Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Getting Away With Murder?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 1253793" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>That is what I found fascinating in TOS reply. With Trayvon, the kid was defended but with Keith Vidal the kid was not defended. In the first cause the shooter was evil and in the 2nd cause the shooter is defended. In the case of Trayvon and Vidal, were they trying to defend themselves in what they perceived were threats? Same question can be asked in the position of Zimmerman and the unidentified cop who shot Vidal.</p><p></p><p>This isn't going to be popular what I am about to say but I'm going to say it anyway or ask it. </p><p></p><p>When it comes to the right of self defense, which I think is a paramount right, at what point is it justified to kill a cop as an act of self defense? I ask this question because if you remove the costume and badge from the scene, said person taking a life would be seen as immoral and thus a violent response in defense justified. If the claims of the cop's action are true, would you find the father guilty if he pulled out a gun and put the cop's brains on the wall had the cop not been one to begin with? A robbing crew of thugs on a home invasion spree? What about now that he is a cop under the cloak of costumer and badge? I would find him not guilty in either case and never bat an eye about it.</p><p></p><p>Does the introduction of authority negate all moral laws, these being the foundations of unalienable rights, and thus those in gov't now have special rights that the "consent of the govern" never held and thus were unable to delegate under a social contract in the first place? If the "consent of the govern" hold no special rights and thus can't delegate them to begin with, where do they come from? If we can't steal from another person, how do we delegate that power to a 3rd party and that action thus is justified if not seen as moral? Where do we get such notions of 3rd party privilege and empowerment?</p><p></p><p>Before you kneejerk react to the suggestion of killing a cop in a self defense action, think much deeper into this that goes way far beyond the average cop to begin with. The question should be as to just what authority those in power really do have. This is a thought exercise and not a call to some kind of action against cops. One can argue they are victims of the system as much as we are.</p><p></p><p>I do agree with Vidal's mother on one point, never call 9/11 and more and more people are coming to this conclusion often the hard way.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 1253793, member: 2189"] That is what I found fascinating in TOS reply. With Trayvon, the kid was defended but with Keith Vidal the kid was not defended. In the first cause the shooter was evil and in the 2nd cause the shooter is defended. In the case of Trayvon and Vidal, were they trying to defend themselves in what they perceived were threats? Same question can be asked in the position of Zimmerman and the unidentified cop who shot Vidal. This isn't going to be popular what I am about to say but I'm going to say it anyway or ask it. When it comes to the right of self defense, which I think is a paramount right, at what point is it justified to kill a cop as an act of self defense? I ask this question because if you remove the costume and badge from the scene, said person taking a life would be seen as immoral and thus a violent response in defense justified. If the claims of the cop's action are true, would you find the father guilty if he pulled out a gun and put the cop's brains on the wall had the cop not been one to begin with? A robbing crew of thugs on a home invasion spree? What about now that he is a cop under the cloak of costumer and badge? I would find him not guilty in either case and never bat an eye about it. Does the introduction of authority negate all moral laws, these being the foundations of unalienable rights, and thus those in gov't now have special rights that the "consent of the govern" never held and thus were unable to delegate under a social contract in the first place? If the "consent of the govern" hold no special rights and thus can't delegate them to begin with, where do they come from? If we can't steal from another person, how do we delegate that power to a 3rd party and that action thus is justified if not seen as moral? Where do we get such notions of 3rd party privilege and empowerment? Before you kneejerk react to the suggestion of killing a cop in a self defense action, think much deeper into this that goes way far beyond the average cop to begin with. The question should be as to just what authority those in power really do have. This is a thought exercise and not a call to some kind of action against cops. One can argue they are victims of the system as much as we are. I do agree with Vidal's mother on one point, never call 9/11 and more and more people are coming to this conclusion often the hard way. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Getting Away With Murder?
Top