It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Looters Vs Lawful Protesters

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: greencmp

I don't believe in incremental measured defenses, they tend to encourage incremental measured assaults up to and including rape and murder though the expeditionary violation may have been merely against property.


I don't think I'm understanding what you're trying to say, so I don't want to respond as yet. Can you expand on your thoughts please?


To use the mugging example, when someone demands that you hand over your property you have no way to know what the next demand will be. Capitulating to the demand generally provokes further encroachment.

The mugger has voluntarily disclosed his or her intent to harm you even if it is only implied. Therefore, the only logical response is to kill them.

Interestingly, while it may seem better to wound or scare away an aggressor, in our legal construct you open yourself up to tremendous legal risk by doing any less because you are acting in a way that does not indicate that you feel that your life is under threat.

I will concede that the same response is merited in a libertarian society for the purposes of discouraging crime.




posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Black criminal is mistreated by police and gets dead.

Black protesters burn, loot and pillage businesses servicing their own communities.

Liberals support the looters, conservatives support the cops.

Media fans the flames.

Businesses don't want to be located in black neighborhoods. Black people feel disenfranchised, black youths reject the establishment. Black families can't find jobs in their neighborhoods, black kids grow up without role models. Blacks turn to crime.

A black criminal is mistreated by the police and gets dead...................rinse, repeat

It's been goin on since the 60's
edit on 28-4-2015 by hammanderr because: emoji



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: hammanderr
Black criminal is mistreated by police and gets dead.

Black protesters burn, loot and pillage businesses servicing their own communities.

Liberals support the looters, conservatives support the cops.

Media fans the flames.

Businesses don't want to be located in black neighborhoods. Black people feel disenfranchised, black youths reject the establishment. Black families can't find jobs in their neighborhoods, black kids grow up without role models. Blacks turn to crime.

A black criminal is mistreated by the police and gets dead...................rinse, repeat

It's been goin on since the 60's.


Here is your statement minus the racism.



Criminal is mistreated by police and gets dead.

Protesters burn, loot and pillage businesses servicing their own communities.

Liberals support the looters, conservatives support the cops.

Media fans the flames.

Businesses don't want to be located in neighborhoods. people feel disenfranchised, youths reject the establishment. Families can't find jobs in their neighborhoods, kids grow up without role models and turn to crime.

A criminal is mistreated by the police and gets dead...................rinse, repeat

It's been goin on since the 60's.


I think you will agree that it does not make sense or, at least, that it makes a heck of a lot more sense for the victim of the original criminal to have killed that criminal thus saving society from a resonant cyclical cascade failure.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: hammanderr
Black criminal is mistreated by police and gets dead.

Black protesters burn, loot and pillage businesses servicing their own communities.

Liberals support the looters, conservatives support the cops.

Media fans the flames.

Businesses don't want to be located in black neighborhoods. Black people feel disenfranchised, black youths reject the establishment. Black families can't find jobs in their neighborhoods, black kids grow up without role models. Blacks turn to crime.


A black criminal is mistreated by the police and gets dead...................rinse, repeat

It's been goin on since the 60's


The ugly truth is, that while in some communities, there are few Black dollars per person, the total amount of money spent by those in disenfranchised communities is quite substancial. These are not dollars that big businesses are willing to ignore.

It is not in the best inteterest of big businessess for there to be thriving, self sustained and wealthy communities among the disenfranchised, and they don't mind playing dirty to make sure this doesn't become a pattern.

History has proven this over and over.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp


I think you will agree that it does not make sense or, at least, that it makes a heck of a lot more sense for the victim of the original criminal to have killed that criminal thus saving society from a resonant cyclical cascade failure.



I see you like their plan.

Grab a drink. Pull up a seat. You won't have to wait too long for the carnêval to begin.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: marg6043

I was watching the news yesterday and they were saying that the nation of islam were the men in the suits. And I guess there respected in the community there.



NOI is a racist gang. They wear suits and talk a very violent streak. They are "respected" because if you don't respect them, you are in trouble.

OTOH, they are protecting their turf.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: hammanderr


Black criminal is mistreated by police and gets dead.


You are poisoning the well, kind sir. I would recommend looking up the CopBlock group and looking at the number of police atroticities that are becoming more and more common.

Cops involved in a no-knock raid broke into the wrong house and found an elderly woman sleeping on a couch with her 7-year-old granddaughter. The little girls jumped at the sound of her door being kicked-in and one of the officers killed her.

Bet you didn't hear about the story in the news.

Or the guy who had his hands up and out of the window of his car, the police tell him to step out of the vehicle, and as he begins to move the cops gun him down--even though he was obviously not armed.


There was the homeless man living out in the desert, not committing any crime other than being impoverished. The cops sat in their cruisers and made jokes about "shooting him in the dick." They got out of theor cars, harassed and killed him--even though he wasn't armed and they had him outnumbered.

There are too many cases like this to list and the media doesn't report on any of them.
edit on 28-4-2015 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Gives a whole new meaning to " Dressed To Kill ".

At least Andy was smart enough to make sure Barney's gun was empty of bullets.

Before the wolves come out to feed. Andy pulled his gun more than once, and he even shot a few people. Good cops sometimes "have", to shoot bad people. Hell. Good cops sometimes have to shoot " good " people.

That doesn't change the fact that we have way too many Barney's and not enough Andy's.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: hammanderr


Black criminal is mistreated by police and gets dead.


You are poisoning the well, kind sir. I would recommend looking up the CopBlock group and looking at the number of police atroticities that are becoming more and more common.

Cops involved in a no-knock raid broke into the wrong house and found an elderly woman sleeping on a couch with her 7-year-old granddaughter. The little girls jumped at the sound of her door being kicked-in and one of the officers killed her.

Bet you didn't hear about the story in the news.

Or the guy who had his hands up and out of the window of his car, the police tell him to step out of the vehicle, and as he begins to move the cops gun him down--even though he was obviously not armed.


There was the homeless man living out in the desert, not committing any crime other than being impoverished. The cops sat in their cruisers and made jokes about "shooting him in the dick." They got out of theor cars, harassed and killed him--even though he wasn't armed and they had him outnumbered.

There are too many cases like this to list and the media doesn't report on any of them.


Yes, the problem is abuse of power. The solution must address that abuse of power and not to whom that abuse is most widely perceived to most negatively effect.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Given your line of reasoning, apparently you do not know or understand the foundation of our law, nor the definition of inalienable rights. I do not have time to educate you.

In the end, though, you're right. We all have free will and can be as good or as horrid as we choose to be... and then face the consequences -- legal, moral or natural. If you want to hate on me for preferring to be good to people and live my life to a higher standard (in accordance with the law) you can. Obviously. And I can think what I will of those who put things before life.

But I'm not a cop. I won't be putting you in jail. All I have is an opinion. My opinion won't hurt you... but I already know you will hurt me. Thanks for the heads up!


"Right to property" is one of those inalienable rights and defense of one's property has been a part of common law for millennia. Only recently have some governments outlawed one's natural right to defend their property. The things you argue--natural law, common law have always supported the concept of defending your property from those who would victimize you. As for morality? IMHO it is more immoral to let a criminal free to victimize someone else when you had the means of stopping them right then and there.
edit on 28-4-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

You are very right, but as we seen certain evens has created a new trend now that if you defend yourself you are criminal and the criminals become the victims.

That is why natural laws of protection against those that try to harm us our property and our loves ones are now banned in favor of the ones victimizing us.

Who we should blame for what is happening? the law makers, the authorities, our selves? the lines has been blurred this days.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

I understand very well the philosophy of the natural rights of man.

The concept is such that a sovereign creator endowed us with our unalienable rights. Since, conceptually, a creator is of higher authority than any human power, then it stands to reason that any thing a creator endows us with cannot be taken away by human force.

My reasoning is sound, because given that context only you have the power to give up your natural rights--either directly or indirectly.


Actually, no, inalienable rights are absolute and non-transferable. I cannot give up or in any way transfer my natural inalienable rights -- either directly or indirectly. That's what makes them inalienable. You did not give me life... therefore, you have no right to take it away... as you said, any thing a creator endows us with cannot be taken away by human force.


Robbing someone of your own free will is an example of indirectly relinquishing your natural rights through the consent of your actions. The person being robbed is then endowed with the right to decide to use lethal force.


Nope. You have the right to defend your person and property. That may result in lethal force. However, you do not have a right to kill me or anyone. Hence the term "justifiable" homicide. If someone sticks a gun in your ribs and demands your wallet, you have every reason to fear for your life, and in your defense you may even kill a person without intending to. But if a child tries to grab your ice cream, are you automatically going to use lethal force to stop the child?


You're very good at dancing around questions. Law is arbitrary and is not an objective measure of morality, you never explained how you believe it is.


I don't dance around questions. You may not like my answers, or perhaps you don't understand my answers, just as I really don't understand what you are asking. Morals? Whose morals? Morals are arbitrary. Natural law, the law of the land, the foundation of our Constitution, is well established and thought out, so laws based on natural rights and Constitutional law are not in any way arbitrary.


I love life, but if someone attempts to rob me, I am going to assume they are dangerous and won't stop there and I will shoot to kill.


Like that child making a grab for your ice cream? It seems that you love your life and your things... but I see no love nor even respect for life itself.


Can't really jail me for having a different opinion.


No, but you can be jailed for murder if you shoot that child trying to take your ice cream.

And, for what it's worth, as I understand the definitions, robbery entails direct contact with the victim, hence a possible direct threat to your life, unlike looting, which does not.
edit on 29-4-2015 by Boadicea because: formatting



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: greencmp

I don't believe in incremental measured defenses, they tend to encourage incremental measured assaults up to and including rape and murder though the expeditionary violation may have been merely against property.


I don't think I'm understanding what you're trying to say, so I don't want to respond as yet. Can you expand on your thoughts please?


To use the mugging example, when someone demands that you hand over your property you have no way to know what the next demand will be. Capitulating to the demand generally provokes further encroachment.

The mugger has voluntarily disclosed his or her intent to harm you even if it is only implied. Therefore, the only logical response is to kill them.


Let's first define terms... looting is not a direct threat to one's person, whereas a mugging is. Obviously, if someone is threatening you with a weapon, then there is an obvious threat to your person. If/when it comes to that, you are defending your person -- not your things.

Of course, thanks to the Michael Brown debacle, we now know that anyone with arms is considered armed and dangerous... but what about a child trying to grab your ice cream and beating on your legs? Are you going to use lethal force to stop the child? That child is obviously trying to rob you and is even assaulting you, but is there any real threat to your person? Shall I sit in my home with a 22 trained out the window and shoot the schoolgirls who pick my flowers as they walk by my yard? She's stealing from me, but is there any threat to my person. Shall I assume that because she'll steal my flowers that one day she'll be stealing my car? Or breaking into my home?

Or let's consider a threat which has passed... let's say the mugger gets your wallet and runs before you have a chance to draw your weapon... are you going to shoot the mugger in the back after the threat to your person is passed? Or let's say you do manage to shoot the mugger, he's down on the ground writhing in pain, his weapon was knocked 10 feet away... are you going to pump a few more bullets into him?


Interestingly, while it may seem better to wound or scare away an aggressor, in our legal construct you open yourself up to tremendous legal risk by doing any less because you are acting in a way that does not indicate that you feel that your life is under threat.


That's certainly true... but it's not right. I understand the reasoning that if someone commits a crime with a weapon, that they are obviously ready, willing and able to use that weapon to kill others. But it makes no sense to assume that if someone attempts less than lethal force against that person, that they do not feel their life is threatened. Especially under a Constitution that protects everyone's inalienable right to life.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc


"Right to property" is one of those inalienable rights and defense of one's property has been a part of common law for millennia. Only recently have some governments outlawed one's natural right to defend their property.


I don't know of any laws that outlaw one's natural right to defend their property -- except, of course, when it's government stealing our property. I do know of laws which require equal and proportionate use of force. If a child is beating your legs (assault) and trying to take your ice cream (robbery) are you going to use lethal force to stop that child? No. You use the level of force necessary to stop the assault and robbery. Shall I shoot the schoolgirls who steal my flowers from my yard? It's stealing, but does not threaten my person. How about the mom stealing bread to feed her children?


As for morality? IMHO it is more immoral to let a criminal free to victimize someone else when you had the means of stopping them right then and there.


So the moral thing to do is to kill all criminals to make sure they don't victimize someone else? Because there are no better options? Including that child stealing your ice cream? I guess that would make sure they never grew up to commit more crimes. Because of course you know they would right?

Well, that would certainly save the taxpayers the cost of trials and jails and all that...



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

Let's first define terms... looting is not a direct threat to one's person, whereas a mugging is. Obviously, if someone is threatening you with a weapon, then there is an obvious threat to your person. If/when it comes to that, you are defending your person -- not your things.


Looting is far more open ended than mugging and is directed at everyone and everything. It is a fit of destructive insanity.

Looters will be shot.



Of course, thanks to the Michael Brown debacle, we now know that anyone with arms is considered armed and dangerous... but what about a child trying to grab your ice cream and beating on your legs? Are you going to use lethal force to stop the child? That child is obviously trying to rob you and is even assaulting you, but is there any real threat to your person? Shall I sit in my home with a 22 trained out the window and shoot the schoolgirls who pick my flowers as they walk by my yard? She's stealing from me, but is there any threat to my person. Shall I assume that because she'll steal my flowers that one day she'll be stealing my car? Or breaking into my home?


No, I do not believe that children with ice cream cones picking flowers are comparable to looters or muggers. I really do appreciate hyperbole very much though, you are a person after mine own heart.




Or let's consider a threat which has passed... let's say the mugger gets your wallet and runs before you have a chance to draw your weapon... are you going to shoot the mugger in the back after the threat to your person is passed? Or let's say you do manage to shoot the mugger, he's down on the ground writhing in pain, his weapon was knocked 10 feet away... are you going to pump a few more bullets into him?


Yes, I will shoot them as they run away (after all, they might be merely stepping back to assassinate me from further away) though, I would not execute them if they were subdued and immobilized, that would be murder.


That's certainly true... but it's not right. I understand the reasoning that if someone commits a crime with a weapon, that they are obviously ready, willing and able to use that weapon to kill others. But it makes no sense to assume that if someone attempts less than lethal force against that person, that they do not feel their life is threatened. Especially under a Constitution that protects everyone's inalienable right to life.


This seems like a no brainer to me, even if it is a little girl who demands my property (perhaps especially when the assailant appears to be unable to physically overpower me), I must assume that they possess a concealed weapon with the intent of using it. To not do so would be illogical.

This is what I meant by the implied intent to harm.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
I don't know of any laws that outlaw one's natural right to defend their property -- except, of course, when it's government stealing our property. I do know of laws which require equal and proportionate use of force. If a child is beating your legs (assault) and trying to take your ice cream (robbery) are you going to use lethal force to stop that child? No. You use the level of force necessary to stop the assault and robbery. Shall I shoot the schoolgirls who steal my flowers from my yard? It's stealing, but does not threaten my person. How about the mom stealing bread to feed her children?


No I am pretty sure NavyDoc isn't going to shoot a 5 year old who attempts to steal ice cream cones. Yes you DO use the level of force necessary. Absolutely and 100% agree with you. But there is a huge problem with your debate here.

If a 5 year old beats on my legs and tries to steal my ice cream I'd likely just tap the forehead and give a "shoo." No violence. Proportionate. Responsive and hopefully effective. No harm no foul.

But if I am in/in front of my house and people are racing at me to hurl bricks, light it up, break stuff, I have two immediate issues.

1. They have massively raised the stakes and their own use of force. The 5 year old uses tiny hands that probably won't give me the slightest of bruises. The mob are using bricks, glass bottles, etc; all of which are easily capable of killing me were they to turn it on me. Their force escalates and so does mine.

2. There is no way of knowing in the heat of the moment if that brick is for my window or for my head. So my question becomes; do I sit and hope the brick went to the window? No I do not. If I am protecting my property and that level of force is coming in my direction, I am not going to meet it with a tap on the forehead and a shoo.

So those are the immediate issues. What about the longer term issues?

1. If I have some capability of protecting my property from looters/mobs then what am I to do? Just say "F it. It's only stuff." See the problem I have with your approach to this is that you are generalizing all with your own personal and individual feelings on the subject. I am not going to go on a manhunt if someone steals my laptop. In fact I have witnessed the second time when someone slashed my convertible top. I am slow and could not chase them down. They got away. I am not going to get in my car, find them and mow them down. I called police and...well nothing happened.

But here is where I have a different consideration. Whereas you see "property," other people see their life's work; hard work. Losing a 100 dollar bill stings to your average middle class person. Yeah it sucks but it's also not the end of the world. But when someone wants to tear down and burn everything I own/worked for, they aren't just burning my property, they are burning my achievements and aspirations. Yes of course I would MUCH rather my house go down than my wife be kidnapped/killed. No doubt about it. But taking her out of the equation, I have been in the workforce for a solid 18 years now. I started working a super low paying job and now through hard work, military advancement and gallons of blood, sweat, and tears (not to mention sleepless nights and burning candles), and now I have a good job that pays well and affords me an opportunity to finally say "screw it, I am gonna just relax."

So I sit in my chair, log onto my gaming laptop and play the night away. Or I cook a good dinner, pop in a movie on the Xbox and my wife eats then plops her head in my lap and we just forget life for a bit. So while I do agree that you "can't take it with you" and that property is by far not the most important thing, I feel like I have put together 18 years of hard work to be able to relax and enjoy things. I am supposed to step aside and let a mob torch it all in the matter of 10 minutes?

So, respectfully, you are of course 100% free to believe as you will, but try to remember that many times "property" is so much more.
edit on 29-4-2015 by KyoZero because: (no reason given)


ETA: NO I am NOT saying that the property is the ONLY method of recognizing and feeling implicit achievement. I just mean to say physical reward is NOT a bad thing...just in case that comes up
edit on 29-4-2015 by KyoZero because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

I started responding point by point, but I just don't have the heart... nor the words. (A little girl? Really???) If we have no right to life, we have no rights.

I do however better understand the feelings of absolute despair and hopelessness of the protesters in Baltimore and Ferguson and elsewhere. When your life is worth nothing, you've got nothing to lose. When your life is worth nothing, everyone's life is worth nothing.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: KyoZero

Thank you for reaffirming some of the points I was trying to make in terms of proportionate force, and threats to one's life vs. threats to property.

Other than that, I simply do not know how to even comprehend -- much less argue -- with such disregard for life. Nor do I have the heart for it right now.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: greencmp

I started responding point by point, but I just don't have the heart... nor the words. (A little girl? Really???) If we have no right to life, we have no rights.

I do however better understand the feelings of absolute despair and hopelessness of the protesters in Baltimore and Ferguson and elsewhere. When your life is worth nothing, you've got nothing to lose. When your life is worth nothing, everyone's life is worth nothing.



If I think the little girl is mugging me because she says, "give me your money or I will kill you", yes. If she offers me to hug her dolly, no.

I hate to overuse this quote but it is apt.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

-Robert A. Heinlein



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea


Actually, no, inalienable rights are absolute and non-transferable. I cannot give up or in any way transfer my natural inalienable rights -- either directly or indirectly. That's what makes them inalienable. You did not give me life... therefore, you have no right to take it away... as you said, any thing a creator endows us with cannot be taken away by human force.


For absolute freedom to exist the individual has to have the right to agree to voluntary servitude. The individual absolutely does have the right to give away their rights. If they do not have that right, then we don't have unalienable, natural rights.

Rights are like pieces of our bodies, no one has the right to injure my body, but if I want to cut my own arm off I have every right to do so.

And, yes, a person can relinquish their rights either directly through a contract, or indirectly through their actions. If such were not the case, then it would be morally wrong to kill someone who was trying to kill you--because the person trying to kill you also has the right to life, and your argument applies to murderers.

If you can't use lethal force to defend your property because the thief doesn't indirectly relinquish his rights through his actions because he can't do that--then the same logic applies to someone trying to kill you.

Your confusion lies within other people. Other people cannot take your rights from you, they are yours. Just like, morally someone cannot cut off your arm, but you have every right to cut your own arm off and give it to someone--it's your arm. They are your rights, you can keep them or give them away equally. That is true freedom.

And when you try to rob or murder someone, you are indirectly giving them your arm.


Nope. You have the right to defend your person and property. That may result in lethal force. However, you do not have a right to kill me or anyone.


So, I can use lethal force to defend myself and my property but I can't use lethal force to defend myself or my property? That's pretty much what you are saying here.

If you are not looting my belongings or trying to harm me it would be morally wrong for me to kill you. Unless you're a thief or murderer, I don't think you have anything to worry about.



Hence the term "justifiable" homicide. If someone sticks a gun in your ribs and demands your wallet, you have every reason to fear for your life, and in your defense you may even kill a person without intending to.


You are literally arguing yourself in circles, if you had read what I've been saying you would realize this is the exact argument that I am making.

You are subtly making it appear that I have been arguing to simply murder people for no reason, which is hardly the case.


But if a child tries to grab your ice cream, are you automatically going to use lethal force to stop the child?


This argument is a false comparison and hardly even worth a response.

There is a huge difference between a child trying to take something frivolous and grown adults robbing you or looting your business, and frankly, this kind of question is an insult to my intelligence. No rational human being would kill a child, let alone kill a child for something so petty.


Like that child making a grab for your ice cream? It seems that you love your life and your things... but I see no love nor even respect for life itself.


No, it is you who doesn't respect life. Imagine a small business owner who owns literally one store. That store would represent his entire life's work, and would be the income he needs to feed his children. By stripping him of his right to defend his shop from looters using lethal force, you are placing him in the position to have his entire financial support system ripped out from under him.

When he can't feed his kids because looters stole all of his merchandise and burned down his shop, at least he can starve happily knowing the looters still have their lives.
edit on 29-4-2015 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-4-2015 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join