Should deadly force be permitted as a response to a civil rights violation?

[musher]

Ellery writes:

What a better place this country would be if this were more than just an impractical ideal.

Oh it's practical enough, it's just that a situation like a no-knock on the wrong address more often ends up with the defender losing the battle than the aggressor.

The right to self-defense doesn't carry a guarantee of victory, just a ticket for the ride.

 

[JohnBT]

"Take Ruby Ridge as the primary example."

They resisted didn't they?

And it worked out so well for them you'd like to make it the law of the land?

John

 

[joab]

After Reading this on another forum I might want to amend my position

 

[FedDC]

That's old news and is being beaten to death again and again on this very forum. So far, that guy from "Wisconsin gun owners" just keeps quoting himself and writing about his personal oppinions, not presenting evidence.

 

[Bill St. Clair]

As long as we have a court system where you are guaranteed a speedy public trial by a jury of your peers (can you say voir dire), as long as the so-called "law" doesn't penalize selling a plant with the death penalty (it does? Oh my!), I'll go along with the arrest and fight it in court.

Once the Busheviks make routine the spiriting away of political criminals to incommunicado prisons, I will have to consider any arrest to be an attempt at armed kidnapping by a criminal gang, and respond appropriately.

I sure wish I didn't have to go there, but that's the nature of the evolving "justice" system in Amerika.

 

[standingbear]

 

[4v50 Gary]

It all depends on what type of civil right and the type of violation. Deprivation of life without due process is certainly one worth fighting for. On the other hand, because a restaurant won't sell you a soda isn't just cause for scorching the land, salting the earth and ensuring that no two stones stand together.

 

[tcsd1236]

Some background, historically force was permitted in resisting unlawful arrest, would you support a law which codified this by permitting deadly force in response to unlawful arrest. Unlawful arrest would be an arrest either not based on probable cause or an arrest based on an unconstitutional law.

No. You already have every wingnut out there feeling that their rights are being violated everytime you deal with them, and half of them have no idea what is legal or what is not legal. To somehow give them a legal "out" in their mind that allows them to use violence will cause all sorts of problems. If they have a valid complaint, they can take it to court where the facts can be determined and hopefully their lawyer can sit next to them and talk some sense into them.

 

[joab]

Not old not dead

FedDC just because you choose to end your participation does not end the discussion.

 

[FedDC]

Never said I was ending anything...