06-03-2020, 02:43 PM
(06-03-2020, 10:27 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: So then you do want the police to use the force needed to stop looting and arson and arrest those responsible? Because that'll mean violently pushing into and breaking up mobs.
Being bailed out means they can keep on burning things in the mean time, though. Congrats, the police arrested an arsonist but they got bailed out and now you have to catch them again while they keep burning shit. That sounds like a recipe for successfully stopping this.
That's assuming they're even caught in the first place to be arrested because there's large groups of people in masks everywhere. What's the actual odds they face any consequences for their arson? What is the lead they're going to go on? That it was a person in a black hoodie with a black mask? I'm sure that'll narrow it down quickly and lead to justice as they look at a crowd of thousands of people who match that description.
The US has 298 police per 100,000 citizens, which ranks 88th out of 145.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers
I can't find world Firefighter numbers, but DC for example has 25 Firefighters per 100,000 people and it takes quite a few Firefighters per fire.
Even if they used force, the police simply don't have the numbers to arrest and criminally charge all the looters and arsonists, and put out all of the fires. This is just a front-and-center example of what rural people have already known. Police are often too spread out to instantly be of help. Often the fastest they can get there is still too late for an immediate emergency. That's why you own a gun.
Fact is the vast majority of the arsonists and looters are going to get absolutely zero consequences.
None of this justifies deadly force for a property crime.
(06-03-2020, 10:27 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: And I am saying that property for a small business owner is pretty close to their life.
If that life is an arsonist, and the property is the sole income and means to house and feed the owner's family, then no, no it's really not more important.
Yes, it still is. Property can be replaced, even if it creates a hardship for someone. That hardship period will be temporary until insurance kicks in or what have you. Loss of life is permanent and irreversible.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
