Take my tractor and you're dead!

[David Floyd]

Boris,

America did many things wrong during the war, but I'm not only talking about America, I'm talking about all those who fought against the Nazis. And why does committing a wrong while in the pursuit of something that is truly right invalidate that right? Surely, it merely means the wrong on our end needs to be addressed as well, not fighting the Nazis was made wrong because of that?

I'm of course referring to conscription, trade barriers, rationing, and things of that nature, all of which violate natural rights.
We could not have fought and beat Germany without violating the natural rights of Americans, therefore we should not have fought Germany.

What would have been the point of the Convention had it not allowed for the creation of such tribunals, like on an ad hoc basis? How else could they enforce the rules the nations signed on to uphold?

I just looked, and I found no allowance for the establishment of a tribunal.

Ramo,

Detactched bureaucrat? Isn't that a little hyperbolic? Why not let everyone do what they want, and not deal with any "detatched bureaucrats?"

My point was that it's virtually impossible to set down accurate, hard and fast standards, so rather than trying, we should just allow individuals to use deadly force to protect their life and property if they believe they are in danger, and the act of being in someone's home against their will de facto constitutes a danger, so there you go.

[Ramo]

I never said that there should be any standards, just that the situation should be evaluated independently, without any arbitrary rule that using deadly force is always ok.

[David Floyd]

I never said that there should be any standards, just that the situation should be evaluated independently, without any arbitrary rule that using deadly force is always ok.

I think deadly force is always OK if there is a legitimate threat to you, and someone who enters your house against your will certainly provides that threat.

[Ramo]

What's the definition of a "legitimate threat?"

And why is lethal force necessary in every case of a break-in? Isn't it unnecessary in some cases of a break-in? If it is not necessary, why should its use be legitimized?

[David Floyd]

And why is lethal force necessary in every case of a break-in? Isn't it unnecessary in some cases of a break-in? If it is not necessary, why should its use be legitimized?

I didn't say necessary, I said justified, because of the idea of potential threats.

[Ramo]

"Potential threats?" That's bull****! "Potentially," anything can happen.

[David Floyd]

It isn't bull**** to say if someone breaks into my house, my life could be in danger. Hell, by breaking into my house you'd think he understands the risks, right?

[devilmunchkin]

ok. david, stop being so stubborn. i said it once and i'll say it again: you've taken this thread to a place it wasn't meant to go. The cops had a warrant. But the places you've taken it.....
i'm sorry..it's absolutely absurd. Do you honestly think such a situation like the one you sound so fearful of occuring is commonplace? I can tell you if a rogue cop DOES do something like want to steal your stuff (though honoestly, i bet he'd go after people higher up the food chain sonny) he's one
1) not going to do it in the day
2) and not in uniform
in which case you are justified in whatever.
but i can also tell you though, that if you ever feel it justified to take a cops like, you might as well turn the barrell to your own head and shoot cause you'll be fried anyway. Yeah, courts are biased against cop killers..especially ones wh, like you, are shooting first and asking questions later.
There is also a difference between the threat being deadly and not. If you shoot a someone on your property without them having attacked you..it's murder and not jury is going to see it as self defense. believe what you want david: but realize the rest of society doesn't agree and you should be prepared to face the consequences on the RARE chance that this does occur.

[David Floyd]

i said it once and i'll say it again: you've taken this thread to a place it wasn't meant to go.

Well **** - this started by someone asking me what if there was no warrant. It went from there.

Do you honestly think such a situation like the one you sound so fearful of occuring is commonplace?

Not really, although I would consider RICO seizures of property because of the WoD to be commonplace and out and out theft in many cases.

I can tell you if a rogue cop DOES do something like want to steal your stuff (though honoestly, i bet he'd go after people higher up the food chain sonny) he's one
1) not going to do it in the day
2) and not in uniform

Perhaps, but what if he was ordered to? Surely I still retain the right to protect my property from illegal search and seizure, right?

but i can also tell you though, that if you ever feel it justified to take a cops like, you might as well turn the barrell to your own head and shoot cause you'll be fried anyway. Yeah, courts are biased against cop killers..especially ones wh, like you, are shooting first and asking questions later.

Actually I'd ask questions first - stuff like "Do you have a warrant?"

If you shoot a someone on your property without them having attacked you..it's murder and not jury is going to see it as self defense.

Wrong. In TX, if they are IN YOUR HOUSE you can shoot them, because the presumption is your life is in danger.

[devilmunchkin]

Perhaps, but what if he was ordered to? Surely I still retain the right to protect my property from illegal search and seizure, right?

does it matter if you're dead?
any of this. does any of it matter if you're dead...cause i bet they're a MUCH better shot than you.
this is also the first time, iirc, you saying anything about talking to them first when they bust on your home..at least in a civil manner. see..if they have a warrant...of course they're going to bust down your door.
another reason this might never happen to you is that
1) you arn't a farmer
and as much as i hate to say it
2) you're white. makes a BIG difference..esp. knowing what fieldyou're going in to.
the probability that you're basing your fanaticism on it very small.

[David Floyd]

cause i bet they're a MUCH better shot than you.

The average cop? I doubt it

this is also the first time, iirc, you saying anything about talking to them first when they bust on your home..at least in a civil manner

No it isn't.

see..if they have a warrant...of course they're going to bust down your door.

A warrant is not necessarily a license to destroy property. If I don't open up they can break the door down.

[devilmunchkin]

this might help

http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/View&c=Decision&cid=ZZZEFLEW1UC&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0

[David Floyd]

I don't see your point, dm - I think there is a valid argument that the police officer had probable cause.

[devilmunchkin]

exactly!
now don't make me open my bag of shh!

[David Floyd]

How does that apply to the debate? I don't necessarily oppose the doctrine of probable cause as long as it's correctly and fairly applied.