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.
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.
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.
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.