In times of rioting and civil disorder, the onus is on the government to restore order.
Its that simple.
That's the objective, restoring order. Or better yet, preserving it so a riot can't break out. Emphatically not on punishing and persecuting those who riot, or weaponizing it for propaganda, or anything else where the consequences matter to individuals or groups. The police need to take the action necessary to protect lives, including protecting the lawless mob from itself. Nobody 'deserves to be blasted down' nor must sentences be draconian for those convicted. Convicting people of a crime after order is restored isn't restoring order, its just serving a cynical political agenda.
The only reason to overcomplicate this is if you want to exploit such events. If the government needs to roll out riot police, tanks and helicopters to stop mobs from torching a city, it should do exactly that. And if some armed rioters pose imminent threats, police may need to kill them. But its not about what is 'deserved', its about what is 'required'. Shooting an unarmed woman crawling through a window wasn't remotely necessary. Sentencing people to 20 years in prison for doing nothing but organizing a political protest to petition their government for redress wasn't just draconian, it was a blatant repeal of the first amendment and violates everything our democracy stands for.
It isn't cynical or political to convict people of a crime which they actually committed and sentence them accordingly. What was cynical about the handling of the Jan 6 protesters is that the bulk of them were just non-violent trespassers, yet were given draconian sentences as if they were guilty of high treason or murder. This disproportionate punishment was clearly an attempt at making an example out of them and striking fear into the hearts of those sympathizing with them. Which is also why it was absolutely the right thing to do for Trump when he pardoned them.
The same logic does not, however, hold for those protesters who genuinely assaulted police officers or secret service agents, or made credible death threats against members of Congress. Pardoning the bulk of these violent protesters, and freeing the remaining ones, was neither morally nor legally justified and itself a cynical political act.
From a legal pov, you're of course right that Ashli Babbitt didn't "deserve" to be shot, but from a moral pov, I stand by my opinion: she brought it upon herself.
This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 28 2025 07:21pm