Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (459353)	9/16/2003 12:40:20 AM
From: MSI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

IMO, the one thing that prevents complete fascism is the fact that many households are armed and 90% of the police are emotionally unable to preemptively shoot their fellow Americans under orders. There are still those 10% who would shoot first and ask questions later. But a complete Ashcroftian takeover requires foreign troops in our neighborhoods, anonymity, black ski masks, no badge numbers, etc., to give the occupying force the gumption to shoot Americans in their homes. There simply aren't enough Waco / Ruby Ridge 10%'ers available for enough neighborhoods to make a difference. Luckily, Primakov, the Russian ex-KGB chief hired to manage local police structure for the Homeland Security team has access to lots and lots of foreign troops, if need be. impeach-bush-now.org

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (459353)	9/16/2003 2:16:16 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Re: "Well, that may be your opinion, and it may make sense to you, but it is not the law." Yes, it is. You are incorrect, wrong. You are not a liar(I hope, I feel like I'm on Candid Camera here, for heavens sake!). Re: "You cannot shoot at a well-identified police officer and later claim self defense - period." There is something seriously wrong here, since you provided a contradictory example yourself when you said , essentially, that self-defense could be a defense if one could prove an officer was crazy and attempting to commit murder. Re: "You may not like this truth, and you may wish you could gun down an officer who was, in your opinion, illegally serving a warrant or threatening your life. But it just ain't so." Who said anything about limiting anything to the opinion of the attacked party? Only you. I spoke of juries and judges, who would all agree with me, and the law of this land as it is written. You are wrong, and don't know it. Re: "You might have a defense if you could prove you didn't know the shooter was an officer, or you felt that the officer was not acting in the role of a peace officer." God, you try to be nice to me, and you are STILL wrong. Let me be the first to tell you that a person had better more than just "feel" the officer was not acting in the role of a peace officer, that person had better be able to prove the officer came in shooting with obvious apparant intent to kill(which, lol, would indeed serve the purpose of indicating he was not acting in the role of a "peace" officer!). Re: "Maybe, if you had some pretty extraordinary circumstances. I have never heard of such a case. Maybe if the shooter personally knew the officer, and there was some previous personal history..." No previous history is necessary for self-defense to be a just cause for killing an officer, nor is it relevant to the reality of the difference between good and evil - which guides our laws - whether you've heard of "such?(god only knows what your thinking at this point)" a case or not. I'd say its possible you are a liar simply baiting me, but when I read the silly way you fail to comprehend the defining difference between a lie and simply being wrong, I feel almost certain that no one knowing better would ever try to foist that one off on purpose. Re: "But a group of 50+ officers gone looney? Give me a break. No court in the land would believe a 'self defense' plea from a cop murderer in such a situation." One out of 50? One, who aimed to kill without asking questons is the only one dead. If the shoe is true and fits, the jury WILL wear it. You have a limited imagination, I'll note. Re: "...self defense' bunk..." I don't care who you imagine I'm reading or following(Phew!), nor how worried you are that they would lead me down some garden path to jail, but I'm telling you one last time...ACTS OF SELF-DEFENSE CAUSING ANOTHERS DEATH, WHEN TRUE AND NOT DEEMED A MORE EXCESSIVE FORCE THAN OUGHT BE NECESSARY TO QUELL THE SITUATION, IS ALWAYS LEGAL IN THIS COUNTRY REGARDLESS of THE TITLE OR POSITION OF THE DEAD PARTY. Look it up. Dan B