Comment by crazygringo
5 years ago
Well, in political science and sociology, one of the most common definitions of the state is that it possesses a monopoly on legitimate/lawful violence.
Violence conducted via the military or police, according to regulation, is lawful.
But violence conducted by citizens, or by members of the government or military that is not according to law/regulation, is not lawful.
I'm not saying Twitter's drawing the line exactly right, but it's somewhere in the right vicinity.
Presidents are also commanders in chief; a civilian that has ultimate control of state’s violence monopoly. Still the distinction between lawful/unlawful applies.
Wasn't Trump referring to stand your ground laws?
Minnesota does not have stand your ground laws. Instead, they have duty to retreat laws (basically, you can use deadly force to protect your life, not property).
Perhaps Trump did not know that :-D (I did not).
And if a looter is threatening your life?
1 reply →
no, it's a clear reference to Walter Headly
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-...
Then I don't understand the reasoning in the parent comment at all.
Minnesota does not have a Stand Your Ground law.
"Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts"
I think Trump's saying that if things get out of control, law enforcement will start shooting. If I understand your post correctly, this would be lawful...
Well, it is not legal to shoot someone for stealing in Minnesota so I'm not sure how this would be lawful violence. He would need to have said something like "when the looting starts, we will attempt to arrest anyone that we see, if they then threaten the officers' lives instead of stopping or running away, then the shooting starts".
It is NOT legal for the Minnesota police to shoot a citizen that they believe is committing a crime unless their life or another person's life is under direct threat.
Well, yes - you're of course right. And Trump should have said something different, like you suggested. I'm not defending the tweet in any way. I was suggesting that the tweet was in alignment with the idea that the state has a monopoly on violence. But I think I read crazygringo's comment too fast and didn't really digest the emphasis on lawful/legal/regulated violence. In other-words, I derp'd.
Twitter didn't draw the line at promoting violence (which is a line I can agree with), they drew the line at a prediction of mail-in voting resulting in fraud.