Quote:
Quote by: Keith Hamburger  Why not? It worked for the patrolman in Utah. He used "less-lethal" force to coerce submission from someone who obviously wasn't a threat, and got away with it by lying until the videos came out. And, then, he still got away with it.
Police are citizens just like the rest of us with no greater rights or priveleges than any other citizen. To think otherwise is to create a system of feudalism.
Keith |
So you think that unjust actions should be spelled out in the law so then there is no way to fight them?
Both actions are unjust but only one of them is protected verbatim.
Care to make a point that is actually relevant? A cop used a taser unjustly in Utah, so we should have a law in Texas allowing us to use a gun against random citizens without the fear of harm present in just about every other self defense statute in the country, so long as they are committing criminal mischief. Yeah that makes sense.
This isn't an issue about giving home owners the benefit of the doubt. It removes all doubt by making them unaccountable and their actions legal. The old way was about doubt. If you reasonably felt you were in danger a jury would decide whether or not they felt your use of force was justified.
Some people need to get past their ideology and look at the facts. Just because a law grants gun owners more rights does not make it just.
I wasn't even against the law itself, just for it being left so broad as to allow for far too many bad possibilities. But Oh no! we can't edit something to make it more reasonable.