Comment by dfxm12
5 years ago
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.
There are two different questions here, which are only tangentially related.
First, are there circumstances in which a citizen could apply lethal force to protect life and limb? Obviously yes; shooting someone trying to light your house on fire is certainly something that is both plausible and plausibly legal.
Second, is it appropriate for the political leader of a nation to imply that people committing a crime will be shot for it on the street? Not "we will deploy the national guard to provide safety and security to the citizens" but "looters will be shot". I think the answer here is obviously no, that is not appropriate.
I'm not going to defend that part of the statement, it was obviously wrong to anyone with more than 2 brain cells if interpreted literally. However the situation has rapidly declined to a state where I personally think the use of non-lethal force is justified, and lethal in the case of an imminent threat (ie. armed and threatening or literally firebomb in hand). A number of dwellings and business have been set on fire, in addition to the police precinct. These are individuals (and some large corporations) that are unrelated, and those taking advantage of the chaos and creating more should be punished appropriately. Obviously appropriate measures do not involve shooting people.
3 replies →