Wow. This man needs a lesson on how to deescalate a situation properly. Will this heavy handed approach really make people less angry? I doubt it..
replies(6):
He didn't literally say that. The National Guard would be acting in a role very similar to the police when there is rioting.
I don't have a dog in your fight, but you are aware that "arresting them" is literally done by force, right? And from what I hear, whether you send in the National Guard or a militarized police force is primarily a political difference, not so much a question of escalation.
China is pushing outward toward Hong Kong and Taiwan, in simultaneous fashion. In the former, we have the national security law. In the latter, we have new and uncamouflaged threats that China will use military force in Taiwan if it cannot control the island peacefully.
If Trump keeps our attention away from the China problem, it won't affect the stock market and we won't focus on its impacts on the world economy.
When the people have to resort to violence to get public servants to do their jobs and relieve the wounds of injustice, the only appropriate response is to give them justice.
Lastly, I remind you that the public did not initiate the use of force in this riotous controversy. A police officer did.
Police are allowed to use violence, that's their reason for existing, if that violence was misused it can be handled in non-violent way, that's what society is built around. It might not be instant or easy, but that's the difference between civil discourse and terrorism.
It's not that you should like or always accept such things, but the unpleasant part of being robbed is the fear of violence, besides which the lost property itself is usually a transient annoyance. Actual violence against your person is a great deal worse.
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.
Would you have preferred that never happened? Sometimes violence and revolution are justified. JFK said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
The DA could've made this peaceful by simply filing charges. I mean it's a pretty open/shut case here. All 4 police officers need to be thrown behind bars for life. He should be held accountable for the looting/violence because his actions of trying to cover this up and let it just 'go away', led to the escalations.
Should drug smugglers be shot too? They are also going against societal order.
This is demonstrably false for the genre of police crime in question. When the people being murdered react with violence, it is unrealistic to brush that away as evil because those people aren't exclusively using the proper legal channels instead.
> Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!
> To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE
He sounds more like a super villain from a comic than a president.
As another modern example, the protests in Hong Kong didn't involve looting. Instead the protesters were very well behaved except against what they protested against, and thus got a lot of support. Looting and destroying random property will just ensure that people will cheer when you get smashed by the police or military.
Doing the same on a much larger scale is not going to improve any situation whatsoever. It will be the exact opposite of a deterrent to others.
As a practical matter, a resort to military force in a domestic theater signals a failure of governance. And to the extent that it is attempted, it will further erode the support of the military for the civilian command; many veterans and active-duty personnel have no faith in the commander-in-chief, and history suggests that in such cases many troops choose to remain in their barracks.
To be sure, insurrection could have dangerous and bloody consequences, but that's why people are rebelling against it. Different people are rebelling for different reasons across the political spectrum; folk on the left are angry about the deaths of people like George Floyd or Breonna Taylor, folk on the right are angry about the death of people like Duncan Lemp or Randy Weaver. There are big differences between different groups because of differing notions about race, property, the social order, history, and so forth, but there's a wide consensus that the status quo is oppressive both at home and abroad and that regular folk feel trampled upon.
Was it not just weeks ago that the President, in response to heavily armed demonstrations in statehouses, was tweeting out 'Liberate Michigan! Liberate Wisconsin! Liberate Virgina - your 2nd amendment rights are under attack!' Now he threatens military force when a different group of people rise up against a different perception of tyranny. There's plainly a big disagreement in this country about what constitutes liberty, where life ends and property begins, and so forth - ideological questions that can be reasoned out to some degree, but highlight quite different basic premises held by people of different birth and experience. History is in many ways the tale of such fundamental disagreements.
Notions of justification and appropriateness are ultimately appeals to a higher authority - civic, judicial, parental, political, or religious. Once the nature and legitimacy of authority itself comes into dispute, differences are resolved by other means. In this historical moment people are choosing to seize authorship of their own lives rather than dully play the roles that were written out for them. Make of that what you wish.