Since when has a little thing like the constitution stopped them...

[munk]

That's it, Thomas. Dehumanize and then _____ _______ fill in blank.


I wasn't comfortable hearing it here and am glad it has been answered.

>>>>>>>>>>

The safest place to put all of you is in a jail cell.


>>>>>>>>>>>>

Am I the only one who has noticed the elector victor presidential candidate's face on TV before and after inoggoration? (sic) Before, the hope, the gratefulness at winning a tough campaign...afterwards, I don't know what each man is told in those 'presidential briefings'....but their eyes never look the same again.



munk

 

[Howard Wallace]

I think in a large part Communisim was done in by the fact that the people in those countries had access to MORE information via global communications.
...

I personally kind of feel like we had the fall of Communisim. And it really turned out the communists weren't really that bent on the fall of Western Civilization as we thought they were. They were a lot more stupid and disorganized than we thought. More intent on preserving the status quo than in Global Domination.

When communisim fell there was a whole segment of politicians, lobbyists, and industries that lost money. These guys were on the outs.

However with 9/11 it gave all those guys a golden opportunity to take the term "communisim" cross it out, put in "terrorisim" and start making money again. I'm not saying that there are not real terrorists out there who want to do bad things. There are. What I am saying is the people in power now are using the issue to push a political and economic agenda that is not necessarily related to reducing terror, but more on making money and keeping themselves in power just like the old Commies.

It's been enlightening to me to be able to spend time in Beijing and talk with a number of "old Commies." Aside from being educated and quite charming, they have a unique view on what communism is. I guess it's evolving just like our ideas of capitalism and democracy are. One conversation with a communist party member I remember particularly well. I noted that China did not seem to be adhering to the Marxist ideal of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The response was that they had modified the saying to meet the local needs. They used "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work." The new interpretation reminded me more of John Smith in Jamestown or Ayn Rand than what many of us think of as communism. Capitalist ideals are being integrated into the communist framework and a very powerful economy is emerging. This is an interesting time.

I think you are correct that the free flow of information has an awful lot to do with these new developments. I'm not sure they are correctly described as the "fall of communism" though.

While I have no problem with them trying to intercept terrorists, the way we debate the issues has changed in our country.

In general the way one gets elected or wins a debate on an issue is not so much on the merits of that issue, but rather by shifting the debate to whether the person you are disagreeing with is a good person. ...

This is called an "ad hominem" argument, and was identified as a logical fallacy millennia ago. I'm not convinced that this hasn't been used in politics for a long, long time. Even the educated who should know better fall prey to this fallacy. I think we are best off acknowledging this tendency as an aspect of human nature and engineering our systems so that they will function in spite of it. The controls the founding fathers built into our constitution, both the system of checks and balances between different branches of our government, and the bill of rights, are both effective devices in composing a stable government built out of imperfect (by nature) men.

That's why I get a little nervous when I see the executive branch evading judicial oversight, or laws as passed by congress, and when I see the protections in the bill of rights being eroded. When we become a government of men instead of laws, and when we discard parts of the system for seeming temporary convenience, then we will be exposed to real danger when the ugly side of human nature reasserts itself, as it always does.

 

[Fiddleback]

If a government employee is in your home, odds are pretty good that he was ordered to be there. In fact, despite all the drama, odds are he has a legal right to be there by warrent or exigent circumstances.

In fact, more likely the guy you discover prowling around your house will be an drugie looking for something to steal -- odds are he's under 25. (What? You ask for ID and only shoot him in the face if he is a government employee?)

In any event, the law -- society -- says you cannot shoot him in the face, whoever he is. But you do so anyway 'cause you have "rights" superior to the law. So you imagine. It's your "duty" to shot him in the face.

By parity of reasoning, it would be OK for his "family" to shoot you -- or your relatives -- in the face. No law. No legal rights. Just whoever can lay down the heaviest fire. If he was government, you will find that he has a large, well-armed "family" with a different concept of "duty."

That system of might-makes-right prevailed in the British Isles before William. There was no concept of 'crime." It was all personal. William legislated "morality" and made it stick. I have no desire to go back.

This post makes no sense to me.:thumbdn: First of all I am not a criminal, thanks for the suggestion , and there is no reason for the Govt to order someone into my home. Second I wouldn't ask for ID whether you are a spy, or a druggie, I'd feel like you are there when you shouldn't be, I'd feel like you are a threat to my wife and daughter, and I'd act. Don't come in unless invited please.:grumpy: Where have I said anything about myself being above the law? I live within the law, and have for most of my life with the exception of my dumbass teenage years and early twenties. I don't appreciate this rant Thomas.

Why would it be OK for his family to search me out, assuming I'm not breaking into their houses, and shoot me? How do you mean its not legal to shoot an intruder? I wasn't declaring war on anyone, but if I shoot an intruder, and his family wants vengance, so be it. If they come into my home where I am ready to die to protect my wife and daughter, I'll take a few more of their line too. What in the HELL was this post about.:thumbdn: :thumbdn: :grumpy:

 

[Azis]

In Florida you can shoot to defend the issue is based on the word defend.

as for the issue of the thread (or so I think)
The check and balance system still works nothing wrong with extended court orders for certain targets, having a no check anything goes policy is harmful and even more so with this administration.

The book (or movie for those that don't read) 1984 is a good example of someone having the power to determine "what's best for you"

but then so was the Spanish inquisition

It's not that they can do it it's why they do it and what they do as well as who does it to who that is going to matter to all of us.

 

[munk]

Andy, you've spoken your question and vented your anger, so let's go from there, OK? (there is no reason to keep a cycle of anger, going, is there?)

Thomas was reacting to your strongly worded post. Andy, you expressed a very understandable outrage about government abuses. But when push comes to shove, I don't want to take any father from their family, and either do you.

You can protect your family. I think no knock search warrants can and are abused. I think good guys should carry identification. Sorry DIJ, but good guys should not be dressed like Ninja's if they come into my home. BUT, Andy, Thomas knows the guy in a uniform is someone's father or mother or brother. I know that too. Your comment about how the family could kiss your--- started this.

You are not a law breaker so anyone breaking into your home is making a mistake. But when the smoke cleared, you can't possibly tell me you would be happy about a dead person.

That is what this boils down to. We don't want it to get this far.

munk

 

[Fiddleback]

I apologize if my initial post was too strongly worded.

 

[munk]

Accepted- but it just scared me, was all.

Darn it Andy, we all want to kill the bad guys.



munk

 

[cavetech]

The Castle Doctrine addresses the right of a homeowner to shoot an intruder in his home. You can't be reasonable with someone you find in your home in the dark in the wee hours of the morning. You and your family may end up in a bad way if you do not act. The intruder is not there to tuck you in.

Even if you do have to act and protect your family, you will have to live with it the rest of your life. Possible PTSD and other issues.

My .02 worth

Thanks, Steve

 

[Thomas Linton]

I'm sorry, Andy, if I misunderstood your post. I thought you said you would deliberately kill any government agent you found spying on you in your house -- although I was not clear on how you would know the agent was spying or even if he or she was a government agent.

I did not notice in your original post any statement that you felt physically threatened, merely that the person would be shot for spying. (Change the facts, and you change the result.)

I did not notice anything about checking warrants or asking for ID.

I misunderstood about your willingness to face the consequences under the law, for which I apologize.

Let us speak of a theoretical person who announces in advance that he will "shoot in the face" any government agent he finds in his home spying. That theoretical person then kills such a person. If, as is statictically likely, the person killed were engaged in investigating a criminal offense, the shooter would probably be found guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. section 1114 or 18 U.S.C. section 1121 - intentionally killing a law enforcement officer in the performance of his or her duties.

That result follows whether the shooter was, in fact, guilty of the offense being investigated.

The statute does not require in so many words that the killer know that the decedent to be a law enforcement officer, which Congress could have easiliy provided ("known to be").

There is no defense under the statute that the government agent was tresspassing or lacked a warrant.

If the killing was found to be premediated, which is likely in view of the announcement in advance of the intent to kill, the killing would be murder in the first degree, punishable by death or life imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. section 1111.

If the killing was somehow not found to be premeditated, the killing would be murder in the second degree, punishable by life in prison.

The theory that one has the right to use deadly force to protect one's constitutional rights was advanced in the Kent State civil case on the basis of the old John Bad Elk v. United States case. (I know becasue I wrote the brief on that issue for the State.) That position was rejected by the federal courts. The law does not favor advancing one's civil rights by violence.

On the other hand, if the theoretical person shot a thief to death -- or a confused drunk who thought she had made it home, the shooter would have the opportunity to try and convince the system that he was legitimately in fear of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another. Many have suceeded. Others have failed. Announcing the intention to kill such a person in advance would make that task much more difficult -- if not impossible. That is why signs saying "Tresspassers Will Be Shot" are not helpful if a tresspasser is actually shot.

The comments about indifference to the reaction of the family of the decedent would not help with the defense or with sentencing, whether the decedent was a government agent killed "spying" or some other person.

Hopefully, we can agree that it is a very serious thing to take a human life, and that is true whether it is a government employee, a thief, a lost drunk, or a khukuri collector.

 

[45-70]

Fascinating Mr Linton.

I thought the following was interesting too:

Footnotes

Sec. 7139. An arrest may be either--
[ Footnote 1 ] By a peace officer, under a warrant;
[ Footnote 2 ] By a peace officer, without a warrant; or,
[ Footnote 3 ] By a private person.
Sec. 7141. If the offense charged is a felony, the arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night. If it is a misdemeanor, the arrest cannot be made at night, unless upon the direction of the magistrate indorsed upon the warrant.
Sec. 7144. The officer must inform the defendant that he acts under the authority of the warrant, and must also show the warrant if required.

 

[munk]

Nice post, 45/70



munk

 

[Fiddleback]

In my earlier post I had assumed we were speaking of an unknown person in my home, uninvited, and for an unknown reason. Also I had assumed I would have felt threatened by this intruder. Do I have to ID an intruder before decicing to defend my ladies? How is a person supposed to know whether or not an unidentified person is there legally? I am totally confused by this thread as to my right to defend my family at all, in any circumstance. (Not surprising because I am very confused as to whether a person has any rights at all in this country anymore.) So please clearly enlighten me. Am I allowed to defend my family with a firearm, under law, if I find an unknown person threatening us during the night?

When I was in college I was arrested, questioned, and while in hand cuffs and prone punched for something unfortunate I said to the cop. I was never read my meranda rights, and told by the officer that he didn't have to read them to me. I am confused and saddened by this thread which highlights the fact that our rights are empty words on paper. That, by the way, was my original point. I am sorry I offeneded earlier, please, Thomas, enlighten me further on my actual rights in this type of situation, and what is the Castle Doctrine?

 

[munk]

The Castle clause in most states allows you the benefit of the doubt- perhaps I've used a legal phrase innappropriately, but if an intruder is in your home, you have reason to believe your life is threatened and in most circumstances can use deadly force. I'm only on my first cup of coffee, and I'm not a lawyer, so I'm sure this will be said better later by others.

So, the only reason LE would be breaking in your door is because they have the wrong house. You would most likely not be convicted of shooting an officer under those circumstances. I'm talking about a kicked in door, a figure in the dark, etc etc. This is going to get sticky because if they start yelling LAW Enforcement and you shoot well....we need lawyers. ANd yes, anyone can break into your home and yell cop.

You know what, Andy, now that I've fully explained my own inexact understanding, I too, want Thomas Linton or anyonelse who can to enlighten us on this subject. Spectre? What of no knock searches and the Castle clause?


munk

 

[Fiddleback]

I just keep re-reading Thomas' post, and feel totaly helpless. I may as well sell off my weapons and assimilate with modern helpless America? Why were the NO people helpless, because they had no right to self reliance. Its the law? We now must suckle from the tit of Uncle Sam, he will keep us safe and happy? Do NOT think for ourselves? Do NOT act in our own self interest? Do NOT even mention you may for fear of future prosecution. Its really depressing to think about. Maybe the USSR really did win the cold war! (My apologies to our distunguished President Ronald Reagan for writing such blasphemy.)

I'm not a violent person. I do however want to keep my home safe, and I steel myself for the act just in case. I guess this is a detestable quality? I learned it from my grandaddy, whom I revere. I don't want to go to prison for defending myself. I don't want my posts here to serve as evidence in a trial against me. I am loosing not only my right to defend myself, but also my right to come here and speak from the heart. This is way worse than I imagined in my initial, "bad," post.

 

[munk]

I have a lot of pain about this topic. The most popular comic strip in England once upon a time was Judge Dredd. (one d or two?) IN a post apocalyptic future, police officers were police, judge, jury and empowered to carry out certain sentences. This saved time because resources were so limited. They used the phrase "Citizen' very derogatorily.

But you do have the right to self defense in your home in most states. At ease.



munk

 

[fixer27]

Thomas Linton is correct, there exists no right under law to shoot a police officer while in performance of there legal duties. We all remember the Waco raid, in the words of the judge "There exists no doctrine of the use of force that permits the shooting of agents no matter how they appear(Black masks, machine guns, hundreds of them etc.) one does have rights to defend ones home, but not against the "gubmit" agents. Assuming of curse you know that whoever is in your home is a govt agent, and that they are in performance of there lawful duties.

Many of the residents of NO and LA (during the riots in 92) found themselves disarmed at the hands of the local constabulary. The ironic thing is that while the "gubmit" can disarm you, they have no particular duty to help to protect you. It has been taken to court many times in some of the most outrageous situations imaginable and time after time the courts hve ruled that the "gubmit" has no duty to protect a specific individual person.

Look on the bright side, buy a large dog that is willing to defend your "castle" and let the doggie do your defending.

BTW if you can find a copy of "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross, it has your scenario in it.

 

[Howard Wallace]

Andy,

You have raised an issue it will do us all good to think about. I sincerely thank you.

If I catch a US spy in my home stealing my damn addressbook I'm going to shoot him in the face, and his family can kiss my ass.

It's unfortunate, but its reality. I'd still have to shoot to kill. I just don't think our Govt has the right, and I have the duty. I hope it never happens too.

...there is no reason for the Govt to order someone into my home. Second I wouldn't ask for ID whether you are a spy, or a druggie, I'd feel like you are there when you shouldn't be, I'd feel like you are a threat to my wife and daughter, and I'd act...

Tom Linton has provided a very good legal analysis of this situation, for free. It would be good to read his words carefully.

In my earlier post I had assumed we were speaking of an unknown person in my home, uninvited, and for an unknown reason. Also I had assumed I would have felt threatened by this intruder. Do I have to ID an intruder before decicing to defend my ladies? How is a person supposed to know whether or not an unidentified person is there legally?

I took a class in the use of deadly force. One of the things we considered was a situation in which a man and his wife are in a car wreck. The woman is seriously injured and the man goes for help. He knocks at my door but I don't hear him. (Perhaps I'm in the shower, or perhaps he is very weak.) He then enters my house in an attempt to phone for help for his dying wife. I come upon this scruffy looking, bloody individual. Legalities aside, am I morally justified in blowing him away? How will I feel after he and his wife die? What do you think the civil consequences might be? What will a jury find when their children sue?

Now we can consider legalities. Perhaps Thomas can help here. I suspect whether you would be brought up on charges in this hypothetical situation is pretty much in the hands of the DA. I suspect he will be guided by what a "reasonable person" would do in the same situation, whether or not they would feel their life or the life of a loved one was in danger.

There was a recent local case where a guy who lived in a modern development where the houses look similar came home drunk, and tried to enter the wrong house. His key didn't work so he went in the window. The homeowner shot and killed him. I don't believe the homeowner was charged.

When I was in college I was arrested, questioned, and while in hand cuffs and prone punched for something unfortunate I said to the cop. I was never read my meranda rights, and told by the officer that he didn't have to read them to me.

Similar things have happened to many people. I suspect many of the forumites could tell stories. The fact is that police are human, and they do not always obey the laws either.

I just keep re-reading Thomas' post, and feel totaly helpless.

I would highly suggest you take a course in the use of deadly force from a reputable shooting school. Or read Massad Ayoob's book, In the Gravest Extreme."

Andy, thanks again for raising this discussion. It is good to set ego and hurt feelings aside when we consider this very important topic.

 

[Thomas Linton]

In my earlier post I had assumed we were speaking of an unknown person in my home, uninvited, and for an unknown reason.

Andy, you were the only person who knew that hypothetical fact. Rather, you said he or she was a government spy. You said you intended to shoot government spies in the head if you caught them in your home. No one else supplied that scenario but you. Those facts are inconsistent with the person being "unknown."

What you say reveals your knowledge, intent, and state of mind. It can be the difference between a cheery little note in The Armed Citizen or execution.

Also I had assumed I would have felt threatened by this intruder.

We of course didn't know that assumption because you didn't say so. You needed to say it. Standing over their dead fellow-LEO (or the Mayor's drunken teenage son), the police will assume nothing in your favor.

Do I have to ID an intruder before decicing to defend my ladies?

No, but if he ID's himself or herself as law enforcement you need to abandon your express plan to shoot government agents in the head because you believe they are violating your right not to be "spied" upon. That is simply very practical advice.

How is a person supposed to know whether or not an unidentified person is there legally?

You are supposed to behave "resonably." Sorry, that's be best anyone can do. You then get judged by others who were not there. You look and listen and make a judgment call that has the capacity to change you life. This is NOT a situation you should happily contemplate or be eager to encounter. Avoidance is much more preferable, whatever the law privilges you to do.

Hopefully, the person is not wearing a jacket that has the big letters "FBI" on the front and back. "Hopefully" on several levels -- just some being that he or she is doubtless: a) a much better shot; b) wearing armor; c) accompanied by other well-armed good shots.

I am totally confused by this thread as to my right to defend my family at all, in any circumstance.

That is a question of Georgia law in your case. You would not drive a car without knowing the "Rules of the Road." Why would you even consider shooting a gun at another human being when you have no idea what the rules are in Georgia? As suggested, take a course. Your life. Your family. Your state.

Georgia law probably says that you can use whatever force is reasonably necessary -- up to deadly force -- to protect youself and others from a reasonably apprehended threat of death or serious bodily harm. It may allow some level of serious force to protect property. I don't know.

For what it's worth, you are better off than those in, for example, Florida. You have no duty to retreat to avoid confrontation in your home. In Florida they do have a duty to retreat (last I looked). But you should retreat if you can do so safely. Again, just practical advice.

(Not surprising because I am very confused as to whether a person has any rights at all in this country anymore.)

You have been reading too much Doomer Porn. You have more rights than in about any other country I can compare. However, it is your responsibility to be informed about those rights -- which do not include executing government "spies" when you encounter them in your home.

When I was in college I was arrested, questioned, and while in hand cuffs and prone punched for something unfortunate I said to the cop. I was never read my meranda rights, and told by the officer that he didn't have to read them to me.

So much worse has happened. And I have seen much worse. As noted, law enforcement personnel are imperfect tools for society, as are laws, courts, and lawyers.

By the way, there is no need for the police to "read you your rights" if they have no intention to use what you say against you. If they already have the evidence to convict, they can let you prattle away to Hell freezes over with no change in the outcome whatsoever on the crime they already have proven. TV is a poor source of legal education.

They had you, right?

 

[munk]

Lintonisms-

<<<<< TV is a poor source of legal education>>>

<<What you say reveals your knowledge, intent, and state of mind. It can be the difference between a cheery little note in The Armed Citizen or execution.>>>>


I laughed out loud. I admit it.


munk

 

[Fiddleback]

Thank you for the education Thomas. I think I will look up a local class. Or sell my pistols, one.

Yep, they had me. I didn't fight, or run, their case was solid, and the event was good for me in the long run. I had some bad..."habbits" then.

I am sorry my first post was so vague. I would never shoot someone as retribution for "spying." I thought it was implied that an unidentified person would be a serious threat. I can see now how, with your legal background, it sounded like a drunken rant. My intention is to never shoot anyone if possible. If the jacket said FBI I certainly would not feel threatened, as a law abiding citizen, but, would hopefully feel safe.

Howard, thanks for the words. I'm glad we had this one out too.