is this supposed to be bad? I actually wish that our own PM had done the same. I am sure that the citizens of a lot of countries that live under the rule of criminal syndicates, looters, and highwaymen would agree.

It seems that the US citizens are fine with state mandated violence as long as it does not include them. Nothing happened regarding https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018041 for example.

It is bad because the value of human life (even people you don't like) is infinitely greater than material goods. A looted store can be repared, restocked, rebuilt. A dead human stays dead forever and yields a mountain of grief around him. They are not comparable at all.

> It is bad because the value of human life (even people you don't like) is infinitely greater than material goods

The human life of the people looting your property is more important than the well-being of you and your family who will be in debt after that, I see.

Regardless, this seems to be your personal value, something that I (and most people that I know) do not seem to share - even the US constitution and laws do not seem to share it, after all it is legal to shoot someone invading your home. I have no grief to give to someone who died while trying to invade my home and loot my property. They are dead due to their own choices.

> A looted store can be repared, restocked, rebuilt

For free? It can be a lifetime's worth for some. Are you willing to pay it out of your own pockets? If there were enough people willing to do so I would support your statement, but that does not seem to be the case.

> The human life of the people looting your property is more important than the well-being of you and your family who will be in debt after that, I see.

Your argument here seems to be that human life is worth less that the value of looted goods. So, if someone looted a TV, you think their life holds less value than a TV?

I want to interpret your reply charitably, but I’m really struggling with this sentence.

The answer seems self evident: Yes. Obviously. Without a doubt of course a human life (even a life that is doing something like looting) is worth more than the value of what it’s carrying.

Should we stop someone looting things? Yes. Should we kill them just over the theft? No, of course not.

Having been around that culture quite a bit, I think it's safe to say that quite a few people believe that yes, personal property has enough of a sanctity/value that it's worth capital punishment to enforce that as a societal norm.

The logical hole in this is that when one traces back "why" personal property has such a high value, the only source of its value comes back to it being thought of as an inseparable part of the life-experience of the person who owns it. To contrive an example, let's say someone's a pre-computer author (i.e. before easily duplicable backups), writing one of those life's-work novels, and they have a single copy of the manuscript of their magnum opus - to threaten to destroy the manuscript is to threaten their life's work; to threaten everything they poured their life's passion and effort into. It's conceivable that to destroy it might literally kill them by driving them to suicide.

But that's exactly the hole in the logic: at it's most extreme where property really is equatable with the value of a human life, the only thing that gives this property any absolute moral value is the value of the human life and passion that went into building it. If you've then got a conflict between "a holder of property" and "someone who wants to destroy that property", really it's just a threat on your "life".

One is then simply asking a question of whether it's justified to take another person's life to protect your own.

Most secular ethics frameworks say no; christianity and buddhism repeatedly and explicitly say no, over and over again, including direct quotes from christ himself.

> Your argument here seems to be that human life is worth less that the value of looted goods

I do not subscribe to the notion of universal value. I do think however that for someone the value of looted goods can be greater than the random person who looted them, surely you must also agree with this.

Anyway, looting has effects in the real world too, it is not only "oh no, I lost some value", it is "they looted my shop so my family might go hungry".

> Should we stop someone looting things? Yes. Should we kill them just over the theft? No, of course not.

If we have the option to stop them (along with the rest of the looters) without killing them then sure.

> I do think however that for someone the value of looted goods can be greater than the random person who looted them, surely you must also agree with this.

Oh, no! I absolutely don’t agree with this! I would actually stop interacting with someone who agreed with that sentiment, mentally tagging them as a sociopath with no respect for human life.

Do you really believe that there is no human on earth that believes that the value of the goods looted from them is higher than the one who looted them? If so (no offence intended) I think that you might be detached from society.

> mentally tagging them as a sociopath

You would discriminate against people solely due to their feelings - something which they have no control over and does not affect you?

I think there exist such people. I think they are sociopaths. I would not interact with them.

> You would discriminate against people solely due to their feelings

Absolutely not! We were talking about beliefs and values, not feelings. I harbor no ill will against anyone for their feelings. As you say, feelings are mostly not under one’s own control.

But what you believe is well within your own power. If one believes a human life is worth less than some material possessions, then yes, I would remove that person from my life. That’s not a feeling. That’s a choice.

> I think there exist such people

In that case you certainly agree with "I do think however that for someone the value of looted goods can be greater than the random person who looted them" then, despite refusing it earlier.

> We were talking about beliefs and values, not feelings

This part was about sociopaths actually. Having certain feelings is enough to be a sociopath. Do you think that people choose to have ASPD?

> That’s not a feeling

Not feeling sad and not caring when some random person (it can even be someone from your own family) dies is related to feelings however. Something that is probably enough to get you considered as a sociopath by some.

> That’s a choice

Beliefs are a choice now? You do not choose to believe in something, rather, you get convinced due to some event, and this is often not possible depending on your feelings. I do not think that someone can believe that the life of someone who looted their store is all holy and important when they can't feel an emotion when someone dies.

> I would not interact with them.

Mind if I ask why? What would you (or society) gain if you refuse to interact with them? You would discriminate against them just for believing in something?

If your entire store gets looted or burned down, completely eviscerating your livelihood (potentially leading to homelessness for you and your family) or threatening your well being and safety then it's probably not about one guy carrying a TV.

First, looting doesn't imply imminent harm or threat to someone. Majority of looting involves destruction of property but not harm or death to people. If you think someone should be shot because they stole / destroyed some property, then I don't know what to tell you.

Second, we're not talking about individuals protecting themselves or their property. We're talking about the police / military shooting looters, and again not specifically in protecting themselves or others from harm.

Third, this is calling for summary judgement and execution without trial. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

> looting doesn't imply imminent harm or threat to someone

Sure it does. If it did not everyone owning property would go to the entrance and physically block it. In addition it implies imminent threat to the well-being of these that have their property taken away from them.

> If you think someone should be shot because they stole / destroyed some property

Under normal conditions I would support shooting them only if it is the only/safest way to stop them (either from committing the act or from running away).

> Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Except the ones that are shoot while they are looting are provably guilty.

Are you against the police shooting someone that threatens the life of an innocent?

Edit:

> We're talking about the police / military shooting looters

You pay your taxes so that the police / military protect you and your property.

> Are you against the police shooting someone that threatens the life of an innocent?

To be honest, how you make the jump from looting and destroying property to someone's life being threatened is beyond me.

If the looters are about to harm someone, and there was no other non-lethal way to stop that then fine. This is certainly NOT what people are objecting to.

I'm not sure how to make it more clear. Looting for the most part destroys property. Destroying or stealing property doesn't justify killing. Having your property taken away doesn't imply a threat to you. I mean c'mon, if that's the standard then we should just execute every petty thief and vandal.

> To be honest, how you make the jump from looting and destroying property to someone's life being threatened is beyond me.

From "this is calling for summary judgement and execution without trial. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?"

> Destroying or stealing property doesn't justify killing

This is not some universal truth as you try to make it to be, but rather your personal morals.

> Having your property taken away doesn't imply a threat to you

As I said before "Sure it does. If it did not everyone owning property would go to the entrance and physically block it. In addition it implies imminent threat to the well-being of these that have their property taken away from them."

The looters are looting while using the threat of violence.

> if that's the standard then we should just execute every petty thief and vandal

As I said before "Under normal conditions I would support shooting them only if it is the only/safest way to stop them (either from committing the act or from running away)."

What is the point of repeating the same statements over and over?

> It seems that the US citizens are fine with state mandated violence as long as it does not include them. Nothing happened regarding https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018041 for example.

I don't think it's fair to paint this as unique to US citizens. I'd go as far as saying this is generally true across the world, with few people protesting state sanctioned violence abroad, and significantly more people protesting domestic state sanctioned violence.

I don't think that's unusual. I think it's normal that we care more about our own lives than we do others lives, we care more about people dying at home than we do abroad.

I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is normal human behaviour. A good example of this is watching how peoples perceptions of this latest coronavirus unfolded.

There's too much going on in all of our lives to have time for every bad thing happening elsewhere. You pick your battles. That's ok. You still have to live your life for yourself at the end of the day, nobody else is going to live your life for you.

I think that you forgot to mention that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018041 was an act done by the US military, and it was not the only one of its kind. I would understand if most USA citizens did not give a shit if it was done by a 3rd party, but it was done by their own military which they fund via their own taxes.

Apologies for not being clear

> few people protesting state sanctioned violence abroad

I was referring to their local state committing acts of violence abroad. As you correctly note, the example mentioned is not the only one of its kind. This happens far too frequently. It falls into the "every bad thing happening elsewhere" bucket.

> Is this supposed to be bad?

Yes.

> I actually wish that our own PM had done the same.

That would be bad.

> I am sure that the citizens of a lot of countries that live under the rule of criminal syndicates, looters, and highwaymen would agree.

They are also bad.

What is better is to have a functional police system that responds proportionately.

Why would that be bad exactly? Anyway, I am glad that you did not have to survive through something like that.

> What is better is to have a functional police system that responds proportionately.

In times of mass-looting? I doubt that even the most functional police system could be able to help.

That being said we are talking about the extremely dysfunctional American police system. I doubt that they can change it into a functional one within an hour. What would you suggest for right now?

> Why would that be bad exactly?

Because shooting looters is disproportionate. You arrest them and charge them for burglary, and then determine mitigating factors. The looters aren't shooting people. As for why it is bad to kill someone that isn't a killer, we have to go back to general moral philosophy and common law. Extremely generally, aside from the moral cost of taking a life, it's also because it is systematically escalatory that invites a further escalatory response.

> Anyway, I am glad that you did not have to survive through something like that.

Me too, but I fail to see the relevance. I understand that someone living through that might make someone more willing to shoot looters, but that doesn't mean it is proportionate or appropriate.

> In times of mass-looting?

Yes, in times of mass-looting, it would be better to have a functional police system that would be able to arrest, charge for burglary, and then determine mitigating factors by looking at the overall context. And I agree, our current police system is not up to that task.

> What would you suggest for right now?

I think we should not move past that the answer is not right now, but a few days ago - we should not have a system where it is even thinkable that police officers can kneel on people's necks and kill them. That exposed that it is a dysfunctional American police system (in that area and many others). Societal cohesion does not operate based off of the overwhelming strength of a police system, but common trust, mores, and belief in the overall system. If you break those bonds by kneeling on someone's neck and killing them, then many other things can break as well.

As for right now, the aim is to re-assert control in a non-escalatory fashion, and then let justice-driven investigations run their course. That's the right thing to do.

> Because shooting looters is disproportionate

Debatable

> You arrest them and charge them for burglary, and then determine mitigating factors

This is not possible to be done in scale in a mass-looting situation.

> The looters aren't shooting people

The looters are looting while using the threat of violence.

> As for why it is bad to kill someone that isn't a killer, we have to go back to general moral philosophy and common law

You say that as if it is some form of universal truth. I do not share your personal morals regarding this.

> Yes, in times of mass-looting, it would be better to have a functional police system that would be able to arrest, charge for burglary, and then determine mitigating factors by looking at the overall context

Certainly, but my argument is that no police force on the planet would be able to handle mass-looting in scale and in the way that you propose. This is like saying "just stop putting bugs in your code". Anyway, this whole thread is about trump saying that he will send the military if the governor is not able to handle it his own way - which is likely similar to the way that you are proposing.

> the aim is to re-assert control in a non-escalatory fashion

How are you planing to do that? Especially in a way that has the least amount of looting happen.

It would be bad because it would be enforcing a death penalty for theft, and because it's extra-judicial (no arrest, no jury, no conviction, etc...).

> because it would be enforcing a death penalty for theft

Looting is not just theft

> because it's extra-judicial (no arrest, no jury, no conviction, etc...).

Is it still bad if the police shoot someone attempting to murder someone else?

We wouldn't be here at all if the police were allowed to address this properly. It either wouldn't have escalated, or they'd be overwhelmed and the army would have had to have been called in to assist. I don't understand why this is so complicated. People pay taxes to be protected from such violence. It's the reason we're told to shut up and go to Somalia when we complain about taxes. But when it comes down to it, nothing happens. Local acts of terrorism and people are left to defend themselves, possibly without the capability to own a firearm too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com