Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

Side topic: Should government control looting when it comes to violent protests?

Isn't the US a federated country? Surely it's up to the local police to ask for help from other police if they wish to, and then perhaps ask for help from the national guard, not the other way round?

And isn't it state governors who control the national guard, not the Federal president?

I assume the Waco types will be out there opposing "The Feds" trampling over state rights?

With innocent people being harmed, and at least one killed, I think they should. Letting this get out of control is not the best option, as tensions are already high from covid, and this could be a feedback loop to more unneeded violence, with unintended victims caught in the cross hairs.

With a gas line possibly being cut, and ~170 business burned down, this is spiraling out of control [0]

I mention the gas line (though I don’t know if this a fair comparison) for the potential of chained explosions like the one in Merrimack Valley [1]

Regardless, I think many are using the protests as an excuse to loot, and let off steam from the tensions of lockdown, in addition to its obvious main reason.

[0] https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/05/29/protesters-take-mi...

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrimack_Valley_gas_explosi...

> ... and ~170 business burned down, this is spiraling out of control

To be clear, that is NOT what the article you linked states.

It reads:

> The St. Paul Police Department said more than 170 businesses were looted or damaged Thursday, and dozens of fires were set.

The US has a federal system, but people are guaranteed basic rights within it. If the local government can’t or won’t protect those rights (the police abandoned one of their five precincts to the looters!), the feds have the right and duty to step in.

Looting is illegal. It happening when there's a violent "protest" going on doesn't make it any less illegal.

One of the government's core tasks is to enforce the law, so yes, the government should control looting.

And FWIW, I think "violent protest" is a misleading euphemism. This is a riot, whether you speak American [0] or English [1].

I honestly don't understand why this is a question. Why wouldn't the government be expected to enforce the law?

[0]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/riot

[1]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/riot

The cost-benefit is not that clear-cut. Attempting to protect material at the cost of civil unrest, likely wounded protesters and police officers, possibly even more death. Sounds like taking a step back might have been the best of all the bad options.

They can.

The process is Local Police, State Police, Gov calls in National Guard, Gov goes to State legislature, State then asks President for help.

Yes. Looting hurts people that have nothing to do with the protests. Protecting them should be highest priority.

I totally agree with the protests but I think looting is wrong and unproductive and hurts their own cause.

I am raising this question because many think that looting is the right thing to do and it allows avenge of George Floyd. I personally think that it hurts George Floyd's cause and only creates more divide. Violence is not the answer to society's deep racial issues.

Thanks I guess for citing the definition of a Riot. I think that's a better word for it.

Looting should be prevented regardless of protest. The punishment for looting should not be death.

Posse Commitatus prevents the military from performing law-enforcement duties. The _governor_ can activate the national guard for cases like this.

Yes. However theft does not warrant lethal force.

More importantly though, the government should be more concerned with the cause than the symptom. Arrest the officer and this goes away.

It’s terrible that folks are looting and taking the focus away from the problem, but it’s also shameful to evoke George Floyd’s name to shame them without making mention of the officer who started this mess.