Comment by tunesmith
5 years ago
> Is this supposed to be bad?
Yes.
> I actually wish that our own PM had done the same.
That would be bad.
> I am sure that the citizens of a lot of countries that live under the rule of criminal syndicates, looters, and highwaymen would agree.
They are also bad.
What is better is to have a functional police system that responds proportionately.
Why would that be bad exactly? Anyway, I am glad that you did not have to survive through something like that.
> What is better is to have a functional police system that responds proportionately.
In times of mass-looting? I doubt that even the most functional police system could be able to help.
That being said we are talking about the extremely dysfunctional American police system. I doubt that they can change it into a functional one within an hour. What would you suggest for right now?
> Why would that be bad exactly?
Because shooting looters is disproportionate. You arrest them and charge them for burglary, and then determine mitigating factors. The looters aren't shooting people. As for why it is bad to kill someone that isn't a killer, we have to go back to general moral philosophy and common law. Extremely generally, aside from the moral cost of taking a life, it's also because it is systematically escalatory that invites a further escalatory response.
> Anyway, I am glad that you did not have to survive through something like that.
Me too, but I fail to see the relevance. I understand that someone living through that might make someone more willing to shoot looters, but that doesn't mean it is proportionate or appropriate.
> In times of mass-looting?
Yes, in times of mass-looting, it would be better to have a functional police system that would be able to arrest, charge for burglary, and then determine mitigating factors by looking at the overall context. And I agree, our current police system is not up to that task.
> What would you suggest for right now?
I think we should not move past that the answer is not right now, but a few days ago - we should not have a system where it is even thinkable that police officers can kneel on people's necks and kill them. That exposed that it is a dysfunctional American police system (in that area and many others). Societal cohesion does not operate based off of the overwhelming strength of a police system, but common trust, mores, and belief in the overall system. If you break those bonds by kneeling on someone's neck and killing them, then many other things can break as well.
As for right now, the aim is to re-assert control in a non-escalatory fashion, and then let justice-driven investigations run their course. That's the right thing to do.
> Because shooting looters is disproportionate
Debatable
> You arrest them and charge them for burglary, and then determine mitigating factors
This is not possible to be done in scale in a mass-looting situation.
> The looters aren't shooting people
The looters are looting while using the threat of violence.
> As for why it is bad to kill someone that isn't a killer, we have to go back to general moral philosophy and common law
You say that as if it is some form of universal truth. I do not share your personal morals regarding this.
> Yes, in times of mass-looting, it would be better to have a functional police system that would be able to arrest, charge for burglary, and then determine mitigating factors by looking at the overall context
Certainly, but my argument is that no police force on the planet would be able to handle mass-looting in scale and in the way that you propose. This is like saying "just stop putting bugs in your code". Anyway, this whole thread is about trump saying that he will send the military if the governor is not able to handle it his own way - which is likely similar to the way that you are proposing.
> the aim is to re-assert control in a non-escalatory fashion
How are you planing to do that? Especially in a way that has the least amount of looting happen.
It would be bad because it would be enforcing a death penalty for theft, and because it's extra-judicial (no arrest, no jury, no conviction, etc...).
> because it would be enforcing a death penalty for theft
Looting is not just theft
> because it's extra-judicial (no arrest, no jury, no conviction, etc...).
Is it still bad if the police shoot someone attempting to murder someone else?
We wouldn't be here at all if the police were allowed to address this properly. It either wouldn't have escalated, or they'd be overwhelmed and the army would have had to have been called in to assist. I don't understand why this is so complicated. People pay taxes to be protected from such violence. It's the reason we're told to shut up and go to Somalia when we complain about taxes. But when it comes down to it, nothing happens. Local acts of terrorism and people are left to defend themselves, possibly without the capability to own a firearm too.