Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It doesn't, but it's also not a non-violent threat. The police were out to lock him in a cage for decades.


No enforcement of any law is completely non-violent. That doesn't in any way excuse or justify killing or trying to kill to avoid enforcement.


I think you rephrased what I just said.


It appeared that you were trying to minimize taking out a hit on someone because, to paraphrase, "the police started it." If that isn't what you were doing, my bad, but if it was, then my comment was as designed.


But the police can take out a hit on me if I start a commotion and flee. Then they will pursue me with the intent (or legal right) to kill me and I will be blamed for it.

So it makes sense to blame the police for starting a commotion that set in motion a situation that would not have arisen otherwise.

Just playing devil's advocate, but the only difference I see here is that the government has a monopoly on law and they hire the police, and the killer that person allegedly hired is not working for the law the government made, but for the law that person made.

So there's no need to pontificate here. This is just the difference between an organization having a monopoly on violence and then acting surprised when others want to make contracts with rules based on violence as well.

Not to mention our current president has ordered the murder of US citizens before but no one is arresting him.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: