I don’t care. They can think how they want and you do not have the moral authority to tell them they can’t. Go find something better to do with your free time than exploiting a tragedy to bully other people into adopting your way of thinking.
You ought to listen to yourself there. I am not gonna be quiet because you don’t want me to speak the truth, and the truth is he HAS no moral authority to dictate anything to anyone. He’s just some schmuck like the rest of us, and so are you.
The moral authority to tell someone that their stance that police can shoot anyone they want without due process because it’s cheaper that way is morally wrong?
Yeah, everyone has that.
I’m not trying to make light of the tragedy that happened to the original victim, nor am I saying it’s sad that the killer got killed himself. But if someone is arguing to eliminate due process because of this case, I’ll argue against that. And so should anyone else.
Yes. You have no authority to tell them any moral stance is wrong, especially telling people they can’t kill obvious hateful cultists who are a threat to the community and have proven it by killing actually innocent people. You have NO business saying that in a modern society AT ALL.
No one has the authority to tell someone that. Not even you. And if you claim it I will pit you right back in your place, far below actual decent people, where you belong. You will get what you give and you won’t like it.
I’m not trying to make light of the tragedy that happened to the original victim,
Well you are, and you make light of countless tragedies both violent and nonviolent across this nation and across this planet when you open your stupid fucking mouth and insinuate something so evil. And until you stop, my stance won’t change.
But if someone is arguing to eliminate due process because of this case
The only one who took away his right to due process was him, and he did it of his own volition by being dumb enough to fire at cops. When you shoot at ANYONE unprovoked, you have to accept the very high risk of being killed for your trouble and therefore never seeing a trial because that is how reality works.
Self-defense is a fundamental human right that supercedes any right you claim an aggressor to have.
Final reply, because I feel this not going anywhere.
I, or the person I was defending, was not talking about this specific situation. Of course they have the right to self defense. I explicitly mentioned that before two comments ago.
I’m also not trying to defend the killer or feel sad at all he got killed by the police.
All my replies were aimed at the comment from CoffeeJunkie who apparently was advocating for the police to be judge, jury and executioner because that’s cheaper. That’s a major simplification and I’m sure that’s not what they meant, but that’s how I, and probably others, interpreted it and why I chose to go against it.
Again, I’m done arguing with you. You’re resorting to ad hominem attacks because you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying.
They’re replying to the comment celebrating the fact the suspect was given a quick and cheap death by the police.
Maybe the police actions in this case were warranted because of self defense, but that’s not what the comment was saying at all.
I don’t care. They can think how they want and you do not have the moral authority to tell them they can’t. Go find something better to do with your free time than exploiting a tragedy to bully other people into adopting your way of thinking.
Don’t participate in a discussion thread if you don’t want to talk about that topic. It’s not complicated.
You ought to listen to yourself there. I am not gonna be quiet because you don’t want me to speak the truth, and the truth is he HAS no moral authority to dictate anything to anyone. He’s just some schmuck like the rest of us, and so are you.
Lol I didn’t tell you not to say what you want, I said not to shut others down. Maybe drink less or ask a human to type for you before posting.
The moral authority to tell someone that their stance that police can shoot anyone they want without due process because it’s cheaper that way is morally wrong?
Yeah, everyone has that.
I’m not trying to make light of the tragedy that happened to the original victim, nor am I saying it’s sad that the killer got killed himself. But if someone is arguing to eliminate due process because of this case, I’ll argue against that. And so should anyone else.
Yes. You have no authority to tell them any moral stance is wrong, especially telling people they can’t kill obvious hateful cultists who are a threat to the community and have proven it by killing actually innocent people. You have NO business saying that in a modern society AT ALL.
No one has the authority to tell someone that. Not even you. And if you claim it I will pit you right back in your place, far below actual decent people, where you belong. You will get what you give and you won’t like it.
Well you are, and you make light of countless tragedies both violent and nonviolent across this nation and across this planet when you open your stupid fucking mouth and insinuate something so evil. And until you stop, my stance won’t change.
The only one who took away his right to due process was him, and he did it of his own volition by being dumb enough to fire at cops. When you shoot at ANYONE unprovoked, you have to accept the very high risk of being killed for your trouble and therefore never seeing a trial because that is how reality works.
Self-defense is a fundamental human right that supercedes any right you claim an aggressor to have.
Get over it you don’t like it.
And stop making me defend pigs
Final reply, because I feel this not going anywhere.
I, or the person I was defending, was not talking about this specific situation. Of course they have the right to self defense. I explicitly mentioned that before two comments ago.
I’m also not trying to defend the killer or feel sad at all he got killed by the police.
All my replies were aimed at the comment from CoffeeJunkie who apparently was advocating for the police to be judge, jury and executioner because that’s cheaper. That’s a major simplification and I’m sure that’s not what they meant, but that’s how I, and probably others, interpreted it and why I chose to go against it.
Again, I’m done arguing with you. You’re resorting to ad hominem attacks because you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying.