←back to thread

NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester

(www.thecity.nyc)
291 points dataflow | 3 comments | 18 Jul 25 13:15 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
femiagbabiaka ◴[18 Jul 25 14:36 UTC] No.44605114[source]▶
How many rights will we be asked to give up in order to squash anti-war sentiment?
replies(8): >>44605211 #>>44605300 #>>44605796 #>>44605993 #>>44606143 #>>44606147 #>>44606330 #>>44607026 #
i_love_retros[dead post] ◴[18 Jul 25 15:52 UTC] No.44606147[source]▶
[flagged]
noqc[dead post] ◴[18 Jul 25 16:15 UTC] No.44606457[source]▶
[flagged]
jajuuka ◴[18 Jul 25 16:28 UTC] No.44606627[source]▶
Self defense isn't "you killed 1,200 people of our people so we're going to kill 60,000+ of your people (majority of which are children), destroy any all your hospitals and educational centers and prevent basics like food, water and medical supplies from getting to you."

At what point do you listen to humanitarian organizations and the UN? Amazing that you think 24 people is a genocide but not 60,000+.

replies(2): >>44607244 #>>44607602 #
bmacho ◴[18 Jul 25 17:36 UTC] No.44607602[source]▶
It is self-defense by any means.

You might want to argue that it is unfair as a revenge or something?

replies(1): >>44608239 #
1. lm28469 ◴[18 Jul 25 18:33 UTC] No.44608239[source]▶
If you want to frame it like this it's out of the definition of virtually any legal definition of self defense.

Self defense usually implies a "reasonable" use of force, what's happening there hasn't been reasonable for more than a year now.

If someone points a gun at you you can kill them, that's self defense, if you burn their entire village down, track and kill their family members 3 generations up it's not self defense anymore

replies(1): >>44608905 #
2. noqc ◴[18 Jul 25 19:35 UTC] No.44608905[source]▶
You are conflating civil law with international law. In a civil context, my right to self defense is very weak. If my neighbor is stockpiling weapons, and announcing his intention to kill me, I am obligated to trust the deterrent of the state. The state has the monopoly on force. I could easily be killed by this person, but they would be prosecuted by the state, and this system defends me quite well. It is only when my life is in active danger that I am allowed to take proactive measures. If the person shoots me in the leg and drops his gun and starts running away. I'm not allowed to pick it up and kill him in response. That's the state's job (There's no chance I would vote to convict this man if I was on a jury to be frank, but that's the principle).

This is very different from the interstate case. If a state shoots another state in the leg and runs away, the only way to establish a deterrent is to shoot back. There is no police force to do it for me. This is the main diffference between civil law and international law.

replies(1): >>44609582 #
3. lm28469 ◴[18 Jul 25 20:39 UTC] No.44609582[source]▶
OK but then again look at a map of Palestine vs Israel territories over the years... Who's under "imminent threat"? Who's under "credible threat"? One could argue Palestine is defending from an illegal occupation and as such Israel couldn't even claim self defense, just like Russia can't claim self defense in Ukraine

Even in international self defense there are criterion and limits