Most active commenters
  • lostmsu(3)

←back to thread

1061 points danso | 15 comments | | HN request time: 2.224s | source | bottom
Show context
shiado ◴[] No.23347239[source]
The service that hosts the accounts of all branches of the US military, all major weapons contractors, all three letter agencies, and many foreign militaries, governments, and world leaders guilty of all manner of war crimes, and this is where they draw the line for violence. Really interesting.
replies(6): >>23347272 #>>23347293 #>>23347332 #>>23350446 #>>23350795 #>>23351894 #
1. crazygringo ◴[] No.23350795[source]
Well, in political science and sociology, one of the most common definitions of the state is that it possesses a monopoly on legitimate/lawful violence.

Violence conducted via the military or police, according to regulation, is lawful.

But violence conducted by citizens, or by members of the government or military that is not according to law/regulation, is not lawful.

I'm not saying Twitter's drawing the line exactly right, but it's somewhere in the right vicinity.

replies(4): >>23351003 #>>23351295 #>>23351377 #>>23352198 #
2. lostmsu ◴[] No.23351003[source]
Wasn't Trump referring to stand your ground laws?
replies(3): >>23351140 #>>23351548 #>>23351651 #
3. GaryNumanVevo ◴[] No.23351140[source]
no, it's a clear reference to Walter Headly

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-...

replies(1): >>23351242 #
4. lostmsu ◴[] No.23351242{3}[source]
Then I don't understand the reasoning in the parent comment at all.
5. daveslash ◴[] No.23351295[source]
"Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts"

I think Trump's saying that if things get out of control, law enforcement will start shooting. If I understand your post correctly, this would be lawful...

replies(1): >>23352284 #
6. acituan ◴[] No.23351377[source]
Presidents are also commanders in chief; a civilian that has ultimate control of state’s violence monopoly. Still the distinction between lawful/unlawful applies.
replies(1): >>23352184 #
7. sangnoir ◴[] No.23351548[source]
Minnesota does not have stand your ground laws. Instead, they have duty to retreat laws (basically, you can use deadly force to protect your life, not property).
replies(2): >>23351849 #>>23353602 #
8. germinalphrase ◴[] No.23351651[source]
Minnesota does not have a Stand Your Ground law.
9. Avicebron ◴[] No.23351849{3}[source]
And if a looter is threatening your life?
replies(1): >>23351915 #
10. sangnoir ◴[] No.23351915{4}[source]
Refer to sentence in parentheses.
11. ◴[] No.23352184[source]
12. aianus ◴[] No.23352198[source]
Twitter didn't draw the line at promoting violence (which is a line I can agree with), they drew the line at a prediction of mail-in voting resulting in fraud.
13. jaredmosley ◴[] No.23352284[source]
Well, it is not legal to shoot someone for stealing in Minnesota so I'm not sure how this would be lawful violence. He would need to have said something like "when the looting starts, we will attempt to arrest anyone that we see, if they then threaten the officers' lives instead of stopping or running away, then the shooting starts".

It is NOT legal for the Minnesota police to shoot a citizen that they believe is committing a crime unless their life or another person's life is under direct threat.

replies(1): >>23353087 #
14. daveslash ◴[] No.23353087{3}[source]
Well, yes - you're of course right. And Trump should have said something different, like you suggested. I'm not defending the tweet in any way. I was suggesting that the tweet was in alignment with the idea that the state has a monopoly on violence. But I think I read crazygringo's comment too fast and didn't really digest the emphasis on lawful/legal/regulated violence. In other-words, I derp'd.
15. lostmsu ◴[] No.23353602{3}[source]
Perhaps Trump did not know that :-D (I did not).