• @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.