"Threaten Me Or My Family..."
"White talks about his "God given" and "law appointed" right to use lethal force in self-defense, confusing natural rights with government privileges not just because he's probably not that intelligent but also because of the systematic effort in this country by the establishment to confuse rights and privileges while curtailing natural rights like the right to bear arms from self-defense as much as they can get away with."
Self-defense is more about a natural survival instinct shared with animals. If you think that's not God-given, I'm still easy.
I'm a Constitutional Libertarian with a high degree of tolerance. And proud of it.
After Christmas dinner, some relatives and myself spoke of many things last evening. One thing briefly mentioned was a stupid thing to protest-- a cop shooting a punk who was trying to shoot him, regardless of race, creed or color.
Like my grown daughter said, "If I have a gun and someone points a gun at me, I'm gonna shoot."
My son would agree. He is always packs a pistol. (We live in the free state of Alabama).
1. I called 911 because I've been burglarized. I hear a noise and I go outsized with my gun. Cops arrive and point guns at me. I lay down my weapon and raise my hands, all the time yelling "I called you!" Then I do whatever the cops tell me to.
2. I'm in a grocery store. Cop or someone dressed like a cop starts shooting everyone. I'll shoot the cop or whatever he is. Freaking self-defense!
3. Maybe I just listed the two extremes. I could go on and on.
4. Wild card. It's Year 2020 and I'm in a revolutionary army shooting at gun-grabbing uniformed useful idiots of a Marxist Tyrant. I'm sure the he or she will be a DINO. Democrat In Name Only.
OMG! I'm a dino over the lower-cased clan!
My pistol permit allows me to keep my weapon concealed. I also prefer the element of surprise.
I kinda agree with CircuitGuy and ewv. While I think that the cop is deliberately being inflammatory in his remarks, the substance of them: "I will defend myself and my family with lethal force." is right on point. And the fact that he mentions carrying his gun in the theatre should be a relief to the other folks watching the movie - if someone else goes berserk and starts shooting at Batman, then he is there to take out the joker.
I think that the article was poorly constructed and that the comment that the cop was not very intelligent was intended as an empty put-down.
What I think: The cop should shut up; Reason should have a talk with the article's author.
Jan
I would like to chat with the cop - sometime when he is not venting angry slogans online.
I think that labeling him as stupid is egregious.
We have disagreed before; it is fun arguing with you (though you always leave a few bruises for me to admire afterwards). I do not think either of us expect total agreement from anyone - it is actually healthy to rationally disagree and get a sense of perspective on an issue (that you cannot get talking to your own brain).
Jan
You mention the number of times that cop TV shows demonstrate that LE's break the law to get the bad guy. This implies that cops are 'allowed' to break the law, that the Law is beyond the law. We both agree that this is bad. On the other hand, if the people watching the shows come away with the impression that the Law is, as the saying goes '...more like guidelines...' as far as they personally are concerned, then I do not think this is all bad. Let me be clear: I am not an anarchist, but I do feel that we are in a Catch 22 situation where 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' but there is a proliferation of tens of thousands of laws, regulations, and directives that apply to each of us. I have a high regard for the Constitution; I do not think that this proliferation of laws is what the authors of the Constitution imagined it would happen. Many of the multitude of laws etc are not Constitutional, but there is no way to 'clear the board' of them - the only way to function is to blithely go on one's business, hoping no one notices/cares; flying under the radar of society, as it were. This comes down to disobeying the law on a regular basis.
Indeed, I would go so far to say that those people who are specifically empowered by society to use violence, eg LE, need to be the people who are most meticulous in observance of the law. But the officer did not say anything that was illegal or unConstitutional. He just said that he would use legal (and god given) power to do what was right - to protect his family and other people. He would do this off-duty, at the movies. I am seeing him as someone who is standing on 'my' side.
I agree that our caving to TSA is not comprehensible from the point of view of our Constitutional freedoms. Judge Napolitano was quoted today (other thread) as saying that the 4th Amendment is now defunct - per the NSA's ability to keep info on all of us for 5 years. I am not comfortable with that.
I agree that the police force must be constrained by the Law. They cannot represent the Law without having that moral altitude. (This is an idealistic statement of great hope and little reality, unfortunately. But I have posted on this before.)
So, if the cop's statement is, "I am beyond the law and I can do whatever I want." then we agree that he needs to be shut down. If he is saying, "At least I can still carry a gun around with me, and I will protect people with it." then I think he is a guy who is on my side.
Oh. Thank you for the great discussion, khalling.
Jan
When he said "god-given" I assumed he meant the natural birthright of all people to defend themselves. I could read it in a sinister way, though, where he's saying a god gave a select few the right to decide who lives or dies.
I also notice he says "right to kill you" instead of stop you. If someone threatens our life, we have the right to kill them only as a collateral consequence of stopping them. Maybe my bullets stops him and kills him. Maybe by luck it hits leg, his gun goes flying, and the threat is neutralized. My right to self-defense at that point does not permit me to keep shooting. I don't get to decide who lives or dies.
His comment about having his gun ready for people who feel they can't breathe or their lives matter is asinine. It sounds like he's saying he's ready to kill people not in self-defense.
The part about self-defense being a human birthright recognized by the law seems right to me though. What's wrong with this?
The department did the correct thing by giving him time to cool down and regain control. I also assume he's being given instruction on appropriate public statements and useful methods of maintaining his composure.
Before getting too judgmental and self-righteous, we should try to imagine our own reaction if our children told us they'd been threatened on social media posts. How many can honestly say they'd remain cool and collected?
That being said, do I think there's an overuse of special tactical teams? Absolutely. Part of that is due to the fact that lone officers are sent on patrol, when in past years, they traveled in pairs. If a lone officer runs into a problem, the only possible response is to call for backup, which is too often heavily armed SWAT. Maybe someone should rethink the comparative cost of more less heavily armed officers versus fewer, military style cops.
walk in the young man's moccasins for a while and it will start to make more sense.
The question is “If you have the choice between your life and the death of another then which do you choose. AR has addressed this subject many times and the answer involves the Liberal philosophy of advocating Self Sacrifice (be happy to pay your taxes and let the government make you a slave to the state). Should you let yourself and your family suffer harm from an attacker or take out the attacker?
The real and comprehensive problem, which we see over and over, is that even those who vaguely appeal to natural rights and loose language referring to rights as "god-given" often have no clue as to what rights are and why we identify and validate them as rights. "God did it" is not a meaningful explanation for any of it.
But the author also assumes that liberals are deliberately confusing natural rights with government entitlements, which gives them too much credit. Most of them have no idea what the difference is, assuming that rights mean nothing but government entitlements based on some vague feeling of what people should have, and therefore have no means for deliberately confusing them in propaganda to others. Conservatives who don't know how to explain natural rights but appeal to them in slogans about "god-given" are not helping the general lack of knowledge.
The lack of understanding of natural rights is most likely the cause of the cop's formulation rather than liberals trying to confuse him on a subject they don't understand themselves.
If the right you are discussing requires that another person do something he wouldn't otherwise do, you don't have that as a right, you have it as a desire. Thus the "right to an abortion", the "right to housing", ad nauseum, are not RIGHTS, they are DESIRES. To fulfill them, someone must do something for you;even if you pay him; it is the element of force - even implied - that makes it illegitimate. To exercise your right to free speech, no one has to do anything [even listen]. and so on.
Rand said something on the order of "one person's want or need is not a blank check on my bank account."