Nope, not buying it. There is in fact a vast gulf between police officers being allowed to use force to defend themselves from a criminal who starts the violence, and an actual tyranny that enslaved half of Europe for fifty years.
If habitual criminals aren't afraid of law enforcement, then the only people who suffer are the innocent and the law abiding.
I'm hoping that enough people realize this is where the police are heading before we grant them the rules of engagement required to actually subdue a large number of citizens.
No, it's not, that's the point. The existence of authority itself is not at fault here. What is at fault is that previously legitimate authority has been corrupted by leftism.
What it was before is entirely irrelevant. The police in these blue areas are just a blue controlled mercenary force. Stop advocating for blue minions to open fire.
The existence of authority is absolutely at fault. If you believe authority is a problem now because it has been corrupted by leftism, you obviously don't understand that all authority is inherently evil JUST like the founders stated. Widespread corruption in America isn't a new thing, this type of shit has existed for centuries. Hence the founder's intent to create a very limited government.
Trusting government is one of the most retarded things anyone can do.
The level of force used has to obviously be warranted, and lethal force shouldn't be used unless absolutely necessary. So, back to the original point of whether or not the kid in Minnesota deserved to get shot, then that would obviously be no. The dude was already pretty restrained and even the police officer believed a gun wasn't necessary as she already admitted she intended to reach for her taser. She fucked up and should be held fully accountable.
and lethal force shouldn't be used unless absolutely necessary.
Why?
To elaborate, every time you tell me that a criminal's life matters, you are in effect telling me that a victim's life doesn't. I find that morally intolerable, and thus criminal's lives do not matter.
From my point of view the situation is already way past out of control. In the face of that, what you are suggesting is what leads to New York, where they don't have bail and just let all the violent maniacs back out on the street after giving them court dates they won't ever show up to.
A soft touch does not work. Ever. The spiking crime rates in well, every city in the country, make that abundantly clear. The only thing a soft touch does is incentivize these animals to create more victims.
And so I suggest we go in exactly the opposite direction.
Daunte shouldn’t have run. But he also shouldn’t have been charged with a gun crime in the first place (constitutional carry). However, he tried to run (again) knowing full well the risks. The woman who shot him was clearly lacking in training and familiarity with her equipment. Both were at fault.
Yeah, the new government I'm going to make will only have deputies and civil arrests only. One team effort. No one will arrest people for stupid laws. Probably don't need an executive branch either.
Cops really do be going off out there
I disagree. Treating thugs with kid gloves for fifty years is how this problem has gotten to be so bad.
And excusing the communist's henchmen for accidental murder is how you get the USSR.
Nope, not buying it. There is in fact a vast gulf between police officers being allowed to use force to defend themselves from a criminal who starts the violence, and an actual tyranny that enslaved half of Europe for fifty years.
If habitual criminals aren't afraid of law enforcement, then the only people who suffer are the innocent and the law abiding.
This is the goal.
Yes, it is. Then why are you advocating towards that goal in your post above?
I'm not advocating for it. It is what is.
I'm hoping that enough people realize this is where the police are heading before we grant them the rules of engagement required to actually subdue a large number of citizens.
No, it's not, that's the point. The existence of authority itself is not at fault here. What is at fault is that previously legitimate authority has been corrupted by leftism.
What it was before is entirely irrelevant. The police in these blue areas are just a blue controlled mercenary force. Stop advocating for blue minions to open fire.
The existence of authority is absolutely at fault. If you believe authority is a problem now because it has been corrupted by leftism, you obviously don't understand that all authority is inherently evil JUST like the founders stated. Widespread corruption in America isn't a new thing, this type of shit has existed for centuries. Hence the founder's intent to create a very limited government.
Trusting government is one of the most retarded things anyone can do.
The level of force used has to obviously be warranted, and lethal force shouldn't be used unless absolutely necessary. So, back to the original point of whether or not the kid in Minnesota deserved to get shot, then that would obviously be no. The dude was already pretty restrained and even the police officer believed a gun wasn't necessary as she already admitted she intended to reach for her taser. She fucked up and should be held fully accountable.
Why?
To elaborate, every time you tell me that a criminal's life matters, you are in effect telling me that a victim's life doesn't. I find that morally intolerable, and thus criminal's lives do not matter.
From my point of view the situation is already way past out of control. In the face of that, what you are suggesting is what leads to New York, where they don't have bail and just let all the violent maniacs back out on the street after giving them court dates they won't ever show up to.
A soft touch does not work. Ever. The spiking crime rates in well, every city in the country, make that abundantly clear. The only thing a soft touch does is incentivize these animals to create more victims.
And so I suggest we go in exactly the opposite direction.
This is my problem with some of these posts. Brian Riling lived, but spent months in the hospital. Riling ultimately ended up in jail.
The officer wasn’t charged with a crime. He didn’t go to jail. Not a good shoot at all and the officer should’ve been charged with a crime. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-da-won-t-charge-officer-who-shot-jailed-man-n994216
Daunte shouldn’t have run. But he also shouldn’t have been charged with a gun crime in the first place (constitutional carry). However, he tried to run (again) knowing full well the risks. The woman who shot him was clearly lacking in training and familiarity with her equipment. Both were at fault.
Interesting.
Yeah, the new government I'm going to make will only have deputies and civil arrests only. One team effort. No one will arrest people for stupid laws. Probably don't need an executive branch either.