Saving the receipts.

Right, that's why I said earlier that I understand using lethal force if there is a threat to human life. Stealing something generally does not implicate a threat to human life by itself (unless it's stealing something like necessary medication or someone's brake cables). So for you, the minimum threat level that justifies using lethal force involves a threat to human life?

Does everyone who loots spontaneously start at the same time?

Or do some start it and, as they are successful, others join in? Do the numbers escalate from a few to more to many?

Avalanches happen, initiated by smaller disruptions. That's not a slippery slope argument.

On slopes.

does it? for muggings or an invading army? Please clarify.

Here's a PSA from survival mag for those who need to know what to do in the event of a mugging. screaming and running away seem most effective.

https://www.asgmag.com/survival-ski...g-a-statistic-how-muggers-pick-their-victims/

"Be careful! That slope is slippery!"

"Aw, c'mon! There ain't no such----aaaaaaahhh!!!"

For me it's basically the castle doctrine. If I feel my life is in danger, I will react with lethal force (if available). If you break into my house while I'm home, you're going to end up unhappy, as I have lethal force available to me there.

*** Edit *** I should add, there are a very, very few people of importance to me that, should someone do something harmful or fatal to them, would likely provoke me to pay them a visit and enact wrath upon them. And if I see someone deliberately hurting an innocent animal, I won't be responsible for my reaction.

I have very lethal flatulence. I propose a duel.

Most states have a special exemption for robbing a person's house with the underpinnings that people deserve to feel safe in their homes and it stands to reason that someone bold enough to break into your home likely will pose a threat to the people inside.

If we are talking purely property damage, absent a threat of personal injury, though, you can't use deadly force.

With guns like these, who needs firearms?

Yep.

If you can swipe some Nikes or a PS4 in the process, it's an added bonus.

Fuck capitalism forever.
Of the ass.

not sure if you're mocking me. I'm old school: protesters shouldn't loot. That's bad form. Property damage I'm on the fence about. I wouldn't partake, but it's the surest way to get the man's attention.

So a cop kneeling on a suspect's neck for eight minutes leads to another cop shooting an unarmed man in the back seven times. Yeah, I see what you're saying.

This.

My car got broken into in December. If I saw the fuckers stealing shit outta it from across the street I can't pull out my glock and shoot them for it. Nor would I, no matter how annoyed I am that they took my dog's booster seat, because those fuckers are surprisingly expensive and I managed to get THAT one for half off from a Petco that was closing

And FTR, no I didn't call the police to report than since the car was intact and the only thing I was gonna get is from them. Even though cops can tract protestors down based on reports from Etsy orders for a unique shirt.

I'd prefer people didn't loot, to be sure, but I'm not gonna someone for it either. And if that's what it takes for white folks to get it through their domes that they should make meaningful reforms--like what happened after the LA riots in 1992--then so be it.

"Who cares if this n****r's innocent? The rest of them will get the message! String 'im up!"

I think we have a word for effecting political change by frightening citizens with violence. What is it, again?

FIFY

White supremacy, the second amendment, and how to keep black people and liberals in line.

15 words, but I know you have difficulty with the concept that "domestic terrorism" doesn't apply to white supremacists. That being, "they look like you and they have a gun, so can't condemn them as it will condemn the second amendment."

That sounds reasonable, thank you for giving me a reasoned response. I morally disagree with it for other reasons that aren't relevant to this thread, but I definitely understand the rationale behind that. Also, your position is generally legally defensible, regardless of moral considerations.

Others in this thread seem to think that the same lethal use of force in defending against a burglar should be used against vandals and looters, which is not legally defensible and generally not morally defensible.

I wonder if you have the faintest inkling of how silly you sound. We have cold-blooded murder by police officers, military weaponry set on peacefully protesting mothers, and gestapo thugs kidnapping innocent citizens in broad daylight. And after all that, you describe someone carrying off a TV set as an "escalation".

@Paladin is very much on record as liking the taste of leather boots.

You're an apologist for terrorism and lawlessness.

You have to understand, "patriots" such as @Paladin, do not value the life of a black man who is "suspected" of passing a counterfeit $20 bill. He doesn't care about protesting mothers, because they are "libtards", and he doesn't care about gestapo thugs because they are rounding up the people @Paladin dislikes.

So, those aren't *really* escalations.

He says in a country founded on an act of terrorism that led to a wider campaign of treason.

Your talents are wasted here. You should see if your pals in Portland have a uniform that fits:

You included your letterhead in this post, but forgot to type anything!!

A fascist large is a normal 4XLT.

Is that guy scratching his butt for the photo?

So, these riots are the beginning of a revolution?

You'd have been one of those guys leaning on your musket in the doorway of your shop muttering "Damn riffraff! This used to be a nice town. But I hear our Redcoats killed that uppity colored guy. That's something!"

While sipping his earl grey.