The only two responses I read showed that the two people who responded had no real idea of what is going on and confirmed that you people really are idiots, but... (I did try to dumb down the questions after that though).
Actual outcome of the Boston Massacre was that deadly force was used and the soldiers were tried (with John Adams being their legal counsel).
The Colonists still saw themselves as British at this point and were demanding their rights as Britons. One of those rights is due process of law. This concept goes back to chapter 39 of Magna Carta, in which King John promised that “[n]o free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”
The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures.
If you were inclined to say that deadly force was justified, then you happen to side with the redcoats! In fact, you are saying that there was no reason for any of the further unrest which was the war for independence.
You wouldn't have prosecuted them because the Redcoats did the right thing.
Think about that.
BTW, if I were able to go back in time I would use modern crowd control methods to deal with this situation--NOT DEADLY FORCE.
Anyone who thinks that I would condone the use of deadly force against UNARMED Civilians clearly is not paying too much attention to what I am saying.
Or incapable of understanding what I have said.
Laci: "The only two responses I read showed that the two people who responded had no real idea of what is going on and confirmed that you people really are idiots, but..."
ReplyDeleteNeither Kurt or I "answered" your question. Instead I made fun of your ridiculous "so you think you can take on the US army" series of posts coupled with this one. I don't know why you expect serious answers, or answers at all, when you openly state that you don't read them. I am amused that your own answer involves bringing modern crowd control techniques (and and therefore the equipment- plexiglas shields, tear gas, rubber bullets) back in time to the 18th century. What a thought provoking answer.
Laci: "Anyone who thinks that I would condone the use of deadly force against UNARMED Civilians clearly is not paying too much attention to what I am saying."
Aside from your difficulties in understanding what "armed" means, if we assume you mean "armed with a firearm", do you expect the fire and concussion from bombs dropped by A-10 warthogs to ONLY affect those who have guns in their hands? Well, I guess it's no less realistic than using tasers and pepper spray on colonials.
No, TS; both you and Kurt the fool answered a legitimate and thought-provoking piece by the equivalent of playing a game of chess by adding more pieces than belong on the board. It was like supplementing the knights, rooks and bishops with tanks and tear gas and an extra queen or two -- IN PLACE OF THINKING.
DeleteI will stipulate that a baseball bat MIGHT be considered AN arm, but clearly the majority of the crowd did not rise to the commonly understood definition of armed. However, one person, who can be avoided or subdued, should not dictate the decision here.
You demonstrate - again - your poor judgement and lack of critical thinking skills in response to potential threat situations, your propensity and preference to escalate the violence when you could de-escalate it, which in turn is the perfect argument for NOT allowing people like you to go about armed or make those decisions regarding deadly force.
You also demonstrate why it is that the Ferguson police chief should resign and why the entire department should probably be disbanded, the prosecuting attorney's staff fired, and why the prosecuting attorney, AG, and Governor should be turned out of office next election and replaced with better democrats.
Dog gone, I have not seriously answered Laci's "hypothetical" Boston Massacre scenario, so how can you say I have a propensity for escalating violence? What I have done is point out Laci's blatant 180 from his post where he advocates the use of A-10 Warthog attack runs, and MLRS use against US citizens. Now you tell me, is that a propensity to escalate? Is that poor judgement? What's the standard here? De-escalate if the unrest is coming from the political left, and rain fire from above if it's coming from the political right?
DeleteSince we're talking about hypotheticals here, Dog gone, allow me to paint another one for you. Would it be considered "bad judgement" of me to fire on a person who I find incredibly annoying (but not fearful of) the moment they step on my front lawn? Would you consider that to be "escalating violence"?
DeleteYes. Annoying someone is not a justification for deadly force.
DeleteOk, so then what would you say about a person who “hypothetically” said this below?
DeleteI was never afraid of my stalker, although I found the person to be unstable, and unpredictable, and simply nuts. Including being a right wing religous nut job. It was incredibly annoying.
No one who knew either of us doubted that if she were to show up on my front lawn again at 3 a.m. to attempt to harrass and intimidate me, that I would shoot her long before she could get any closer, taking advantage of the ranged aspect of the firearm.
Would you say this person demonstrates poor judgment and lack of critical thinking skills? Certainly you’d say they have a propensity and preference to escalate violence when they could de-escalate it, not? And I’d have to think you would say this is in turn is the perfect argument for NOT allowing a person like this to go about armed or make those decisions regarding deadly force, right? Minimally, this person demonstrates that they lack the knowledge and the skills to properly use a firearm or to be entrusted with any implement of deadly force, wouldn’t you think?
You put that in italics as if it were a quote. Was it?
DeleteYes, it's a direct quote. It sounds like a "gun loon", doesn't it?
DeleteStop being coy.
DeleteWill do.
DeleteDog gone said that quote. She's s blazing hypocrite.
She's s blazing hypocrite.
DeleteAnd would seem, by Mikeb's standards, and apparently even her own, to be an "unfit gun owner," as well.
TS, that sure is a pretty hard-to-justify quote. Where's Dog Gone when we need her. Maybe it's something taken out of context - I don't know.
DeleteKurt, have I really called people unfit to own guns for things they've said? I may have, God knows I love to describe people that way, but I really can't recall it.
Kurt, have I really called people unfit to own guns for things they've said?
DeleteWell, you have more than once called me an "unfit gun owner," and what do you know about me, beyond the things I've said?
I may have, God knows I love to describe people that way . . .
Do you wonder why people tend to think your preference would be an all-out, confiscatory prohibition on private ownership of firearms?
TS, that sure is a pretty hard-to-justify quote. Where's Dog Gone when we need her. Maybe it's something taken out of context - I don't know.
DeleteWhat a novel idea--ask the accused "gun loon" what he/she meant rather than arresting/convicting/sentencing him/her on the spot, because perhaps the "context" would absolve his/her behavior. That's not your usual style, Mikeb--what could be different in this case???
"Well, you have more than once called me an "unfit gun owner," and what do you know about me, beyond the things I've said?"
DeleteGood catch, Kurt. You're certainly right about that. I suppose one difference is calling people unfit to own guns for extremist things they say is different than legally having the authorities visit them with a confiscation order. One is more like name calling on a blog the other would be the letter of the law as I'd like to see it.
I do wonder why anyone would think I really want an "all-out, confiscatory prohibition on private ownership of firearms" unless of course they're lying. No one who reads my blog should think that.
I suppose one difference is calling people unfit to own guns for extremist things they say is different than legally having the authorities visit them with a confiscation order. One is more like name calling on a blog the other would be the letter of the law as I'd like to see it.
DeleteYou asked for an example of you having "called people unfit to own guns for things they've said." I gave you one, your goal post-moving, meaningless new distinctions notwithstanding.
I do wonder why anyone would think I really want an "all-out, confiscatory prohibition on private ownership of firearms" unless of course they're lying.
Those of us who believe that's what you want--and I seriously doubt I'm the only one, think that you are lying, every time you deny wanting such a ban.
When people like you Kurt say they WILL attack the government with guns, then you deserve to be watched, and I would consider it irresponsible of my government not to make sure you did not turn your threats in to actions.
DeleteI do wonder why anyone would think I really want an "all-out, confiscatory prohibition on private ownership of firearms" unless of course they're lying. No one who reads my blog should think that.
DeleteThose people who read your blog, and yet still doubt your enthusiasm for an all-out, confiscatory ban should read this:
I may have, God knows I love to describe people [as "unfit gun owners"] . . .
You "love to describe people" as "unfit" to own guns. You've confessed to the perverse, ineffable glee you derive from pronouncing people as unworthy of the right to effective means of defending their families, lives, and liberty, and you apparently believe some deity knows that about you.
Sure sounds like a passion for forcible citizen disarmament to me.
No, mine is a passion for disarming about half of you guys.
DeleteNo, mine is a passion for disarming about half of you guys.
DeleteA "passion for disarming" 40-50 million gun owners easily qualifies as a "passion for forcible citizen disarmament."
You're doing that slippery lying thing again. Removing guns from any single one of you qualifies for that. But what we were talking about was this: "an "all-out, confiscatory prohibition on private ownership of firearms," not just the 50% who are unfit.
DeleteYou're doing that slippery lying thing again.
DeleteFor me to be "doing that slippery lying thing again," I would have to have done it a first time, and that, it seems, has not yet happened. Maybe some day, right, Mikeb?
You denied having "a passion for forcible citizen disarmament," and I expressed my doubt of your denial. I don't deny there's a liar in this discussion, but he isn't showing up in my mirror.
Comparing apples to elephants again. You can't compare military soldiers to local cops.
ReplyDeleteWhat is wrong with you?
orlin sellers
We know what is wrong with you Orlon fluff for brains - this is NOT comparing apples to elephants, and you think on the level of a less than bright kindergardener.
DeleteOR DID YOU MISS THE MILITARIZED POLICE AND NATIONAL GUARDS IN FERGUSON?
Your miseducation is showing again. Pooch gave a hypothetical situation and then said it was the Boston Massacre. Last time I looked, Boston was no where near Ferguson. And 1770 is even further from 2014.
DeleteYou might wanna get on the right page, lady.
Then, after that, you might wanna concentrate on your spelling: kindergardener [SIC]
orlin "Fluffy Brains" sellers
You are the one deficient in education.
DeleteLaci gave an applicable hypothetical; there are lessons from history that relate well to the situation in Ferguson. That continues across history, and the respective geography differences.
Kindergarden is a legitimate variant of kindergarten, like color and colour, or Pekingese /Pekinese.
You demonstrate again that you lack the knowledge and the skills to properly use a firearm or to be entrusted with any implement of deadly force.
Laci gave an applicable hypothetical; there are lessons from history that relate well to the situation in Ferguson. That continues across history, and the respective geography differences.
DeleteYou and Laci are full of shit. You wanna compare Watts in '65, Newark and Detroit in '67, or Washington and hundreds of other cities in '68 after the assassination of MLK. Really? You wanna compare this wannabe rapper thug to MLK or those other riots. You're both idiots.
Kindergardener might be used by low-brow, ignorant, lumberjacks and uneducated iron range slugs, but you will not find it as acceptable or even an variation in any dictionary. Trying to compare it to color/colour is intellectually dishonest and just another attempt by you to make yourself look better than you obviously are not.
Any honest, person with an ounce of integrity would simply admit they made a mistake. Clearly, honesty is above you and you prefer the lowlife of worms and grubs.
orlin sellers
Dog Gone, I think you're right about the militarized police, but it seems Orlin might have a point about kindergarten, although he did express it rather colorfully - or is that colourfully? What do you say?
DeleteMikeb, militarized police are NOT US soldiers. The Guard was called upon by the governor, not the president.
DeleteKent State would have been a much more credible situation to the Boston Massacre than Ferguson.
Additionally, colour is not used in the US, only in English speaking countries outside of our borders.
orlin sellers
Why leave comments if he doesn't read comments?
ReplyDeleteBecause the rest of us read comments and respond. And because there is always a chance, however slight, that the level of comments might at some point rise to being worthy of reading.
DeleteI read all the comments.
DeleteLaci said he doesn't read the comments.
Delete