re: Is it okay to ask why you can’t shoot violent protesters?

Just make sure:

They fall indoors
They can’t file suit, repeat if necessary
Don’t use a slur, their feelings of course

Nobody should be shot for protesting, no matter how obnoxious. However if that turns into destruction of private property then I have no problem with either the property owner or police shooting them dead if demands to stop are ignored. Otherwise youre saying anyone that wants to burn down your home can do so.

The key word is 'deterrence.' It works. I lived through it while growing up in New Iberia. We all knew that there were very few cops in the city of 50,000 and they were very lazy. So, their easiest way to solve the problem was to shoot you. The deterrent effect resulted in no murders and almost no crime during my 20 years there.
Later the rules for cops changed and crime went up. Cajuns left town for Youngsville and N.I. has gone to hell.

quote:

---

There is a reason why there is a high threshold for the government to shoot people

I'm not sure why any sane person would want to lower that threshold

---

Preserving a high bar for state lethal force against crowds is compatible with recognizing that private persons facing immediate violence are not required to absorb unlimited harm while waiting for a delayed or overwhelmed police response.

The high threshold for government use of force is a deliberate restraint on concentrated power, lowering it risks turning the state into an instrument of political repression through giving government a monopoly on responding in every scenario.

Individual self-defense (including the defense of others) is a different category. It's a decentralized response to immediate, unlawful violence when the state’s protective function has temporarily collapsed or (as is the case in some instances) withheld for political purposes. Recognizing broader leeway for citizens in those narrow circumstances does not lower the government’s threshold, it acknowledges the practical limits of that monopoly during breakdowns of order.

For example, we do not abolish the right to use force against a home invader simply because police response times are imperfect. These large, organized riots that overwhelm police create a similar (though larger-scale) gap in their ability to serve and protect.

Understand this: organized violent actors respond to expected costs. If they correctly calculate that private defenders are legally paralyzed even while police are absent, potential personal costs of their predation falls and that can lead to more predation. Clearer legal protection for reasonable defensive force among the citizenry raises that cost without requiring the state to become more trigger-happy.

This means that peaceful protests, even if disruptive or unpopular, remain protected. The leeway applies only to violent actors engaged in attack, arson, serious assault, or clear preparation for the same. Proportionality and reasonableness still govern as indiscriminate shooting into crowds, pursuit of fleeing non-threats, or preemptive action against mere presence would remain unlawful and morally unjustified.

Not every crime deserves a death sentence.

Society doesn’t want police to shoot to kill a shoplifter who just stole $100 worth of clothing.

But in Texas, you are not usually prosecuted for unnecessary force when protecting your property IF they are in your home.

So people just shoot and then pull the body into their house.

What amount warrants a shooting?

Zero $ amount warrants a shooting.

Fear of one’s life is the only justification for using deadly force.

quote:

---

What does the law say about use of lethal force?

---

Different standards for law enforcement and civilians. You know that.

quote:

---

Should you be able to shoot shoplifters or graffiti artists?

---

Yes