Republicans to cut $4,000,000,000,000 over 10 years

[Seth]

Oh dear, it looks like the peanut gallery has lost all self-control and sense of "play nice" propriety.

[egbert]

Abdicating your role as a policeman empowers the police by giving them absolute power. And we all know what happens with absolute power, don't we?

If everyone in society does their duty to society by policing themselves and others, we need fewer police and we can give them less power, which protects our individual rights and liberties, which are in gravest danger when we give away our liberties to achieve a little temporary safety.

Damn right! Who needs the police when we can do it ourselves!

[Coito ergo sum]

Here's a clue for you: "The police are the people, and the people are the police, the police being only persons who are paid to give full-time attention to the duties incumbent upon all citizens in the interests of community safety and existence." Sir Robert Peel, founder of the London Metropolitan Police, the model for modern law enforcement.

The public have a responsbility to aid the police by supplying information and generally cooperating but it absolutely not the their role to uphold the law that is what the police are paid to do. There are volunteer police roles in the UK where you can be a policeman twice a month or so (no idea is that happens in the US).

When Gabrielle Giffords was shot, people took action immediately and did not hesitate. They tackled the guy and arrested him. It would have been abominable had they not, and merely ducked and waited for the cops. Patricia Maisch is a hero for doing what she did, and not some fanatic or "lynch" mob vigilante, as some are suggesting people are who do their civic duty...

Sure - nobody is advocating that people string people up lawlessly. However, by the same token, we ought not pretend that the police can prevent crimes. They can't and don't. If someone is breaking into your house, you have to either run and get away, or handle the situation. In all likelihood the police aren't going to get to your house until it's all over.

[MrJonno]

If someone is breaking into your house, you have to either run and get away, or handle the situation. In all likelihood the police aren't going to get to your house until it's all over

The police recommend you do not tackle them and escape if possible, through you do of course have the right to do so if you want. Criminal gets your tv you claim insurance

[Coito ergo sum]

If someone is breaking into your house, you have to either run and get away, or handle the situation. In all likelihood the police aren't going to get to your house until it's all over

The police recommend you do not tackle them and escape if possible, through you do of course have the right to do so if you want. Criminal gets your tv you claim insurance

The police recommend you do not tackle them and escape if possible, that's true - because people would hold them liable for damages if the police recommended that you tackle them and then got hurt.

Insurance won't buy you a new t.v. - you'll get the then current market value after the deductible is paid. Chances are, if all they took was your t.v., the deductible would be more than the value of the t.v. Plus, as we know, only the rich can afford insurance, and therefore until there is nationalized insurance for all, only the rich will get their tv's replaced.

[MrJonno]

The police recommend you do not tackle them and escape if possible, that's true - because people would hold them liable for damages if the police recommended that you tackle them and then got hurt.

Insurance won't buy you a new t.v. - you'll get the then current market value after the deductible is paid. Chances are, if all they took was your t.v., the deductible would be more than the value of the t.v. Plus, as we know, only the rich can afford insurance, and therefore until there is nationalized insurance for all, only the rich will get their tv's replaced.

Police recommend you don't tackle them as you (or them) is likely to get hurt when this is highly unlikely if you don't

Insurance normally gets you a tv better than your old one (as they generally come down in price) which is why faking loss is so common. Only the rich can afford insurance its a hell of a lot cheaper than a handgun or burgular alarm?

Its a numbers game there are times when the public interfering may save lifes but more often it will get people seriously hurt who wouldnt normally be

[Seth]

If someone is breaking into your house, you have to either run and get away, or handle the situation. In all likelihood the police aren't going to get to your house until it's all over

The police recommend you do not tackle them and escape if possible, through you do of course have the right to do so if you want. Criminal gets your tv you claim insurance

Urban police officials always recommend running away because they don't want to be held liable for telling people to fight back. But that advice always comes from the police brass and other bureaucrats who don't really give a fuck what happens to you, they just want to cover their own asses and protect their own power and privilege. You see, if most people were lawfully armed, and most people performed their duty and exercised their right to enforce the law, society would need fewer police.

Street cops, on the other hand, appreciate people who lawfully carry concealed weapons, in most places, because they like the backup. My county sheriff strongly recommends people arm themselves.

In the UK, it's pretty much illegal to stop a burglar or thief using physical force, and if you do, and you hurt him, YOU get thrown in jail and charged. That's a manifestation of socialist disregard for the rights and personal autonomy of the proletariat.

Around here, if you make an "uninvited entry" into my house with the intent to commit another crime inside, and I reasonably believe that you are offering to use ANY degree of physical force against ANY occupant of the home, no matter how slight, I can shoot you dead on the spot and be immune from both criminal and civil charges.

And I will...

That's why "home invasions" or "hot burglaries" committed when there are occupants in the house are quite rare in the US, and quite common in the UK.

[MrJonno]

In the UK, it's pretty much illegal to stop a burglar or thief using physical force, and if you do, and you hurt him, YOU get thrown in jail and charged. That's a manifestation of socialist disregard for the rights and personal autonomy of the proletariat

Absolute rubbish bar tieing them up after you have knocked them out then setting them on fire you can do just about anything including kill them if you think your life is endanger (it doesnt need to be just that a reasonable person would think so). What it doesn't mean is you can blow away a burgular carrying a tv out of the window.

[.Morticia.]

In the UK, it's pretty much illegal to stop a burglar or thief using physical force, and if you do, and you hurt him, YOU get thrown in jail and charged. That's a manifestation of socialist disregard for the rights and personal autonomy of the proletariat

Absolute rubbish bar tieing them up after you have knocked them out then setting them on fire you can do just about anything including kill them if you think your life is endanger (it doesnt need to be just that a reasonable person would think so). What it doesn't mean is you can blow away a burgular carrying a tv out of the window.

what it is is the recognition that people are more important than material goods and money, which is the quintessence of communist ideals

[Seth]

In the UK, it's pretty much illegal to stop a burglar or thief using physical force, and if you do, and you hurt him, YOU get thrown in jail and charged. That's a manifestation of socialist disregard for the rights and personal autonomy of the proletariat

Absolute rubbish bar tieing them up after you have knocked them out then setting them on fire you can do just about anything including kill them if you think your life is endanger (it doesnt need to be just that a reasonable person would think so). What it doesn't mean is you can blow away a burgular carrying a tv out of the window.

what it is is the recognition that people are more important than material goods and money, which is the quintessence of communist ideals

The "Castle Doctrine" law has nothing to do with material goods or money, it has to do with individual sovereignty and the right of the individual to be secure in his home. The right to kill someone who unlawfully enters your home and threatens to use force is based in the concept that a man's home is his castle, and he is entitled to absolute security there. It's not about stealing the TV, it's about the rights of the individuals who reside there to use whatever force is required to repel an invasion of their home.

If the thief is on his way out the door with the TV when you see him, you can't shoot him in the back as he runs into the yard. He has to be unlawfully INSIDE the residence, and he has to be committing, or intending to commit another crime other than the illegal entry itself (like stealing your TV) AND he has to offer any degree of physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant in order for the killing to be justified.

And that means if you are between him and the door and he tries to push past you to escape.

His only alternative to save his life is instant surrender, and that's what's intended by the law. Instant surrender of an intruder and absolute protection of the occupants of the home.

[MrJonno]

it has to do with individual sovereignty and the right of the individual to be secure in his home. The right to kill someone who unlawfully enters your home and

Well you obviously dont have unlimited individual sovereignty come to think about it I not even sure what that actually means but I do know you are bound to the same laws of society as everyone else whether you agree with them or not. Same with being secure in your home thats not an absolute right (in fact there arent any) and it certainly doesnt justfying killing anyone who enters it without your permission

[Coito ergo sum]

In the UK, it's pretty much illegal to stop a burglar or thief using physical force, and if you do, and you hurt him, YOU get thrown in jail and charged. That's a manifestation of socialist disregard for the rights and personal autonomy of the proletariat

Absolute rubbish bar tieing them up after you have knocked them out then setting them on fire you can do just about anything including kill them if you think your life is endanger (it doesnt need to be just that a reasonable person would think so). What it doesn't mean is you can blow away a burgular carrying a tv out of the window.

what it is is the recognition that people are more important than material goods and money, which is the quintessence of communist ideals

Where do you get this?

[Seth]

it has to do with individual sovereignty and the right of the individual to be secure in his home. The right to kill someone who unlawfully enters your home and

Well you obviously dont have unlimited individual sovereignty

Strawman. I said nothing about "unlimited" individual sovereignty.

come to think about it I not even sure what that actually means but I do know you are bound to the same laws of society as everyone else whether you agree with them or not.

True, but what's your point? The law in my society gives me an explicit right to be absolutely secure in my home against uninvited intrusion by criminals who threaten to use force. I very much appreciate that law.

Same with being secure in your home thats not an absolute right

It is an absolute right as against criminal intruders threatening to use force against an occupant.

and it certainly doesnt justfying killing anyone who enters it without your permission

It does in the 31+ states where the Castle Doctrine has been placed into the statutes, provided that the illegal entry meets the appropriate legal standard in the particular state.

As I said, in Colorado, the entry must be "uninvited," the trespasser must intend to or be committing some other crime inside (from burglary to assault or anything else), and the person doing the killing must "reasonably believe that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant." (emphasis added)

That's the law, so what's your beef? If you want such protection, demand that your legislators enact it.

[egbert]

In the U.S. you'd be right, because we, the People, have the right to keep and bear arms sufficient to put down a tyrant or overthrow a police state.

Interesting. When did you get the right to keep nuclear weapons, tanks, rocket launchers.....

[Seth]

In the U.S. you'd be right, because we, the People, have the right to keep and bear arms sufficient to put down a tyrant or overthrow a police state.

Interesting. When did you get the right to keep nuclear weapons, tanks, rocket launchers.....

Short of nuclear weapons, which are classified as weapons of mass destruction, the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to keep tanks, rocket launchers, artillery field pieces, howitzers, machine guns, hand grenades, etc. I have a friend in Tooele, UT, who owns all of the above. He owns the tank seen in the John Belushi movie "1941," numerous field artillery pieces, a dozen recoilless rifles, many machine guns, hand grenades, live explosive artillery rounds, hand grenades, and a flame thrower.

The only obstacles to owning such arms are one's ability to find a legal source for them, enough money to buy them, and a $200 tax stamp from the BATFE, which you get by filing the appropriate paperwork, submitting payment, and passing a background check.

Didn't know that, did you Sparky?