Announcement

**devilmunchkin** · May 7, 2002, 02:23

it prolly would be for you too

**David Floyd** · May 7, 2002, 02:24

My refusal to consent to a search does not provide probable cause.

**devilmunchkin** · May 7, 2002, 02:27

witha warrant you don't have a choice...righ tnow i'm just showing you what a nut you're being

http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/View&c=Decision&cid=ZZZEX8UDCWC&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0

see...our law system (and you should know this young skywalker) even has time limits on how soon they have to show youthe warrant. your situation would not happen. you're acting like a lunatic

**Lung** · May 7, 2002, 02:28

Originally posted by DinoDoc

If they didn't have the legal right to be on his property, yes it it would.

Er, how would he know if they had a warrant if he started shooting at them when they came through the front gate?

In any case, what possible right should anyone have to kill someone for walking on their property? Then again, think of all the door-to-door salesmen and religious zealots the world would be rid of!

**David Floyd** · May 7, 2002, 02:31

witha warrant you don't have a choice...righ tnow i'm just showing you what a nut you're being

Right but I'm talking about situations without a warrant. That's been the discussion since page 1.

see...our law system (and you should know this young skywalker) even has time limits on how soon they have to show youthe warrant.

That case was about breaking down doors primarily. I'm not refusing to answer the door in a timely manner, I'm refusing to allow an illegal search and seizure, ie an entry with no warrant.

**devilmunchkin** · May 7, 2002, 02:35

no: since you entered the thread, it's been about your right to be a cop killer....killing humans while you confuse the issue between other people being in the house and material crap.

**David Floyd** · May 7, 2002, 02:38

no: since you entered the thread, it's been about your right to be a cop killer....killing humans while you confuse the issue between other people being in the house and material crap.

Bull****. It's been about my right to protect my private property from illegal search and seizure, and my right to assume a danger to my life if my house is entered against my will. I've said multiple times I would prefer just wounding the culprit, but that I think deadly force is justifiable. Calling me a cop killer is ridiculous - no one, least of all police officers, have a thing to worry about if they are acting legally and not trying to infringe upon my rights.

**devilmunchkin** · May 7, 2002, 02:42

you ahve a right to protect without killing unless in self defense of your being or a family members being when dealing with cops. end of story. if you go back and calmly read this thread...most people have been basically calling you a fanatic. do us..and me..a favor and be quiet already. I'm tired of your ****.

**Imran Siddiqui** · May 7, 2002, 02:43

It's been about my right to protect my private property from illegal search and seizure, and my right to assume a danger to my life if my house is entered against my will.

Not if the government, which gave you those rights, doesn't agree.

**Logical Realist** · May 7, 2002, 02:44

David all you are doing is sopunding off libertarian dogma where property is sacred and any violation of it demands deadly force. Where the authorities are always out to get you for whatever reason. Where the Man is always trying to bring you down.

You do this by citing the very questionable, concept of "natural rights" which might not apply here even if accepted. As well as citing some very unlikely stories, well your friend does at least, about cops busting up on people. Keep in mind that for every conflict where the cop is in the wrong, there are probably a great many more conflicts where the cop is in the right.

You also don't seem to see the difference between cops and burglars. Burglars are far more unpredictable then cops. And still can only be killed if they are directly attacking you, shooting a running burglar or one with a VCR is not just at all.

Cops are also accountable to an authority and set of laws. This is a very important point that you do a poor job of refuting by merely citing a conspiracy theory about how the "system" will just side with the cop. Or how the cops "damage" will be irreparable. (Very,very unlikely). That's like saying that since a guy that runs at me might be trying to attack, I should be able to shoot him because he *might* be a threat. True, he *might* be a threat but the chances of that are so small as to be ignored.

You prove that, when taken to its extreme, libertarianism can be just as cruel and devaluing of human life as radical marxism.

All I can say is I am now, after hearing about this tractor, more for gun control then ever. I mean, red necks with guns.....scary sh**

**Logical Realist** · May 7, 2002, 02:51

btw, just to clue DD in on this "redneck", is not a racist term. Cracker ,Jap, Beaner,****** and Whop might be--- but not "redneck". That describes a person's lifestyle, not skin color or national/continental ancestry. Kind of like being a "gangster", a "rapper", hippy, goth or bigot.

**Lung** · May 7, 2002, 02:55

Originally posted by David Floyd

Ah, but the purpose of the 2nd was to ensure there would be a way to defend liberty if the government tried to take it away.

Such amendments were designed to protect you from the great unlikelihood of religious nuts (or any other fanatics) coming to power and raiding your house to confiscate alcohol or contraception pills or whatever, rather than protect you from the normal democratic process.

Your greatest asset is your democracy, not guns or tractors or other inanimate objects.

If i lived in Zimbabwe right now, i'd be all for it, but if i lived in benign 'ol U.S of A, i'd prefer to keep it in the constitution for generations to come who may have to actually worry about such things

**devilmunchkin** · May 7, 2002, 02:57

isn't ideas of persecution a symptom of schizophrenia?

**David Floyd** · May 7, 2002, 02:59

dm,

you ahve a right to protect without killing unless in self defense of your being or a family members being when dealing with cops.

If a rogue cop breaks and enters, he's no different from a regular armed robber in my book.

end of story. if you go back and calmly read this thread...most people have been basically calling you a fanatic. do us..and me..a favor and be quiet already. I'm tired of your ****.

Stop replying and *ignore me* then.

LR,

You also don't seem to see the difference between cops and burglars. Burglars are far more unpredictable then cops. And still can only be killed if they are directly attacking you, shooting a running burglar or one with a VCR is not just at all.

Again, if someone breaks into my house I can legitimately shoot them.

Cops are also accountable to an authority and set of laws.

So is your average armed robber.

This is a very important point that you do a poor job of refuting by merely citing a conspiracy theory about how the "system" will just side with the cop.

If a police officer is killed, the person who shot him WILL automatically be presumed to be at fault by the government. How is this just.

That's like saying that since a guy that runs at me might be trying to attack, I should be able to shoot him because he *might* be a threat.

If he is aggressively moving towards you within a certain distance you can defend yourself to the point of striking first. If he's so much bigger than you he constitutes an obvious threat, you can pull a gun.

**devilmunchkin** · May 7, 2002, 03:00

Stop replying and *ignore me* then

hey..it's my thread dumbass

Announcement

Take my tractor and you're dead!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment