• @rbhfd
      link
      English
      31 year ago

      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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          Don’t participate in a discussion thread if you don’t want to talk about that topic. It’s not complicated.

        • @rbhfd
          link
          English
          -11 year ago

          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.

            • @rbhfd
              link
              English
              01 year ago

              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.