Comment by chooseaname
5 years ago
I don't know why you're getting down voted. Trump's words are a quote of someone who believed that "... it’s okay for them to shoot protestors so long as there is looting."
Trump is very much saying he believes looter should be shot.
To be clear here: Looting is not a capital offense. It's stuff. No TV/car/stereo is worth killing a person over. You have insurance for these things (hopefully).
Though laws vary widely in the US, in CA the punishment is about a year in county jail, give or take:
https://www.shouselaw.com/california-looting-laws.html
To be clear here: it's not just "stuff." In innumerable ways, the looting and rioting is resulting in loss of material items that cannot be replaced. Case in point: https://twitter.com/wakiyan7/status/1266350546249629699
Things that can't be replaced huh? Like human lives, say those of Floyd or the protesters being shot at by police?
1 reply →
To be clearer still: Minnesota does not have stand your ground / castle doctrine laws - you can't protect "material items" with deadly force, no matter how valuable or irreplaceable. Instead, there is are Duty to retreat laws.
1 reply →
That's horrible.
That's still not worth shooting people in the streets over.
1 reply →
1. This is horrible.
2. This could've been avoided if the original policeman was brought to justice.
3 replies →
There are reports that some of the fires are set by provocateurs from the police. But this is impossible to prove either way.
One's opinion may vary after the third time their home is broken into to steal the TV/stereo/laptops.
I'm going to give Trump a C grade on communication on this one. A better Tweet would have been something like, "Minneapolis is why we need the second amendment and stand your ground laws." Followed by calls to Congress on nationwide concealed carry reciprocity, stand your ground, etc.
I have taken down this same argument you made elsewhere on this topic and I ask that in addition to your not arguing about something that didn’t happen and how you hypothesize people you cannot name would react, that you make the argument just once and not paper all over a topic with exact copies of it.