Most active commenters
  • yibg(4)
  • midasz(3)
  • blackflame7000(3)

←back to thread

Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

(twitter.com)
1061 points danso | 15 comments | 29 May 20 07:24 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
midasz ◴[29 May 20 07:34 UTC] No.23347216[source]▶
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): >>23347234 #>>23347262 #>>23347368 #>>23347531 #>>23347663 #>>23353690 #
101404 ◴[29 May 20 07:51 UTC] No.23347368[source]▶
The National Guard would go to stop violence, wouldn't it?

Pretty interesting how people even here try to invert the situation for political reasons.

replies(3): >>23347381 #>>23347393 #>>23351425 #
midasz ◴[29 May 20 07:52 UTC] No.23347381[source]▶
You tell me, he quite literally says the military is with him and ready to shoot when people start looting.

Please tell me how I am inverting the situation? Or should I use your translation book to make sense of his tweets?

replies(2): >>23347431 #>>23347434 #
1. roenxi ◴[29 May 20 07:59 UTC] No.23347434[source]▶
> You tell me, he quite literally says the military is with him and ready to shoot when people start looting.

He didn't literally say that. The National Guard would be acting in a role very similar to the police when there is rioting.

replies(3): >>23347484 #>>23347523 #>>23351029 #
2. midasz ◴[29 May 20 08:06 UTC] No.23347484[source]▶
> Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!
replies(1): >>23347601 #
3. ◴[29 May 20 08:12 UTC] No.23347523[source]▶
4. blackflame7000 ◴[29 May 20 08:23 UTC] No.23347601[source]▶
And that's bad because...? We can't succumb to lawlessness if people don't respect the law and expect no penalties. If they did the same thing at Area51 and were shot, would you say it's the fault of the guard who swore to protect their post just as the National Guard does? Is the value of civility not greater than a single life?
replies(2): >>23347766 #>>23351014 #
5. dannyw ◴[29 May 20 08:49 UTC] No.23347766{3}[source]▶
Should people be shot for looting?

Is looting a capital crime?

replies(2): >>23348238 #>>23351333 #
6. dannyw ◴[29 May 20 12:20 UTC] No.23349084{5}[source]▶
I don't follow the logic that a crime against property should become a capital crime just because it is down by a large(unorganised) group of people. Furthermore, the constitution guarantees a fair right to a jury trial, no matter how egregious, and police or the national guard shooting to kill looters goes against that.

Should drug smugglers be shot too? They are also going against societal order.

replies(1): >>23349663 #
7. username90 ◴[29 May 20 13:23 UTC] No.23349663{6}[source]▶
A rebellion is different, if you have to deploy the military because people have overpowered the police then it is no longer just a normal crime scene. Normally people would just disperse when that happens, but if they tried to attack the military in the same way they attack the police then what would you expect?
8. OldHand2018 ◴[29 May 20 13:26 UTC] No.23349708{5}[source]▶
A protest against a citizen who had his life taken without due process of law is getting out of hand.

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.

9. yibg ◴[29 May 20 15:23 UTC] No.23351014{3}[source]▶
And this is why trump does what he does. There are actually people that thinks looters should just be shot.
10. yibg ◴[29 May 20 15:23 UTC] No.23351029[source]▶
He quite literally said this, this is why Twitter is flagging this tweet...
11. yibg ◴[29 May 20 15:43 UTC] No.23351333{4}[source]▶
Wouldn't even matter if looting was a capital crime. We're talking summary execution without a trial. Judge dread territory here.
replies(1): >>23355790 #
12. blackflame7000 ◴[29 May 20 21:31 UTC] No.23355790{5}[source]▶
The 2nd amendment was intended to keep people with a healthy fear of one another. The equation is clear - to take another's property means one must risk something even more valuable; one must risk their life. It's that inequality that preserves order and to try and rebalance the equation by cancelling out the ever-present constants and insist life is above both liberty and prosperity, then you are fundamentally altering the social construct in untenable ways.
replies(1): >>23356047 #
13. yibg ◴[29 May 20 22:01 UTC] No.23356047{6}[source]▶
So then why don't we just have the police shoot on sight for any suspected crime? Police get called to store theft, just shoot the suspect. Police get called to vandalism, shoot first.
replies(1): >>23357320 #
14. roenxi ◴[30 May 20 00:36 UTC] No.23357320{7}[source]▶
The obvious reasons not to do that is because it is stupid, disproportionate punishment, prone to abuse and irreversible if there is a mistake.
replies(1): >>23365806 #
15. blackflame7000 ◴[30 May 20 23:34 UTC] No.23365806{8}[source]▶
All that is a risk accepted by the perpetrator. The expectation of being safe from danger while committing a crime is absurd.