What you and so many others seem to be failing to grasp is that I don’t have a problem with protesting, but burning property isn’t protesting it’s rioting. People should be in jail for that. Do I like what the US is doing? No. But that doesn’t give people the right to vandalize other people’s property. And yes I know that a corporation isn’t a person, but someone owns that company. So it’s still someone’s property. Guess who actually pays for that damage? The people that pay premiums. The premiums go up when this is done. Premiums of insurance I mean. Who else pays? Customers. Think that the owners of that company only own that company? Many times they own other companies. If the owner loses to much money in one company they raise the rates at another company. The customer still pays.
The article never states that the vehicles burned are even all owned by a company (the picture shows a car lot but that doesn’t mean ALL the vehicles were on a lot). Which means people may not even be burning a vehicle owned by a company but by an individual. That individual might have bought said vehicle before elon went bat shit nutty. The owner of the vehicle probably can’t even sell the vehicle. The insurance won’t cover all the cost of the vehicle. The vandals have attacked an innocent individual in that case. That just makes the vandal an asshole.
Yet most comments fully support the vandals. Bunch of assholes is all I see.
first of all my comment or the one you first replied to had nothing to do with whether the suspects in question are wrong or even violent. you’re the one who seems to failing to grasp that. I don’t care if it’s a serial killer, they still have rights. there’s no crime in the world, not even terrorism, that justifies bypassing human rights.
second of all you’re wrong. fuck property. people riot because it’s the last refuge of the powerless. so-called peaceful protests don’t do shit and never have. history proves time and time again that change only comes with violent protests, the least of which involves burning shit. for even more fundamental change, heads need to be rolling. so right now you better hope burning property brings meaningful change because no one wants this to escalate.
if you disagree, please dust off the pussy hat and go to the streets, see if it works this time.
Whether the company still owned the cars (still in a car lot) or if they were already sold, is not relevant. If it’s not your property then you don’t have a right to burn it.
BTW the article wasn’t clear as to who owned the vehicles.
A property owner has a right not to have their property destroyed, a vandal has a right not to be unreasonably detained. Destruction of property is usually a civil matter and when it isn’t it is a criminal matter that doesn’t fit the standard definition of terrorism outside really specific circumstances. Both parties deserve to be treated fairly through this process - America has removed that guarantee for the vandal.
are they not afraid of being labeled terrorists and blackbagged to Guantanamo?
No, because they live in a country with rights.
lucky 🥺
They have a right to burn another person’s property in Germany? Interesting.
no, but they have a right to not be blackbagged and sent to gitmo, which is a right that you don’t have in the US.
What you and so many others seem to be failing to grasp is that I don’t have a problem with protesting, but burning property isn’t protesting it’s rioting. People should be in jail for that. Do I like what the US is doing? No. But that doesn’t give people the right to vandalize other people’s property. And yes I know that a corporation isn’t a person, but someone owns that company. So it’s still someone’s property. Guess who actually pays for that damage? The people that pay premiums. The premiums go up when this is done. Premiums of insurance I mean. Who else pays? Customers. Think that the owners of that company only own that company? Many times they own other companies. If the owner loses to much money in one company they raise the rates at another company. The customer still pays.
The article never states that the vehicles burned are even all owned by a company (the picture shows a car lot but that doesn’t mean ALL the vehicles were on a lot). Which means people may not even be burning a vehicle owned by a company but by an individual. That individual might have bought said vehicle before elon went bat shit nutty. The owner of the vehicle probably can’t even sell the vehicle. The insurance won’t cover all the cost of the vehicle. The vandals have attacked an innocent individual in that case. That just makes the vandal an asshole.
Yet most comments fully support the vandals. Bunch of assholes is all I see.
first of all my comment or the one you first replied to had nothing to do with whether the suspects in question are wrong or even violent. you’re the one who seems to failing to grasp that. I don’t care if it’s a serial killer, they still have rights. there’s no crime in the world, not even terrorism, that justifies bypassing human rights.
second of all you’re wrong. fuck property. people riot because it’s the last refuge of the powerless. so-called peaceful protests don’t do shit and never have. history proves time and time again that change only comes with violent protests, the least of which involves burning shit. for even more fundamental change, heads need to be rolling. so right now you better hope burning property brings meaningful change because no one wants this to escalate.
if you disagree, please dust off the pussy hat and go to the streets, see if it works this time.
No, not at all. But it sure as hell will not be labeled „domestic terrorism“.
There’s a good chance it will be labeled just that. Left extremist terrorism.
This will be 100% put into the yearly criminal statistic as far-left terrorism.
Corporations are not people outside of the US.
Whether the company still owned the cars (still in a car lot) or if they were already sold, is not relevant. If it’s not your property then you don’t have a right to burn it.
BTW the article wasn’t clear as to who owned the vehicles.
A property owner has a right not to have their property destroyed, a vandal has a right not to be unreasonably detained. Destruction of property is usually a civil matter and when it isn’t it is a criminal matter that doesn’t fit the standard definition of terrorism outside really specific circumstances. Both parties deserve to be treated fairly through this process - America has removed that guarantee for the vandal.