This is a genuine question.
I have a hard time with this. My righteous side wants him to face an appropriate sentence, but my pessimistic side thinks this might have set a great example for CEOs to always maintain a level of humanity or face unforseen consequences.
P.S. this topic is highly controversial and I want actual opinions so let’s be civil.
And if you’re a mod, delete this if the post is inappropriate or if it gets too heated.
Why is violence legal when the government does it but not for regular people who have exhausted their peaceful options? Escalation of force gets justified all the time for cops and waging wars.
The monopoly on the use of force is quite the important part of having a state at all. If a state doesn’t have that, it descends into anarchy (the bad kind, with warlords and gangs). The US is very exceptional in this case as it has in its constitution the provision that such gangs (militia) are allowed, even desirable.
Wait so can’t you argue this is constitutional?
US is weird.
Yes, and if they use that monopoly of power to suppress and harm people then they will quickly lose that monopoly. A state is run by the people, if that changes the people will attempt to take control back.
Seems like something a politician in power would say.
It’s basic state theory, I believe we had that in middle school, along with the division of power. I mentioned the US exception because if you went to school there, your basic state theory might have been different from mine.
Yeah believe it or not the term “monopoly of power” doesn’t come up in US schools lmao.
For those interested in learning: (1)
In the USA violence can be legal for anyone under certain circumstances, otherwise I don’t know what’s expected from the second amendment…