Posted on 08/12/2002 9:08:05 AM PDT by Willie Green
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:34:44 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
You tell me if they were filing a lawsuit to correct deficiencies in the town charter or they were setting up their version of "Justus Township" or "Constitutional Township of Tigerton Dells." Given that they're proudly flying upside down flags on the website, I'm going with the latter.
I'm not trying to argue. I just wanted to point out that one fact.
Bottom line, if a cop or anyone else shoots (or threatens to shoot) at someone for any other reason than the sole purpose of defending his life, they deserve to be dead. Doesn't matter how old they are or how many kids they have or how high a pedestal we place them on.
If the guy in the car shot at the cops or pointed a gun for any other reason than defending his own life, than he deserves to be dead.
It's really very simple. I'm glad to have cleared that up for y'all.
I guess you have a point, especialy given how easily envirowackos are given leeway to tie tax dollars in dangerous lawsuits against logging. But how do they come about doing this?
1. they side with the collective interests of the government
2. They side with a common environmental good
3. they invoke precedents
4. they do not support explicitly their communist hypocritical constitution denying power to others while claiming they can have this power, yet they apply the basic instruction sets to attain this end.
We need to do the same unfortunately as the constitution goes underground. We need to allege to it but in front of a judge use common sense basic instruction sets to sue them. After all the DOJ is using such Sun Tsu tactics in politics and this is what we have to resort to do too. Let us remember that the founding Fathers were not so much constitutionalists (as some thought the constitution needed an amendment system), but they never worshiped any idea of man, and only considered those ideas written by those who had such humility in mind, under G_d.
Well, the government is using populist law tactics to undermine the constitution, and we have to create our own tactics. Not go through the constitutionalist argument but through a coded bottom line set of instructions to complain and argue with a judge about seatbelt laws, for example, which threaten the habitat of individuals and their individual decision making as to what safety is all about, enabling the individual to take his own risk. Why can the city police respect the risk taking of the Sheriff if they cannot respect our own risk taking and executive decisions? The law and morals can be broken if it is in the interest of increased safety and morals, all FAA pilots know that and do it everyday. Seat belt laws are the very type of law that would confuse a driver in need of safety and are dangerous. After all, some people cannot afford to stop the car, take their seat belt out on the highway, to do what they have to do in the car, such as solving an incident there, it is extremely dangerous to stop on the highway. This is an example taht would destroy the seatbelt law on its face.
Of course there is a limit to Sun Tsu, and at one point in time shootouts have to occur, as Sun Tsu is not a god either. Who shot first in this instance? Why mix seatbelt enforcement with gun blazing drug interdicting para-military forces? To me America needs to separate gunless seat belt enforcement checkpoint cops with the army. When a citizen is enforced seatbelt law by the means of para-militaries, it becomes frightening and shootout, misunderstandings or, worse, abuses like these state cops raping women on the highway will occur.
Of course, a guy waving a gun at me is reason enough for me. Case closed.
Can't argue with that AP, if that's what this yo-yo did, he needed to be shut down.
I gather you're consistent and would agree that if you were not a danger to other's lives and a government employee was "waving a gun" at you he would deserve the same fate.
Excellent, we've wrapped up this debate.
If he had a good reason, I see no problem with it(like if he was a cop or was teaching my gun safety class). Matthews did not have a good reason. There is a difference between some nut pulling a gun on me and a policeman protecting hinself in case I am a nut. I do not fear the police. I fear the nuts.
It's not easy to extract ourselves from preconceived notions and think with pure logic (and crack a joke to boot). You're correct, I'll meet you at the objectivist convention.
I do not fear the police. I fear the nuts.
I don't fear anyone. Nobody gets any more or less respect from me regardless of their career choice or official responsibilities.
I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of "nuts" in law enforcement probably is at least the same as the general population. Mattafact, it quite possibly could be much higher .... think about it.
I've known quite a few cops (I also support my state Sheriffs org financially). Some are stellar guys, while some are true weirdos. Discernment is the key.
I diagree. Police have to be evaluated and trained. Very few true schizos wouldn't make it very far. In actuality, police rarely shoot unarmed people as opposed to nuts and criminals who do so frequently. Unlike a criminal or nut, a policeman does not look at an unarmed person as a victim. The police represent us. Nuts and criminals represent themselves only.
However divorce and burnout are certainly higher amongst cops than the general population. Many tend be paranoid and feel their line of work isolates them from other "civilians".
Many are just regular ol' guys plodding through life without these hangups.
What I've learned is to take these "cop" threads on a case by case basis. If you're always a "police supporter" you're wrong, just the same as these dicks that want to bash the police every chance they get.
I disagree. SOmething deserve our support. One is law enforcement and the other is the military. They are not always right but they deserve our support.
My statement was "If you're always a police supporter" you're wrong. People who "always" anything lack the ability to discern.
The military? I know all about that. A person who lives like a savage and could be killed at any time deserves all the support he could get.
I didn't however support the tankers who ran over (it must have been at least 50 times) a dead Iraqi soldier I came across in 1991. You probably wouldn't have supported them either.
I say it sucks to be him.
Good grief, OneidaM, where did you get the idea that Vin Suprynowicz was "advocating" anything here? I thought he was writing with quite justified alarm that cases like Mr. Drega's happen, and with alarming frequency. In all too many cases, these things result from governments at all levels depriving people of their property or other rights by statute.
I can give you an example of this from my own family. My husband's parents -- a retired high school music director and a librarian -- retired to Cape Cod, to a charming little cottage in a private beach community built shortly after World War II. It's on a private road, with zero town services -- although they must pay rapidly escalating property taxes at the same rate as anybody else in the town. They wanted to make improvements -- the cottage is small and cramped. So they decided to "build up," to add on another story.
Then they found out they were prohibited from doing so: The town has a statute that does not permit improvements to properties in this neighborhood valued in excess of 15% of the assessed value of the structure. So they have to do without a goodly measure of comfort and enjoyment in their own home.
I don't know of any other way to understand this sort of thing than as a public taking of private property without just compensation -- a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment. If honest, responsible people are prohibited from enjoying their own property as they see fit, then they have been deprived of some right in their own property, and they have not received fair value for what they've had taken from them.
Now there are wealthy individuals in the neighborhood who have no trouble at all making improvements to their property, town statute or no. And the reason for that is they can afford to hire a lawyer (or maybe even pay a bribe) and spend months and years in court if necessary. This is a community where a lot of retirees live, on fixed incomes, after a lifetime of hard work. They cannot afford to pay a lawyer to get them their rights like wealthier individuals can.
Working class people and retirees are increasingly vulnerable to government actions of this type at all levels.
I thought Suprynowicz was completely correct to say that this sort of thing is an exercise in fascism. Hitler didn't nationalize all private property holdings, as Lenin did. No, you could retain your title to "your" property. The only problem was, you could only use it in ways that Hitler and his gang prescribed or approved. America increasingly seems to be sliding down this slope.
The worrisome thing is, not everybody is going to "roll over" and just cry "Uncle!" when the state comes to tell you you have no right to do something with what is yours. Some people are going to get hopping mad, and do something rash -- as Mr. Drega finally did, after years and years of trying to do things "properly." I'd just like to point out that, under conditions like that, it will be the LEOs sent out to enforce these (unconstitutional) statutes who will be most at risk if things go bad. Bad laws are just plain bad news all the way around.
JMHO FWIW
Like I said, Drega was a nasty person with a nasty way of shooting those who got in his way. Add your buddy Don Matthews to the list. Your friend died a murderer. If he wanted to commit suicide, he should've had the decency to eat a bullet in discreet privacy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.