Subject:
|
Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 26 Jul 2003 05:13:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
701 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
Oh the book is obviously conservatively biased, but the basic information
pertaining to the Government successfully winning court cases which conclude
they have no obligation to respond to 911 calls and/or insure the safty of
specific individuals isn’t exactly hard to spin that way.
|
Indeed not. The courts have fairly routinely announced that the only time the
government is specifically responsible for you is when and if you are “in
custody” (i.e. “under arrest”) and even then they try to weasel out of
responsibility most of the time. Depending on the context, things like prison
rape might even be “encouraged” as a kind of laisser faire torture if the police
are leaning on you.
Cops represent the corporate interests of the city that pays their salaries, if
you are also helped in the meanwhile that is merely icing on the cake. Long gone
are the days of the common law sheriff that answered more directly to the
people...
While Mike seems hard-nosed in his position on the issues under discussion, I
also continue to have a lot of sympathy for the person whose home and life are
threatened by an intruder. I think Mike is asking for a certain reasonableness
or benefit of the doubt be granted towards the person defending him or herself
against a threat of unknown proportions. After all, we do have scenarios that
give the benefit of the doubt to the would-be intruder. But which of these
parties is acting out of turn -- why isn’t THAT party held to a stricter
standard of behavioral review?
As Chris has pointed out -- you are absolutely on your own. The idea that
anyone protects you before or after the fact is a mere illusion. And as I myself
have alluded to -- given the right context the police are just as apt to arrest
you as the intruder if they think you have done something illegal in defending
yourself.
You WILL be second guessed! Act accordingly.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
73 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
