You support killing rioters, eh? Care to define rioter? At what point does a worked up crowd of protestors become a riot? What if the police use agitators? What if a couple of protestors start damaging things, but the rest of the crowd remains peaceful? What if the rioters are running away, is it still okay to kill them? What if the rioters are legitimately trying to prevent a fascist regime from taking over? Do motivations count at all? Is it rioting to run from black-blocks? Is it rioting to shout at police lines? Is resisting arrest rioting?

You lost me at "What if the rioters are legitimately trying to prevent a fascist regime from taking over?". I bet many at the Capitol believed they are "legitimately trying to prevent a communist regime from taking over"... what you are basically saying is "violence is ok as long as I personally believe it's ok".

I'd say require the police line to wear body cams, have them on, and then require connecting a shot to a specific act. That would also serve as good Pavlovian training for people who think violence is ok as long as they personally think it's ok. The definition of what act can vary, but what I meant above is limited to this instant, targeted reaction - what I want to see is a specific "protester" throw a rock at police, or force entry, or set something on fire, and instantly gets shot; with camera evidence of both. Of course, I'd also accept arresting (and prosecuting with real punishment, not releasing after a few hours), but I don't believe it matters which one is used in the case of violent riots.

> Of course, I'd also accept arresting [...], but I don't believe it matters which one is used in the case of violent riots.

It matters a lot when you decide that rioting people can simply be shot. Because it means you've given them up as humans. One of our claims to civilization is that we handle violence sufficiently, not proportionally. And certainly not excessively.

> I personally support killing rioters (of both political wings), but that is not palatable anymore.

That's incredibly scary you hold that view: You're suggesting massacring protesters who are only causing property damage. Tear gas, rubber bullets and pepper spray are the way to disperse mobs/protesters/rioters from causing excessive property damage.

Of course if some protesters started shooting people then obviously using lethal force might be required.

Yeah, I should have clarified that other effective means of dispersal/incapacitation are also acceptable. However, I believe Draco of Athens was right about this in particular, so I don't personally think there's a difference.

We spent all summer watching as police subjected peaceful protesters to violent methods of crowd control. Why were there no rubber bullets, tear gas, etc? When BLM marched in DC, there were more armed guards in front of the Lincoln memorial than in front of the Capitol building yesterday. This was absolutely preventable.

First, there was tear gas, and in fact there were rioter(s?) shot by police. Then, you are comparing one protest to hundreds. There were tons of protests in Seattle where a group of a few dozen would go around marauding and looting and police would stand down and watch. Same here I guess.

In the United States we hold the ideal that individuals should be subject to due process before being punished by the state. The idea that people should be executed extrajudicially is incompatible with a core philosophy of the American system and is way out of line with mainstream American values and beliefs.

It's not execution; in many/most states, you are allowed to defend life, health and property with deadly force. It may be getting watered down these days due to unfavorable public opinion, but a law in the books in WA is/was, iirc, that you can use deadly force to prevent a felony.

In modern law the use of deadly force is only allowed to prevent a felony IF that felony create a substantial risk of death or bodily harm.

I mean, get real. You can't just shoot people for breaking windows or stealing. The fact that this is unclear to anyone is appalling.

Why, from the first principles, though? It's a slope and not a switch, but even in the case of "regular" crime, I'm not entirely convinced someone showing willful, unambiguously intentional disregard for basic social contract/others' negative rights, has full claim to the same rights, i.e. full moral value.

In this case we are talking about trying to achieve political means via violence. The kind of people who do that outside of very extreme circumstances definitely renounce their moral value as human beings in my view. It's not that they /should/ be shot as a punishment or something; it's more like dealing with malarial mosquito - the evil is on the level where ends justify the means.

"The kind of people who do that outside of very extreme circumstances definitely renounce their moral value as human beings in my view. "

Your logic could be applied to any number of movements, including the Women's Suffrage movement, the Civil Rights movement, the Revolutionary War, and thousands more.

Excluding the Revolutionary war, it would only characterize a small subset of these movements, often acting explicitly against the wishes of its spiritual leaders. It's not really about values; I am an atheist and I believe that the world would be a better place without religion, but if someone firebombed an empty church out of the same impulse I'd still place them in the same dehumanized category.

Go to the middle east and you'll see what killing rioters looks like. Its not protests anymore, it turns into literal wars that devastate cities and innocent peoples lives.