Take my tractor and you're dead!

[David Floyd]

For some reason , respecting the authorities is something unimaginable. You can sue the police dept. , but shoot him?

What sets a cop acting illegally apart from a burglar acting illegally? Why should I be able to use force against one and not the other?

[Az]

because the burglar doesn't answer to any organization, is not responisble. There are other ways to act against a cop.

[Jac de Molay]

because the burglar doesn't answer to any organization, is not responisble. There are other ways to act against a cop.

What kind of recourse do people have when their lives have been completely ruined? And the "organization" that the police answer to is one that's passing onerous laws and relaxing vigilance over our inalienable rights.

I'm not for killing cops. They're good, good people, enforcing lousy laws- rights that, once get taken away, never seem to get returned.

Dave

[Az]

completely ruined? We're talking about a case of a entry without a warrant. And those laws , well... go demonstrate , and elect people that will undo them the next election. You know , the legal things to do.

[devilmunchkin]

hey..i'm a rednecka nd his gf..so it's ok detroit

[Guynemer]

Thank you, Dal. There seems to be confusion here. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to defend yourself against a cop when you are physically threatened. But to shoot a cop over a warrant? That is where David "Too Bad He Wasn't A Fed" Floyd goes way too far, and I would hope that other people can see that.

[devilmunchkin]

exactly.
it's fanatic

[Az]

I don't like the "whatever, whenever, the government is bad, and is here to harm me" attitude. Governments may not be always right, but they are responisble.

[Aeson]

Does anyone have any examples of where a civilian with a gun stopped a law enforcement officer from commiting a crime?

I can't think of any. Just one where an innocent person woke up to a FBI team breaking into their hotel room, grabbed for a gun and was shot. Even this is just a second hand story. Kind of ironic that it was a NRA supporter who was using the story to show how having guns are needed to protect ourselves.

[David Floyd]

completely ruined? We're talking about a case of a entry without a warrant.

It doesn't ruin your life for someone to enter your house and steal your VCR, but you can still shoot them. I again fail to see any difference with cops - and don't use the "they answer to a higher authority" argument. That's bull****, because police officers and the organization will work to protect their own - not to mention, it's always possible that same organization gave those orders to begin with.

Governments may not be always right, but they are responisble.

You're aware of how much pork is in the US federal budget, right? US taxpayers are getting shafted so Congresscritters and Senators can buy votes in their home district. Responsible? Hardly.
I would also call it irresponsible to use RICO to ruin the lives of innocent people, who made the "mistake" of unknowingly giving a drug dealer a lift, selling them a plane, letting them use their phone, etc.

Guy,

There seems to be confusion here. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to defend yourself against a cop when you are physically threatened. But to shoot a cop over a warrant? That is where David "Too Bad He Wasn't A Fed" Floyd goes way too far, and I would hope that other people can see that.

So should we not be able to shoot burglars unless directly threatened? What about defending others? The police exist to uphold the law, and to protect us from the initiation of force. When they initiate force while breaking the law, they cease to be acting in their capacity as law enforcement officers, and fall into the definition of criminal. Just as there's nothing wrong with using force to prevent a burglar from committing armed robbery, there's also nothing wrong with using force against a rogue cop doing the same.

[Az]

It doesn't ruin your life for someone to enter your house and steal your VCR, but you can still shoot them. I again fail to see any difference with cops - and don't use the "they answer to a higher authority" argument. That's bull****, because police officers and the organization will work to protect their own - not to mention, it's always possible that same organization gave those orders to begin with.

can't you go to court against the police ?
[QUOTE]

You're aware of how much pork is in the US federal budget, right? US taxpayers are getting shafted so Congresscritters and Senators can buy votes in their home district. Responsible? Hardly.
[QUOTE]
well , if journalists would point out much more often to that fact, maybe the citizens would protest it , and wouldn't elect those senators. The US is a special case , because it's basically a one party system , differing on issues so small they'd be considered rediculous in europe or Israel. But the case holds for most countries.

I would also call it irresponsible to use RICO to ruin the lives of innocent people, who made the "mistake" of unknowingly giving a drug dealer a lift, selling them a plane, letting them use their phone, etc.

what do you mean?

good night. I am really tired. It's almost 2 AM now.

[David Floyd]

can't you go to court against the police ?

Sure - can't you go to court against armed robbers?
Besides, US courts are biased in favor of law enforcement. The only time my word vs. yours will win is if I'm a law enforcement agent and you're not.

well , if journalists would point out much more often to that fact, maybe the citizens would protest it , and wouldn't elect those senators. The US is a special case , because it's basically a one party system , differing on issues so small they'd be considered rediculous in europe or Israel. But the case holds for most countries.

I disagree, but in any case we're talking about the US, NOT foreign countries. You said government is responsible, I refuted. What Europe is like is irrelevant.

what do you mean?

Just what I said.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Just as there's nothing wrong with using force to prevent a burglar from committing armed robbery, there's also nothing wrong with using force against a rogue cop doing the same.

DF, here you said "armed" robbery for the burglar, but you meant just robbery in general, correct? They don't have to be armed, right?

And you say "nothing wrong." What you mean is "nothing illegal." What is law is not necessarily right, and what is right is not necessarily what the law allows.

[David Floyd]

DF, here you said "armed" robbery for the burglar, but you meant just robbery in general, correct? They don't have to be armed, right?

Yes, but in the case of the rogue cop it would be armed robbery.

And you say "nothing wrong." What you mean is "nothing illegal." What is law is not necessarily right, and what is right is not necessarily what the law allows.

No, I meant nothing morally wrong or unjustifiable.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No, I meant nothing morally wrong or unjustifiable.

That of course is entirely your opinion.