In other news

I tend to agree with you most of the time, but I disagree with almost everything in this post.

Killing someone trying to steal your car violates a core principle of all civilized countries: Force should be proportionate to the gravity of the offense.

Killing someone who is literally trying to kill you (i.e. self-defense) is considered permissible in civilized countries.

Killing someone stealing your car isn't "self-defense."

And what happens if it turns out that the alleged culprit wasn't actually trying to steal your car? Suppose you though he was, but you were mistaken? And if there are no eyewitnesses, do the authorities just take your word for it that the alleged culprit was stealing your car?

There is almost nothing true or decent in the above post. And again, I generally agree with you most of the time.

I am a classic liberal, pragmatic libertarian, more libertarian than normal rightwing people but not a purist libertarian and i never claimed otherwise.

I said more than 10 times already that my model is the amount of state interference in society that the USA and Australia had in the second half of the 19th century. Single digit taxation and so on.

yes i remember your take on this.

But there is no "force should be proportionate to the gravity of the offense" historically for civilized countries. You are conflating punishment by the state after you are caught (which commonly used proportionality approaches) with what people were historically allowed to do to protect themselves against violence if law enforcement isnt' around. Or what law enforcement can do to criminals in flagrancy.

In fact even in the USA it took recent SCOTUS decisions to emasculate law enforcement response.

I am not sure if you are aware but before Tennessee v. Garner (1985), law enforcement was allowed to pursuit criminals and shoot to kill if they fled the scene , even if they posed no direct threat anymore while fleeing.

There was actually a centuries-old common law principle called the "fleeing felon rule" that allowed, for centuries in the anglo world, law enforcement to always use unlimited violence with no regards to the health of the fugitive to secure him to justice.

That's what the values of the anglo world were (the top pinnalce of human civilization for centuries) on that specific topic, and that's how much they were violated and destroyed by leftist courts. One can hope sanity can be restored, after all courts can change.

So keep in mind that the violence i ask for is for when criminals don't immediatly stop their criminal act and let themselves be arrested with no interference. They get one chance to lie down without moving before they get shot dead. That's it.

Yeah and the rapist argument gets nowhere with you guys either despite the ruling judge literally calling it "rape"

There is always a pivot you can do, a mental judo to throw the criticism off your back. Just admit you don't actually give a **** what he does because you largely agree with his policy and his rhetoric

There is a famous video of Daniel Shaver bawling while begging not to get shot as he tries to comply with the cops by crawling on the ground and they executed him anyways. Thats all this leads to; being a hair away from executing someone pol pot style and having little to no accountability for it.

and if things go like that, that's a crime and it can and should be prosecuted, and it's a completly different topic.

Bodycams mandate can work, i am open to different and additional ideas as well, but if the idea is "we can't let law enforcement use a lot of violence to fix crimes because otherwise sometimes they will use it badly" then that's giving up on a core function of the state that people will require.

The whole idea is NOT to open up the road for extralegal justice and abuses of the constitution, and the way to do that is to achieve what people legitimately desire WITHIN the system we want to preserve. And it's possible.

Keep in mind cordie that your objection is qualitatively identical to that of prison abolitionists that want to remove jailing as an option because sometimes innocent people end up in jail.

Been like this since J6 basically. Just the most hypocritical contradictory no principle having crybully baby back weenies

Ending up in jail incorrectly sure seems like a better outcome than getting executed while you lay face down on the ground because 3 sociopathic borderline ******s are shouting conflicting illegible commands at you

It feels implausible to me that the better society is one where people get shot in the street for being homeless and their bodies are left to bled out if they survive the shooting.

Yeah he was also a fascist dictator and serial rapist which kinda detracts from his um, altruism, no? And the American west circa 19th century was called the wild west for a reason. And it wasn't cuz they threw lots of parties. I was also going to say they had public executions but you'd quite possibly find that a positive so...moving on.

...You wish to bring the equivalent of BOPE to Italy?

It would come as near as possible to Hell on Earth.

keep in mind that happened with the CURRENT model in place, not with my model. Ie, bad actors can ALREADY do bad things, right now.

Keep in mind that there wouldn't be any homeless in dense urban settings anymore after the first 100, 200, 500 or whatever are executed in the streets for "previously minor" offences.

They would go in remote areas which is where they always should have been. Problem solved with far less violence needed than what you think. The same is true for riots and most other things.

If you are credibly willing to use unlimited violence, and have the bodies to show that, and the explicit political will of elected representatives, "magically" they stop being a problem to begin with VERY QUICKLY.

Very often, almost always, a completly credible willingness to use unlimited violence is what REDUCES THE ACTUAL NEED OF VIOLENCE.

Except it would likely be ten times worse under your system.

When it happens now it's a huge story.

It would almost certainly be too common to be worthy of being a national story in your proposed system imo.

Sigh

Another day, another spate of Luciom posts wishing death on the disadvantaged.

So, should police be killing homeless folks for peeing on the sidewalk?

Sounds a tad harsh.

This is probably the most disgusting conversation I've ever had in this Forum.

A couple of 'gems' from today:

"kill them like rabid dogs."

"low-rung citizens."

Disgusting imho.

when his nonna caught the fist across her jaw that time after she burnt the cannolis, she learned and never did it again. a little gelato violence goes a long way, don't u know

It's best to see his posts as a form of public therapy for him to purge his soul of his hateful intentions, enabling him to be a better husband and father.

violent people who wage violence on normal citizens are ultra toxic for society, and it should simply be legal (both by private individuals when they are victim of violence, and for law enforcement when they have to deal with them) to use violence to make them stop

in other news , according to this article by politico the attempted "counter-gerrymander" by California to balance the Texas gerrymander was a bluff

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/23...

“Let’s just kill the homeless.”

****ing lol.

nope, only those who act violently and illegally