Nazeroth wrote:Senkaku wrote:
Why do people make the argument that it’s fine to shoot even violent criminals? We as a society generally only reserve the death sentence for like, the really bad serial killers and spies (and sometimes not even them) and you’re just out here saying “meh whatever” to the state using lethal force? Demand more from your govt please— if we can manage to defuse things like the Malheur wildlife refuge occupation with minimal bloodshed, despite the presence of armed and dangerous people there, then maybe we can resolve other issues without resorting to shooting people in the back
I never said "its fine to shoot violent criminals" I said that given the situation and his past it's justifiable in my eyes.
Sorry, so you only said “THIS TIME it’s fine TO ME”? glad we could clarify that distinction lmfao
not every violent criminal "deserves" to be shot.
Then why bring up his criminality or lack thereof at all? It’s a sad and stupid trope that often comes into play when a Black man gets shot— suddenly people are discussing, for no real reason, his criminal record and his past. Why is it relevant? He shouldn’t have been shot seven times in the back regardless, so why are we talking about it at all, unless it’s a dog whistle to frame him as just another version of the dangerous Black man trope who had it coming?