this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2026
136 points (86.2% liked)
Videos
18809 readers
590 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only (aside from meta posts flagged with [META])
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
- AI generated content must be tagged with "[AI] …" ^Discussion^
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments

Not a contradiction at all, and it’s not even all that nuanced either.
There’s a massive difference between death as punishment for a crime versus deadly force to stop someone from killing you first.
One takes place while those involved would otherwise be in relative safety.
The other typically takes place during a tense altercation where moment to moment decisions mean life or death.
It's a contradiction with what they said, but not their intent.
The death penalty is irrelevant to self-defense and protection. The death penalty is literally only a state executing someone as punishment. Self-defense in the moment is not the death penalty. Protecting yourself is not the death penalty.
But that's what the comment said should be allowed in extreme cases for protection and self-defense. The death penalty.
I get what they meant. Killing another human in general should only be an extreme case of self-defense or protection. But they way they worded it would mean allowing the state to execute someone to protect others.