Guillotine Placed Outside Jeff Bezos' D.C. Home by Anti-Amazon Protesters | Hacker News Reader

Guillotine Placed Outside Jeff Bezos' D.C. Home by Anti-Amazon Protesters

newsweek.com

39 pointskoolba33 comments

The organisation is called "Abolish The Now" and they want to abolish (not just defund) the police, close all prisons and end Amazon.

The article and quotes from the organisers say that the target is the company, no one is calling for Mr Bezo's head (at least using words).

There was a fictional story about Russian government in early 20th century to fencing off a large area and putting all communists there. This way the communists could build the communism in a confined area and clearly demonstrate its benefits.

They were provided wit initial supply of pretty much everything and could ask for more should the need arise.

The first thing young communists ran out of was ammo.

"guillotine jeff bezos" is nothing new and some definitely means it literally, although it has more or less become a meme with change.org petitions for guillotining him etc. But there are alot of people that are serious about "violent revolution" being the only way to true freedom.

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is also a "meme". But doing so would still be extremely irresponsible.

As is "when the looting starts the shooting starts".

If someone is trying to break into my business and loot it they should expect to get shot. Why can we not use violent force against violent force?

Is that or is that not a death threat, though? Threatening to use lethal force [with conditions] is still threatening lethal force.

Would it be acceptable (if ludicrous) to keep a guillotine on your own property with a "for rioters" sign on? How about "for Jeff Bezos"?

Conversely is it OK to acquire a self-defence weapon and stand outsize Bezos' house brandishing it?

The key word in your statement above: to keep a guillotine on your own property. Trespassers will be shot. My home - my castle.

Brandishing a weapon outside someone else's house does not look like a self-defense.

> If someone is trying to break into my business and loot it they should expect to get shot. Why can we not use violent force against violent force?

Are they literally threatening to kill you or someone else? If not, then no. You can't use lethal force just to defend your business property.

From the videos I've seen there were multiple instances where businesses owners attempted to defend their property and were beaten violently by mobs of people. Here's one such example https://www.newsbreak.com/texas/dallas/news/0PCbABEq/video-d...

>>> If someone is trying to break into my business and loot it they should expect to get shot. Why can we not use violent force against violent force?

>> Are they literally threatening to kill you or someone else? If not, then no. You can't use lethal force just to defend your business property.

> From the videos I've seen there were multiple instances where businesses owners attempted to defend their property and were beaten violently by mobs of people. Here's one such example...

That video starts in the middle of a confrontation, and shows a man brandishing what looks like a machete or a sword at some people who are throwing rocks at him. It appears the sword-wielder rushed somebody, and was then beaten and subdued by the crowd. Afterwards, there's many comments to the effect of "he could have killed somebody!" It's not at all clear which group initiated the confrontation or which group (if either) is acting in self defense.

But the point still stands: if you kill or injure people to project you business property, you're in the wrong. If you shoot someone for theft, shoplifting, vandalism, etc. you can and should be prosecuted for an unjustifiable homicide or attempted homicide. Two wrongs still don't make a right, especially if the "corrective" wrong is much, much worse.

That's even the legal position:

https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2018/09/are-looters-will-b...

> Even in states with "stand your ground" laws, there are limits on when deadly force is allowed. Some states have a duty to retreat, which requires people to retreat from the threat as much as possible before responding with force. But nearly all states limit the use of deadly force under stand your ground laws to defending yourself in the face of great bodily harm or death, not your storefront. So, shooting someone who may kill or seriously injure you might be defensible, but shooting a person who steals from your store may not be.

https://www.quora.com/Is-is-legal-to-shoot-someone-who-is-lo...

> In general, it is not legal to defend your business using deadly force, regardless of whether or not there is a state of emergency in effect, and whether or not you see a visible police presence. You can only defend your person using deadly force, not your possessions. You cannot defend your business using deadly force.

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/minn-...

> Minnesota law won't excuse killing to protect property

> Experts say deadly force can't be used to fend off looters, unless they're also threatening to harm store employees.

https://www.chicoer.com/2008/07/02/police-address-legal-poin...

> [Police Lt. Al] Billington told the [Enterprise-Record that former Paradise mayor Ray] Dalton had a right to post the sign, but said it would be illegal for him to shoot anyone, unless he was defending his life, or the life of another.

I wonder if this will be tagged as hate speech and death threat

It clearly is. I'm sure the unconditional free speech no censorship people will be along in a minute to say that this is constitutionally protected.

In what way is it hate speech?

It's certainly not a message of love.

Hate speech doesn't mean messages of hatred in general, it means it's targeting a persecuted group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

It's okay to argue that someone should go to jail. It is definitely not okay to demonstrate a threat via 18th century public execution devices.

According to the new reddit rules this is ok

No, the 0.1% are definitely not the majority, they are by definition a tiny minority.

Yeah but he is white so majority

idk what did reddit think when they wrote those rules

I think Reddit should make it clear that if you live in Europe and you post that type of content you are breaking the law.

In the UK hate speech does not have an exemption for certain groups. People should be warned as posters will get arrested.

Sorry, for those waking up from a century-long hibernation, what the new reddit rule is?

https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/acc...

>While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.

This is lamentable.

When I went through my corporate training, one of the things they said was that we all are a minority in some sense. Some are disabled, some have accent, some were raised by a single parent.

Somewhat naive, but that was an eye-opener for me, an indication that we're all together in this boat.

Saying that some minorities are more minor than others certainly doesn't help.

What the hell? Surely this isn't real?

Why was this flagged and why can't I vouch for it?

Too embarrassing

Vouching is for things that are [dead]. It’s marked [flagged] because enough users have clicked the flag link.

nonsensical stuff.

This is gross.

Almost as gross as the mass hoarding of resources by an individual.

Dont buy at Amazon, dont vote politician that protect him, If you found a abnormality in its finances you need to declare it

Meanwhile, we are told by the city councilor for the Seattle district with CHAZ that the real cause of the murder of two teens by CHAZ "security" is not taxing Amazon enough (https://twitter.com/cmkshama/status/1277686578068942848?s=20).

This is what happens, Mr. Bezos, when you pay the Danegeld by trying to out-woke the woke.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com