There’s a little wine shop in downtown Ballston Spa, New York with rainbow-colored bottles lining the shop’s front window. The village is small, about 5,000 people, and attracts tourists from all around the world.
Last summer, the owner of the wine shop, Jes Rich, noticed a group of masked men in the street. “As soon as I saw them I ran out the door,” said Rich, who is openly queer and sees her shop as a safe and welcoming space for other queer people.
The men in the street were wearing black and yellow face coverings and T-shirts identifying themselves as members of the Proud Boys, a violent, far-right extremist group. A yellow truck drove alongside the group, blasting the provocative country song “Try That in a Small Town.”
Edited - reworded
Totally depends on the threat. If the threat is real and mortal, I’d say it sure does give one the right to defend themselves in a way that eliminates the threat. On the other hand, a vague feeling of being threatened does not give one the right to harm others. If it’s not your life or something critical to your life being threatened a lesser response is probably more appropriate. I’m not saying shoot someone for stealing your Amazon package. Like every other situation, there is nuance.
Also, your quotation is not from me.
lma fuckin o. No. No, its not. It’s from me. Two comments ago. In reference to lynch mobs.
Now I KNOW you don’t read my comments very thoroughly.
And no, when you usurp due process and leave it to individuals to decide when a crime worthy of execution has been committed against them, you are inherently throwing any and all nuance out the window. Nuance in these situations is quite literally the reason we have due process in the first place. Punishment in general, but especially the punishment of death, is just not something that any one person or private group should be allowed to enact at their sole discretion.