Comment by yibg
5 years ago
First, looting doesn't imply imminent harm or threat to someone. Majority of looting involves destruction of property but not harm or death to people. If you think someone should be shot because they stole / destroyed some property, then I don't know what to tell you.
Second, we're not talking about individuals protecting themselves or their property. We're talking about the police / military shooting looters, and again not specifically in protecting themselves or others from harm.
Third, this is calling for summary judgement and execution without trial. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
> looting doesn't imply imminent harm or threat to someone
Sure it does. If it did not everyone owning property would go to the entrance and physically block it. In addition it implies imminent threat to the well-being of these that have their property taken away from them.
> If you think someone should be shot because they stole / destroyed some property
Under normal conditions I would support shooting them only if it is the only/safest way to stop them (either from committing the act or from running away).
> Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Except the ones that are shoot while they are looting are provably guilty.
Are you against the police shooting someone that threatens the life of an innocent?
Edit:
> We're talking about the police / military shooting looters
You pay your taxes so that the police / military protect you and your property.
> Are you against the police shooting someone that threatens the life of an innocent?
To be honest, how you make the jump from looting and destroying property to someone's life being threatened is beyond me.
If the looters are about to harm someone, and there was no other non-lethal way to stop that then fine. This is certainly NOT what people are objecting to.
I'm not sure how to make it more clear. Looting for the most part destroys property. Destroying or stealing property doesn't justify killing. Having your property taken away doesn't imply a threat to you. I mean c'mon, if that's the standard then we should just execute every petty thief and vandal.
> To be honest, how you make the jump from looting and destroying property to someone's life being threatened is beyond me.
From "this is calling for summary judgement and execution without trial. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?"
> Destroying or stealing property doesn't justify killing
This is not some universal truth as you try to make it to be, but rather your personal morals.
> Having your property taken away doesn't imply a threat to you
As I said before "Sure it does. If it did not everyone owning property would go to the entrance and physically block it. In addition it implies imminent threat to the well-being of these that have their property taken away from them."
The looters are looting while using the threat of violence.
> if that's the standard then we should just execute every petty thief and vandal
As I said before "Under normal conditions I would support shooting them only if it is the only/safest way to stop them (either from committing the act or from running away)."
What is the point of repeating the same statements over and over?