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.
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
> 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.
An alternative interpretation is that he was simply observing that violence begets violence, rather than encouraging it. My take is that he was deliberately ambiguous in order to taunt his opponents whilst also giving himself plausible deniability.
I think he probably meant exactly what everyone thinks, but you can shoot things other than bullets. Rubber bullets and gas canisters are also “shot.” He could have even been referring to the rioters shooting. I’m sure it would have been worded better if it wasn’t on Twitter, but that’s definitely on him.
The point is if you’re going to censor the president (or anyone, IMO) you should give them the full benefit of the doubt first.
This is the same word games that edge lords use to avoid social consequences; there’s no “I was just kidding” excuse when the president of the United States of America discusses the use of lethal force on American citizens.
It would be fine if it's: if they loot arrest them and if they treat to prevent this by using weapons like guns then you can shoot them if there is no other way.
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.
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.
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.
But arson is.
5 replies →
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
> 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.
Credible treats will be met with incredible tricks.
An alternative interpretation is that he was simply observing that violence begets violence, rather than encouraging it. My take is that he was deliberately ambiguous in order to taunt his opponents whilst also giving himself plausible deniability.
Are you honest to god deducing that the president said American citizens should be shot?
How else would you interpret “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”?
It's a (perhaps too) succinct plea to not loot, and a warning that people will defend themselves and their property accordingly.
5 replies →
I think he probably meant exactly what everyone thinks, but you can shoot things other than bullets. Rubber bullets and gas canisters are also “shot.” He could have even been referring to the rioters shooting. I’m sure it would have been worded better if it wasn’t on Twitter, but that’s definitely on him.
The point is if you’re going to censor the president (or anyone, IMO) you should give them the full benefit of the doubt first.
I'm not sure how that's the conclusion you drew from my comment.
> This tweet, while in bad taste IMO, was a threat to those who are planning to continue looting and burning buildings in Minneapolis.
Because I read what you said. You are saying it’s okay for the president to say that looters should be shot, it’s just “in bad taste”.
POTUS is not saying they should be shot, no.
This is the same word games that edge lords use to avoid social consequences; there’s no “I was just kidding” excuse when the president of the United States of America discusses the use of lethal force on American citizens.
He is saying exactly that.
If they loot shot then, that's what he is saying.
It would be fine if it's: if they loot arrest them and if they treat to prevent this by using weapons like guns then you can shoot them if there is no other way.