Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

It was a message, directly to law enforcement, that he thinks it’s okay for them to shoot protestors so long as there is looting. I can’t see how anyone would see that as anything other than a crime against humanity

I don't know why you're getting down voted. Trump's words are a quote of someone who believed that "... it’s okay for them to shoot protestors so long as there is looting."

Trump is very much saying he believes looter should be shot.

To be clear here: Looting is not a capital offense. It's stuff. No TV/car/stereo is worth killing a person over. You have insurance for these things (hopefully).

Though laws vary widely in the US, in CA the punishment is about a year in county jail, give or take:

https://www.shouselaw.com/california-looting-laws.html

To be clear here: it's not just "stuff." In innumerable ways, the looting and rioting is resulting in loss of material items that cannot be replaced. Case in point: https://twitter.com/wakiyan7/status/1266350546249629699

Things that can't be replaced huh? Like human lives, say those of Floyd or the protesters being shot at by police?

To be clearer still: Minnesota does not have stand your ground / castle doctrine laws - you can't protect "material items" with deadly force, no matter how valuable or irreplaceable. Instead, there is are Duty to retreat laws.

That's horrible.

That's still not worth shooting people in the streets over.

There are reports that some of the fires are set by provocateurs from the police. But this is impossible to prove either way.

1. This is horrible.

2. This could've been avoided if the original policeman was brought to justice.

I have recently looked into conceal carry, and many states DO NOT allow you to shoot someone who tells you they want your wallet. If they do not seem like a threat to your life, you are not allowed to use lethal force. Obviously, things can later be argued in court.

No, I don't think it was. A plain reading of the quote does not direct anyone, to do, anything. It is an observation. Just like it was your observation (and opinion) that it said something different.

The questions are this: Who is right? Who decides that?

I have taken down this same argument you made elsewhere on this topic and I ask that in addition to your not arguing about something that didn’t happen and how you hypothesize people you cannot name would react, that you make the argument just once and not paper all over a topic with exact copies of it.

I think it’s a threat directed at private gun-owning citizens that would be willing to take the law into their own hands. I’m old enough to remember the L.A. riots, where the police essentially peace’d out and let the resulting storm “work” itself out. It was God-awful for everyone involved, from the looters to the business owners to the innocent bystanders watching idly by.

Trump is warning the looters that they are taking their lives in their own hands, not just against the police, but against other private citizens protecting their property.

"a threat directed at" I'm not trying to be pedantic here, forgive me, but I reiterate that it was an observation. Any meaning beyond that is your own. The statement stands as it is, any interpretation by Twitter is editorializing.

I'm going to give Trump a C grade on communication on this one. A better Tweet would have been something like, "Minneapolis is why we need the second amendment and stand your ground laws." Followed by calls to Congress on nationwide concealed carry reciprocity, stand your ground, etc.

> A plain reading of the quote does not direct anyone, to do, anything.

Humans are not robots, however, and putting your fingers in your ears doesn't change the very clear nature of his message.

This is true, I agree. It was an observation that the people rioting and looting are choosing to put their lives into their own hands.

They are. Or do you want them dragged through the streets and hanged immediately?

>A plain reading of the quote does not direct anyone, to do, anything.

Ah yes, and his followers are widely known for their highly nuanced and level-headed understanding of things he says (and politics in general) /s.

>The questions are this: Who is right? Who decides that?

On whether egregiously advocating violence is ok? Really?

Sorry I needed to include some references here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/27/arts/design/van-gogh-stol...

and

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/us/politics/klobuchar-min...

"During her own presidential campaign, Ms. Klobuchar faced continued protests, as well as some calls to drop out of the race from local black leaders in Minneapolis, after news reports found numerous faults in the prosecution of a black teenager named Myon Burrell while Ms. Klobuchar was the prosecutor."

Twitter. It is a private company. If he doesn't like Twitter, rather than complain about Twitter on Twitter he could move to Gab where most of his followers are.

Honestly, I can't figure out what the tweet means. "Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts." From a plain reading I think he's saying when the feds take control they will shoot looters.

I think it means that Trump doesn't understand that he can't just march the Army in there at his sole discretion.

But if the situation escalated to the point that federal troops were needed (at the request of the state), then yes, there is almost certainly going to be shooting. You don't expect that a stern look from the Army is going to do the job.

So you chose to conflate the loss of irreplaceable Native American artifacts and historical records with the loss of a life, on a thread discussing material items?

I get that this is emotional, but that was not warranted. The rioters have destroyed the historical records of a Native American tribe and I'd like to think that they've suffered enough. The point was to show that it's not only cheap Target things being lost here.

I was not arguing in favor of shooting anyone. I was simply pointing out that dismissing the destruction in generality as "stuff" is in error and minimizing the effect. Don't lose objectivity in the face of tragedy.