“Bang-bang, you’re dead.” Death without counsel

[Josh]

I mean, boot, do you support government agents going to someone’s house and shooting them, or not?

If you don’t want to call it “capital punishment”, fine.

Josh, do you support assassinating presidents?

It's the same kind of question. Of course you don't. This is trolling. It turns the heat WAY up on a conversation and makes it harder to discuss what either of us actually believes. Or the evidence for our beliefs.

You could, for instance, simply say what your point of view is, and why you believe it is true. You seem to believe the agents went there to perform a summary execution, that they shot first and did not give him a chance to give himself up? Is that your view? I don't think that's what happened. That's why I disagree with your conclusion.

We have a questionable history in America of police or other agents entering situations where they create a confrontation and then shoot the “suspect”. This got a lot of press 3 years ago including situations like Brianna Taylor’s.

What I question now is the gloating from the left. They seem to be joyful that a person who is their political foe got shot by government agents. That seems like a terrible attitude to me, particularly on a forum like this from people who claim to be “nonviolent”.

It reveals the gross partisanship at play, when someone literally rejoices at their enemies being killed.

[ohio jones]

I mean, boot, do you support government agents going to someone’s house and shooting them, or not?

If you don’t want to call it “capital punishment”, fine.

Josh, do you support assassinating presidents?

It's the same kind of question. Of course you don't. This is trolling. It turns the heat WAY up on a conversation and makes it harder to discuss what either of us actually believes. Or the evidence for our beliefs.

You could, for instance, simply say what your point of view is, and why you believe it is true. You seem to believe the agents went there to perform a summary execution, that they shot first and did not give him a chance to give himself up? Is that your view? I don't think that's what happened. That's why I disagree with your conclusion.

We have a questionable history in America of police or other agents entering situations where they create a confrontation and then shoot the “suspect”. This got a lot of press 3 years ago including situations like Brianna Taylor’s.

What I question now is the gloating from the left. They seem to be joyful that a person who is their political foe got shot by government agents. That seems like a terrible attitude to me, particularly on a forum like this from people who claim to be “nonviolent”.

It reveals the gross partisanship at play, when someone literally rejoices at their enemies being killed.

Who specifically on this forum is rejoicing at their enemies being killed?

[Ken]

I mean, boot, do you support government agents going to someone’s house and shooting them, or not?

If you don’t want to call it “capital punishment”, fine.

Josh, do you support assassinating presidents?

It's the same kind of question. Of course you don't. This is trolling. It turns the heat WAY up on a conversation and makes it harder to discuss what either of us actually believes. Or the evidence for our beliefs.

You could, for instance, simply say what your point of view is, and why you believe it is true. You seem to believe the agents went there to perform a summary execution, that they shot first and did not give him a chance to give himself up? Is that your view? I don't think that's what happened. That's why I disagree with your conclusion.

We have a questionable history in America of police or other agents entering situations where they create a confrontation and then shoot the “suspect”. This got a lot of press 3 years ago including situations like Brianna Taylor’s.

What I question now is the gloating from the left. They seem to be joyful that a person who is their political foe got shot by government agents. That seems like a terrible attitude to me, particularly on a forum like this from people who claim to be “nonviolent”.

It reveals the gross partisanship at play, when someone literally rejoices at their enemies being killed.

No one on the left is gloating other than perhaps a few Twitter idiots.

People on the left are wondering why we allow deranged individuals to amass personal arsenals of military weaponry when no other civilized country would dream of allowing that. And why state legislatures in states like Utah are actually making that EASIER instead of more difficult.

Personally I think people who are actually interested in creating a nonviolent society should be alarmed by the proliferation of weapons in this country. Live by the sword, die by the sword is what Matthew tells us. That seems to have been what happened here as well. Sometimes the scriptures are prophetic.

[Bootstrap]

This whole thing is "yuck" from start to finish.

What I feel is grief and disgust. It doesn't feel anything like rejoicing to me.

[JimFoxvog]

It’s already illegal for a prohibited person to possess or acquire firearms under federal law.

Anyway, I’ve been hearing for the past 3 years how important it is police deescalate, how unjust killings of convicted criminals like Floyd were, etc… but it’s obvious if the victim is someone liberals feel is a political foe, they’ll cheer when a gang of armed federal thugs show up and open fire.

I agree that a de-escalation approach would have been the right way to go. The FBI should use this first. Surrounding the house for months would be better than what they did. Sadly, too often, what was done is standard law enforcement procedure. It is inappropriate no matter what the suspect's politics.

[Soloist]

I agree that a de-escalation approach would have been the right way to go. The FBI should use this first. Surrounding the house for months would be better than what they did. Sadly, too often, what was done is standard law enforcement procedure. It is inappropriate no matter what the suspect's politics.

At the end of the day, despite most people being willing to say a human life is important and priceless, the FBI can't afford to blockade houses long term. Society already complains we pay our law enforcement too much and they can't maintain those teams on constant guard of a house.
Be easier to gas them and lock them up if you get that desperate. Of course, thats assuming they don't have a gas mask, most gas masks can neutralize non deadly gases. At that point, the best you can do is lacrimal agents and hope you can destabilize them enough to take them alive.

Police have a pretty poor reputation for taking anyone alive. They have even shot people who don't threaten sitting in the road with hands above their head. Although that one was a little funny after the fact. (Man) "Why did you shoot me?" (police) "I don't know"

[Bootstrap]

You know, I have absolutely no idea how the FBI should handle this kind of situation. I wouldn't have the first clue how to go about taking an armed man into custody if he does not surrender voluntarily.

[Robert]

You know, I have absolutely no idea how the FBI should handle this kind of situation. I wouldn't have the first clue how to go about taking an armed man into custody if he does not surrender voluntarily.

It's not that hard. I have seen it done on TV many times.

[Szdfan]

You know, I have absolutely no idea how the FBI should handle this kind of situation. I wouldn't have the first clue how to go about taking an armed man into custody if he does not surrender voluntarily.

It's not that hard. I have seen it done on TV many times.

Don't the TV cops shoot a lot of people their trying to arrest and it's almost always justified?

[Robert]

Don't the TV cops shoot a lot of people their trying to arrest and it's almost always justified?

You must be watching the WRONG shows!!