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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (44944)	1/26/2006 4:00:17 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"I don't think that means that constitutional use of force is automatically not capricious" How could force exercised within the boundaries of the Constitutional framework be legally capricious unless the Constitution allows for capriciousness? "Deadly force is only legally allowed in limited situations" I believe that was my position from square one, Tim. I believe I made a point of noting that income tax evasion (for instance) does not merit the legal sanction of deadly force. However, if you were threatening to kill my wife and were holding her with a knife, I would be entitled to use deadly force against you. So would a policeman, for that matter. "Which is another way of saying that deadly force is behind the enforcement of laws" You are not using logic. Almost all laws may be violated without inviting deadly force. The ONLY violations which invite the use of deadly force are potential violations which place human life in immediate and probable danger. Only for these specific acts is deadly force a permissible and legal action. "Also apparently Laz's initial argument with you was about the use of force in general not specifically deadly force" Perhaps you should avail yourself of a clearer understanding of what is apparently a misperception on your part: Message 22103008 Also, it was you who entered the discussion with a specific quote and response to "deadly force". It must be more than obvious to both of you that we do not disagree on the Constitutional Right to compel and enforce lawfulness and protection of Constitutional Rights. Our disagreement was strictly on the issue of "deadly force". Lazarus brought that issue up and I have been expounding the position that deadly force may not be used either as a punishment or as a remedy--but only to prevent loss of human life. All other violations of law and misconduct MUST be processed with respect to our rights and freedoms. I contrasted this with totalitarian regimes where deadly force may be used at the whim of dictators and tyrants. To repeat, "Deadly Force" is only a legal option in the prevention of extreme violations of law where human life is at risk. And please note that in such instances of risk to life, deadly force is permissible to ALL citizens--including police officers enforcing the legal laws. Indeed, it is not so much the enforcement of anything as it is the PREVENTION of calamitous consequences. Deadly Force is used to PREVENT a probable act of illegality. It is NEVER used to enforce or to punish. It is used to prevent the probable occurrence of a calamitous assault. If deadly force is used concomitantly to a legal process of enforcement, then it is exactly that--a concomitant event necessitated by defense of self or others. Deadly Force is strictly to PREVENT probable calamitous acts. It is a not a prescribed part of law enforcement or punishment and would be severely punished if used in either of these capacities. For instance (in case you are still unclear on this), pretend that police attend to a house to arrest somebody for tax evasion. Pretend that the man puts a knife to the throat of his wife. Pretend that the SWAT team is called and manages to put a bullet through his head on the probable grounds that he is intending and likely to take her life. This is "deadly force". It has nothing at all to do with prosecuting the Income Tax laws. Nor does it have to do with punishing a convicted felon. It has to do with self defense and defense of others which is in the same category. So you see, Tim: you can break the law till Hell freezes over. You can refuse to pay taxes, you can disobey the police, you can assault them and spit on them; you can commit buggery, sodomy, incest, and rape. Deadly force will never be used against you for these things--either to punish you or to enforce your arrest or detainment. You will only forfeit your life if civilians OR police have reasonable and probable grounds to believe they are preventing a fatal action on your part. That seems damn reasonable to me. Now I am going on holidays in a few hours so I will not see any responses for 11 days or so... (correction...I may not find time to respond immediately).