So we have been seeing cases where people just do their own justice or defend themselves without really considering proportional force. Because they feel they have no options left so they need to take matters into their own hands.
I don't disagree, the fact that there's been blowback to this in New York City, particularly after the continual violence of BLM's Kristalnacht in NYC in 2020, shows the kind of popular blowback that's happening.
The same thing happened in the 1970's with the emergence of Death Wish and Dirty Harry as a response to the unhindered criminality of the 1970's from the political left, who had actually engaged in a multiplicity of separatist actions and terror campaigns with the tacit support of the government from the political left.
Unfortunately, that's the problem we have here, and why I even go so far as to say lethal force to protect property should be legally permissible, even if it isn't the case now. Our moral consideration obscures the legal reality.
It's clear that what we see here is violent felons and their harpie villains asserting that they have an unlimited right to unlimited social violence without a single expectation of consequences. This situation is creating social blowback that would otherwise be considered unacceptable in a healthier society, but because we already know that there would never be a consequence to this violence (I think one of the news sources said this was the 5th knife attack in a bodega in NYC this month), we are prepared to accept a different level of violence that is educational in nature, even if legally incorrect.
Unfortunately, social problems can never be solved by the state, only worsened.
I don't disagree, the fact that there's been blowback to this in New York City, particularly after the continual violence of BLM's Kristalnacht in NYC in 2020, shows the kind of popular blowback that's happening.
The same thing happened in the 1970's with the emergence of Death Wish and Dirty Harry as a response to the unhindered criminality of the 1970's from the political left, who had actually engaged in a multiplicity of separatist actions and terror campaigns with the tacit support of the government from the political left.
Unfortunately, that's the problem we have here, and why I even go so far as to say lethal force to protect property should be legally permissible, even if it isn't the case now. Our moral consideration obscures the legal reality.
It's clear that what we see here is violent felons and their harpie villains asserting that they have an unlimited right to unlimited social violence without a single expectation of consequences. This situation is creating social blowback that would otherwise be considered unacceptable in a healthier society, but because we already know that there would never be a consequence to this violence (I think one of the news sources said this was the 5th knife attack in a bodega in NYC this month), we are prepared to accept a different level of violence that is educational in nature, even if legally incorrect.
Unfortunately, social problems can never be solved by the state, only worsened.