Victims Do Not Define Necessary Force

[Flanders]

How does any district attorney know that an intruder was not intent on killing? The answer is HE CANNOT KNOW. Even if an attacker is only wounded he will swear he only came to steal not kill. The same defense can be used by a rapist if a woman shoots him. “I was only going to rape her not kill her.”

Dead victims cannot testify is the best defense of all.

I think every American knows that they will get no help from the federal government when it comes to defending themselves. Refusing to acknowledge that America is at war against Islamic extremists is an extension of not being able to use necessary force defending yourself from traditional criminals. The local district attorney defines necessary. Example: If you shoot and kill a criminal that breaks into your home the D.A. can say he was a burglar, and death is not the penalty for burglary. Ergo, Muslims trying to convert you to Islam does not call for the death penalty.​

Democrat Policy: Inculcating Fear

Zachary Peters defending himself in Oklahoma would be a media cause célèbre had the criminals been black, Latino, or Muslim:

Jacob Redfearn (left), Max Cook (middle) and Jake Woodruff (right) were shot and killed as they tried to burglarize an Oklahoma home on March 27 (Photo: Facebook)​

http://www.wnd.com/files/2017/04/teen-burglary-suspects.jpg

I would like to ask Redfearn’s grandfather if he will feel the same way about Marquess of Queensberry rules if Muslims ever break into his home?

But now Redfearn’s grandfather says it was never a “fair” fight, and the teens shouldn’t have been killed.

“What these three boys did was stupid,” Leroy Schumacher told Oklahoma’s KTUL-TV 8.

“They knew they could be punished for it, but they did not deserve to die.”​

I feel sorry for Zachary Peters. He has not been charged, but that will not be the end of it. Just wait until the death penalty bleeding hearts get on his case. Even if he is tried and acquitted in Oklahoma the federal government will charge him with a hate crime. Hate crime is a bigger travesty than hate speech. Murder is murder. Codifying “Hate crimes” is discriminatory in that it makes one victim more important than another in the eyes of the law. If ever the slippery slope argument was applicable it is convicting an accused defendant based on motive alone.

NOTE: “Necessary criminal intent” is doublespeak for motive. Inspector Clouseau behaved like a district attorney assuming that an attacker came to steal not kill. The fact is that he was afraid of what he would find if he looked for motive in Hillary’s connection to the Muslim Brotherhood:

Clinton should have known better than to send classified information, Comey affirmed, adding, "I think she was extremely careless. I think she was negligent. That I could establish. What we can't establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent."​

Comey: No evidence that Clinton acted with 'necessary criminal intent'
By Nick Gass
07/07/16 01:32 PM EDT

Comey: No evidence that Clinton acted with 'necessary criminal intent'​

One unrelated remark defined as hate speech made by a defendant years before he was charged can be used to prove he or she committed a hate crime. Bottom line: You can be charged in federal court after a state court acquits.

Aside from losing the First Amendment’s free speech protection the accused loses double jeopardy.

Double Jeopardy - FindLaw

The man who shot the suspects hasn’t been charged with a crime. Authorities say they believe he was acting in self-defense under Oklahoma’s “Stand Your Ground” law.​

Family of dead burglar: Homeowner's gun meant 'unfair fight'
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 04/03/2017 @ 3:49 pm

Family of dead burglar: Homeowner’s gun meant ‘unfair fight’​

A little history about the death penalty

Clarence Darrow defended Nathan Leopold and Richaed Loeb in their murder trial of 14-year-old boy Bobby Franks. (Pacific & Atlantic) ​

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polop...vatives/article_1200/justice18n-9-n93-web.jpg

90th anniversary of Leopold and Loeb's horrific murder
BY Mara Bovsun
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Saturday, May 17, 2014, 9:47 PM

90th anniversary of Leopold and Loeb's horrific murder​

I believe that Leopold and Loeb beating the hangman was the most influential decision ever handed down in death penalty cases. Clarence Darrow’s entire defense was designed to beat the death penalty rather than get them off.

With their sons facing the hangman, the killers’ rich families called in a legal luminary — Clarence Darrow, 66, famed for saving 100 defendants from execution.

“Not guilty,” the original plea, would have put them before a jury, not a wise move with a pair of defendants as arrogant and unlikable as Leopold and Loeb.​

Today’s touchy-feely garbage and psycho-babble gained nationwide acceptance because the Bobby Franks murder case got more publicity than did all of Darrow’s previous 100 death penalty cases combined.

Darrow, in a stunning move, changed the plea to guilty. Their case, with a parade of alienists, as psychiatrists were known in those days, would be presented to the judge, who would decide on life or death. In a three-day summation, Darrow quoted poetry, history and science in a plea for mercy so eloquent even the judge got misty-eyed. Darrow said that the boys, although not legally insane, were mentally ill and not responsible for their actions. “They killed him as they might kill a spider or a fly.”

Darrow ended up with two more notches on his saved-from-the-hangman’s belt. The judge gave his clients life plus 99 years.​

Incidentally, life plus 99 years got lost when Leopold was paroled in 1958. Note that life without parole became another judicial myth after it was attached to a life sentence.

In addition to Darrow’s gift to today’s “expert witnesses” that case was a blessing to print press that was already dominated by Socialist ideology.

Finally, abolishing the death penalty is the real reason behind abolishing the Second Amendment. Abolishing the death penalty has been a primary objective for so-called progressives for more than a century, while disarming law-abiding Americans is relatively new.

See number 25 permalink in this tread for more aspects of the death penalty:

Girl Scouts Of The USA Is An Organization, Too.

 

[BULLDOG]

TL;DR

 

[Flanders]

TL;DR

To BULLDOG: Can you handle this? PUT ME IN YOUR IGNORE FILTER.

 

[BULLDOG]

TL;DR

To BULLDOG: Can you handle this? PUT ME IN YOUR IGNORE FILTER.

Why would I want to ignore you. Laughing at idiot right wing posts is the only reason I come here. Don't worry though. If there is anything of yours that you don't want me to read, just put in a long rambling goofy post like the one above, and you won;t have to worry about me reading it.

 

[Flanders]

Why would I want to ignore you.

To BULLDOG: So you do not demonstrate your ignorance by wasting your time responding to messages you do not read.

Laughing at idiot right wing posts is the only reason I come here.

To BULLDOG: Your claim, TL;DR, admits that you read my messages that do not tax your attention span. So you must read brief messages! If not, where do you find anything to laugh at? Think about your answer before you reply.

If there is anything of yours that you don't want me to read,

To BULLDOG: I do not want liberals reading my messages at all because they might learn something. My fear is that liberals never learn enough to wise them up. Bottom line: A little wisdom in the hands of a fool is a dangerous thing.

just put in a long rambling goofy post like the one above, and you won;t have to worry about me reading it.

TO BULLDOG: I only have your word for that promise.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Intent was established when they broke in.

In my discussions with ccw holders I always say "If you are in fear for your life start shooting and KEEP SHOOTING until you feel safe again."

 

[BULLDOG]

Why would I want to ignore you.

To BULLDOG: So you do not demonstrate your ignorance by wasting your time responding to messages you do not read.

Laughing at idiot right wing posts is the only reason I come here.

To BULLDOG: Your claim, TL;DR, admits that you read my messages that do not tax your attention span. So you must read brief messages! If not, where do you find anything to laugh at? Think about your answer before you reply.

If there is anything of yours that you don't want me to read,

To BULLDOG: I do not want liberals reading my messages at all because they might learn something. My fear is that liberals never learn enough to wise them up. Bottom line: A little wisdom in the hands of a fool is a dangerous thing.

just put in a long rambling goofy post like the one above, and you won;t have to worry about me reading it.

TO BULLDOG: I only have your word for that promise.

Yep, you're still funny.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Intent was established when they broke in.

In my discussions with ccw holders I always say "If you are in fear for your life start shooting and KEEP SHOOTING until you feel safe again."

We Won't Live Free Until the Rulers Live in Fear

Criminals are enemies of the human race and must be exterminated. We don't have to wait until they kill someone. Lawyers, legislators, judges and the rest of the ruling class turn loose these subhumans just to put the rest of us in our place.

 

[strollingbones]

my father always made it clear.....if a man was worth wounding he was worth killing and once you began to fire...you empty the weapon.....reload and repeat

 

[strollingbones]

if your intent was above board....you knock on the door

 

[saveliberty]

Why is this in the US Constitution section?

 

[Flanders]

Why is this in the US Constitution section?

To saveliberty: It is not.

 

[saveliberty]

It seems you have not laid out a specific point to be made. It is unclear to me whether you consider the criminals victims once they were shot or the person legally in the home as the victim.

It seems pretty straightforward if you consider the person legally in the home as a victim in fear of his life with three robbers against him. Since that victim is alive, you can ask him.

 

[Flanders]

It is unclear to me whether you consider the criminals victims once they were shot

To saveliberty: In America today criminals are only victims of society.

or the person legally in the home as the victim.

To saveliberty: Self-defense defines victims in Liberaldom. Basically, it depends upon who got shot and who did the shooting.

 

[Flanders]

abolishing the death penalty is the real reason behind abolishing the Second Amendment.

A ray of justice shines through:

George Soros-backed prosecutor yanked after refusing to seek death penalty for cop killer
By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Friday, April 7, 2017

George Soros-backed prosecutor yanked after refusing to seek death penalty for cop killer​

Incidentally, liberals love to shout: Justice delayed is justice denied.

Liberals never say that 15-plus years of appeals —— often at taxpayer expense —— is justice denied to the victims.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The bottom line is that if one kills another, the situation will be, probably, carefully examined by LEO. The shooter remains at all times responsible for his/her action.

 

[Meane]

That's why the victims are questioned carefully. And a law that prohibits all violence unless absolutely necessary teaches citizens not to overeact.

 

[Flanders]

And a law that prohibits all violence unless absolutely necessary teaches citizens not to overeact.

To Meane: Criminal law punishes, or at least it should.

You obvious believe the first rule of every priesthood that ever was: THE LAW SHOULD TEACH BEHAVIOR —— AND WE ARE THE TEACHERS. It follows that you also believe that priest personalities should govern in a theocracy.

Note that our Socialist priesthood teaches political correct speech while they PUNISH incorrect speech. Your brief response says enough to tell me that you would abolish the:

First Amendment​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

 

[Meane]

And a law that prohibits all violence unless absolutely necessary teaches citizens not to overeact.

To Meane: Criminal law punishes, or at least it should.

You obvious believe the first rule of every priesthood that ever was: THE LAW SHOULD TEACH BEHAVIOR —— AND WE ARE THE TEACHERS. It follows that you also believe that priest personalities should govern in a theocracy.

Note that our Socialist priesthood teaches political correct speech while they PUNISH incorrect speech. Your brief response says enough to tell me that you would abolish the:

First Amendment​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

Yeah, it punishes. But first the law needs to be clear. You can't wait till the crime to decide because each perosn must be persecuted according the law as it exists during the crime.

 

[Flanders]

Yeah, it punishes. But first the law needs to be clear. You can't wait till the crime to decide because each perosn must be persecuted according the law as it exists during the crime.

To Meane: Nice bit of double-talk! You must work in the pharmaceutic industry! I hate to be the one to tell you, but preventative law was pioneered by preventative medicine. Even preventative medicine leaves a lot of room for doubt. Take a look at where your preventative law thinking came from and where it is going:

Preventative medicine is a pharmaceutical industry scam. Drug companies were not making enough money selling drugs to people who were actually sick; so they increased their sales a thousandfold with the preventative medicine con job. The whole thing is a perversion of “An apple a day keeps the doctor away.”

It turns out that doctors are worse than drug companies. Doctors aligned themselves with dirty little moralists when they started telling EVERYONE not to smoke. Do not smoke soon became lose weight and exercise. That wasn’t enough. Doctors in Florida tell their patients to get rid of their guns:​

A U.S. district judge has issued a permanent injunction against a Florida law aimed at preventing doctors from refusing treatment for patients who admit they have guns in the home.​

Note who doctors had as allies in their lawsuit:​

. . . various physicians organizations, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Washington-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.​

Own a gun? Doctors can't refuse to treat you
Judge issues permanent injunction in 'Docs vs. Glocks' case
Published: 12 hours ago
by DREW ZAHN

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/own-a-gun-the-doctor-cant-refuse-to-treat-you/?cat_orig=us​

Question: Doctors scream bloody murder when anybody interferes in the doctor-patient relationship; so
how come doctors do not mind the ACLU getting in-between doctor and patient?​

Doctors are supposed to do no harm. There is every possibility that preventative drugs harm some patients. The public will never know how many patients are harmed when they take medicine to prevent rather than cure. The public will never find out because drug companies, doctors, legislators, and advertisers will see that the harm done is blamed on something else.

Happily, doctors cannot hide the harm they are doing with their assault on the Second Amendment. I’d like to see this scenario:

A patient gets rid of his gun on his doctor’s orders. A murderer breaks into the patient’s home and kills the patient’s children because he could not defend himself. The patient sues the doctor. How would you vote if you were on the jury?

In the same vain, Americans must take a long, hard, look at tort reform before those bums in Washington include it in more “healthcare reform.” I do not have much use for lawyers, but lawyers, and they alone, are all that stands between the public and medical industry butchery protected by law.

Finally, when I need moral guidance I’ll go to a priest not a doctor.

A Second Amendment Tax​

Now look at one connection between preventative medicine and your preventative law:

Vaccination is preventative medicine. In the hands of the government and drug companies Ben Franklin’s idiom “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” became the most profitable slogan ever devised. You can be sure that old Ben did not have today’s government butchers and government-forced-vaccinations in mind when he uttered his famous words. As it turned out the success of the polio vaccine linked Ben’s idiom to forced vaccinations for all time.

In 2014, the battle lines are being drawn in the states between those, who want to force citizens to use every federally recommended vaccine and those, who respect and value the legal right to exercise informed consent to medical risk-taking, including vaccine risk-taking.​

2014 State Vaccine Legislation in America: Battle Lines Are Drawn & Your Participation is Needed!
By Dawn Richardson, NVIC Director of Advocacy

Fighting Forced Vaccination in America in 2014: 58 Bills in 24 States Threatening Right to Refuse Vaccines​

Preventative medicine is the mother lode for Big Pharma. If you doubt me take a quick look at all of the drugs advertised on television promising to prevent everything except death. Preventative medicine is also the biggest ripoff in the medical industry. Everybody gets a piece of the action. Just look at the non-prescription drugs advertised on TV and ask yourself how much money is spent telling healthy people they need to take a pill to stay healthy.

Interestingly, the campaign “eat for good health” is a form of preventative medicine: “An apple a day keeps the doctor away.” It is no different than Popeye telling people they must eat spinach. It all comes down to a variation of the old enigma: Will I be healthier if I eat specific foods? or will I be healthier if do not eat certain foods?

If you know nothing else about preventative medicine know this: The big money is in treatment not cure. Preventative medicine neither treats nor cures. Preventative law neither treats nor cures crime.

Preventative medicine justifies paying for everything rather than only paying for catastrophic medical emergencies, and life-threatening illnesses when death is imminent. Both catastrophic emergencies and imminent death are fairly obvious; so there should be no difficulty in keeping doctors honest when it comes to definition.

NOTE: Preventative medicine is available for everything except pain. The government imposed so much paperwork and so many restrictions on doctors prescribing pain relief drugs for their patients they are often sent to a “Pain Center Clinic” if they want relief. A cynic might even say that euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide are forms of preventative medicine minus pain killer drugs.

Preventative medicine also turned America into a nation of pill freaks for no other reason than to enrich the pharmaceutical industry. Right now Big Pharma convinced the country that taking a pill is the key to better health. The sales pitch is: Take this or that prescription medicine to prevent this or that illness. Take the pill for the rest of your life is even better because you will probably need more pills to fight the adverse side effects brought on by the first pill.

Incidentally, hypochondriacs living in a pill freak culture could not be happier.

The beauty is that tens of millions of Americans end up being unpaid guinea pigs for the pharmaceutical industry.

Political morality is destroying America’s moral fiber. Preventative medicine is more about the tax collector’s morality than it is about health. A nation of pill freaks buying prescription drugs to prevent this or that is the highest morality of all. Diet and exercise gurus promising healthier lives are also moralists contradicting the pill priesthood if you do not count vitamins as pills.

NOTE: There were moralist hustlers long before the others jumped on the morality bandwagon. Movies and TV shows have always been dirty little morality plays; The Twilight Zone was the worst of them but not by much. It can be argued that live and let live is also dogma, except that those of us who believe in live and let live do not give a rat’s ass how others live, worship, or eat; so long as they leave us alone.

Incidentally, with Socialism’s Culture of Death in charge of medicine, I doubt if any disease will ever be cured again. Admittedly, great successes that can be attributed to vaccinations when they defeated small pox, polio, etc. Unfortunately, those successes taught Socialist priests that the big money is in treatment not cure. Cure is too costly because it reduces socialized medicine’s customer base. Keeping the elderly and the infirm alive is the breaking point separating cost efficiency and compassion.

p.s. Infectious diseases used as weapons can kill government big shots. That is the only reason they are behind cures in the form of vaccinations. I will go so far as to say they are funding research to develop an antidote for themselves.

I hope everybody reads these two articles. If you only read one —— make it Schlafly’s. Her piece details and events and provable consequences originating in the Clinton Administration, while the consequences of using children to test anthrax are still unknown.

Test of anthrax vaccine in children gets tentative OK
By Sharon Begley
NEW YORK | Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:01am EDT

Test of anthrax vaccine in children gets tentative OK

XXXXX​

Phyllis Schlafly
November 6, 2002
Clinton scandals continue to surface

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2002/nov02/02-11-06.shtml​