Angry tourists break mugger's neck

[Gods_Mercenary]

If you are threatening me with a club, I'm sure as hell gonna hit you first.

[Nono]

Fair enough, but hardly a comprehensive recipe for organizing society.
Yet that's what libertarian seems to amount to .

[Gods_Mercenary]

There's not a comprehensive recipe for organizing society, people are unpredictable.

[Osborn F Enready]

Nono said: Uh yeah, true. IF all your assumptions were correct. But they aren't. You misunderstand that "strawman" applied to me, not you. Caricature always has an element of strawman in it, whether "funny" or not. Hell, caricature is a device, not a true portrayal of reality. And speaking of words bearing quotation marks, what's all this "less appropriate" malarky? I didn't say that.

I found it funny that you cite me, and criticized me, for replying with a caricature, to a caricature you posted of my life, country and justice system.

You used your own subjective caricature of American life, values and justice.
I replied with a caricature of your viewpoint, based on your stated values.

Nono said: I do think that your prescriptions (as I understand them) are jungle justice. As far as I can see, they amount to the following: I beat you over the head with my club harder than you beat me over the head with your club, thereby defending my material advantage over you.

Thats because your either not reading, or not picking up on the idea of rights to property. I already know a large part of your "ideological positions" on property, but not the finite lines with which you carve your subjective views in application of said theory.

The idea of use of force for DEFENSE comes from rights.
There is no VALID excuse for force for offense.
What determines an offense toward those rights, that constitute the use of force? A threat toward your life, or the lives of loved ones, or innocents. (property of free-will individuals)

Your entire argument is built on distortion of the truth, which is that our system is designed to protect, and allow self protection for the individual.

Once an individual uses force to attempt to remove rights, they forsake their rights and are subject to force in protection of those rights they are attempting to remove using force.

Its called mutual respect for individuals, and human life. Once my life is threatened, clearly and directly, I have a right to pacify, or remove that threat, by whatever means I deem necessary, to be judged later by a court of my peers for appropriate response.

Some jungle justice....... Never saw a monkey trial, made up of monkeys, for other monkeys being wronged...... :rolleyes: :confused:

Nono said: If there's anything more than that to libertarianism, I wish somebody would tell me what it is.

We've been saying it for years, you just don't want to listen.

(edit to add)

By the way. Libertarians are often accused of being ANTI-LAW, which couldn't be further from the truth.

What is the truth?

Libertarians are for individual rights, equal justice, minimized government which keeps government reflective of the people due to accessability and direct effect ability,
Minimum taxation to promote growth in industry and savings ability for laborers and small business, trial by jury of your peers, assumed innocence until proven guilty, and a free market, meaning equal market access by all whom make it up.

Thats the basis of the Libertarian platform, as I understand it.

Constitutional Law, and equally checked government between 3 branches of equal power, and a people of equal power, is as far from LAWLESS as you could be, chief.

[Nono]

The problem for me is in defining "right" and "property". Socialists are concerned with the way so much of the stuff ends up in so few hands.

By the way, I wouldn't sneer at libertarianism, as you describe it, on a micro scale. I just can't see it being workable in anything but the dinkiest of nation states.

[Osborn F Enready]

Nono said: The problem for me is in defining "right" and "property". Socialists are concerned with the way so much of the stuff ends up in so few hands.

And you assume Libertarians aren't? If thats the case, then why would the party advocate a strong free-market principle, which provides a LEVEL MARKET for ALL TO ACCESS? Why would they stand on policy platforms that empower all individuals to make the most of themselves, their money, which in turn allows them to provide the most for their famillies, and intrests?

The difference is you believe the "state" or whatever form you put in its place, workers councils, or whatever, have the right to use force for wealth redistribution to those who have not earned it. You think market regulation provides stability, when it just creates and alternate market, called the black market, which feeds directly on those in the lowest class you claim to protect with said regulation.

Am I wrong here? If you believe so, please elaborate why, and what you think is better.

Nono said: By the way, I wouldn't sneer at libertarianism, as you describe it, on a micro scale. I just can't see it being workable in anything but the dinkiest of nation states.

The idea, was to have states independent of the Federal Government, in all areas except the enforcement of individual rights, and states rights. States populations have grown, and instead of downsizing from states to communities and cities, as it should have, it instead went the opposite direction due to cultivated and taught ideas of progressive paternalism by a federal goverment, to a more restrictive, over-bearing federal system.

This is why libertarians are so anti-central government.

It is impossible to have an effective representative government, when the government that is elected can't effectively represent all its constituents.

The base gets bigger, while the top stays the same size, creating a huge step between effective representation, and actual population, resulting in ineffective representation, due to extremes drawing the moderate middle so far out of shape, to the point it only represents a very small portion of those in the middle, or one extreme.

The smaller the group represented, the more accurate the representation, the less refusal to pay tax to support said system, since the people have more control over all government effects.

[Nono]

Quote by: Os You believe the "state" or whatever form you put in its place, workers councils, or whatever, have the right to use force for wealth redistribution to those who have not earned it. You think market regulation provides stability, when it just creates and alternate market, called the black market, which feeds directly on those in the lowest class you claim to protect with said regulation.

I believe in regulation of an inherently unstable entity. Regulation is just a different word for rules. Those rules should be adopted by society as a whole through its freely chosen representatives and enforced, yes indeedy, by the state by virtue of the power vested in it by the citizens.

A state that lacks democratic legitimacy -- such as the office of the president at present in the US -- lacks, well precisely, legitimacy.

By the way, wealth-redistribution measures such as minimum wage very frequently take money out of the pockets of people who haven't earned a damned thing and place it -- a modest amount anyway -- in the pockets of people who were previously being screwed for their labour.

Which brings us back to the problem of defining property, i.e. to whom it really belongs.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 You are completely mistaken. You can only defend yourself with proportional force based upon an assault. As far as the legal defintion of an assault goes, it's the threat of a battery. Seeing as an assault can include anything as mundane as someone threatening to hit you or throwing a "fake punch" in your direction, you are 100% wrong that you can use deadly force as a response to all assaults. Plus the use of a weapon makes it an "aggravated assault" so your claims about a response to a typical "assault" is just insane. As far as third parties go, you can only use deadly force to stop an immediate threat of deadly force to someone else. You cannot pursue someone them after they have attempted to flee as this changes the entire mens rea of the situation and you have become the agressor. People have been prosecuted for doing this. Admittedly, criminal law differs in terms of for instance someone who breaks into your home. Even then the generally accepted principle is that you can only pursue someone to the edge of your home/property. That said, if you go after someone who has committed an assault who is unarmed and gun them down you are indeed going to be prosecuted for it.

Before you make blanket statements like that you need to realize that these are state laws, not universal laws. I have previously posted (maybe as much as two years ago) the Colorado state law on the use of deadly force that says such, it will take me a bit to find it again but, unless it's changed in the past year, I will get that posted.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Why would you be arraigned if it wasn't against the law? Go back and do some reading because you are way off. Fleeing Felon Doctrine was ultimately abolished a long time ago.

The reason you might be arraigned is because such is a "positive defense" against the charge of use of a deadly weapon. It is not "not against the law", it is that if you can show that you, or someone else, were previously assaulted, it is a positive defense against an actual a legitimate charge.

In such a case, you MIGHT be charged with, and even tried on, the offense, but, if you can show that you meet the letter of the law in terms of the positive defense, you cannot be convicted.

In Colorado, I doubt many prosecutors would even take it to trial.

Keith

[Chaossaber314]

Before you make blanket statements like that you need to realize that these are state laws, not universal laws. I have previously posted (maybe as much as two years ago) the Colorado state law on the use of deadly force that says such, it will take me a bit to find it again but, unless it's changed in the past year, I will get that posted.

Shame about those blanket statements from the Supreme Court then. Like Tennessee v. Garner. Better luck next time.

[Osborn F Enready]

Nono said: I believe in regulation of an inherently unstable entity. Regulation is just a different word for rules. Those rules should be adopted by society as a whole through its freely chosen representatives and enforced, yes indeedy, by the state by virtue of the power vested in it by the citizens.

Thats all good as long as the laws are drawn along lines the people will accept. Obviously, there are MAJOR disagreements in property, and individual rights amongst the people. That should define the lines of government seperation, since both sides feel compelled to use force to restrain the claimed will of the others. When a government no longer represents its people effectively, it results in a growing lack of respect and adherance to law, and law enforcement, as well as the authority that empowers it.

Free-Market Capitalism, with a government forbidden to infringe on individual rights, has proven to be the far and away lead producer of technology, and beneficial valued education and goods for society. It also allows both individualism, as well as free-will based collectives (socialism) as I have shown time and again, with the New Harmony, Indiana example. Its also allowed the most productive societies, the most accessible markets to provide comfortable lives, that could be focused on education, self betterment, and societal betterment.

The only time capitalism is abused by corporate entities, national and multi-national, is when "nation states" like China, are allowed to abuse the free market by extorting their workforce for national profit, and nations like ours agree to let it happen. It effectively removes the rights of workers in both nations, while padding the lifestyle of the elite in both nations, further sharpening the seperation of classes and crippling individual empowerment.

Whats the answer?

Stop trading with nations entirely, that do not recognize individual rights that all humans have naturally, until their withdrawl from the market cripples their ability to support their people, forcing the people to recognize their rights, and invoke their natural right to take arms and shed their nation of the restrictive governments that falsely claim to represent them. (all communist nations) Free-markets depend on equal access to the individual. If a nation doesn't meet that requirement, how could it possibly be a free-market if included?

Nono said: A state that lacks democratic legitimacy -- such as the office of the president at present in the US -- lacks, well precisely, legitimacy.

No dispute there.

Nono said: By the way, wealth-redistribution measures such as minimum wage very frequently take money out of the pockets of people who haven't earned a damned thing and place it -- a modest amount anyway -- in the pockets of people who were previously being screwed for their labour.

That is a totally subjective statement, based without any facts or links to the point you are making, or showing reasoning for arriving there.

Nono said: Which brings us back to the problem of defining property, i.e. to whom it really belongs.

Well I am all ears, so please enlighten me. Convince me I am wrong. Show me the empircal evidence, the historical backing of tried and failed systems.
Show me why I am so misguided, as you claim I seem to be.

[Osborn F Enready]

Chaossaber said: Shame about those blanket statements from the Supreme Court then. Like Tennessee v. Garner. Better luck next time.

In case you haven't noticed, many of use are against those ruling by the Supreme Court, and the validity of the Supreme Court as it stands today.

Your point?

[brien]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Angry tourists break mugger's neck - Yahoo! News Well, I guess guns aren't absolutely necessary. But, in such a situation I would prefer one. But, at least justice was served. Keith

Sounds to me like the perp was accidently killed. This ordinarily would be manslaughter but since the perp was in the act of commiting a crime, I am not sure charging anyone with manslaughter is appropriate. It is a decision usually left up to the D.A.

People have a right to their own self defense. It is unfortunate the perp was accidently killed which pre-empted his day in court.

As for justice being served, usually Justice in the US involves a judge and a jury of one's peers, coupled with competent legal representation.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Shame about those blanket statements from the Supreme Court then. Like Tennessee v. Garner. Better luck next time.

Decisions on the responsibilities and powers of law enforcement officers don't generally apply to the citizenry.

The argument cited in Tennesse v. Garner cites 4th amendment seizures, which apply to government agents acting in official capacities. Such Constitutional restrictions to not apply to individual citizens. Other laws apply in such cases.

Back to state law regarding the use of deadly force. This one doesn't apply.

Keith

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: brien Sounds to me like the perp was accidently killed. This ordinarily would be manslaughter but since the perp was in the act of commiting a crime, I am not sure charging anyone with manslaughter is appropriate. It is a decision usually left up to the D.A. People have a right to their own self defense. It is unfortunate the perp was accidently killed which pre-empted his day in court. As for justice being served, usually Justice in the US involves a judge and a jury of one's peers, coupled with competent legal representation.

This did not happen in the US. It occurred in Costa Rica.

As to "justice being served" there are at least two ways to look at justice. One is in the formal and legal sense, in which you are correct, that is the way things usually occur in the US. The second is in the moral and philosophical sense. That was to which I was referring.

Keith

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Decisions on the responsibilities and powers of law enforcement officers don't generally apply to the citizenry. The argument cited in Tennesse v. Garner cites 4th amendment seizures, which apply to government agents acting in official capacities. Such Constitutional restrictions to not apply to individual citizens. Other laws apply in such cases. Back to state law regarding the use of deadly force. This one doesn't apply. Keith

Police are given higher levels of actions than the citizenry. When you attempt to use this level of action that is delegated to the police it's considered vigilantism.

Read the ruling. Only the police can fire on someone when they have "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." If he's unarmed he certainly doesn't.

Quote by: Osborn In case you haven't noticed, many of use are against those ruling by the Supreme Court, and the validity of the Supreme Court as it stands today.

So because you personally are against it, that has any bearing on whether or not it would be legal to shoot an unarmed man who assaulted you?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 So because you personally are against it, that has any bearing on whether or not it would be legal to shoot an unarmed man who assaulted you?

Uh, I don't think that is what he was trying to say.


His contention would be that because the Supremem Court has been stacked by 157 years of currupt appointments, that the law might not be legitimate.


I can't believe more people are not suspicious of the political appointment sytem when the people making those appointments are so clearly corrupt.

[ZNFYRH]

Regarding this story, I found more details.

The tourists were a group of seniors on a cruise. They had left the boat for an all day "excursion". They were riding on a bus when the bus was stopped by the robbers.

From what I understand, there were three robbers. They took up positions on the bus. All three were armed. Two were mobbed by the seniors and the third was put in a headlock by a 70-year old former Marine who tried to subdue the robber but when the robber fought back it caused a neck break.

The Marine said that he didn't intend to break the robber's neck, but when the robber moved a certain way, he basically did it to himself.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Nono I believe in regulation of an inherently unstable entity.

LOL! If it's inherently unstable, how can it be regulated?

Sorry, but I just couldn't let this one pass by.

- Rob

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Uh, I don't think that is what he was trying to say.

Maybe not, but that's how it came off in relation to Keith claiming that he could legally gun down an unarmed man who may or may not have assaulted him.

[Osborn F Enready]

Chaossaber said: So because you personally are against it, that has any bearing on whether or not it would be legal to shoot an unarmed man who assaulted you?

I could care less about legal. I do what the situation dictates, to protect my rights, damn the consequences!

How much clearer could I be than saying I would rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6?

We are all individuals, we all have an option to act, or not.

I choose to act in protection of rights, and let the details be sorted out later.
If justice isn't served in that court trial by a jury of my peers, I still have the right to resist in defense of my own rights, via appeal, counter-suit, or revolt.

Justice is decided by the people, who make up the jury, not the law.

The law is the guideline, the people are the decision makers.

Chaossaber said: Police are given higher levels of actions than the citizenry. When you attempt to use this level of action that is delegated to the police it's considered vigilantism.

It's not supposed to be that way, and we all have a right to protect ourselves, and our property. You agree with the kangaroo courts findings, and precedents. Others don't.

Chaossaber said: Read the ruling. Only the police can fire on someone when they have "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." If he's unarmed he certainly doesn't.

Thats up to a jury to determine, chief. Assuming anything less is absurd.