View Full Version : anarchist, unite!
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/23/indiana-governor-signs-bill-allowing-citizens-to-use-deadly-force-against-police-officers-into-law/
I don't get this at all. What a horrible law! Not only will people get killed, but this law effectively tells anyone who lives in a marginal neighborhood, forget it. You don't get police protection anymore.:(
What's really chilling are the comments following the article.
Do you have a credible source of analysis you can provide? This clown lost me at "George Zimmerman believed he had the legal right to gun down a kid for walking through the neighborhood simply for being a young African American male strolling around the community at night."
ApatheticNoMore
4-5-12, 11:03am
I don't get this at all. What a horrible law! Not only will people get killed, but this law effectively tells anyone who lives in a marginal neighborhood, forget it. You don't get police protection anymore.:(
What's really chilling are the comments following the article.
Possible to counter what cases like this seem to be. This is a case where police officers broke into someone's home and shot him after his heart device dialed 911 (the exact details I do not know, I'm not going there. It is of course for a court of law to decide but it seems the court of law is going to be denied the necessary audio tapes to make a good decision :( ):
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/04/another_trayvon_martin_case/
Basically reasonable burden of proof for self-defense is the reasonable standard but that is assuming the system is working correctly :\ (which can we say it may be less likely to when it comes to prosecuting cops ...)
That's crazy - shoot first and figure out if the survivors were at fault in court afterwards. And using the Florida shooting as an example, it's not always easy to determine who was in the right.
You're right Peggy - many officers aren't going to be willing to storm a home, and chance shooting a person who has a drawn weapon only to go to court and have it judged that the person had every right to have their weapon drawn when the officer entered the home. But I think another effect will be police officers will have to approach every home as if there is an armed person ready to shoot, regardless of how marginal the neighborhood is. I expect every house with known registered weapon(s) will be approached quite differently, probably something that would disable anyone in the residence prior to entering.
Added: I think we've crossed a threshold when it's legally acceptable to treat law enforcement as criminals.
But I think another effect will be police officers will have to approach every home as if there is an armed person ready to shoot, regardless of how marginal the neighborhood is. I expect every house with known registered weapon(s) will be approached quite differently...
The folks I know that are involved in law enforcement pretty much approach every home in this manner now. Can you blame them? It is, however, not the registered guns owned by law abiding citizens that they are most wary of.
As far as the article goes, I bailed at exactly the same point ERG got out. Apparently the verdict is in from the Trayvon Martin case. The slant of the piece aside, I still don't quite understand what the desired result of the law is.
I've read the article and this article also http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/mar/21/no-headline---ev_resist/ . From the link I provided "The new law only gives Hoosiers the right to resist officers who they believe are acting unlawfully. Using deadly force against an officer is only protected to prevent serious bodily injury."
I fail to see how this is going to create open season on law enforcement.
A question - Would the citizenry be shielded by this law in the case of an improperly executed no knock warrant?
Creaker - To your point, I believe most law enforcement officers are there to uphold the law. It would be helpful if a minority of law enforcement officers would realize that most citizens are not criminals.
Was the NRA behind this law? They have backed many such laws in the country. Why, because much of their funding comes from firearms manufactures.
http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/indiana-governor-signs-controversial-right-to-resist-bill
and one blog that thinks this governor is an American Hero for signing this!
http://antinewworldorderparty.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/american-hero-indiana-governor-signs-bill-allowing-citizens-to-use-deadly-force-against-police-officers-into-law/
go ahead, read the comments. Then tell me the type of person who thinks this is a good law. IMO a bunch of swaggering, armed anarchist who are ready in a moments notice to jump into their hidy-holes with their MRE's and gun down them some feds!
Don't look at the various commentary, although seeing how it's treated by each is a world of insight there, (hint: NRA LOVES this!) but the act itself. Who exactly is this govonor pandering to? Is it not enough for these parinoid right wingers to shout about their belief that the government is in some vast conspiracy against the citizens, but now must declare war on the police? Is Indiana a hot bed of gestapo tactics by their police forces?
These people seriously need to turn of the tv. That is not real life. Cars exploding and gun shootouts on downtown corners is the norm ONLY ON TV!
If the police enter your home without a warrant, they will be taken to task for it. They only get away with it on tv. In real life, anything they find, without a warrent, won't fly in court. That's why police are generally very careful to get a warrant.
Sometimes I think these paranoid anarchist think police are just running around busting down doors and harassing innocent citizens, for the fun of it, I guess.
I've generally noticed that 99.99% of the good, law abiding, average citizens never ever even encounter police except maybe for the occasional speeding ticket:|(
The ones who hail this type of law are usually the tin foil hat wearing right wing paranoids who just happen to be armed to the teeth and are spoiling for a fight. Yea, you bear watching. Trust me, you do!
there used to be a time in this country where when anyone started crazy talk, rambling about government conspiracy and gestapo police, everyone called them on it. Everyone, right, left, everyone. But not anymore. Now we give credibility and airtime to carzy talk! There is no system of checks and balances, when it comes to insane talk. Anything goes. Really, anything!
http://www.newshounds.us/fox_news_anchor_just_asking_if_obama_threatened_to _kill_chelsea_clinton_to_cover_up_his_birth_certif icate_04032012
And this from a Fox news anchor!
This is the kind of crap people read and watch and listen to everyday to the point that they come to believe there is a government conspiracy to enslave us all, and we need to protect ourselves from the police, shooting them if nessessary. But then, these are also the same people who find nothing wrong with George Zimmerman shooting an unarmed young man who was simply walking home from the store at 7:30 in the evening and had the audacity to be suspiciously black.
The inmates are running the asylum.
So Gregg, what does your police friend think of this law?
go ahead, read the comments. Then tell me the type of person who thinks this is a good law. IMO a bunch of swaggering, armed anarchist who are ready in a moments notice to jump into their hidy-holes with their MRE's and gun down them some feds!
Peggy, I'm neither an anarchist nor have any desire to get into an armed conflict with anyone (especially the police). Having said that, when things like this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/aiyana-jones-7-year-old-s_n_578246.html happen, I question whether we give police too much latitude in entering homes with or without a warrant.
Midwest, fair enough. That was a horrible incident, and frankly I blame tv, once again as much as the police. I can't for the life of me understand why real police would even allow 'reality tv' crews to follow them! That should be against the law, for the same reason they don't usually allow cameras in courtrooms! I think when a camera is there the police are too busy trying to be tough actors, and not using their heads. They are playing t the camera, and stuff like this happens.
But you know this is actually a rare kind of thing. There just isn't a rampant flood of this stuff happening. Not to warrant a bill like this. The vast vast majority of police are honest, follow procedures and are trained to keep their cool under pressure.
One reason this kind of legislation really bothers me is, as freein05 said, this has NRA stamped all over it, and the NRA does NOT have the police force's back. Now if we truly were a country sliding into fascism with gestapo police raids and evil government conspiracy all around, then maybe this would make sense. But it's just not like that. The country is not like that. A few bad cops don't point to a cabal anymore than a few bad plumbers, or dentist, or carpenters point up to corruption in those fields.
And I am connecting the dots here, the same people who think this is a great law, essentially declaring war on police, or rather letting the citizen decide how the police should do their job, have no problem what so ever with an armed person, (untrained, unauthorized, armed) self appointed 'watch' who shoots a young man doing nothing more than walking home. It's this whole wild west attitude of "we don't need no stinking police, we can take care of our own justice"
It frightens me to see how these people are hailed as heroes, and 'standing their ground' while police are vilified. What makes Zimmerman any less horrible than those police who shot that little girl? They both need to pay for it. Both.
Just because one is displaying some sort of frontier justice (gone horribly wrong) as a privately armed citizen doesn't excuse it. It doesn't make it ok, even if he did have a permit for his gun. An innocent is still dead. Now, if we want to slide on down that slippery slope, I can assure you I feel threatened by people who feel it necessary to pack heat, in church, at schools, at political rallies. Where are my rights? Can I stand my ground and shoot the shooters? Because I feel threatened? What if I work in a convenience store, or a bar, or classroom, and you walk in wearing a gun? Can I just pull mine and shoot you? Ask questions later, cause, you know, I felt threatened. And from where I stand, the one left standing is the one claiming self defense. And apparently , in Florida, it works. Even if the dead one was never armed in the first place.
DocHolliday
4-5-12, 5:43pm
Hmmm, this was just in the news Wednesday:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/new-orleans-police-sentenced-for-violating-civil-rights-in-katrina-aftermath/2012/04/04/gIQANW6rvS_story.html
There was also that case in Atlanta where cops broke into the home of a 92 year old woman, killed her when she shot back and planted drugs to cover it up...
But you know this is actually a rare kind of thing. There just isn't a rampant flood of this stuff happening. Not to warrant a bill like this. The vast vast majority of police are honest, follow procedures and are trained to keep their cool under pressure.
Unfortunately, no knock raids aren't as rare as you might think http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-14-noknock14_ST_N.htm
One reason this kind of legislation really bothers me is, as freein05 said, this has NRA stamped all over it, and the NRA does NOT have the police force's back.
I agree, the NRA doesn't have the back of the police. They are representing gun owners. I respect the job police do, but if some officers had their way, we would all be disarmed. I don't agree with that. Officer safety has to be balanced against the rights of citizens (as its clearly not in some of the no knock raids).
It frightens me to see how these people are hailed as heroes, and 'standing their ground' while police are vilified. What makes Zimmerman any less horrible than those police who shot that little girl? They both need to pay for it. Both.
Both incidents are tragedies. In the incident w/police, we know they chose to storm a house using a no knock warrant and kill a little girl in the process. I don't blame the cameras. The tactics used by the police put innocents at risk because they felt that officer safety takes precendence over everything.
In the case of Zimmerman, it would have been wonderful had he backed off when the police suggested he do just that. Having said that, the media coverage of this has been horribly slanted. The victim wasn't a boy scout, the "white-hispanic" may or may not have been on the losing end of a fight. I'll let the justice system do their job on that one rather than villifying either party.
I feel threatened by people who feel it necessary to pack heat, in church, at schools, at political rallies. Where are my rights? Can I stand my ground and shoot the shooters? Because I feel threatened? .
Feeling threatened by someone possessing an object doesn't give you the right to attack them any more than it gives someone the right to attack someone because of a t-shirt they are wearing.
shoots a young man doing nothing more than walking home.
I don't get why you think making stuff up helps your cause.
Here's the text of the bill, in case anyone cares about actual facts these days...
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/SE/SE0001.1.html
I don't get why you think making stuff up helps your cause.
And what exactly do you think he was doing? Besides being suspiciously black? He was the unarmed person. He is dead.
Feeling threatened by someone possessing an object doesn't give you the right to attack them any more than it gives someone the right to attack someone because of a t-shirt they are wearing.
So, you disagree with this law? Cause feeling threatened by someone possessing an object (or not, as in warrant) doesn't give you the right to attack, with deadly force.
I'm not saying every police everywhere is perfect in execution and procedure, all the time. This is a big country and stuff happens, police wise, everyday. Bad stuff is sure to happen simply because we are imperfect people in an imperfect world, but you don't seem to want to give the police the same benefit of the doubt you give the untrained, self appointed citizen 'protector'. Consistency would give more credibility to the argument. But when people, (NRA) advocate essentially disarming the police and arming everyone else, I get a little worried. Cause then we have vigilante justice and a whole lot of Zimmerman's who shoot people just because they 'look suspicious'. And I'm guessing there are a whole lot more of those than 'police gone wrong' incidents.
See, not only are we giving credibility and voice, (and platform) to the conspiracy nuts, but we are listening to them and letting them color our thoughts and actions.
Hmmm, this was just in the news Wednesday:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/new-orleans-police-sentenced-for-violating-civil-rights-in-katrina-aftermath/2012/04/04/gIQANW6rvS_story.html
There was also that case in Atlanta where cops broke into the home of a 92 year old woman, killed her when she shot back and planted drugs to cover it up...
Well, the sentencing for those cops is more than Zimmerman is getting, isn't it. No accountability there. He says he felt threatened, so, good enough! Never mind that the kid didn't have a weapon of any kind, and was just headed home after a candy run.
And the 92 year old grandma. A sad story indeed. But, she did fire on the police. She shot at them! If you were a cop in that situation, being shot at, what do you think you would do? A bullet from a gun being fired by a 92 year old can kill just as readily as a bullet from a gun held by a 32 year old. The age of the shooter doesn't matter. So, it is in fact the gun that kills people, not the damn dirty apes!
The cover up was, of course, very wrong and those cops will pay as well. But the grandma is dead because she fired on the police. Anyone who has lived 92 years should know that is a really stupid thing to do.
And what exactly do you think he was doing? Besides being suspiciously black? He was the unarmed person. He is dead.
I don't know, I wasn't there. But so far the only evidence released iby the police indicates that TM attacked GZ and was beating his head into the ground.
From what I've read it doesn't look like GZ has committed a crime, but I'll wait until the investigation is over before I conclude one way or the other. I guess hysterical ranting is more fun but when you break it down it really isn't that diffucult to see why GZ hasn't been charged with anything.
As for the race baiting, what do you think about GZ's advocacy for black crime victims? Any truth to it?
Zimmerman was one of “very few” in Sanford, Fla., who spoke out publicly to condemn the “beating of the black homeless man Sherman Ware on December 4, 2010 by the son of a Sanford police officer.”
“Do you know the individual that stepped up when no one else in the black community would?” the family member wrote. “Do you know who spent tireless hours putting flyers on the cars of persons parked in the churches of the black community? Do you know who waited for the church‐goers to get out of church so that he could hand them fliers in an attempt to organize the black community against this horrible miscarriage of justice? Do you know who helped organize the City Hall meeting on January 8th, 2011 at Sanford City Hall??”
“That person was GEORGE ZIMMERMAN. Ironic isn’t it?”
http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/02/zimmerman-family-member-calls-naacp-racists-says-there-will-be-blood-on-your-hands-if-george-is-hurt/#ixzz1rDu9crW9
This is a highly slanted, opinionated article. I'd like to see something more objective.
See, not only are we giving credibility and voice, (and platform) to the conspiracy nuts, but we are listening to them and letting them color our thoughts and actions.
I'd have to study this more to know if I would have voted for this, but large majorities of the state legislature did. Apparently this law was to redress a case that overturned the common law right to resist illegal police actions. That right may date back to the Magna Carta in 1215. http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html
The court invited the legislature to weigh in as a matter of policy. If passing the bill was in effect a return to the common law prior to the court decision, I don't think the potential actions of some nutjobs is enough of a reason to abridge an 800 year old right. Or were you protesting the historic common law status quo prior to the court case? I agree this may give wackos the wrong idea, but as a matter of legal principles this may be nothing more than what we have been living with for hundreds of years and thus wouldn't be worth the panty twisting.
I believe your conclusion is correct, ERG.
So, you disagree with this law? Cause feeling threatened by someone possessing an object (or not, as in warrant) doesn't give you the right to attack, with deadly force..
I don't agree with the law based on a reading of the statute linked above. An officer with a valid warrant who identifies himself as such before entering a home wouldn't have a problem. An officer entering without a warrant in very limited circumstances could fall within this law. I'm not a lawyer and am open to other interpretations on the subject, but my reading of the above link to the statute in question indicates this is only applicable in very limited circustances and those circumstances seem appropriate to me.
As a practical matter, I don't forsee a rash of officer shootings under this law because most citizens worrying about laws are going to think long and hard before attacking a police officer (even if they are in the right under the statute).
I'm not saying every police everywhere is perfect in execution and procedure, all the time. This is a big country and stuff happens, police wise, everyday. Bad stuff is sure to happen simply because we are imperfect people in an imperfect world, but you don't seem to want to give the police the same benefit of the doubt you give the untrained, self appointed citizen 'protector'. Consistency would give more credibility to the argument. But when people, (NRA) advocate essentially disarming the police and arming everyone else, I get a little worried. Cause then we have vigilante justice and a whole lot of Zimmerman's who shoot people just because they 'look suspicious'. And I'm guessing there are a whole lot more of those than 'police gone wrong' incidents.
Can you elaborate on this law or my statements do any of that? i'm suggesting a law giving citizens very limited rights to protect themselves from police in limited circumstances might not be the danger you suggested. Further, I suggest that certain police tactics put innocent citizens at unncecessary risk. Finally, I'm suggesting that all the facts on Zimmerman aren't out yet and he may or may not be guilty.
On the topic of Zimmerman (who I'm undecided as to guilt or innocence), it's certainly a fact that certain news agencies have been very irresponible in their coverage. NBC's editing of the tape to turn Zimmerman's comments on the 911 call into a race issue are indefensible. Given that and everything else I've observed, the jury's still out on that one, so to speak.
DocHolliday
4-5-12, 11:25pm
Well, the sentencing for those cops is more than Zimmerman is getting, isn't it. No accountability there. He says he felt threatened, so, good enough! Never mind that the kid didn't have a weapon of any kind, and was just headed home after a candy run.
And the 92 year old grandma. A sad story indeed. But, she did fire on the police. She shot at them! If you were a cop in that situation, being shot at, what do you think you would do? A bullet from a gun being fired by a 92 year old can kill just as readily as a bullet from a gun held by a 32 year old. The age of the shooter doesn't matter. So, it is in fact the gun that kills people, not the damn dirty apes!
The cover up was, of course, very wrong and those cops will pay as well. But the grandma is dead because she fired on the police. Anyone who has lived 92 years should know that is a really stupid thing to do.
Of course, if Martin attacked Zimmerman and was bashing his head into the pavement, he got exactly what he deserved. We'll have to let this work its' way through the system before we know what will happen.
As far as the Atlanta case, again a no-knock raid, some unidentified persons breaking down the door, Ms. Johnson fired trying to scare away the attackers. The police shot her 39 times, found no drugs, planted drugs and tried to cover up what they had done. Failed and went to jail, but you want to blame the victim...not really surprising.
[QUOTE=DocHolliday;76155]Of course, if Martin attacked Zimmerman and was bashing his head into the pavement, he got exactly what he deserved. We'll have to let this work its' way through the system before we know what will happen.
[QUOTE]
Just to be clear, my understanding is that self defense/stand your ground would only apply if Martin attacked Zimmerman. If Zimmerman attacked Martin and was losing the fight, he's still got big problems. Either way, it would have better for all if neither party had escalated the situation.
Here's the text of the bill, in case anyone cares about actual facts these days...
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/SE/SE0001.1.html
Thank you bae, always nice to know what is really behind our conversations.
I'd have to study this more to know if I would have voted for this, but large majorities of the state legislature did. Apparently this law was to redress a case that overturned the common law right to resist illegal police actions. That right may date back to the Magna Carta in 1215. http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html
The court invited the legislature to weigh in as a matter of policy. If passing the bill was in effect a return to the common law prior to the court decision, I don't think the potential actions of some nutjobs is enough of a reason to abridge an 800 year old right. Or were you protesting the historic common law status quo prior to the court case? I agree this may give wackos the wrong idea, but as a matter of legal principles this may be nothing more than what we have been living with for hundreds of years and thus wouldn't be worth the panty twisting.
+1
It sure is easy to see who the NRA supporters are. Police, bad. Armed, self appointed protector citizens, good.
And the Magna Carta? Really? That's just too silly to answer.
So Gregg, what does your police friend think of this law?
I don't know. I'll ask if they've heard of it.
And what exactly do you think he was doing? Besides being suspiciously black? He was the unarmed person. He is dead.
While our system presumes innocence until someone is proven guilty (even Mr. Zimmerman), being unarmed is hardly proof of anything.
The ones who hail this type of law are usually the tin foil hat wearing right wing paranoids who just happen to be armed to the teeth and are spoiling for a fight.
It appears the tin foil crowd may not be the only ones spoiling for a fight.
It sure is easy to see who the NRA supporters are.
While I am not necessarily a big fan of the NRA I accord them the same respect in regard to individual rights that I give the ACLU. So you can dis the ACLU as pro criminals and the NRA as anti police, but I think doing so demonstrates a fundamental disregard or ignorance of some very worthwhile foundational principles in our society.
And the Magna Carta? Really? That's just too silly to answer.
Not a silly answer, but it probably would be silly to spend time discussing these issues if you don't understand the common law system.
ApatheticNoMore
4-6-12, 1:04pm
I came to this website yesterday clicked on peggy's link, found the link I posted (Salon) and caught a trojan that my anti-virus couldn't remove and I had to restore my computer (3 weeks old) to the factory state. I'm glad I was even able to do that (some idiot didn't make a restore disk yet :)).
Don't know what happened, but frankly I wouldn't trust any of those links (including the one I linked too - although viruses is not usually something Salon is infected with - anti-Republican sentiment to the degree of almost being parody yes, but not usually trojans :)). I'm even afraid of this site now ... :( (paranoid ....). But really 3 websites is all and my computer was down for the count ...
This is the last time I am clicking on links about anarchists (kidding there but :laff:)
It sure is easy to see who the NRA supporters are. Police, bad. Armed, self appointed protector citizens, good.
What a hateful, divisive, uninformed thing to say.
And the Magna Carta? Really? That's just too silly to answer.
Just another dusty old piece of paper, right?
What a hateful, divisive, uninformed thing to say.
Just another dusty old piece of paper, right?
Someone else's dusty old piece of paper, yes. Sorry if I'm not baffled by BS or impressed with 'name dropping'. I realize the Magna Carta is the pet 'go to' for the right now, kind of like 'rule of law' was a while back. They just can't have a discussion without casually throwing it in.
The Magna Carta didn't grant US anything, yesterday, or 800 years ago, other than maybe some inspiration for our own Constitution and Bill of Rights. But many writings and schools of thought gave inspiration. In fact, not much of the original Magna Carta still exists as great portions of it have been repealed and revised many times. There are some important elements that still stand, in one form or another, to which I'm guessing is what East River Guide was referring to, but again, not our document. Why wouldn't he just refer to our own constitution? Smoke and mirrors don't work when you know the magician's tricks.
Hateful, divisive, AND uninformed? Wow, what do you really think bae?
Someone else's dusty old piece of paper, yes. Sorry if I'm not baffled by BS or impressed with 'name dropping'. I realize the Magna Carta is the pet 'go to' for the right now, kind of like 'rule of law' was a while back. They just can't have a discussion without casually throwing it in.
I can't remember the last time anyone mentioned the Magna Carta so I must have missed this fad you've conjured. The newspaper article referenced the Magna Carta and 1215 solely to help date the common law right that apparently existed right up to 2011 and the abandonment of that right by the Indiana Supreme Court. It's an academic reference, not a conservative pet.
There are some important elements that still stand, in one form or another, to which I'm guessing is what East River Guide was referring to, but again, not our document. Why wouldn't he just refer to our own constitution? Smoke and mirrors don't work when you know the magician's tricks.
Maybe because the Constitution doesn't pretend to delineate all the rights that existed or currently exist but rather sets the framework for organizing the Federal government. The Constitution cannot be the source for an 800 year old right and while it does set some express limitations on government powers, you can't look at just the Constitution to understand law in America. We have a common law system modified by the Constitution, not totally supplanted by it. If you want to discuss the impact of the Indiana statute, do some research to determine what rights existed prior to Barnes v Indiana, ask yourself what changed with Barnes, and then analyze the statute to see what it does. That would be much more productive than serving up some biased and poorly reasoned screed.
ApatheticNoMore
4-6-12, 3:58pm
The only time I've seen the Magna Carta mentioned recently was in the context of the NDAA, in which case well hmm, it's rather apropriate.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/04/397520/new-hampshire-gop-bill-mandates-that-laws-find-their-origin-in-1215-english-magna-carta/
http://nation.foxnews.com/charlie-rangel/2010/11/17/when-you-have-appeal-magna-carta-you%E2%80%99re-officially-pathetic
And so many other casual references, but I'm not playing google monkey today.
But this was passed by the government. And we are the government, right Peggy, so its OK.
DocHolliday
4-6-12, 7:57pm
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/04/397520/new-hampshire-gop-bill-mandates-that-laws-find-their-origin-in-1215-english-magna-carta/
http://nation.foxnews.com/charlie-rangel/2010/11/17/when-you-have-appeal-magna-carta-you%E2%80%99re-officially-pathetic
And so many other casual references, but I'm not playing google monkey today.
The Fox News article you linked to is referring to Charlie Rangel's appeal to the Magna Carta. Rangel is a far-left Democrat from New York, hardly a right winger...
The Fox News article you linked to is referring to Charlie Rangel's appeal to the Magna Carta. Rangel is a far-left Democrat from New York, hardly a right winger...
Well, in fairness he may look like a right winger from where peggy is.:laff:
Consider this:
There you are, a law-abiding homeowner. You have no negative contacts with law enforcement in your life. You don't do bad things, or hang out with bad people, in bad places.
It's nighttime, and you are in bed. Some folks start breaking in your door while shouting.
What do you do?
Well, I'll tell you - you are in deep trouble no matter what. Life is sometimes like that.
I've spent some time training in "dynamic entry", with law enforcement and military folks. If what you are facing is a team trained in such methods, attempts on your part to resist will likely result in your death. Heck, there's some chance you may die even if you don't resist, if it only appears that you are resisting.
If what you are facing is a group of bad guys, if you don't resist you are in a world of hurt. If you do resist, you may be able to repel them, or at least take a couple of them along with you to whatever final destination awaits. But in general, it's not good.
Consider also that criminal gangs have been posing as law enforcement while making entries...
What's a home owner to do?
Well, in most states, home owners are allowed to resist illegal entry into their homes, and have been allowed to do so since the founding of the Republic. And the laws did not discriminate between law-enforcement invaders and non-law-inforcement invaders. Indeed, the text of the original Indiana code is so written.
The recent Indiana bill is simply a reaction to a court decision deciding to establish a discrimination between the two classes of home invaders that was not present in the law.
It was not an NRA conspiracy.
Indeed, I am a member of the NRA. The NRA is the premier firearms training and education organization in the USA, and provides many resources and facilities to police departments nationwide. My own local range is NRA-affiliated, I am a range master there, and we provide use of our range, and training, to our local law enforcement. I am also a civilian member of the Seattle Police's firearms training organization, and frequently participate with Seattle and regional law enforcement and military that use the facilities. I even financially support the training organization.
Using this home-invasion issue as a means to try to drive a political wedge between law enforcement and the good citizens who make up the NRA membership is shameful. Dishonest. Inaccurate. And so on.
But most of us here know that already.
The Fox News article you linked to is referring to Charlie Rangel's appeal to the Magna Carta. Rangel is a far-left Democrat from New York, hardly a right winger...
And in that case it was somehow up for ridicule. Go figure, except, it was a democrat, so up for ridicule. My point exactly. I gave both sides, from the same party apparently. In one case a thing to be ridiculed, and in the other, a mandate from god. That was the point of giving both takes from the same side.
Kind of the same with the health care mandate, which was a good thing when republicans promoted it, and somehow became a bad thing when a liberal promoted it. The hypocrisy is so thick, it's unbelievable. If these people were consistent, then I could respect their position more.
Believe it or not, I respect no-choice people more if they say no choice, even if the mother was raped, or incest. That's consistency of conviction of position, which I can respect. I may not agree, but I can respect people who really live their convictions. If someone believes, in their heart, that it's murder of babies, i respect their conviction if they are consistent. I don't agree with them, but I respect them. If I believed it were truly murder of babies, I'd be front and center with my protest.
I'm a firm believer in what's good for the goose is good for the gander. But, to listen to the right, in so many cases, it's just partisan verbal diarrhea. On the left too, I'm sure, in some cases, I want to be fair. But the right seems to have refined it to a fine art. And they do have a 24 hour 'news' station to champion their cause. GOP TV, which the left doesn't have. Not that I want them to have it, but how do you counter GOP Tv (fox news) And please don't cite MSNBC as it's a poor substitute for 24/7 anti democrat/liberal tv like fox. 4 hours of (fairly balanced) liberal talk tv and 20 hours of 'Lock up" hardly counters a concerted 24/7 effort to demonize liberals.
So, as you yourself noted, the pro and anti Magna Carta spiel came from the same type of source, just the context (liberal or conservative) was different. And people swallow this s--t everyday, without a bit of irony spoiling their taste.
Consider this:
There you are, a law-abiding homeowner. You have no negative contacts with law enforcement in your life. You don't do bad things, or hang out with bad people, in bad places.
It's nighttime, and you are in bed. Some folks start breaking in your door while shouting.
What do you do?
Well, I'll tell you - you are in deep trouble no matter what. Life is sometimes like that.
I've spent some time training in "dynamic entry", with law enforcement and military folks. If what you are facing is a team trained in such methods, attempts on your part to resist will likely result in your death. Heck, there's some chance you may die even if you don't resist, if it only appears that you are resisting.
If what you are facing is a group of bad guys, if you don't resist you are in a world of hurt. If you do resist, you may be able to repel them, or at least take a couple of them along with you to whatever final destination awaits. But in general, it's not good.
Consider also that criminal gangs have been posing as law enforcement while making entries...
What's a home owner to do?
Well, in most states, home owners are allowed to resist illegal entry into their homes, and have been allowed to do so since the founding of the Republic. And the laws did not discriminate between law-enforcement invaders and non-law-inforcement invaders. Indeed, the text of the original Indiana code is so written.
The recent Indiana bill is simply a reaction to a court decision deciding to establish a discrimination between the two classes of home invaders that was not present in the law.
It was not an NRA conspiracy.
Indeed, I am a member of the NRA. The NRA is the premier firearms training and education organization in the USA, and provides many resources and facilities to police departments nationwide. My own local range is NRA-affiliated, I am a range master there, and we provide use of our range, and training, to our local law enforcement. I am also a civilian member of the Seattle Police's firearms training organization, and frequently participate with Seattle and regional law enforcement and military that use the facilities. I even financially support the training organization.
Using this home-invasion issue as a means to try to drive a political wedge between law enforcement and the good citizens who make up the NRA membership is shameful. Dishonest. Inaccurate. And so on.
But most of us here know that already.
bae, to be perfectly honest, how often does that happen? Seriously. If this was a wide spread issue, or if we actually had a gestapo type police then I'd be so for it. This is my country too, you seem to forget. But we seem to be taking far fetched scenarios as the norm. We are imagining life as a TV drama, and it just isn't. Do mistakes happen? Sure. And there are bad cops out there, I have no doubt. But when we start making laws and living in fear of imagined scenarios instead of reality, we lose it.
This scenario just isn't the norm, and I think you know that. Look at your own reality. You live on an island of rich folks and tourist. Not exactly a hot bead of unrest, yet you feel the need to carry arms so you can spring to the 'defense' of your neighbors at a moments notice. Now, your reality is that you have some bad actors in your family that can do harm to you and your family, but for the rest of us, this just isn't the norm.
I know your situation, and for you, it's probably best to be armed. You have people in your life who wish to do you harm. But the rest of us, the 99.9% of the populace, doesn't live that reality. And frankly, unless we sleep with a loaded gun under our pillow, won't be able to defend ourselves in your scenario even if we wanted to.
But again, I ask, how often does it happen that the police storm, unannounced, into a perfectly innocent citizens home in the middle of the night? Don't you think if this happened with even a little regularity we'd hear about it? Of course we would, cause we do hear about it when it happens, on rare occasions. And generally the police pay for it. There is accountability.
But, my problem with this is, with police, there usually is accountability, eventually, unlike the guy, in the middle of the night, standing over a body and saying, I felt threatened.
You keep saying how people with license to carry arms are so trained. Well, how trained do you think Zimmerman was? Do you think he followed procedure of someone deemed a neighborhood watch captain? Would you have been in that position, standing over the body of an unarmed 17 year old, from that neighborhood, who only had a bag of candy and a soda in his pocket? Would you have done what Zimmerman did, according to the 911 tapes?
The world isn't filled with YOU. It's filled with Zimmerman's. And telling them it's ok to fire on cops, as presumably you know they are cops or the law would be moot, is setting up a whole lot of 'this sad scenario' in Florida.
And in that case it was somehow up for ridicule. Go figure, except, it was a democrat
If you can't see the difference between the judicial reversal of an 800 year old precedent and Charlie Rangel arguing he's indigent, there aren't enough news channels or hours in the day to help you.
I felt threatened.
When was the last time you broke someone's nose and pounded their head into the pavement?
Look at your own reality. You live on an island of rich folks and tourist.
And poor folks, and farmers, and fishermen, and tradespeople, and artists, and students, and researchers, and dozens of other sorts of folks. Lay off the stereotyping and sophistry, eh?
Just quite recently we had a good portion of the community, rich and poor, engaged in looking for a criminal who was breaking into dozens of homes and businesses, sometimes when they were occupied. A fellow who was believed to be heavily armed (with firearms he'd stolen from law enforcement vehicles) and who had allegedly fired shots at law enforcement.
We also have quite a problem here with meth cookers, and drug smugglers (being on the border and all).
Since the economy has turned south, we've also been having an increase in burglaries targetted at prescription medication, and several of these have turned out to be home invasions.
It's not Mayberry RFD here, and probably never was.
For those of us who are law-abiding citizens, and who don't hang out with criminals, it is very very unlikely people forcibly entering our home in the middle of the night are law enforcement making a legitimate entry. There is no reason for the homewoner to expect the arrival of police in his entryway. It is far more likely it is someone intent on doing harm to the residents of the home. In these situations, there is very little time to react, so generally the homeowner is allowed to react to defend the the inhabitants of the home. There is no reason to penalize a homeowner for doing so in the case of a mistaken entry by law enforcement if the entry did not provide adequate time and circumstance for the homeowner to assure himself the entry was legitimate.
Which is why the law is traditionally the way it is.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8Ao44sguqr0/T3-NTpfl6-I/AAAAAAAAE24/lw5k6ykkR4g/s640/IMG_0601.JPG
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.