thomas81 wrote:
TM wrote:
Picking up a fire extinguisher, acting as if one is going to throw that fire extinguisher at someone's head = giving them the right to defend themselves from having their head potentially crushed, or their car broken into so that the violent rioters could murder them with the chains, lead pipes and crowbars they were carrying.
Thats all semantics. There surely is a compromise between non confrontation and using live ammunition as the first and last recourse.
Was the dead a naive boy with too much bravado and reckless disregard for the consequences of his actions? Yes. Did he deserve to die? No.
I was AT that demonstration PERSONALLY and know for a fact that the Carabineri had access to non lethal forms of riot control.
To dismiss my argument as semantics is problematic as the threat of lethal force is viewed as justification for using lethal force in most self-defense laws. Having access to non-lethal forms of riot control puts a much higher standard on the officers who were under attack by a bunch of people who cannot behave as civilized human beings, than on the crowd who were behaving not as civilized people do, but like uncivilized savages.
Secondly, naive boys have died from too much bravado and reckless disregard through thousands, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years of human development, I view it as the chlorine that cleans the filth from our collective gene pool.
TM wrote:
Driving over his corpse was a way for them to escape, and get a measure of revenge I'm sure after a man who egged on a crowd of rampaging wildmen.
Unfortunately for you, the escape argument is foiled by the inconvenient factoid that they reversed SEVERAL times over him to repeat the process.[/quote]
I checked the information about the death, and nowhere did it say that he was repeatedly ran over, it also says that the bullet fired was not of the same caliber used by Italian law enforcement.