Stochastic terrorism.
Kill-billies.
I blame the gop for radicalizing the shooter.
I find it important to make clear it was a hate crime, but Lauri Carleton was NOT killed “over a rainbow flag outside her clothing store”.
No one gets killed because of a rainbow flag. You get killed because an asshole who wants to rather die than adapt to the world changing wants to spread fear with his last action and needs desperately to find a “reason”. Let’s not pretend he had a reason any other than being a coward.
My heart goes out to her family, friends and the community impacted.
That headline is doing the murderer’s work by literally propagating his anti-LGBT terrorism. Shame on that periodical.
Why has calling murderers cowards become such a thing? I blame someone who acts out of fear less than someone who acts out of hate or greed. Fear is a normal emotion and often reasonable. I don’t think this person acted out of fear though.
A lot of them are terrified of LGBTQ people and mask it as outrage. They honestly believe the shit they get told and it terrifies them what the world is becoming.
The reality is that terrorists like this guy are armed and carrying all the time, but the second amendment is for all Americans including liberals, lefties, moderates and everyone in between.
Im not advocating for violence, in fact having a concealed carry permit nearly always means the exact opposite. Someone being aggressive? You walk away and let them win. Someone tailgating you? Let them pass.
Carrying is about situations like this, between a shop owner with a rainbow flag and someone out looking for an excuse to murder someone over rage bait.
the problem I have with this is that you’re basically saying more people should have guns. a significant part of the issue is that there already are too many guns around and accessible and that is statistically going to result in more alterations resulting in shooting. you can talk about how much respect guns should be given all you want. but if more people have guns then there will be more gun violence.
You’re not wrong and I mainly don’t disagree with you.
But look at it from another perspective.
Those millions of guns in households are largely in the hands of conservatives since gun ownership skews heavily towards white people, males, and those living in rural areas which we already know also skews conservative, within which is a subset that fantasize about having a reason to murder their neighbors over dumb shit like colorful flags or opinions.
Liberals are much more diverse of a population than conservatives which means that when it comes to liberals, women or poc the odds of them having a fighting chance are not great in a life or death situation they didnt create, vs who is most likely to be the aggressors, conservative white men.
My take on it is that the cat is already out of the bag. In a perfect world I would prefer not having easy to operate life-ending tools spread freely throughout the country, but that’s not the reality we live in. The best shot we have is to even the playing field so to speak even with the downsides it presents. The current status quo is letting terrorists gun us down with impunity and that doesn’t sit well with me.
I disagree and think the core problem of too many guns could be solved the same way other Anglophone nations did it.
However, your argument was very well written, and I appreciate both its intention and its focus on the human.
I’m open to a solution, but it’s unrealistic to expect Americans to give/sell back enough of their guns for it to work like it did in Australia.
We have A LOT more guns here, and each one lasts 100 years or more. We could give up 99% of them (we wouldn’t though) and there would still be like 6 million guns here.
Demanding people give up their guns would just cause an open civil war. The solution that worked in other countries wouldn’t work here because the ideology is different.
I have no faith that what has worked in europe would work here given the political and cultural landscape before us. If it was feasible for america I’m not sure we would be in this situation now.
I wish it was, you and me both, but until that changes I’m simply accepting the lay of the land for what it is and reacting accordingly. We can work towards a better solution in the meantime; these actions and thoughts are not mutually exclusive.
However, your argument was very well written, and I appreciate both its intention and its focus on the human.
Thanks for the kind words. It is rather annoying being the change I want to see in the world though.
I mean… I kind of get where you’re coming from but “with impunity”? The shooter is now dead. If they weren’t dead they’d be either executed eventually or in prison for 50+ years, or more likely, life.
The trouble with this is that like @Liz@midwest.social pointed out in her comment about individual rights vs societal safety, from the perspective of the individual being shot, it is with impunity.
That woman had a right to life and safety and some stupid asshole came along and ended that no matter what justice the shooter rightfully faces after the fact.
Yeah that’s fair.
It’s a balance between individual rights and societal safety. You have a right to defend yourself from threats to your life and safety by using deadly force. To say otherwise removes the ability for a good chunk of the population to adequately defend themselves. I’m related to plenty of people who cannot defend their life against the average male aggressor without a gun, and you are too. At a certain point size and strength are insurmountable.
But yes, encouraging people to responsibility engage with firearms for self defense use means that there will be more guns floating around, which means more accidents, suicides, and murders. Just as with any other choice for the rules of society, it’s a trade-off. How much do we value keeping the right to adequate self-defense as a universal right? How much do we value preventing accidental injury and death?
The classic comparison is cars, simply because the annual death numbers are similar, and pretty much no other reason. But even so, we can draw parallels. Cars have mandatory features that reduce the likelihood of injury without impacting the usefulness or general experience of using a car. So too do guns, with nearly all guns having to meet industry requirements for safety, like being able to handle an overpressure event, and being drop-safe.
Cars have a licensing procedure (though it’s essentially a joke here in the US) and a licensing procedure would be fine for guns, so long as it can’t be used to restrict access (racist approvals and denials would become a problem in a hurry). My ideal licensing program would be a free handling skills course where failure would require some sort gross negligence, and even then you’d still get racist denials.
And really, this is the fundamental problem with guns: I (and many others) view them as a necessary tool to accessing a highly valuable right. The chances you’ll need a gun are very low, but the cost of not having it can be very high. You don’t have full control over whether someone else will attempt to take your life, and I don’t want to say to a large chunk of the population “we’re going to take away your ability to defend yourself in order to save other people who would still have that option either way.”
And I want to be clear, I completely agree with the other person. If you’re going to bring guns into your life, you had better learn medical skills, social skills, and you had better train with your firearm in somewhat realistic conditions. You should carry pepper spray, you should practice learning how to actually effectively calm people down, you need to learn how to safely store your guns and ammo, etc. Etc.
I get the desire ban guns in order to save lives, but you’d also be endangering others. Compare that with the car analogy, and banning cars would have a similar trade-off. Some people would live thanks to not getting in a car accident, others would die thanks to not having the same level of mobility (which has about a billion knock-on effects for quality of life).
Without regard to the rest of your comment, somehow the lack of guns works ok in Europe and they aren’t all exactly equally sized.
I think your argument sounds good until you look at other countries. I don’t know for sure but I’m guessing there aren’t more violent attacks on vulnerable people in countries that have gun bans. I think it’s possible you’re exaggerating the fear of attack without factoring in the overall safety benefits of removing so much gun violence. I’m convinced that if it could be done the benefits would fast out weigh the draw backs.
obviously the reality is that actually accomplishing this task in a country whose identity is so pathetically attached to guns is the impossible task. there’s already just too many gun nuts so that ship had long sailed.
regardless, to me there’s no question whether it would be better or worse for there to be more people with guns.
Oh, no, it’s just that I don’t weigh all violence as equal. I have a different value system then you do when it comes to interpersonal violence and that’s okay that we disagree there.
To me, removing a potential victim’s ability to protect themselves isn’t worth removing a potential victim from being attacked at all. To me, they’re not a 1:1 trade. You probably disagree, and that’s okay, but I place a high value on an individual’s agency, to the point where I’m willing to let them live in a slightly more dangerous society to get it.
This trade-off exists in all areas of life, and I don’t necessarily side with personal freedom in all of them (I would ban cars if I could), but I do in this area.
so selfishness then. got it. your desires for yourself are more important than what’s better for everyone. you can’t pretend this is your choice for others. it’s definitely for yourself.
Uh, no, it’s so that everyone has the ability to make the choice for themselves. We could force everyone to live in padded cells for their own safety, but we both agree that’s ridiculous. We’re just arguing over what is and is not an acceptable trade-off between safety and agency.
in this case there’s only really 2 options: better for society or better for yourself. you can’t argue it’s better for everyone to have the choice to own killing weapons when it’s clear that position results in more gun violence and death.
Carrying doesn’t do crap for self defense. The moment a crazy asshole pulls their gun at you and shoots you won’t even be able to comprehend the situation quick enough and get your own piece out of the holster.
The crazy asshole always wins as they shoot first (they are usually cowards on top, so you might just get shot in the back).
More guns just leads to more crazy assholes with guns, I feel much safer in European countries.
Removed by mod
You mean start arming black people. Fastest way to get gun regulation in the US.
In the situation you outline, yeah you’d have no real chance at protecting yourself. And those situations do happen in cases like the Las Vegas hotel shooting or any of the various school shootings we’re seeing all over these days.
In many other cases even the most craven assholes need to work themselves up to shoot another human being.
That means arguments, harassment and threats.
These are helpful advance warning signs that tell you that you’re entering dangerous waters and de-escalation tactics take priority. Many of our lady friends can already tell from a mile away if someone is dangerous even before they start flapping their mouthholes as a matter of everyday survival.
If all of that fails and I hope to god that it doesn’t, that’s when having a concealed weapon gives you a fighting chance at defending your right to live. Especially for women, guns are the great equalizer.
More guns just leads to more crazy assholes with guns
You’re right, this is true.
Unfortunately the cost of encountering a rather persistent strapped terrorist is extremely high even if the chance of it happening to you is low.
Well, I rather live in a country where pretty much no one is strapped (except police and military and even then not all of them).
Even the whole hero fantasy a lot of Americans have, it doesn’t work out. There is a famous video of someone shooting up a mall. A random guy carrying tried to sneak up on him. Then the girlfriend of the shooter popped him right in the head from behind (as he didn’t notice her following at a distance).
We need more people who think like you
There’s more than you realize.
You likely don’t hear much about it because liberal gun owners don’t fetishize guns or base their personality around them like the chuds on the other side of the fence do. Guns are tools, not an identity.
It’s odd, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a lefty or a gay person outright killing someone over a Dixie or Trump flag. I keep reading about far-righties killing people over the scary rainbow flag though
Closest I’ve come is punching a skinhead for his jacket patches.
Maybe it wasn’t a particularly good idea to make firearms so easily available to everyone and especially to (neo)Nazis?
The need for the 2nd amendment is fundamental if you want the people, able to form a tyranny… oh wait…
The problem is they don’t see the hypocrisy. They think tyranny only applies to the government.
Generally yeah most tyranny definitions refer to government. It’s hard to exert tyrannical rule without being a de facto government.
You couldn’t be more wrong Telllos. If I didn’t have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants and start shoving you around. Do you want that? (Pokes Telllos) Huh? (Shoves Telllos) Do ya!?
You can just print that shit now.
Imagine if these crazy fucks didn’t already have guns and they just discovered printable ones, I think that would have been a worse outcome.
Why does everyone thing 3D printing is magic? You’re not going to be 3D printing weapons that can kill scores of poeple. Any firearm printed on an FDM printer is lucky to fire once without injuring the dipshit wielder.
This comment betrays a lack of understanding around 3d printed firearms.
Of course there are your (nearly) fully plastic single shots like the Harlot that fire small calibers and dont always last long.
On the other hand, there’s plastic lowers (the only part considered a firearm and thus the onlynpart that needs to be bought through an FFL) for AR15s that use off the shelf plumbing supplies for the pressure bearing components.
The files are readily available and able to be printed on low end FDM printers with little adjustment and troubleshooting completely bypassing the need to purchase a firearm from a dealer.
Yeah, it’d be so terrible having crazy fucks blowing their own hands off /s
How much of a pussy do you have to be to go shoot somebody over a rainbow flag. What a fucking fairy. People are so sensitive these days and don’t know how to act. We can blame the internet all we want, but at the end of the day, people need to learn to have some social skills. How to talk disagreements out and let people have an opinion, even if it may be wrong or stupid in their eyes. It absolutely infuriates me that people gotta die over stupid shit.
In like 2021 when the truckers were protesting g the vaccine at the border I made a man snap in public over what was legitimately a luke-warm shot at the protest.
I said something like “these dipshits are acting like they didn’t get their mandated MMR shots already.” And a guy next to me, not in the conversation, dramatically stood up, and loudly announced “You know what?! All you fuckin idiots think the situation is simple, but it’s a lot more fucking complex that the corporate media is making it out to be!” He stormed out. Didn’t pay his tab.
The whole bar just sat there in awe. Like “damn I guess some of us really got hit with that isolation crazy”
Truly, a year alone for some was just too much.
You say that like any of those people actually quarantined.
Talk about an easily triggered snowflake. Ahh they have a flag presented! I need my gun to protect my fragility!
Just another example of far-right extremist violence.
It’s just regular conservative violence at this point.
Two sides of the same coin, since all “regular” conservatives are also “far-right” extremists. Any “moderate conservative” is just a centrist Democrat at this point.
Except no. The majority of “moderate conservatives” would still vote for the Republican candidate. 74 million Americans voted for Trump in 2020.
And those 74 million people are far-right extremists and in no way “Moderate.”
That’s the point. That’s the Overton Window.
I was with you until that line. I know too many people who voted for Trump because they were ignorant and detached from politics, not because they were alt-right.
There is a difference. Many of those detached-from-politics people are seeing Trump face all those charges, and moving on. Some are being told that it’s part of some Democratic conspiracy against Trump. If you’ve ever traveled to a red state on business and seen the local news, you’d understand how easy it is for someone to get convinced of the lie even though they are more aligned with Democrats on the issues than Republicans.
I’m torn on how to respond to this. On one hand, I grew up in rural Appalachia in a Republican household. Eventually my family pivoted 180 towards Democrats and never looked back. I shudder to wonder if we would’ve been the idyllic Trump supporter 20-years-ago. I know what it’s like when Fox News is blaring in every doctor’s lobby, every bar, etc. When on the job site every other person is espousing those same conservative views. So I recognize that people are capable of change and we should not give up entirely on them (though their vote is less needed these days).
The thing is, many voted for Hitler not out of dyed-in-the-wool SS Nazi beliefs, but as you said: Complete ignorance.
Most of the people who voted for Trump knew what he was for and agreed with his platform. That platform was far-right. In the end, I don’t find much difference between those so incredibly gullible (useful idiots?) enough to fall for the shallow fox news propaganda of far-right extremism, versus those who know the game and commit 100% — both lead to the same dangerous logical conclusion. Besides, I think every far-right extremist at their core is ignorant in themselves.
Most of the people who voted for Trump knew what he was for and agreed with his platform. That platform was far-right
I can’t speak for everyone. But I knew quite a few Trump voters who clearly did not understand the for-right platform. They thought they voted:
- Anti-corruption
- This idea that both parties are the same and here’s someone who actually wants to pull a Perot
- Saving jobs (he actually dramatically overperformed the labor vote that, while they can be racist, don’t usually run towards the dogwhistle candidate)
This, to me, is similar to a lot of the folks voting for Obama thinking he was actually progressive despite openly being conservative.
In the end, I don’t find much difference between those so incredibly gullible (useful idiots?) enough to fall for the shallow fox news propaganda of far-right extremism
There is a drastic difference between evil people and stupid people, and knowing that is both important for keeping your sanity in a country that elected him, but also politically important for knowing that we’re not just a few votes away from the majority of Americans wanting a fascism.
both lead to the same dangerous logical conclusion
This is true, and why it’s both important that we educate people, and that we work towards a country where campaigns of lies are either illegal or at least made ineffective. The Democrats ran fairly hard on “everything Trump said is a lie” and were able to prove it, and that wasn’t enough.
Besides, I think every far-right extremist at their core is ignorant in themselves.
Sure, but not every fool is a racist. Most of them are “centirsts” or merely uninterested in politics and just want to go on with their lives.
Domestic terrorism
Regular conservative domestic terrorism.
Good old homegrown god fearing terrorists.
US-perspective.
I guess the perpetrator also wore a brown shirt? Here we go again: Weimar Republic 2: Nuclear Boogaloo
deleted by creator
Did you have a stroke while writing this? Hope you’re ok
Brown shirts aren’t inherently bigoted, but they can be a reference to the colloquial name for the SA, the brownshirts, called that because their uniforms included brown shirts and also to differentiate them from other fascist militias of the era that wore different colored shirts. The SA used similar styles of military imagery, threats of violence, and acts of violence to modern right wing militias.
Ever notice how there’s no such thing as a liberal hate crime?
“We are all domestic terrorists”.
How much more do we have to put up with before we do something about this? Sadly I’m guessing it’s a lot more.
If I am ever killed over my rainbow stuff, I’m haunting the son of a bitch who killed me as a rainbow.
Leprechauns are starting to make sense.
I’d tend to trust someone haunted by a rainbow personally, I don’t think it’s the best plan
I would love to have my personal rainbow, could you haunt me a little as well? Maybe Tuesdays?
They want you dead. It’s time to return this sentiment.
Normalizing political violence will inevitably, and possibly literally, blow up in your face.
We are not going to sit here and watch people get killed for no reason just for nothing to happen to the terrorists in return. As terrorists, they deserve to be treated as terrorists. A hundred years ago killing Nazis after the liberation of Germany was the right thing to do, but now it’s supposed to be wrong?
The dude who shot her was killed by the police. What more were you thinking should have been done to him?
There are more like him
So what are you recommending? It sounds like you’re recommending pre-emptive violence towards people with no crime, no trial, no jury. That is likely to end badly. It’s also likely to be used as an excuse to kill people who aren’t involves in hate in the first place.
All i am saying is that if someone were to kill one of those terrorists, they wouldn’t get my pity
What do you define as “one of those terrorists”? Any person who is a conservative, or any person who has already murdered someone for being gay? Or somewhere in the middle?
Who is they?
If we acted the same way it would reinforce their agenda. My comment blew up.
Update/Edit: if you think killing people is the answer to solving the world’s problems then you are a fucking premtitive shitty human being and are a part of the problem.
No action will also reinforce their agenda
There’s a gap a mile wide between doing nothing and stooping to the same level of violence. Come on…
I question this idea that violence should only be viewed through a lens of who is superior to the other. Morality is not about being better. It’s about reducing suffering in the world. And your opponents think nonviolence simply doesn’t accomplish that, and in this case I don’t blame them.
All I’m saying is there’s a that universally every nation in the world has constructed laws on this; that just because you disagree with an opposing view vehemently you cannot strike out physically, violently. Inevitably, if you abandon this notion, then it will backfire by those most willing to commit violence — and in that regard, we revert back to survival-of-the-fittest winner-take-all mindsets. When that happens, will we have “reduced suffering in the world?”
Quite a bit of space between 0 and 100
Yeah hence why when the Nazis invaded Europe we never invaded them back, because that would have just reinforced the Nazi agenda.
Not sure if you are aware but the Nazi agenda is still around.
One could make the argument war didn’t get rid of them and had just reinforced their way of thinking even moreso for the ones who still supported nazism.
One could also make the argument that the best way to deal with hitler was to send him chocolates and ask him to leave France very nicely. Doesn’t mean its a good argument.
No it wouldn’t, you are helping their agenda by discouraging the left from taking up arms.
You’re not allowed to get strapped up like a larping moron in every western country in the world that isn’t the US.
The US would be doing a lot better if they stopped pretending like they were the only country in the world that’s ever tried to solve a problem. Owning guns just increases the chance that you or a family member will commit suicide or a murder suicide.
Honestly, the gun culture is way too entrenched among the right wing for something like that to be viable and any attempt at meaningful gun legislation will ignite the civil war I’m talking about.
The right wing is open and emphatic about their willingness to wage war with the government to be able to keep their weapons. And they are serious. There’s enough of them that they could give our military a good run for its money.
No they wouldn’t. Our military doesn’t even need to respond most of the time, just the cops, and when they do these jackasses are so poorly trained and organized, The National Guard doesn’t even get to play with their big toys.
Source: lefty (in both ways) Navy Veteran, and there are way more of us than the braying jackasses want to admit
But not enough to stop them without the left shedding their unhelpful way of thinking on the matter and mobilize, and you know that.
Lately I’ve been thinking that if congress got shot up as often as schools did, we would have sane gun control with bipartisan support
That’s basically how it’s been, only with a very racist bent. Gun control only really became a thing once Black people started arming themselves.
I agree with you that once people start popping off politicians that we’ll see real change on the matter. And then the right wing will be signaled to fight once they see mass disarmament programs begin, and it’ll be downhill from there.
Gun control only really became a thing once Black people started arming themselves.
Negative. Gun Control in the United States predates the founding of the country and it was both racist and classist from the very outset. As documented in that link Gun Control laws have been around for over 200 years and were instituted against Blacks but also against the Irish, the Chinese, and Native Americans.
Your comment is based on The Mulford Act, a stupid and racist piece of California legislation passed with bi-partisan effort and signed by then Governor Ronald Reagan in response to publicly armed Black Panthers. It wasn’t even close the first serious gun control law to get passed.
For instance Mulford was modeled on The Sullivan Act enacted by New York State in 1911. It intentionally targeted Italian immigrants, another distinct minority at the time.
This country has ALWAYS enacted Gun Control in response to racial and class elements.
Already happened a few times. Gca 68 was after Kennedy and 86 was after reagan.
deleted by creator
So? In what world does that necessitate you owning a gun? One where Robert Evans’s civil war happens?
The idea that everyone needs to be strapped because a few morons are, is paranoid race to the bottom thinking, not how you make a better future.
The real world where without it, I stand a very high likelihood of being raped or murdered at the slightest aggression of an angry male who will always carry a power advantage over me without them, you psychopath.
Oh yeah, Canadian and European women are just casually murdered and raped all the time cause they’re not strapped. That’s so totally a thing that happens and we all hear about in the news day after day!
You’re more likely to be killed by a mosquito than raped, and men are far more likely to be murdered than you. You might want to reevaluate your threat assessment.
I love how tough and secure you are! So impressive!
The projection is real.
So tough and secure! Most impressive!!
Isn’t this the second time you made that lame -ass statement?
I still say it’s projection. 🤔 Though I wonder if this isn’t some bot account…
No, I’m just saying you’re gay and afraid to admit it. And Republican. And also a gay too.
History has shown time and time again that pacifism cannot defeat conservatism. Conservatives see pacifism as an invitation to attack.
They do no rely on our actions to advance their agenda of hate. Conservatives will advance their agenda of hate with or without our input. They can only be stopped by force.
I dunno. I’ve thought, for quite some time, that we’ll lose because the only way to combat the far-right is to stoop to their levels and we, naturally, are to ethical to do so. I’m increasingly on the side of see-a-nazi-punch-a-nazi, although I’m horrified by violence and probably wouldn’t have the courage to do so.
If you are unable to fight, then prepare yourself in other ways. Teach your family how to help fighters who are injured, how to evac people who need help and how to escape/survive a conservative attack (such as an active shooter).
Even if you are not a fighter, there is a ton you can do to help those who will fight.
At minimum, teach your children why we don’t do business with or engage in personal relationships with conservatives. Together we can maginalize hate by marginalizing haters.
I hope you realize that you’re falling right into the far-right playbook. This right here is their goal. Not sure if you’re familiar with ProPublica’s research but they seek to muddy the waters. The whole punch a nazi thing actually helps their recruitment. They turn around and go, “See? They’re no better. They claim to preach these beliefs about a civil society and freedom of speech and not preemptively striking, yet here we are.”
Either way they lie and recruit the same. I’d much rather just punch the Nazis and anyone who sides with them.
In a way wouldn’t we all. But this is clearly posturing anyway since I’m not seeing much in the way of nazi punching. For instance we saw how many nazis were in DC on January 6th or at Charlottesville, yet not much punching occurred.
Either way there are better ways to undermine their goals.
Yeah because rational humans were at home being their non violent selves having no idea what was about to unfold. How stupid are you?
That just helps prove my point. One side is just not violent to begin with and to expect to beat violence with violence from a group unwilling to stoop to such a level themselves is absurd. Either way there are better ways to solving the problem. Nobody is going out “punching nazis” as much as it may feel cathartic to say. That will literally just land you in prison and feed their cause.
So, they act like children?
Nobody said they’re bright.
It seems unlikely that this would have any political effect, let alone a negative one. Perpetual gun violence is an unremarkable feature of life in the United States.
All the downvotes you’re getting on this one… YIKES I don’t think this is a very good community.
There are times violence is necessary, with Nazi Germany being the classic example.
That said, most of the time, even for many times where violence might be “right” it’s still a strategic error. It’s much harder to build than destroy and any “successful” deployment of violence requires physical and institutional/relational rebuilding.
Violence can make it harder to attract supporters to your cause. It gives your opponents the feeling of moral justification in also exercising violence. In a full on conflict, it reduces the ability of key supporters (the young, elderly, disabled, many women) from contributing to the struggle compared with non violent action
Militant trans sentiment is growing.
Everyone talking about the victim, etc what happened to the murderer? Is they in prisión now?
“The suspect was found and shot dead by responding officers”
I don’t think they made it to jail.
Extremely extremely uncommon police W
Unless the shooter was African American and they had no idea about the shop shooting which I wouldn’t doubt
I don’t call it a win. That murderer deserved to be tried and convicted for their crime and serve decades behind bars. They gave him the easy way out.
My cognitive dissonance is thinking both you and the guy you replied to are correct.
As much as I will defend my stance that I’m glad the shooter is dead, I still do agree with Flying Squid to an extent. Immediately murdering the aggressor goes against the whole of the system of law, I suppose a fair trial should still be taken place, but I’d be the happiest if they got the death penalty. Keeping him behind bars just keeps the hate alive
From another article (The Sun is owned by Murdoch iirc), they suggested that the murderer did not want to get arrested and was aggressive. It’s sad that people get so hateful that they would rather die hating people than just going about life.
Do they ever want to get arrested? That sounds like a poor excuse not to hit him with a bunch of taser darts and take him down that way. Sure, that might kill him too, but at least there would be a chance. Easier for the cop to reach for their gun and “solve” the problem.
The safety of other people is more important than you feeling better.
How is tasering someone less safe than shooting a gun?
You should know it is a win. Justice is dealt swiftly, there’s no bullshit trials or wasting anyone’s time on this murdering asshole. Time or money.
Sure, he “suffers less” getting a quick death, but let’s price this out for fun. This is in CA, Jesus, those idiots spent on average $64K per inmate annually as of 2015. Let’s not forget we’re in the era of Magic Biden Bucks™; according to Google we have experienced roughly 26% inflation since 2015. That $64K becomes $80K. Averages are just that, average, let’s be very generous & assume this guy is nothing special. Costing the taxpayer $70K per year incarcerated. Nice, even numbers. :-)
That’s at least $700K per decade, not accounting for any future inflation. You want decades, so this revenge/justice venture will cost at minimum $1.4M. Versus 10 mins & $10 in bullets.
I don’t really seek vengeance in the form of life sentences. The end result is the same; death is death & he got his. Justice has been served accurately with zero delay, a modern day miracle.
Oh yeah, police just shooting who they feel like is a modern day miracle! Nothing bad can come from that! Totally won’t end with a police officer kneeling on a man’s neck and slowly choking him to death for being black!
You erroneously framing a self defense situation which the cops were actually in for once as some 90’s revenge movie cliche is only hurting us.
This is not about you.
They’re replying to the comment celebrating the fact the suspect was given a quick and cheap death by the police.
Maybe the police actions in this case were warranted because of self defense, but that’s not what the comment was saying at all.
That isn’t at all what I said, and this isn’t a case of “shooting who they feel like”. 🤨 This was a case of a killer, a true murderer, getting killed. No one will be prosecuted for fatally shooting this murderer. Stop making false equivalence arguments.
It’s not the job of the police to dispense justice.
We’re in agreement on that. But when in pursuit of an armed & dangerous individual, armed with a gun, I do believe lethal response in self-defense or pursuit of neutralizing the threat is authorized. If the killer is killed in an armed standoff with police, while not the goal, I’m going to call that a bonus.
I think it is a lapse in moral judgment to command others to act in ways that we wouldn’t act ourselves…I think most people, pursuing an armed & dangerous killer, would want a gun & permission to use it when their lives are threatened. Tasers, stun weapons, and other non-lethal forms of detainment require getting uncomfortably close to the armed & dangerous person.
Yeah it is really easy to fall for the schadenfreude when a POS gets got by cops but don’t forget cops are wrong about who did what all the fucking time…
I hope they weren’t wrong here…
It’s not their job to execute people. It’s their job to arrest them and provide evidence in a court of law to get them jail time. Even if it’s the perpetrator.
That is why I’m arguing for not celebrating this way of handling problems. Executions, even official ones that are done “correctly” by the state, often kill innocent people. And, as you said, people that have directly commited a crime still deserve their rights.
Situations like this, where no one wants to see a killer like that get away, it becomes easier to overlook bad policing, and everyone should make a conscious effort try and hold police to a higher standard to do things properly.
I guess he should be allowed to shoot whoever he wants and fuck our human right to self defense then. 🤷
I hate cops too but this is one of the few cases where lethal action on their part is justifed. Him shooting at them gives them the right to shoot back, not as cops but as human beings. And how dare you tell human beings that the machinations of an old, decrepit, broken system is more important than their own lives?
I am actually interested to know the race of the murderer. I know some people are against giving that information, but truth is, that provides a lot of information.
Good. Thank you.
If you can’t be bothered to read TFA, please don’t enter the discussion.
Trying to make memes is a waste of time. Spend an hour trying to make something funny in photoshop, 4 upvotes. Literally just read the second line of an article and put it in the comments, 50 upvotes. Not that I care about internet points, but if I did I would never waste my time actually trying to make something insightful!
Is this the start of them hunting down libs? Party of law and order people.
deleted by creator
California has entered the chat with a bit more money at over double the economic productivity of Texas (#2) and New York (#3)
California is where the money is at, New York/ New England just has a higher proportion of rich people living there.
deleted by creator
Funny how these murder-babies are never from the north east
New York State isn’t in the North East? I seem to remember a really bad day at a grocery store in Buffalo, a deli getting blasted in NYC, a subway getting shot to shit in NYC, and recently some psycho on a scooter running around popping people at random.
