The article and quotes from the organisers say that the target is the company, no one is calling for Mr Bezo's head (at least using words).
Would it be acceptable (if ludicrous) to keep a guillotine on your own property with a "for rioters" sign on? How about "for Jeff Bezos"?
Conversely is it OK to acquire a self-defence weapon and stand outsize Bezos' house brandishing it?
Brandishing a weapon outside someone else's house does not look like a self-defense.
Are they literally threatening to kill you or someone else? If not, then no. You can't use lethal force just to defend your business property.
>> Are they literally threatening to kill you or someone else? If not, then no. You can't use lethal force just to defend your business property.
> From the videos I've seen there were multiple instances where businesses owners attempted to defend their property and were beaten violently by mobs of people. Here's one such example...
That video starts in the middle of a confrontation, and shows a man brandishing what looks like a machete or a sword at some people who are throwing rocks at him. It appears the sword-wielder rushed somebody, and was then beaten and subdued by the crowd. Afterwards, there's many comments to the effect of "he could have killed somebody!" It's not at all clear which group initiated the confrontation or which group (if either) is acting in self defense.
But the point still stands: if you kill or injure people to project you business property, you're in the wrong. If you shoot someone for theft, shoplifting, vandalism, etc. you can and should be prosecuted for an unjustifiable homicide or attempted homicide. Two wrongs still don't make a right, especially if the "corrective" wrong is much, much worse.
That's even the legal position:
> Even in states with "stand your ground" laws, there are limits on when deadly force is allowed. Some states have a duty to retreat, which requires people to retreat from the threat as much as possible before responding with force. But nearly all states limit the use of deadly force under stand your ground laws to defending yourself in the face of great bodily harm or death, not your storefront. So, shooting someone who may kill or seriously injure you might be defensible, but shooting a person who steals from your store may not be.
> In general, it is not legal to defend your business using deadly force, regardless of whether or not there is a state of emergency in effect, and whether or not you see a visible police presence. You can only defend your person using deadly force, not your possessions. You cannot defend your business using deadly force.
> Minnesota law won't excuse killing to protect property
> Experts say deadly force can't be used to fend off looters, unless they're also threatening to harm store employees.
> [Police Lt. Al] Billington told the [Enterprise-Record that former Paradise mayor Ray] Dalton had a right to post the sign, but said it would be illegal for him to shoot anyone, unless he was defending his life, or the life of another.
They were provided wit initial supply of pretty much everything and could ask for more should the need arise.
The first thing young communists ran out of was ammo.
>While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.
When I went through my corporate training, one of the things they said was that we all are a minority in some sense. Some are disabled, some have accent, some were raised by a single parent.
Somewhat naive, but that was an eye-opener for me, an indication that we're all together in this boat.
Saying that some minorities are more minor than others certainly doesn't help.
idk what did reddit think when they wrote those rules
In the UK hate speech does not have an exemption for certain groups. People should be warned as posters will get arrested.
This is what happens, Mr. Bezos, when you pay the Danegeld by trying to out-woke the woke.