Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

People are wondering "How far does this go? How can Twitter say this is not cool, but allow something like violent movies or games? Where's the line?"

The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens for looting, that's the line.

> The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens for looting, that's the line.

Is this supposed to be bad? I actually wish that our own PM had done the same. I am sure that the citizens of a lot of countries that live under the rule of criminal syndicates, looters, and highwaymen would agree.

It seems that the US citizens are fine with state mandated violence as long as it does not include them. Nothing happened regarding https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018041 for example.

It is bad because the value of human life (even people you don't like) is infinitely greater than material goods. A looted store can be repared, restocked, rebuilt. A dead human stays dead forever and yields a mountain of grief around him. They are not comparable at all.

> It is bad because the value of human life (even people you don't like) is infinitely greater than material goods

The human life of the people looting your property is more important than the well-being of you and your family who will be in debt after that, I see.

Regardless, this seems to be your personal value, something that I (and most people that I know) do not seem to share - even the US constitution and laws do not seem to share it, after all it is legal to shoot someone invading your home. I have no grief to give to someone who died while trying to invade my home and loot my property. They are dead due to their own choices.

> A looted store can be repared, restocked, rebuilt

For free? It can be a lifetime's worth for some. Are you willing to pay it out of your own pockets? If there were enough people willing to do so I would support your statement, but that does not seem to be the case.

First, looting doesn't imply imminent harm or threat to someone. Majority of looting involves destruction of property but not harm or death to people. If you think someone should be shot because they stole / destroyed some property, then I don't know what to tell you.

Second, we're not talking about individuals protecting themselves or their property. We're talking about the police / military shooting looters, and again not specifically in protecting themselves or others from harm.

Third, this is calling for summary judgement and execution without trial. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

> looting doesn't imply imminent harm or threat to someone

Sure it does. If it did not everyone owning property would go to the entrance and physically block it. In addition it implies imminent threat to the well-being of these that have their property taken away from them.

> If you think someone should be shot because they stole / destroyed some property

Under normal conditions I would support shooting them only if it is the only/safest way to stop them (either from committing the act or from running away).

> Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Except the ones that are shoot while they are looting are provably guilty.

Are you against the police shooting someone that threatens the life of an innocent?

Edit:

> We're talking about the police / military shooting looters

You pay your taxes so that the police / military protect you and your property.