▲ 1503 ▼ Robbers pretending to be ICE agents (discuss.online) submitted 1 year ago by bytesonbike@discuss.online to c/thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world 183 comments fedilink hide all child comments https://6abc.com/post/woman-tied-robbed-man-impersonating-law-enforcement-officer-mayfair-section-philadelphia/16707524/
[–] in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 43 points 1 year ago (2 children) Dear Americans, You're well within your right to shoot ICE agents on sight. permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 1 year ago (1 child) Oh no, Your Honor, you don't understand, that guy on lemmy said I could do it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (3 children) Do you not understand what the 2nd Amendment is for and are utterly ignorant to concepts such as "self defense"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago (13 children) In the current climate, do you really think a judge will support your assertions of self defence? If you shoot an ICE officer, I very much doubt you'd ever see a court room. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago We're a little past hoping judges do the right thing. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (12 replies) [–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) I don't see any well-regulated militias around here... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* Yea. That's kinda the entire problem that I'm attempting to highlight. See my other comment where I literally quote the amendment word for word permalink fedilink source parent [–] Taleya@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) Hey bud, This doesn't apply to people they don't want it to apply to. It never has. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Hey bud. That's all the more reason for people to exercise their right in the face of those trying to take it away from them. It doesn't matter what they say. We shouldn't respect their authority and should be preparing to challenge it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Taleya@aussie.zone 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) Cycle back a bit bud. Lets roll to the start: point one : lets shoot ice under 2A Me: 2A defense doesn't apply to people they don't want it to apply to You can warhgarrghhg after the fact all you like, but the fact is the way the US is going you should not be thinking your "constitutional rights" are going to protect you. Throughout US history under saner governments they've violated them as they see fit for demographics of their choosing. The current administration is not sane. IF your response to having this pointed out to you is to claim that the person pointing it out is boot gobbling and therefore never going to resist then you probably need to sit back a bit and think about your comprehension levels permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children) The 2nd Amendment isn't about legality, as much as a small enumeration of our natural rights. James Madison was against including a Bill of Rights because he felt that an actual list of rights was far too numerous, and had to be talked round to including a portion of the most important rights to be written down. It's written down for us, the people, the citizens. It's to remind us that we have inalienable rights that cannot be taken from us by a tyrannical government, big or small. That we have these rights inherent to our very being. From the Declaration of Independence: " When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. " (Broke it up for readability) My point with this is that the only defense that matters at this section of time is social defense. If I end up on the jury for someone who shot someone who was masked up as ICE. In no way would I ever consider them guilty, regardless of the events. It is socially acceptable in my eyes to kill an individual in a gestapo like organization. That's just self defense/defense of a third party, as they represent an actual threat, even if an individual's current actions aren't threatening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) [+] walktheplank@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago (4 children) Only if you want to spend the rest of your life dead or in prison. It’s a lovely thought, but ICE has the entire weight of the government behind them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago (4 children) I was under the impression that US rules about trespassing left the owner with a lot of rights, even to use weapons to protect their property. Doesn't this apply when ICE raids homes without warnings or warrants? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago Apparently not, either die trying or live in servitude as all hopes of resistance gets further stripped away. A lot of people in here seem to choose the latter, it's how the bad guys win every time. permalink fedilink source parent [–] InputZero@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (3 children) Yes but no, you have the right to defend your home but not against an officer of the law carrying out a warrant. So if a plain clothes officer, with a drawn fire arm, carrys out a no knock warrent, and the homeowner tries to shoot them. That's attempting to kill an officer of the law. It doesn't matter if the appearance of a plain clothes no knock warrent is identical to a home invasion, and the homeowner defends themselves, the ICE agents are just going to kill the homeowner and the ICE agents will have protection of the law. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 16 points 1 year ago (1 child) This isn't really true. People have gotten off on shooting at officers because they didn't know they were officers. It's a huge risk, because they'll also likely just shoot you, but the law doesn't actually require people to have telepathic knowledge of the association of a presumed home invader. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wetbeardhairs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago It's still very much a matter of privilege to afford a good enough attorney to get you off. Black people tend to get shot while sleeping and convicted postmortem. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Roughknite@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) You are forgetting they are not using warrants. A court would find you not guilty if they have no warrant and you defend yourself according to your laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago I certainly wouldn't find anybody shooting an ICE "agent" as guilty if I was on the Jury, regardless of what a judge might say. Jury Nullification is an important right that every U.S. Citizen should know about, but never talk about inside a court house. I refuse to put away people defending their community from a gestapo like force, regardless of the events surrounding said gestapo's death. permalink fedilink source parent [–] phx@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (1 child) Honest question: what warrant are they operating under? These guys won't even produce ID when asked so I doubt they've got paperwork permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] InputZero@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago If you're asking about ICE officers, they've been given the authority to sign their own warrants. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Sadly, no. I mean, MAYBE, with the right administration you could get away with killing an officer if they are breaking the law and endangering your life. But it’s really up to the courts, and courts are usually not okay with killing their officers. Even when it is justified or self defense. The state will not go down without a fight. I don’t think there is any realistic resistance without an organized army of civilian soldiers. The 2nd amendment and ‘militias’ and all that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Yea. The key part of the 2nd amendment is the "organized militia" part that has conveniently been left out of main stream discussions. Civilians need to start organizing or we are all royally fucked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Actually an organized militia isn't needed. As the bill of rights is just a small enumeration of our natural rights, and does not include all of them. They are solely there to remind the populace what our rights are even in the face of a tyrannical government. Funny enough your arguments now are why James Madison didn't want a bill of rights included as he felt that Natural Rights were too numerous to list, and people would think themselves limited to only the enumerated powers or confuse them into thinking the government granted them those rights. When, in fact, those rights are inherent to our very being. Some Relevant reading: " When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. " -The Declaration of Independence. So important they wrote it down, and signed it. (Broke it up for readability) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Yes, I'm aware of this and in fact I agree with Madison's position. I just wasn't trying to get into the nitty gritty behind having a top-down system of authority dictating what is or isn't "rights" and its flaws. I still stand behind my position that having well-organized, volunteer community militias is a necessity that every community should have and be engaged with to some extent. So long as the state exists, people need to be ready to defend themselves against it. Also, personally, I oppose the existence of the state as a concept and believe it should be abolished, with its roles being replaced by bottom-up structures of authority from within communities, but that's also getting into much deeper politics. permalink fedilink source parent [–] conicalscientist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Americans love to preach about their rules. Especially about how uniquely exceptional the rules are. Turns out it's all bullshit. They're just another tinpot dictatorship ruling over a barbaric shithole. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 child) If ICE comes for you, there's an over 50% chance that's gonna happen either way. May as well even the field a bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] phx@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Also wondering what happens if there next goon squad is all ventilated. "Oh yeah, I saw an attempted kidnapping and then somebody shot the kidnappers. Victim and the shooter ran away. Guy was wearing a hoodie. No idea who they were" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Same rules as when you see a young mom/dad steal diapers and baby food. No, you didn't. permalink fedilink source parent [–] in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago (7 children) I guess ICE wins then. Yayyyyy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] walktheplank@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (6 replies) [–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) spend the rest of your life dead I feel like this wording could have been better permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago It’s just a stupid joke, like waking up dead. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Psythik@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago No, the wording is perfect. Similar to when you wake up dead. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 1 year ago (1 child) Oh no, Your Honor, you don't understand, that guy on lemmy said I could do it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (3 children) Do you not understand what the 2nd Amendment is for and are utterly ignorant to concepts such as "self defense"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago (13 children) In the current climate, do you really think a judge will support your assertions of self defence? If you shoot an ICE officer, I very much doubt you'd ever see a court room. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago We're a little past hoping judges do the right thing. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (12 replies) [–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) I don't see any well-regulated militias around here... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* Yea. That's kinda the entire problem that I'm attempting to highlight. See my other comment where I literally quote the amendment word for word permalink fedilink source parent [–] Taleya@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) Hey bud, This doesn't apply to people they don't want it to apply to. It never has. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Hey bud. That's all the more reason for people to exercise their right in the face of those trying to take it away from them. It doesn't matter what they say. We shouldn't respect their authority and should be preparing to challenge it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Taleya@aussie.zone 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) Cycle back a bit bud. Lets roll to the start: point one : lets shoot ice under 2A Me: 2A defense doesn't apply to people they don't want it to apply to You can warhgarrghhg after the fact all you like, but the fact is the way the US is going you should not be thinking your "constitutional rights" are going to protect you. Throughout US history under saner governments they've violated them as they see fit for demographics of their choosing. The current administration is not sane. IF your response to having this pointed out to you is to claim that the person pointing it out is boot gobbling and therefore never going to resist then you probably need to sit back a bit and think about your comprehension levels permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children) The 2nd Amendment isn't about legality, as much as a small enumeration of our natural rights. James Madison was against including a Bill of Rights because he felt that an actual list of rights was far too numerous, and had to be talked round to including a portion of the most important rights to be written down. It's written down for us, the people, the citizens. It's to remind us that we have inalienable rights that cannot be taken from us by a tyrannical government, big or small. That we have these rights inherent to our very being. From the Declaration of Independence: " When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. " (Broke it up for readability) My point with this is that the only defense that matters at this section of time is social defense. If I end up on the jury for someone who shot someone who was masked up as ICE. In no way would I ever consider them guilty, regardless of the events. It is socially acceptable in my eyes to kill an individual in a gestapo like organization. That's just self defense/defense of a third party, as they represent an actual threat, even if an individual's current actions aren't threatening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) [+] walktheplank@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (3 children) Do you not understand what the 2nd Amendment is for and are utterly ignorant to concepts such as "self defense"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago (13 children) In the current climate, do you really think a judge will support your assertions of self defence? If you shoot an ICE officer, I very much doubt you'd ever see a court room. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago We're a little past hoping judges do the right thing. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (12 replies) [–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) I don't see any well-regulated militias around here... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* Yea. That's kinda the entire problem that I'm attempting to highlight. See my other comment where I literally quote the amendment word for word permalink fedilink source parent [–] Taleya@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) Hey bud, This doesn't apply to people they don't want it to apply to. It never has. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Hey bud. That's all the more reason for people to exercise their right in the face of those trying to take it away from them. It doesn't matter what they say. We shouldn't respect their authority and should be preparing to challenge it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Taleya@aussie.zone 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) Cycle back a bit bud. Lets roll to the start: point one : lets shoot ice under 2A Me: 2A defense doesn't apply to people they don't want it to apply to You can warhgarrghhg after the fact all you like, but the fact is the way the US is going you should not be thinking your "constitutional rights" are going to protect you. Throughout US history under saner governments they've violated them as they see fit for demographics of their choosing. The current administration is not sane. IF your response to having this pointed out to you is to claim that the person pointing it out is boot gobbling and therefore never going to resist then you probably need to sit back a bit and think about your comprehension levels permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children) The 2nd Amendment isn't about legality, as much as a small enumeration of our natural rights. James Madison was against including a Bill of Rights because he felt that an actual list of rights was far too numerous, and had to be talked round to including a portion of the most important rights to be written down. It's written down for us, the people, the citizens. It's to remind us that we have inalienable rights that cannot be taken from us by a tyrannical government, big or small. That we have these rights inherent to our very being. From the Declaration of Independence: " When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. " (Broke it up for readability) My point with this is that the only defense that matters at this section of time is social defense. If I end up on the jury for someone who shot someone who was masked up as ICE. In no way would I ever consider them guilty, regardless of the events. It is socially acceptable in my eyes to kill an individual in a gestapo like organization. That's just self defense/defense of a third party, as they represent an actual threat, even if an individual's current actions aren't threatening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) [+] walktheplank@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies)
[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago (13 children) In the current climate, do you really think a judge will support your assertions of self defence? If you shoot an ICE officer, I very much doubt you'd ever see a court room. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago We're a little past hoping judges do the right thing. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago We're a little past hoping judges do the right thing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) I don't see any well-regulated militias around here... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* Yea. That's kinda the entire problem that I'm attempting to highlight. See my other comment where I literally quote the amendment word for word permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* Yea. That's kinda the entire problem that I'm attempting to highlight. See my other comment where I literally quote the amendment word for word permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) Hey bud, This doesn't apply to people they don't want it to apply to. It never has. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Hey bud. That's all the more reason for people to exercise their right in the face of those trying to take it away from them. It doesn't matter what they say. We shouldn't respect their authority and should be preparing to challenge it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Taleya@aussie.zone 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) Cycle back a bit bud. Lets roll to the start: point one : lets shoot ice under 2A Me: 2A defense doesn't apply to people they don't want it to apply to You can warhgarrghhg after the fact all you like, but the fact is the way the US is going you should not be thinking your "constitutional rights" are going to protect you. Throughout US history under saner governments they've violated them as they see fit for demographics of their choosing. The current administration is not sane. IF your response to having this pointed out to you is to claim that the person pointing it out is boot gobbling and therefore never going to resist then you probably need to sit back a bit and think about your comprehension levels permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children) The 2nd Amendment isn't about legality, as much as a small enumeration of our natural rights. James Madison was against including a Bill of Rights because he felt that an actual list of rights was far too numerous, and had to be talked round to including a portion of the most important rights to be written down. It's written down for us, the people, the citizens. It's to remind us that we have inalienable rights that cannot be taken from us by a tyrannical government, big or small. That we have these rights inherent to our very being. From the Declaration of Independence: " When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. " (Broke it up for readability) My point with this is that the only defense that matters at this section of time is social defense. If I end up on the jury for someone who shot someone who was masked up as ICE. In no way would I ever consider them guilty, regardless of the events. It is socially acceptable in my eyes to kill an individual in a gestapo like organization. That's just self defense/defense of a third party, as they represent an actual threat, even if an individual's current actions aren't threatening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) [+] walktheplank@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Hey bud. That's all the more reason for people to exercise their right in the face of those trying to take it away from them. It doesn't matter what they say. We shouldn't respect their authority and should be preparing to challenge it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Taleya@aussie.zone 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) Cycle back a bit bud. Lets roll to the start: point one : lets shoot ice under 2A Me: 2A defense doesn't apply to people they don't want it to apply to You can warhgarrghhg after the fact all you like, but the fact is the way the US is going you should not be thinking your "constitutional rights" are going to protect you. Throughout US history under saner governments they've violated them as they see fit for demographics of their choosing. The current administration is not sane. IF your response to having this pointed out to you is to claim that the person pointing it out is boot gobbling and therefore never going to resist then you probably need to sit back a bit and think about your comprehension levels permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children) The 2nd Amendment isn't about legality, as much as a small enumeration of our natural rights. James Madison was against including a Bill of Rights because he felt that an actual list of rights was far too numerous, and had to be talked round to including a portion of the most important rights to be written down. It's written down for us, the people, the citizens. It's to remind us that we have inalienable rights that cannot be taken from us by a tyrannical government, big or small. That we have these rights inherent to our very being. From the Declaration of Independence: " When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. " (Broke it up for readability) My point with this is that the only defense that matters at this section of time is social defense. If I end up on the jury for someone who shot someone who was masked up as ICE. In no way would I ever consider them guilty, regardless of the events. It is socially acceptable in my eyes to kill an individual in a gestapo like organization. That's just self defense/defense of a third party, as they represent an actual threat, even if an individual's current actions aren't threatening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) Cycle back a bit bud. Lets roll to the start: point one : lets shoot ice under 2A Me: 2A defense doesn't apply to people they don't want it to apply to You can warhgarrghhg after the fact all you like, but the fact is the way the US is going you should not be thinking your "constitutional rights" are going to protect you. Throughout US history under saner governments they've violated them as they see fit for demographics of their choosing. The current administration is not sane. IF your response to having this pointed out to you is to claim that the person pointing it out is boot gobbling and therefore never going to resist then you probably need to sit back a bit and think about your comprehension levels permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children) The 2nd Amendment isn't about legality, as much as a small enumeration of our natural rights. James Madison was against including a Bill of Rights because he felt that an actual list of rights was far too numerous, and had to be talked round to including a portion of the most important rights to be written down. It's written down for us, the people, the citizens. It's to remind us that we have inalienable rights that cannot be taken from us by a tyrannical government, big or small. That we have these rights inherent to our very being. From the Declaration of Independence: " When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. " (Broke it up for readability) My point with this is that the only defense that matters at this section of time is social defense. If I end up on the jury for someone who shot someone who was masked up as ICE. In no way would I ever consider them guilty, regardless of the events. It is socially acceptable in my eyes to kill an individual in a gestapo like organization. That's just self defense/defense of a third party, as they represent an actual threat, even if an individual's current actions aren't threatening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children) The 2nd Amendment isn't about legality, as much as a small enumeration of our natural rights. James Madison was against including a Bill of Rights because he felt that an actual list of rights was far too numerous, and had to be talked round to including a portion of the most important rights to be written down. It's written down for us, the people, the citizens. It's to remind us that we have inalienable rights that cannot be taken from us by a tyrannical government, big or small. That we have these rights inherent to our very being. From the Declaration of Independence: " When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. " (Broke it up for readability) My point with this is that the only defense that matters at this section of time is social defense. If I end up on the jury for someone who shot someone who was masked up as ICE. In no way would I ever consider them guilty, regardless of the events. It is socially acceptable in my eyes to kill an individual in a gestapo like organization. That's just self defense/defense of a third party, as they represent an actual threat, even if an individual's current actions aren't threatening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies)
[+] walktheplank@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago (4 children) Only if you want to spend the rest of your life dead or in prison. It’s a lovely thought, but ICE has the entire weight of the government behind them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago (4 children) I was under the impression that US rules about trespassing left the owner with a lot of rights, even to use weapons to protect their property. Doesn't this apply when ICE raids homes without warnings or warrants? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago Apparently not, either die trying or live in servitude as all hopes of resistance gets further stripped away. A lot of people in here seem to choose the latter, it's how the bad guys win every time. permalink fedilink source parent [–] InputZero@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (3 children) Yes but no, you have the right to defend your home but not against an officer of the law carrying out a warrant. So if a plain clothes officer, with a drawn fire arm, carrys out a no knock warrent, and the homeowner tries to shoot them. That's attempting to kill an officer of the law. It doesn't matter if the appearance of a plain clothes no knock warrent is identical to a home invasion, and the homeowner defends themselves, the ICE agents are just going to kill the homeowner and the ICE agents will have protection of the law. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 16 points 1 year ago (1 child) This isn't really true. People have gotten off on shooting at officers because they didn't know they were officers. It's a huge risk, because they'll also likely just shoot you, but the law doesn't actually require people to have telepathic knowledge of the association of a presumed home invader. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wetbeardhairs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago It's still very much a matter of privilege to afford a good enough attorney to get you off. Black people tend to get shot while sleeping and convicted postmortem. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Roughknite@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) You are forgetting they are not using warrants. A court would find you not guilty if they have no warrant and you defend yourself according to your laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago I certainly wouldn't find anybody shooting an ICE "agent" as guilty if I was on the Jury, regardless of what a judge might say. Jury Nullification is an important right that every U.S. Citizen should know about, but never talk about inside a court house. I refuse to put away people defending their community from a gestapo like force, regardless of the events surrounding said gestapo's death. permalink fedilink source parent [–] phx@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (1 child) Honest question: what warrant are they operating under? These guys won't even produce ID when asked so I doubt they've got paperwork permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] InputZero@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago If you're asking about ICE officers, they've been given the authority to sign their own warrants. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Sadly, no. I mean, MAYBE, with the right administration you could get away with killing an officer if they are breaking the law and endangering your life. But it’s really up to the courts, and courts are usually not okay with killing their officers. Even when it is justified or self defense. The state will not go down without a fight. I don’t think there is any realistic resistance without an organized army of civilian soldiers. The 2nd amendment and ‘militias’ and all that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Yea. The key part of the 2nd amendment is the "organized militia" part that has conveniently been left out of main stream discussions. Civilians need to start organizing or we are all royally fucked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Actually an organized militia isn't needed. As the bill of rights is just a small enumeration of our natural rights, and does not include all of them. They are solely there to remind the populace what our rights are even in the face of a tyrannical government. Funny enough your arguments now are why James Madison didn't want a bill of rights included as he felt that Natural Rights were too numerous to list, and people would think themselves limited to only the enumerated powers or confuse them into thinking the government granted them those rights. When, in fact, those rights are inherent to our very being. Some Relevant reading: " When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. " -The Declaration of Independence. So important they wrote it down, and signed it. (Broke it up for readability) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Yes, I'm aware of this and in fact I agree with Madison's position. I just wasn't trying to get into the nitty gritty behind having a top-down system of authority dictating what is or isn't "rights" and its flaws. I still stand behind my position that having well-organized, volunteer community militias is a necessity that every community should have and be engaged with to some extent. So long as the state exists, people need to be ready to defend themselves against it. Also, personally, I oppose the existence of the state as a concept and believe it should be abolished, with its roles being replaced by bottom-up structures of authority from within communities, but that's also getting into much deeper politics. permalink fedilink source parent [–] conicalscientist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Americans love to preach about their rules. Especially about how uniquely exceptional the rules are. Turns out it's all bullshit. They're just another tinpot dictatorship ruling over a barbaric shithole. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 child) If ICE comes for you, there's an over 50% chance that's gonna happen either way. May as well even the field a bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] phx@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Also wondering what happens if there next goon squad is all ventilated. "Oh yeah, I saw an attempted kidnapping and then somebody shot the kidnappers. Victim and the shooter ran away. Guy was wearing a hoodie. No idea who they were" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Same rules as when you see a young mom/dad steal diapers and baby food. No, you didn't. permalink fedilink source parent [–] in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago (7 children) I guess ICE wins then. Yayyyyy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] walktheplank@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (6 replies) [–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) spend the rest of your life dead I feel like this wording could have been better permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago It’s just a stupid joke, like waking up dead. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Psythik@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago No, the wording is perfect. Similar to when you wake up dead. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago (4 children) I was under the impression that US rules about trespassing left the owner with a lot of rights, even to use weapons to protect their property. Doesn't this apply when ICE raids homes without warnings or warrants? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago Apparently not, either die trying or live in servitude as all hopes of resistance gets further stripped away. A lot of people in here seem to choose the latter, it's how the bad guys win every time. permalink fedilink source parent [–] InputZero@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (3 children) Yes but no, you have the right to defend your home but not against an officer of the law carrying out a warrant. So if a plain clothes officer, with a drawn fire arm, carrys out a no knock warrent, and the homeowner tries to shoot them. That's attempting to kill an officer of the law. It doesn't matter if the appearance of a plain clothes no knock warrent is identical to a home invasion, and the homeowner defends themselves, the ICE agents are just going to kill the homeowner and the ICE agents will have protection of the law. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 16 points 1 year ago (1 child) This isn't really true. People have gotten off on shooting at officers because they didn't know they were officers. It's a huge risk, because they'll also likely just shoot you, but the law doesn't actually require people to have telepathic knowledge of the association of a presumed home invader. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wetbeardhairs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago It's still very much a matter of privilege to afford a good enough attorney to get you off. Black people tend to get shot while sleeping and convicted postmortem. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Roughknite@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) You are forgetting they are not using warrants. A court would find you not guilty if they have no warrant and you defend yourself according to your laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago I certainly wouldn't find anybody shooting an ICE "agent" as guilty if I was on the Jury, regardless of what a judge might say. Jury Nullification is an important right that every U.S. Citizen should know about, but never talk about inside a court house. I refuse to put away people defending their community from a gestapo like force, regardless of the events surrounding said gestapo's death. permalink fedilink source parent [–] phx@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (1 child) Honest question: what warrant are they operating under? These guys won't even produce ID when asked so I doubt they've got paperwork permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] InputZero@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago If you're asking about ICE officers, they've been given the authority to sign their own warrants. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Sadly, no. I mean, MAYBE, with the right administration you could get away with killing an officer if they are breaking the law and endangering your life. But it’s really up to the courts, and courts are usually not okay with killing their officers. Even when it is justified or self defense. The state will not go down without a fight. I don’t think there is any realistic resistance without an organized army of civilian soldiers. The 2nd amendment and ‘militias’ and all that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Yea. The key part of the 2nd amendment is the "organized militia" part that has conveniently been left out of main stream discussions. Civilians need to start organizing or we are all royally fucked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Actually an organized militia isn't needed. As the bill of rights is just a small enumeration of our natural rights, and does not include all of them. They are solely there to remind the populace what our rights are even in the face of a tyrannical government. Funny enough your arguments now are why James Madison didn't want a bill of rights included as he felt that Natural Rights were too numerous to list, and people would think themselves limited to only the enumerated powers or confuse them into thinking the government granted them those rights. When, in fact, those rights are inherent to our very being. Some Relevant reading: " When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. " -The Declaration of Independence. So important they wrote it down, and signed it. (Broke it up for readability) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Yes, I'm aware of this and in fact I agree with Madison's position. I just wasn't trying to get into the nitty gritty behind having a top-down system of authority dictating what is or isn't "rights" and its flaws. I still stand behind my position that having well-organized, volunteer community militias is a necessity that every community should have and be engaged with to some extent. So long as the state exists, people need to be ready to defend themselves against it. Also, personally, I oppose the existence of the state as a concept and believe it should be abolished, with its roles being replaced by bottom-up structures of authority from within communities, but that's also getting into much deeper politics. permalink fedilink source parent [–] conicalscientist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Americans love to preach about their rules. Especially about how uniquely exceptional the rules are. Turns out it's all bullshit. They're just another tinpot dictatorship ruling over a barbaric shithole. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago Apparently not, either die trying or live in servitude as all hopes of resistance gets further stripped away. A lot of people in here seem to choose the latter, it's how the bad guys win every time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] InputZero@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (3 children) Yes but no, you have the right to defend your home but not against an officer of the law carrying out a warrant. So if a plain clothes officer, with a drawn fire arm, carrys out a no knock warrent, and the homeowner tries to shoot them. That's attempting to kill an officer of the law. It doesn't matter if the appearance of a plain clothes no knock warrent is identical to a home invasion, and the homeowner defends themselves, the ICE agents are just going to kill the homeowner and the ICE agents will have protection of the law. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 16 points 1 year ago (1 child) This isn't really true. People have gotten off on shooting at officers because they didn't know they were officers. It's a huge risk, because they'll also likely just shoot you, but the law doesn't actually require people to have telepathic knowledge of the association of a presumed home invader. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wetbeardhairs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago It's still very much a matter of privilege to afford a good enough attorney to get you off. Black people tend to get shot while sleeping and convicted postmortem. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Roughknite@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) You are forgetting they are not using warrants. A court would find you not guilty if they have no warrant and you defend yourself according to your laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago I certainly wouldn't find anybody shooting an ICE "agent" as guilty if I was on the Jury, regardless of what a judge might say. Jury Nullification is an important right that every U.S. Citizen should know about, but never talk about inside a court house. I refuse to put away people defending their community from a gestapo like force, regardless of the events surrounding said gestapo's death. permalink fedilink source parent [–] phx@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (1 child) Honest question: what warrant are they operating under? These guys won't even produce ID when asked so I doubt they've got paperwork permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] InputZero@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago If you're asking about ICE officers, they've been given the authority to sign their own warrants. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 16 points 1 year ago (1 child) This isn't really true. People have gotten off on shooting at officers because they didn't know they were officers. It's a huge risk, because they'll also likely just shoot you, but the law doesn't actually require people to have telepathic knowledge of the association of a presumed home invader. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wetbeardhairs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago It's still very much a matter of privilege to afford a good enough attorney to get you off. Black people tend to get shot while sleeping and convicted postmortem. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] wetbeardhairs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago It's still very much a matter of privilege to afford a good enough attorney to get you off. Black people tend to get shot while sleeping and convicted postmortem. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Roughknite@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) You are forgetting they are not using warrants. A court would find you not guilty if they have no warrant and you defend yourself according to your laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago I certainly wouldn't find anybody shooting an ICE "agent" as guilty if I was on the Jury, regardless of what a judge might say. Jury Nullification is an important right that every U.S. Citizen should know about, but never talk about inside a court house. I refuse to put away people defending their community from a gestapo like force, regardless of the events surrounding said gestapo's death. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago I certainly wouldn't find anybody shooting an ICE "agent" as guilty if I was on the Jury, regardless of what a judge might say. Jury Nullification is an important right that every U.S. Citizen should know about, but never talk about inside a court house. I refuse to put away people defending their community from a gestapo like force, regardless of the events surrounding said gestapo's death. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] phx@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (1 child) Honest question: what warrant are they operating under? These guys won't even produce ID when asked so I doubt they've got paperwork permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] InputZero@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago If you're asking about ICE officers, they've been given the authority to sign their own warrants. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] InputZero@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago If you're asking about ICE officers, they've been given the authority to sign their own warrants. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Sadly, no. I mean, MAYBE, with the right administration you could get away with killing an officer if they are breaking the law and endangering your life. But it’s really up to the courts, and courts are usually not okay with killing their officers. Even when it is justified or self defense. The state will not go down without a fight. I don’t think there is any realistic resistance without an organized army of civilian soldiers. The 2nd amendment and ‘militias’ and all that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Yea. The key part of the 2nd amendment is the "organized militia" part that has conveniently been left out of main stream discussions. Civilians need to start organizing or we are all royally fucked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Actually an organized militia isn't needed. As the bill of rights is just a small enumeration of our natural rights, and does not include all of them. They are solely there to remind the populace what our rights are even in the face of a tyrannical government. Funny enough your arguments now are why James Madison didn't want a bill of rights included as he felt that Natural Rights were too numerous to list, and people would think themselves limited to only the enumerated powers or confuse them into thinking the government granted them those rights. When, in fact, those rights are inherent to our very being. Some Relevant reading: " When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. " -The Declaration of Independence. So important they wrote it down, and signed it. (Broke it up for readability) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Yes, I'm aware of this and in fact I agree with Madison's position. I just wasn't trying to get into the nitty gritty behind having a top-down system of authority dictating what is or isn't "rights" and its flaws. I still stand behind my position that having well-organized, volunteer community militias is a necessity that every community should have and be engaged with to some extent. So long as the state exists, people need to be ready to defend themselves against it. Also, personally, I oppose the existence of the state as a concept and believe it should be abolished, with its roles being replaced by bottom-up structures of authority from within communities, but that's also getting into much deeper politics. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Yea. The key part of the 2nd amendment is the "organized militia" part that has conveniently been left out of main stream discussions. Civilians need to start organizing or we are all royally fucked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Actually an organized militia isn't needed. As the bill of rights is just a small enumeration of our natural rights, and does not include all of them. They are solely there to remind the populace what our rights are even in the face of a tyrannical government. Funny enough your arguments now are why James Madison didn't want a bill of rights included as he felt that Natural Rights were too numerous to list, and people would think themselves limited to only the enumerated powers or confuse them into thinking the government granted them those rights. When, in fact, those rights are inherent to our very being. Some Relevant reading: " When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. " -The Declaration of Independence. So important they wrote it down, and signed it. (Broke it up for readability) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Yes, I'm aware of this and in fact I agree with Madison's position. I just wasn't trying to get into the nitty gritty behind having a top-down system of authority dictating what is or isn't "rights" and its flaws. I still stand behind my position that having well-organized, volunteer community militias is a necessity that every community should have and be engaged with to some extent. So long as the state exists, people need to be ready to defend themselves against it. Also, personally, I oppose the existence of the state as a concept and believe it should be abolished, with its roles being replaced by bottom-up structures of authority from within communities, but that's also getting into much deeper politics. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Actually an organized militia isn't needed. As the bill of rights is just a small enumeration of our natural rights, and does not include all of them. They are solely there to remind the populace what our rights are even in the face of a tyrannical government. Funny enough your arguments now are why James Madison didn't want a bill of rights included as he felt that Natural Rights were too numerous to list, and people would think themselves limited to only the enumerated powers or confuse them into thinking the government granted them those rights. When, in fact, those rights are inherent to our very being. Some Relevant reading: " When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. " -The Declaration of Independence. So important they wrote it down, and signed it. (Broke it up for readability) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Yes, I'm aware of this and in fact I agree with Madison's position. I just wasn't trying to get into the nitty gritty behind having a top-down system of authority dictating what is or isn't "rights" and its flaws. I still stand behind my position that having well-organized, volunteer community militias is a necessity that every community should have and be engaged with to some extent. So long as the state exists, people need to be ready to defend themselves against it. Also, personally, I oppose the existence of the state as a concept and believe it should be abolished, with its roles being replaced by bottom-up structures of authority from within communities, but that's also getting into much deeper politics. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Yes, I'm aware of this and in fact I agree with Madison's position. I just wasn't trying to get into the nitty gritty behind having a top-down system of authority dictating what is or isn't "rights" and its flaws. I still stand behind my position that having well-organized, volunteer community militias is a necessity that every community should have and be engaged with to some extent. So long as the state exists, people need to be ready to defend themselves against it. Also, personally, I oppose the existence of the state as a concept and believe it should be abolished, with its roles being replaced by bottom-up structures of authority from within communities, but that's also getting into much deeper politics. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] conicalscientist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Americans love to preach about their rules. Especially about how uniquely exceptional the rules are. Turns out it's all bullshit. They're just another tinpot dictatorship ruling over a barbaric shithole. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 child) If ICE comes for you, there's an over 50% chance that's gonna happen either way. May as well even the field a bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] phx@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Also wondering what happens if there next goon squad is all ventilated. "Oh yeah, I saw an attempted kidnapping and then somebody shot the kidnappers. Victim and the shooter ran away. Guy was wearing a hoodie. No idea who they were" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Same rules as when you see a young mom/dad steal diapers and baby food. No, you didn't. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] phx@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Also wondering what happens if there next goon squad is all ventilated. "Oh yeah, I saw an attempted kidnapping and then somebody shot the kidnappers. Victim and the shooter ran away. Guy was wearing a hoodie. No idea who they were" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Same rules as when you see a young mom/dad steal diapers and baby food. No, you didn't. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Same rules as when you see a young mom/dad steal diapers and baby food. No, you didn't. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago (7 children) I guess ICE wins then. Yayyyyy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] walktheplank@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (6 replies)
[+] walktheplank@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) spend the rest of your life dead I feel like this wording could have been better permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago It’s just a stupid joke, like waking up dead. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Psythik@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago No, the wording is perfect. Similar to when you wake up dead. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago It’s just a stupid joke, like waking up dead. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Psythik@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago No, the wording is perfect. Similar to when you wake up dead. permalink fedilink source parent