Defending the Truth

Really!!!, well I may not agree with your politics, but I've got heaps of respect for your courage, LOL.

Je and David, you both may have misunderstood exactly what I mean on my last post. I have never, ever stated that a person does not have the right to protect themselves. They do, and they should. I said that they have a responsibility to ascertain as to whether their lives are truly in imminent danger before they take the extreme step in applying deadly force. I know there are people who feel strongly against this;for their own reason, but whether we like it or not; it is the law. And that is the sovereign (your phrase, Jen) thing that rules all of us in America. There has even been cases where a homeowner was convicted for shooting a burglar as they were leaving the home after the burglary. How did this happen? Because the lifes of the homeowner was ruled to be not in imminent jeopardy at that given point in time. I admit; this such issue is a hot-button issue with most people-I am one of those people. It will require (at least here in America) a more defined interpretation of the law. While we may have differing views on this or any other topic; I am definitely not crazy.

The problem here gets back to whether it’s reasonable to allow law abiding citizens to protect their property,….IMO, they should be able to….and just so you know, I can’t imagine I’d shoot someone running off with a few of my DVD’s, but being caught inside my house is a very dangerous spot.

I could live with the idea that we don’t have the right to shoot at fleeing crims{property theft}, but IMO, if someone enters private property, especially if they “look the part”, then they risk the homeowners wrath, and most likely won’t get any sympathy from me.

Another thing to consider is what if this burglar ended up killing or seriously harming someone in the commission of his crimes, we can’t assume this person has noble intentions apart from his regard for theft.

I strongly suspect that if everyone knew everyone had guns and were free to use them to protect life and property, then home invasions, car jacking and the like would reduce dramatically.

Remember, if someone shoots someone for no good reason, then they’re in the shit as well.....but ideally, people should obey basic moral laws, ie, don’t harm or distress innocent people in anyway.

Disarming innocent law abiding people merely favours the predators, so I’m all for people having and using a variety of weaponry for the purpose of self defence.
It would be interesting to hear what Jenifer Johnson thinks about fleeing crims that have only stolen property......fleeing murders/rapists face the firing squad.

Very good, David. I agree with most of your statement; especially that people should obey basic moral laws. Self defense is a viable argument to explain the killing of another; but only if it can be proven that that person was trying to kill you. But how can we justify killing someone because they "look the part"? This is why there must be something that defines self-defense a lot better than that. Does this mean, say, that it would be justifiable for a taxi driver to pick up a customer in a low income housing neighborhood; and because the customer had tattoos and wore baggy pants, to shoot him outright?
Personally, In your example of a burglar with a couple of CD's in your home, could you not just as easily shoot to wound or incapacitate him? Why bother yourself with all the legal rigamarole and trouble that is sure to follow because you thought you knew the intracacies of the law; and risk the knowledge and punishment that you face when you find out that maybe you didn't.
I personally have no problem with personal firearms; or even guns in general. You will see many posts in the Gun Control forum in which the 2nd amendment is quoted. Very shortly, the US Supreme Court is going to make a landmark interpretation of that Amendment. Hopefully, this will clearly define for America this most quarrelsome debated subject.
We use lethal injections, or the gas chamber for executions here these days. I think; but am not positively sure that the firing squad is what the military uses to carry out executions in certain situations.

garysher wrote:The Kentucky Court of Appeals, in 1822, wrote, concerning the Right to Keep and Bear Arms: "The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms."

Professor Edward S. Corwin, a historian of the Constitution of the United States, wrote an essay entitled The "Higher Law" Background of American Constitutional Law. It was reprinted in 42 Harvard Law Review (1928-1929). In this work he recalled the names of the great thinkers of their time: Demosthenes, Sophocles, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, Ulpian, Gaius, John of Salisbury, Isidore of Seville, St. Thomas Aquinas, Bracton, Fortescue, Coke, Grotius, Newton, Hooker, Pufendorf, Locke, Blackstone. Clinton Rossiter, who wrote a prefatory note to the essay, noted: "It should do us good to remember at the height of our power and self-esteem that our political tradition and constitutional law are late blooms on a sturdy growth more than two thousand years old and still vigorous."

It is recorded: "There are certain principles of right and justice which are entitled to prevail of their own intrinsic excellence, altogether regardless of the attitude of those who wield the physical resources of the community. Such principles were made by no human hands; indeed, if they did not antedate deity itself, they still so express its nature as to bind and control it. They are external to all Will as such and interpenetrate all Reason as such. They are eternal and immutable. In relation to such principles, human laws are, when entitled to obedience save as to matters indifferent, merely a record or transcript, and their enactment an act not of will or power but one of discovery and declaration." Professor Corwin noted that this concept was translated into our Ninth Article of our Bill of Rights, which declares: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The "Higher Law", or "Natural Law", is founded upon the principle: "Men do not make laws. They do but discover them"; from which follows: "An unjust law is not law". Cicero was quoted on his conception of the Natural Law: "True law is right reason, harmonious with nature, diffused among all, constant, eternal; a law which calls to duty by its commands and restrains from evil by its prohibitions... It is a sacred obligation not to attempt to legislate in contradiction to this law; nor may it be derogated from nor abrogated. Indeed by neither the Senate nor the people can we be released from this law; nor does it require any but ourself to be its expositor or interpreter. Nor is it one law at Rome and another at Athens; one now and another at a late time; but one eternal and unchangeable law binding all nations through all time..." It is later noted: "We are born for justice, and right is not the mere arbitrary construction of opinion, but an institution of nature"; from which follows: "...that which is established on account of utility may for utility's sake be overturned"; and: "...unconstitutional statutes are unconstitutional per se, and not because of any authority attaching to the court that so pronounces them."

Professor Corwin wrote of the Roman practice of incorporating into their statutes a saving clause "to the effect that it was no purpose of the enactment to abrogate what was sacrosanct". Legal maxims were developed, some of which governed the legislative process; one such maxim "prohibited the proposal of any law containing two or more matters not germane."

The term "sovereignty" has been defined by some as declaring that: "The King can do no wrong", meaning that the King can do whatever he wishes and the subject must obey. Often, in the course of a hearing in a federal court, a prosecutor is heard to say that the government is "sovereign" and cannot be touched by the people. The "Higher Law", or "Natural Law", dictates that this popular phrase is analyzed to read that the King can no more do a wrong than any one of his subjects.

John Adams had written that in his observation of the systems of the laws, ancient and modern, "the liberty, the unalienable, indefeasible rights of men, the honor and dignity of human nature, the grandeur and glory of the public, and the universal happiness of individuals, were never so skillfully and successfully consulted as in that most excellent monument of human art, the common law of England." He wrote that these laws were confirmed by successive administrations of power, and confirmed also by Magna Charta. The Common Law of England was based upon the customs of the people, and what was reasonable.

Confirmation of the law is hardly a new concept. It is written in the book of Nehemiah, in the Bible, that Ezra, the scribe, had assembled the Israelites in the square in front of the Water Gate and read to them from the Book of the Law of Moses; and they wept at how far they had strayed from this.

Edward I, in his Confirmatio Cartarum of 1297, ordered the justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers of the law to acknowledge the Great Charter as the Common Law of the Land; and that any judgment contrary to this was to be "holden for nought". Archbishops and bishops were to pronounce the sentence of the Great Excommunication against all those who by deed, aid, or counsel, proceeded contrary to the Charter, or in any point transgressed it. Persons who were illegally imprisoned by sheriffs were given complete recovery as if the authors of the wrong had no official capacity whatever.

Law is just another word for truth that establishes moral authority.

The Chain of Authority.

1) Truth is God, Anti-GOD is Falsehood. Truth always has the moral authority.
2) Laws of Nature.
3) Individual is born with inalienable rights and sovereignty; where no one has dominion, control or authority, over another.
4) The basic axiom of right or wrong: NO one has the right to violate another's individual rights and sovereignty.
5) Right to contact - a mutual agreement - every action requires an offer and acceptance.
6) Mutual agreement between individuals in order to protect their individual rights and sovereignty through a confederation by compact or union.
7) A violation of the agreement is not only treason, but it is a crime against humanity.
8 ) An understanding of one's individual rights and responsibility upholding personal agreement makes for a civilized society.

Nuttyjoe.

Just to clarify, when I said firing squad, I was referring to fleeing rapists and murders, ie, the homeowner can shoot at them.

I don’t think there’s a perfect solution to this problem, but one thing I’m certain of, is that I don’t like the idea of limiting the homeowners options for the sake of the criminal, IOW, if an imperfect law means that crime drops significantly, then I’m in favour of it, and various what if’s by and large must be ignored otherwise the scale tips towards the crims.

Under no circumstance should you break and enter into a property, if you chose to, then you’re at the mercy of the occupants, especially if you’re inside the physical structure.

I think most people would agree that there might be a few tragic cases initially, and perhaps now and then, but our goal should be the protection of life and property of law abiding citizens, not being concerned whether or not we’re being excessive towards those who’ve rejected basic moral laws….and remember, the occupants may decide not to shoot on some occasions, but it’s totally up to them.

My apologies, sir; on my misinterpretation on what you were implying about firing squads.
For the record; I agree that there is no perfect solution to this problem. I think we all have a differing opinion on what "imminent danger" (or jeopardy) to one's own life defines. Self-defense in such a situation is even harder for others to define and decide upon for a victim in such a situation. This, in itself, is why gun control laws really need to be clearly defined; as they work both ways- as you've pointed out. The worst possible scenario I can think of is a potential victim being too caught up with deciding if he (or she) would be legal in repelling an home invader; only to enhance the own danger to their life. This is why I suggest that those who choose to shoot; to shoot to wound or incapacitate. But I never think you do not have the right to protect yourself; Jen. I also apologize if you took my words to have suggested such.

Nutty.

I get the feeling that most people either agree with the idea of lethal force for self defence, {and it’s gotta be lethal force otherwise we’re back to giving the crims concessions, ie, once you decide to shoot, aim for the largest body part, rather than try and wing them}….and of course, the home owner can choose not to own a gun, not to fire one, and they could also buy a small calibre gun if they weren’t keen on the brute power of shotgun.

But in my view, if someone has broken and entered, and the incident even remotely ends up looking and sounding like self-defence, then IMO, the home owners culpability is zero.

We’re then left with the task of coming up with a reasonable approach to dealing strictly with property theft….and I’m once again inclined to leave it to the occupant to decide.