Do You Believe It Is Ever Right To Break The Law?

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


I don't see your point...

Breaking the law is illegal and two underage teenagers having sex is also illegal.

Have I missed something?

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

And therefore by using 100% of your force if you caught said criminal in the act you would be breaking the law...

Not in Texas.

Nor in "Natural Law".

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

And therefore by using 100% of your force if you caught said criminal in the act you would be breaking the law...

Not in Texas.

Nor in "Natural Law".

That's a bit of a cryptical response, if you used 100% force and killed said attacker for raping your daughter I'm pretty sure you would be arrested for murder, unless the laws in the US are a little more understanding than here in the UK.

Are you talking about LAW or are you talking about legislation.

Of course no one should ever break the LAW.

But what is the definition of LAW.

My definition of LAW is what is written in my avatar, for non members-

Natural Law-Do no harm to another, do not infringe on another's right to Life, Liberty or Property.

That pretty much covers it all.

Actually I believe it is your DUTY to break "color of law" legislation.

I am an equal opportunity "color of law" ; breaker.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Are you talking about LAW or are you talking about legislation.

Of course no one should ever break the LAW.

But what is the definition of LAW.

My definition of LAW is what is written in my avatar, for non members-

Natural Law-Do no harm to another, do not infringe on another's right to Life, Liberty or Property.

That pretty much covers it all.

Actually I believe it is your DUTY to break "color of law" legislation.

I am an equal opportunity "color of law" ; breaker.

I would agree with everything you said but unfortunately your interpretation of law isn't whats described by the Government.

Let me break it down for you:

"Do no harm to another"

You walk in your home to find a man raping your daughter,

He has harmed another i.e. your daughter

You beat the bastard senseless

Therefore you have broken your own law

i.e. "Do no harm to another"

reply to post by Death_Kron


First off, they used force, hence they broke the law.

Now, when that is done, the LAW of self defense of others rights or your rights come into play.

So no, the basic tenet is still valid.

reply to post by Death_Kron


If i catch someone in the act of raping another person, whether they are my daughter or not, i can kill them and not go to prison. The key is, can I reasonably be expected to be able to retreat while halting the attack.

If it is on my own property, there is barely even any questions asked.

If you cannot do this in the UK, it is a shame.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

First off, they used force, hence they broke the law.

Now, when that is done, the LAW of self defense of others rights or your rights come into play.

So no, the basic tenet is still valid.

That's assuming you only use the necessary amount of force needed to subdue the attacker until the police arrived, I'm pretty sure when one was faced with such a situation they would do more than carry out a citizens arrest hence breaking "Do no harm to another"...

reply to post by Death_Kron


Well in that situation, I am sure I saw what I thought was weapon, hence I had to defend myself.

I believed I was in immediate danger of death.

My fellow citizens will judge me, I have no qualms about putting my fate in the hands of a jury of peers.

None whatsoever.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

If i catch someone in the act of raping another person, whether they are my daughter or not, i can kill them and not go to prison. The key is, can I reasonably be expected to be able to retreat while halting the attack.

If it is on my own property, there is barely even any questions asked.

If you cannot do this in the UK, it is a shame.

Unfortunately, you cannot do that in the UK.

You can only use, "reasonable self defence" to protect yourself or another.

i.e. if someone hit you then you are allowed to hit them back

If they fall to the fall and you walk away then you should be alright.

If you only give them a little jab and they return to hit you, once again, you would be allowed to hit them back

Would you be allowed to knock them unconcious because they still posed a threat? NO

Because at that stage your classed as going beyond self defence and are looking at an ABH/GBH charge.

reply to post by Death_Kron


you should move to Texas. we protect the rights of individuals a little better than that here.

as a matter of fact, in Texas you are likely to be shot by someone with a lawful carry, concealed weapon if you are seen trying to rape someone.

REALLY?

When the President of your country along with the Attorney General, Vice President and pretty much all of Congress break the law every week (The Constitution) Then we the people are under NO obligation to follow ANY law as written by the government. We are still required to follow the constitution of our country or we commit treason.

So if the above are not charged with treason, then why the &^%$ should we obey the laws they write?!

as a matter of fact, in Texas you are likely to be shot by someone with a lawful carry, concealed weapon if you are seen trying to rape someone.

In Honduras we would shoot you dead regardless of the legality of the gun for trying to rape someone! and the police would buy you a beer for saving them 200 bullets. (They are not very accurate because of a lack of training, or at least that is their excuse for shooting someone two hundreds times, I love Honduras, the ONLY country on the planet to actively protect their constitution!!!!! You guys in the USA should read what really happened down here when we kicked Zeleya out!

The only reason Obama and Hillary got so upset was because they did not want a precedent set for when they started to tear up YOUR constitution!

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

Well in that situation, I am sure I saw what I thought was weapon, hence I had to defend myself.

I believed I was in immediate danger of death.

My fellow citizens will judge me, I have no qualms about putting my fate in the hands of a jury of peers.

None whatsoever.

Yeah, but there was no weapon, how are you going to prove that to the authorities? Or, should I say how are you going to prove there was one?

See, this is an interesting topic as peoples opinons always change when you involve their family members.

What one would say was unacceptable quickly changes to acceptable when it involves their children/family/friends...

Not having a go, just find it an interesting topic.

There is a vital piece of information which is very relevant to this topic, and that is the true role of a jury in any trial.

The information is suppressed, people are not made aware of it, but in fact, juries should be instructed about this part of the law. The role of the jury is not just to ascertain whether a defendant is guilty of breaking the law as charged, but to ascertain whether that law is reasonable.

In the case where someone has broken a law, but a jurist finds the law itself unreasonable, he has the right to find the defendant not guilty.

This right of the jury is not made known to the public, because it is the means by which the people can veto the power of the government over the people.

Quote from 'A History of Jury Nullification', by L & J Osburn

With fully-informed juries, the government cannot exercise its powers over the people without the consent of the people. Trial by jury is trial by the people. When juries are not allowed to judge law, it becomes trial by the government

www.isil.org...

For more information, see also:
www.ccguide.org...

This is incredibly important, please pass it on.

Depends on the intent of the law, does it restrict an adults personal freedom?
Does it infringe on parental rights?
What is the substance and intent?
This is a pretty wide open question without applying parameters, just basic ones that involve harm.

Prohibition was a law, and we see how that went.

I can understand youre trying to validate freedom, and freedom of choice, but when applying it to the situation involving minors who were caught having sex, and they were minors at 14 and 15,
the possible outcomes of the action have to include the unwanted as much as the desired consequences.
Sure if it feels good do mentality works well untill there's an unwanted pregnancy.
Now what?
She's 14, she wanted some fun, she gets thrust into making a choice and a situation thats going to have an escalating impact on a minimum and maximum of other lives.
Does it feel good to be a parent at 14 or 15?
Does it feel good to hold a crying and scared 14 year old girl who just had an abortion and is bleeding for days afterward.
Does it feel good to be raising your childs child?
There's nothing wrong with sex, there's nothing wrong with being a strong parent.
There's nothing wrong with breaking oppressive and infringing rules and laws.
There is something terribly wrong with trying to justify and validate lack of responsibility and accountability.

I'd just as soon see ass whoppins become popular again instead of classified as abuse, rather than see a completely hands off spin of the wheel roll of the dice unguided uninstructed bound for failure ignorant generational plague of future adults determining what laws were needed and what laws were to be enforced without prejudice.
How about the future law of productivity? When youre no longer compliant and productive youre relieved of duty?
Could happen, has happened.
Like I said, way to narrow of an umbrella to try and fit every possible scenario under.

reply to post by HappilyEverAfter


But then you surely educate your children on the "birds and the bees"?

Like I said, I had sex at 13 and I've never come close to making a girl pregnant...

reply to post by theregonnakillme


There are a few of us that know the truth.

You guys rock. Basically he wanted to run again, which is against the Constitution and you kicked his sorry..... out.

I was bragging about your country for about 3 months!

Of course our sorry government opened their mouths just like normal, and stuck their foot in it.

reply to post by Death_Kron


I find it difficult to believe anyone who claims to be a "Law abiding citizen" to be factually correct.

Unless an individual knows the specific number of laws, all possible translations of said laws, and what they all mean when held in context to eachother simultaneously, then how can they blindly claim to be a "Law abiding citizen"?

Unless an individual is capable of knowing what all the laws mean when simultaneously held in context with eachother, I don't understand how anyone can claim to be a law abiding citizen, since they do not know the laws.

Do I think all the supreme court justices and congress could write down from memory all the laws prior to thier departure from life? No, I do not believe those who are making new laws know the existing ones.

Yet, they seem comfortable getting paid to make new ones when no child born today has a chance to live long enough to learn the rules of the game as is.

free will is not a kin to forcing 2 month olds to play monopoly, and punishing them when they break the rules to the game, rules they do not know.

so many social deterents and cultural detours in the way help keep us blind to the basics....

-ET

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


Excellent post.