Opinion of Roof Koreans, Minnesota pawn shop owners, etc.

[fhtagn]

?

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

FF’s of course.

[lfromnj]

Members of the petite bourgeoisie opposing the tenets of the revolution .. Radical reactionary scum.

[beaver2.0]

Unfortunate that they had to do it but who can blame small business owners for trying to protect their property.

[Former President tack50]

I will vote for the very unpopular opinion of HPs; though it's more like unfortunate victims and I most certainly sympathise with them.

I will not justify the riots and I wholeheartedly condemn them. But the job of keeping law and order lies with the police, not with vigilante justice. Shooting people is not a proportionate response to stealing.

[beaver2.0]

I will vote for the very unpopular opinion of HPs; though it's more like unfortunate victims and I most certainly sympathise with them.

I will not justify the riots and I wholeheartedly condemn them. But the job of keeping law and order lies with the police, not with vigilante justice. Shooting people is not a proportionate response to stealing.

While I would agree that ordinarily you shouldn't shoot a single thief that comes into your shop unarmed, a riot is a whole different situation.  Seeing how some of these big box stores have been cleaned out, small businesses are at risk of being destroyed by this and I can't condemn it even if I am uneasy of vigilantes and citizens shooting citizens.

[Santander]

If a mob is breaking into your home, that's one thing. If they're breaking into your business, it's another. Nobody has the right to kill to protect material goods.

[SevenEleven]

I will vote for the very unpopular opinion of HPs; though it's more like unfortunate victims and I most certainly sympathise with them.

I will not justify the riots and I wholeheartedly condemn them. But the job of keeping law and order lies with the police, not with vigilante justice. Shooting people is not a proportionate response to stealing.

While I would agree that ordinarily you shouldn't shoot a single thief that comes into your shop unarmed, a riot is a whole different situation.  Seeing how some of these big box stores have been cleaned out, small businesses are at risk of being destroyed by this and I can't condemn it even if I am uneasy of vigilantes and citizens shooting citizens.

If the business is operating legally then they carry insurance.

The business is ruined whether it's looted or not because of the deep destruction to the community. Also, the Koreans killing black people was one of the causes of the riots in the first place.

[Santander]

I will vote for the very unpopular opinion of HPs; though it's more like unfortunate victims and I most certainly sympathise with them.

I will not justify the riots and I wholeheartedly condemn them. But the job of keeping law and order lies with the police, not with vigilante justice. Shooting people is not a proportionate response to stealing.

While I would agree that ordinarily you shouldn't shoot a single thief that comes into your shop unarmed, a riot is a whole different situation.  Seeing how some of these big box stores have been cleaned out, small businesses are at risk of being destroyed by this and I can't condemn it even if I am uneasy of vigilantes and citizens shooting citizens.

If the business is operating legally then they carry insurance.

The business is ruined whether it's looted or not because of the deep destruction to the community. Also, the Koreans killing black people was one of the causes of the riots in the first place.

To be fair, as someone who knows a lot of small business owners, it's often impractical to insure your entire inventory, and even if you're fully insured, the claims process is painful, and you'll have to fight tooth and nail to get the full amount from the insurance company.

I didn't mention insurance because I don't think any amount of money justifies killing.

[SevenEleven]

I will vote for the very unpopular opinion of HPs; though it's more like unfortunate victims and I most certainly sympathise with them.

I will not justify the riots and I wholeheartedly condemn them. But the job of keeping law and order lies with the police, not with vigilante justice. Shooting people is not a proportionate response to stealing.

While I would agree that ordinarily you shouldn't shoot a single thief that comes into your shop unarmed, a riot is a whole different situation.  Seeing how some of these big box stores have been cleaned out, small businesses are at risk of being destroyed by this and I can't condemn it even if I am uneasy of vigilantes and citizens shooting citizens.

If the business is operating legally then they carry insurance.

The business is ruined whether it's looted or not because of the deep destruction to the community. Also, the Koreans killing black people was one of the causes of the riots in the first place.

To be fair, as someone who knows a lot of small business owners, it's often impractical to insure your entire inventory, and even if you're fully insured, the claims process is painful, and you'll have to fight tooth and nail to get the full amount from the insurance company.

Naturally. My point was that the looting isn't what destroys these businesses, as distasteful as looting may be.

[Dr. MB]

Depends on your definition of "protect". If it means "shoot and kill", then hell no.

[Santander]

Of course, it should also be added that when a literal mob is storming through the door, it is extremely difficult to know their intentions. It's hard to draw a line between defending life and defending property in such a situation. It's easy for me to say what people should or should not have done from the safety of my computer chair, but if there's rioting in the area, you should be locking up and getting to a safe place ASAP, whether you're in your business or out on the street.

[lfromnj]

Depends on your definition of "protect". If it means "shoot and kill", then hell no.

What about warn and tell people not to invade their property?
It's unfortunate he died but sadly the looter valued property more than his own life.

[Dr. MB]

Depends on your definition of "protect". If it means "shoot and kill", then hell no.

What about warn and tell people not to invade their property?
It's unfortunate he died but sadly the looter valued property more than his own life.

And the owner also valued property more than someone else’s life. Sh*tty cycle, isn’t it?

[dead0man]

looting is rather obviously dangerous.  If you have food, and you chose to go out and steal stuff because society has temporarily broken down in a specific location, it's real hard for me to feel sorry for you if you get shot by someone protecting their sh**t....or by another looter or by the cops or by vigilante groups.  Looting, like most crimes of theft, is a very dangerous game that will always lead to a bad outcome if you do it enough.

[The Simpsons Cinematic Universe]

A pretty good example of why gun ownership is still necessary in the United States.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Depends on your definition of "protect". If it means "shoot and kill", then hell no.

What about warn and tell people not to invade their property?
It's unfortunate he died but sadly the looter valued property more than his own life.

And the owner also valued property more than someone else’s life. Sh*tty cycle, isn’t it?

Not really. We are much better off without scum who would do this. They lost their rights the second they chose to participate in such antisocial behavior.

[John Dule]

If a mob is breaking into your home, that's one thing. If they're breaking into your business, it's another. Nobody has the right to kill to protect material goods.

In many ways, rioters who destroy your place of business are threatening your life, or at least your way of life. To this day, the economic effects of the Rodney King riots are still felt in Koreatown in LA. Korean businesses and neighborhoods have not fully recovered almost 30 years later. I could see this argument working in the case of individual robbers, but a mob is another thing-- they have overwhelming superiority in numbers and they do not pause to consider the legality of their actions because they are in a frenzied state of groupthink. These people do not recognize the business owner's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and so the business owner is under no obligation to recognize theirs in return.

[Santander]

If a mob is breaking into your home, that's one thing. If they're breaking into your business, it's another. Nobody has the right to kill to protect material goods.

In many ways, rioters who destroy your place of business are threatening your life, or at least your way of life. To this day, the economic effects of the Rodney King riots are still felt in Koreatown in LA. Korean businesses and neighborhoods have not fully recovered almost 30 years later. I could see this argument working in the case of individual robbers, but a mob is another thing-- they have overwhelming superiority in numbers and they do not pause to consider the legality of their actions because they are in a frenzied state of groupthink. These people do not recognize the business owner's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and so the business owner is under no obligation to recognize theirs in return.

As I said in my later post, things get more complicated when we're talking about mobs and anarchy in the streets, and the distinction between life and property becomes a lot more difficult to draw. I also recognize that if you are participating in violent anarchy, you are knowingly putting yourself in a situation where you could be injured or killed.

When you are confronted with a threatening situation, the safest course of action is to remove yourself from the threatening situation. I am not saying that you cannot draw a weapon on someone who is threatening you - people have a right to self-defense - but if there is danger in the area, the best course of action is to avoid it entirely, by shutting down the store and going home, for example.

[It’s so Joever]

FF.
I personally would prefer they leave the property itself for their own safety, but the mobs were violent and to determine whether they just wanted a free HD TV or to burn everything in sight is easier said than done. Plus it seems the police were unable to protect against the mobs so store owners wouldn’t have to be in this situation. The original Roof Koreans were also major FFs.

[KaiserDave]

I can only honestly say I'd do the same thing in their situation

I never support shoot first philosophy and I oppose vigilante justice, but when push comes to shove they did what they were forced to do

[beaver2.0]

I can only honestly say I'd do the same thing in their situation

I never support shoot first philosophy and I oppose vigilante justice, but when push comes to shove they did what they were forced to do

Yeah, this.  The idea of shooting someone over material goods seems unnecessary, but when you are faced with riots like these I can see why would would feel this is necessary and do not begrudge them for it.  So FFs.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

FF’s of course.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

If a mob is breaking into your home, that's one thing. If they're breaking into your business, it's another. Nobody has the right to kill to protect material goods.

In many ways, rioters who destroy your place of business are threatening your life, or at least your way of life. To this day, the economic effects of the Rodney King riots are still felt in Koreatown in LA. Korean businesses and neighborhoods have not fully recovered almost 30 years later. I could see this argument working in the case of individual robbers, but a mob is another thing-- they have overwhelming superiority in numbers and they do not pause to consider the legality of their actions because they are in a frenzied state of groupthink. These people do not recognize the business owner's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and so the business owner is under no obligation to recognize theirs in return.

bold added

Santander's point is that they aren't threatening any lives in any physical way, and that lives and physical safety take precedent over happiness/property. You're describing threatening a way of life, not a life itself. If there is a physical threat involved then violence is warranted.

Santander's argument is compelling. You can try to rebuild after your store gets looted. It's not fair, but it's more fair than killing other people in defense of trinkets.