That doesn’t make your position better-That makes it worse. Throwing a tomato or maybe throwing garbage does not, in any fucking way, justify murdering someone.
But it makes your claim false. Why are you making false claims?
I’m Donald Trump and I disapprove this message:
“If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them. I’ll pay the legal fees,”
– Donald Trump at an April 2017 Iowa caucus rally.
And, y’know: when you “knock the crap out of” somebody, you could kill them.
ETA: and, apparently, they don’t actually have to throw the tomato. You just have to have a credible fear that they could.
I’m not making any false claims.
The more important question is why you support people being killed for throwing a tomato or (maybe) throwing garbage? There is no possible way it can be called “self defense”, so why do it?
If I ask the question, “What is the minimum action required needed to justify killing another human being?”, I think the answers would be very depressing.
I’m against humans throwing things at people without their consent — and I take that seriously enough that I’d support changing the law to make it illegal for humans to do it, if society didn’t already see it that way as well — and I’m okay, on a case-by-case basis, with personally stopping such humans by physically restraining such humans, even though that might kill them; and I would want a jury to okay me doing so; and, if I were on a jury, I figure I’d see things the same way if someone else did likewise, regardless of what group they’re in. And that’s why I would advise humans not to engage in that activity, or in various other such activities that we take seriously enough to make illegal.
Why do you think the solution needs to involve dehumanizing certain groups? As far as I can tell, it’s entirely possible for other people to reach the same conclusions that I did while constantly and consistently noting that hey, we’re talking about humans.
Would you also ironically and nonsensically describe yourself as “Pro life”?
Nope.
Choking someone for 15 minutes is a death sentence, and if you have been trained how to do it you damn well know it, which means that former Marine intend to kill that homeless person. You keep trying to force euphemisms like “stopping”, “holding” etc. into a conversation about possible murder-Are you doing it to justify it to yourself, because it sure doesn’t justify it to me?
This is bonkers.
But it’s a very good illustration of the subject of the thread.
It’s not a euphemism; if anything, I’m trying to emphasize that, when you set out to physically stop someone or immobilize them or restrain them or whatever, you’re running the risk of killing them.
And I’m against killing them for doing so.
Only if you have nothing in your ethical background that tells you when to stop.
Fifteen
Fucking
Minutes
Still a pretty low bar for summary execution.
Your position actually appears to be that you think you’d be entitled to kill somebody for throwing a tomato at you.
I don’t believe that I can properly respond to that in this forum.
You are right. I was thinking the Martin/Zimmerman case.
Still Chauvin did have racial issues, this one does not,
That’s simply because the interrupter’s crime is way more serious than the committer’s.
Prior to 911, had terrorists ever used a fully laden airliner as a bomb?
That’s what I don’t get here. 15 minutes - that’s like five stops. If, for whatever reason, I was forced to restrain someone on a subway, I would have gotten him off the train as quickly as possible and shouted for a cop (or to be honest, I’d probably just have thrown him on the platform and gotten back on the train). What was this guy’s game plan? Just hold him until… what?
Until cops arrive?