You ever watch how the police behave in some cities when there's looting and rioting because their team won a football or hockey championship. Because that absolutely proves that looting and rioting apparently don't have to lead to police action. They can stand by, or join the celebrations.

Shooting should not be the starting point of law enforcement. Shooting should be a last resort. Implying that looting indiscriminately means shooting is a call to violence.

He never said it was the first resort, or that shooting should or will be indiscriminate. I'm done here. You're not arguing. You're simply begging the question.

His words directly connected the <act of looting> with the <act of shooting>. There is no other way to interpret it.

If he meant something more measured, he should have said something more measured.