444
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2025
444 points (100.0% liked)
News
31456 readers
3166 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You also don’t have to shoot bad people in the back who are already overpowered, beaten up and pinned down by other people. It does not sound like this was a justified self-defense shooting, and I wouldn’t want a trigger happy gun owner like that on the loose in my neighborhood.
Law enforcement has created an environment where people don't trust The System. It shouldn't be surprising when people when people take justice into their own hands.
This
I don't think pulling someone from a car and shooting them is justice
Maybe not, but this is the LAPD. They aren't exactly known for being shining beacons of justice either.
Gee, it almost makes a person feel sorry for the guy who plowed his car into a crowd of 30 people, (edit: nearly) killing several…
/s
It's possible for both of those people to have done something bad.
Sure, but I object to portraying the person who plowed a car into a crowd of people as any kind of victim.
I never said that the perpetrator is a victim! I said, I would not want the guy who shoots someone who is already pinned down and no longer a threat in revenge to own a gun.
It’s happened time and time again that crowds identified and attacked the wrong person in the immediate aftermath of such attacks.
If he is no longer a threat let law enforcement take over and don’t play judge and executioner - that is all I am saying.
Because if there is anything we can say with 100% certainty these days it’s that our justice system definitely holds folks accountable who deserve it.
/s
Yes we've all seen how trustworthy law enforcement is of late, so, naturally.
You’re literally victimizing them in your portrayal
If that’s what you got from my statement you need to seriously work on your reading comprehension.
“I can’t make a good argument, so I’ll blame everyone else”
If you don’t even know what you’re saying, then it’s not my reading comprehension that’s the problem.
Lmao
Sorry floop you're wrong on this one, go read it again
It is also possible for someone who has done something bad to be the victim of something else that is bad.
It’s also possible that frogs can live on the moon.
But neither of those things are what happened here
As of now, none of them have died.
Oh, I misread the headline. That’s good news. I edited my comment.
It's not a choice I'd make, but I'm not going to feel bad for the guy who got shot, or worry about the shooter overmuch. Like the dude will probably get caught and prosecuted but if they investigated, found no history of violence, and decided not to prosecute (unlikely), I'd shrug and not give it a second thought.
I never said I feed bad for they guy who got shot, he obviously did a despicable act and deserves everything the law has coming for him and using deadly force to stop him was also justified. What is not justified is using deadly force in revenge when the situation is already under control, that’s lawless behavior and I don’t want anyone who thinks they can randomly decide to play judge and executioner to own a gun, sorry.
For sure. I didn't downvote. Was just trying to stake a nuanced position.
Why, are you planning on ramming a car into dozens of people?
Besides, we've seen that taking the high road doesn't work.
The guy just tried to kill a dozen people in a drunken rage and you think he should get a pass because the crowd caught him?
Fucker is lucky he wasn't physically pulled into pieces.
A bullet hole is the least of his worries right now.
This is my take. Until we know more, all we know is that the dude intentionally ran his 4000lb death missile into a crowd. Him getting shot is less serious than what he tried to do.
You do have a point there, but it remains to be seen what the chain of events is. All the police have released is that he was shot after leaving the vehicle, it could have been after he was on the ground or it could have been right away, after the driver showed his own weapon.
Even after we find out all of that, the local DA would have to decide whether he could convince 12 people on a local jury that the guy was somehow negligent. I bet any defense attorney would be able to plant enough doubt in any jury's mind to get the guy off.
Yeah, the police are going to want to find the guy and talk to him, but I doubt he faces any charges unless some obvious new fact comes out that changes the story dramatically.
Yes exactly. There's a complete difference between mob justice and say, driver waving weapon screaming "I'll kill you all"
from the story:
Yeah, you're absolutely right. But most lemmykins (like maga) will readily abandon all their principles if somebody they don't like gets hurt. Hence your down votes.
My principles include finishing violence others start against me and mine. Being a pushover bitch isn't a principle.
"Don't tread on me" eh?
Strict gun control is more of a liberal ideology and Lemmy leans pretty far left.
They're literally cheering for a guy who shot somebody...
Personally, not cheering for it, but I can't muster any more sympathy than a shrug. The more and more I see how broken the justice system is, the less concerned I am about mob "justice".
You didn't have to be personally sympathetic to still want the right thing to be done.
As I said - principles abandoned. I have zero faith in lawlessness.
Oh I'd absolutely fucking love for everyone to face a fair trial and get a just punishment for their wrongdoings. However, I also understand that that's just never going to happen, and when someone receives some clearly deserved violence, it won't upset me. I'd rather have luigi than nothing.
So just lawless MAGA shooting up the place to get revenge is "fine". Gotcha.
Nice logical fallacy there.
So it's only good when you want to do it?
I've never wished death upon anybody, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.
Right....but what does that have to do with abandoning principles?
My point is that there is no uniform set of principles, and that crude forms of justice might not inherently conflict with their principles.
So they just have no principles. Interesting defense.
Or just principles that are different from your own ethical construct. I'm no more defending the gunman than you are defending the driver, I'm just correcting your critique.
In my personal opinion it's not something I would condone, I'm also not going to lose any sleep over it. Tbh I don't know how violent I would feel if some drunk loser ran over any of my loved ones, and I don't think you really know either despite all your moral grandstanding.
I'm not saying people "should feel bad" about it I'm saying they shouldn't be advocating for lawless action just because they're angry.
And as it happens - I have a very good idea of what it would feel like. You don't know me.
Interesting rephrasing considering I already said "In my personal opinion it’s not something I would condone"....
I'm sure you know exactly how it feels to have your friends/family deliberately attacked in a mass casualty event by a drunk driver at a festival.......
Again, your feelings and opinions are just that.... opinions. Your opinions are not more morally or ethically superior to anyone's else's just because you believe in them. Laws do not dictate morality or reality and are just as flawed as any other social construct.
So then what are you arguing against then? You agree with me that lawlessness is not the answer. People in this thread shouldn't be condoning lawless behavior.
That's a thread you don't want to pull buddy.
Ahhh - post-modern "there is no truth" BS. No. My opinion here is definitely more moral and justified. It's not simply my opinion either - it's the conclusion of many enlightenment philosophers, scholars and legal minds. It's the basis for the modern liberal democracy legal system that concentrates the power to punish in the government to provide for a stable society.
I don't particularly care about "lawlessness", as I said the law does not dictate morality. Just because I wouldn't do something doesn't mean I have the right to admonish others doing it.
Lol, sure......
Based on?
Ahh, yes..... The US legal system, widely known for being non biased and clearly has never been used to systemically repress entire segments of underprivileged society. The perfect system that has executed hundreds of innocent men.......
Many people are saying it.... Must be true, no reason to actually argue your point on how this specific case is immoral. Why offer an actual argument when you can just appeal to authority and virtue signal instead?
If you go far enough left, you get your guns back.
Appreciate you speaking up! Sorry you’re also getting downvoted by idiots who think they can just play justice league.