Let's be clear. The police and judge decided this had to be a dynamic entry warrant - where the police break in the door and swarm in with weapons drawn. Whether or not this is a "bad guy", the "justice" system decided he had to be accosted in a violent, armed manner in order to see if he was doing something illegal.
When accosted in this manner, the man decided to try and protect himself and his family. Even if he's only protecting himself and a stash of drugs, he is in his own house, and is confronted with armed men swarming into his dwelling, and he chose to exercise his second amendment right to defend himself by grabbing a weapon and preparing to fire if necessary.
The Marine Corps veteran chose to not immediately fire, despite being accosted by the violent entry. He chose to try and understand what was happening before using deadly force.
The police, on the other hand, saw a weapon and assessed the threat to their lives, and decided it was more prudent to use deadly force against a presumably legally armed suspect rather than to stay their trigger fingers and try to resolve the situation (which they escalated through their entry tactics) without deadly violence.
The Marine practiced restraint, and you have stated that his restraint killed him. I presume you meant that his choice to exercise his second amendment rights was the cause, but it really was his restraint - if he had opened up immediately and sought cover, he may have survived to be tried.
The root cause of this death was the decision to use a dynamic entry tactic, not the man's legal (and restrained) exercise of his second amendment rights.
But you insist HE chose his fate.
One question... Do citizens of the United States have inalienable rights or not?
One follow up... Are inalienable rights alienated at the decision of a police department and judge, or perhaps is there a new, abridged definition of the word "inalienable"?
Well said.
+1, good post.
Not picking on you, as I agree with the gist and sense of your post. I post to make the point that the adjective "inalienable" is nothing more than a matter-of-fact observation.
To "alienate" is the act of taking something you possess, and give or sell it to another. We can alienate homes, cars, books, gizmos, and so forth. But some attributes of life cannot be taken from one person, and given to another. These attributes are inalienable.
It is impossible to take your life, and animate a dead person. Your life is inalienable. It's yours, and only yours.
The law will not admit you, an innocent, stand in the stead of an imprisoned convict. Your liberty is inalienable.
Similar with pursuit of happiness, which is inherently a personal state of mind.
Exactly!
And if they had the wrong house or the guy was actually innocent, then they should all be tried for murder I. If I were on the jury, I'd vote to convict. But, guilty or innocent, it would make a nice dent in their family finances and discourage the practice of dynamic entry
.
Citizenz [us] have not had inalienable rights in many years. As Janet Reno so elonquently said when she was attorney General,"We give our citizens more rights than any other Country".
Nowadays a cop wants to kill you he does. And he gets away with it. How? Officer safety. "I feared for my life".
That was not always the case, but, this is now, and that was then.