Riots involve destruction of property and mayhem. Both infringements on other people's rights to property. What kind of "riots" are you thinking of?

Do you make a distinction between private and governmental property?

Some examples I can think of include paramount moments of US history in which property was destroyed, including:

- Boston Tea Party.
- Shays Rebellion.
- Stonewall Riots.

Without going into a long rant, the siege at Waco was an operational clusterfuck started by the incompetence of ATF leadership and a desire to make front page news by kicking down some doors and left for a more professional agency to clean up.

I have no issue with trying to arrest Koresh who did possess illegally modified machine guns and was a pedophile. I have an issue going guns blazing full blown tacticool style against a group of people that you know or suspect are armed to the teeth and live by a doctrine of building an "army of god" to protect themselves against the "armies of Babylon" especially when the people you sent inside to gather intelligence tell you they know the raid is coming.

My biggest problem was the spotlights and playing Nancy Sinatra "these boots are made for walking" over and over, 24 hours a day. That is just cruel and unusual.

The fire was merciful at that point.

This post was edited by Skinned on Aug 19 2019 08:33pm

Michael Brown deserved it though

EndlessSky hates brown people confirmed.

i think it's worth noting that in a world where it's legal to own napalm (like we have with small arms) it's presumably legal to use them for 'defense', or any other range of uses. on a seperate timeline where we're all able to own incredibly dangerous items they take on many more uses. also the legal ownership implies legal sales, i dont think grenades behind the counter at the fleet farm gun section is a good thing for anyone.

i prefer a world where we're allowed to own weapons so we can keep our tools sharp, then if the govt starts knocking down doors people can get to making explosives and such to defend themselves. i see no value in the ownership of weapons of war beyond small arms, and i include semi automatic 'assault weapons' in those small arms. i just can't extend even hypothetically that logic to things like grenades and such. its one reason i dont like the 'weapons of war' talking point. it implies no line need be drawn when i think its clear we'd all hate living in a world with no line drawn. it would certainly make imposing unjust laws harder, but at a cost far too great for a functional society. i don't think we can safely butterfly effect our way into a 'good' timeline if we make than snap.