No Cissy, you didn't answer...here's the question you posed. Why not present your side of it like I asked? Try to follow along...I know it's way over your bedtime, so it can wait until tomorrow if you want.
Ummm...a trial and jury. If I'm wrong, then who decides?
There are thousands of posts on the Zimmerman thread clearly showing how and where the use of lethal force is justified. If my memory serves me right, I believe it happened in a court room. Did due process change?
Ummm...a trial and jury. If I'm wrong, then who decides?
Oh, I get it. Before anyone goes after someone and uses lethal force, they need to empanel a jury, hold a trial and provide all the information necessary to make a decision to allow the military/police to use lethal force....so we should approve it before it happens without knowing what will happen to justify such action. Oh, and if it wasn't agreed to justify lethal force, and the police/military are ambushed with more firepower than they have, they must stand down because they don't have the approval to use lethal force, then go back to another jury and ask for justification to use lethal force before they go back again. Yup, sounds real smart!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Ummm...a trial and jury. If I'm wrong, then who decides?
There are thousands of posts on the Zimmerman thread clearly showing how and where the use of lethal force is justified. If my memory serves me right, I believe it happened in a court room. Did due process change?
Now you are referring to a determination of if lethal force was justified based on the definitions that are provided to a jury under the law. They are determining if it was within the boundaries set forth in law. So determination is "THE LAW" and final determination after the fact is managed within the court system to rule on the force being managed within the established guidelines.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Now you are referring to a determination of if lethal force was justified based on the definitions that are provided to a jury under the law. They are determining if it was within the boundaries set forth in law. So determination is "THE LAW" and final determination after the fact is managed within the court system to rule on the force being managed within the established guidelines.
Ding-ding-ding! You win the prize! They decide if it was within the bounds set forth in law. When and what court ruled that the execution ordered on a US citizen was within the bounds of the law? Why wasn't the Al Awlaki family permitted to bring a case against the state to challenge the use of lethal force against their son?
Oh, I get it. Before anyone goes after someone and uses lethal force, they need to empanel a jury, hold a trial and provide all the information necessary to make a decision to allow the military/police to use lethal force....so we should approve it before it happens without knowing what will happen to justify such action. Oh, and if it wasn't agreed to justify lethal force, and the police/military are ambushed with more firepower than they have, they must stand down because they don't have the approval to use lethal force, then go back to another jury and ask for justification to use lethal force before they go back again. Yup, sounds real smart!
It should be if it's premeditated. If it is not premeditated, the victim still has a right to sue the state for any wrongful use of lethal force. If the state is justified in using lethal force, then allow it to go to court and present the evidence. Something the Obama Administration will not allow.
Attacking people working in high rise towers is not honorable. Killing passengers on planes that are flown as bombs is not honorable. Setting off bombs at happy non-violent non-political events is not honorable. Detonating bombs in subways is not honorable. Strapping bombs on young impressionable women to blow themselves up is not honorable. Attacking and killing unarmed embassy diplomats that have helped your country is not honorable. Chopping off the heads of missionaries and aid workers is not honorable. Grabbing all these poor defenseless young girls is not honorable. Trying to blow up planes of innocent people is not honorable.
You are correct of course.
Killing Iraqis after the trade center bombings is also not honorable.
Becoming a terrorist to fight terrorism isn't honorable, it is expanding terrorism.
All of the events you listed above are terrorist actions performed in retaliation for what they perceived as wrongful actions committed against them or on behalf of others for which they feel they are getting retribution.
This is the single biggest problem in the world today.
the US will use terrorist actions to fight terrorism.
The outside terrorists will seek payback.
The US then seeks payback.
The problem is both sides are willing to kill the innocent to try to force the others to change their behavior.
The truth is, all then innocent people need to force the terrorists on both sides to stop acting on their behalf.
The US has no moral high ground.
Neither do it's enemies.
Those who demand people stop killing on their behalf, are the only people that understand terrorism can't be won with terrorism.
If you want support for the US military the US must denounce killing the innocent.
Every innocent death at the hands of the US military creates more people who hate the US.
Acceptable collateral damage is a total lack of empathy.
That is a sign of psychopathy.
Preaching high moral standards but thinking nothing of stooping to the lowest morals to get their own way, is the underlying problem with the military.
Oh, I get it. Before anyone goes after someone and uses lethal force, they need to empanel a jury, hold a trial and provide all the information necessary to make a decision to allow the military/police to use lethal force....so we should approve it before it happens without knowing what will happen to justify such action. Oh, and if it wasn't agreed to justify lethal force, and the police/military are ambushed with more firepower than they have, they must stand down because they don't have the approval to use lethal force, then go back to another jury and ask for justification to use lethal force before they go back again. Yup, sounds real smart!
A warrant for an arrest is sufficient to go after someone.
But not to execute them, without first trying to arrest them.
Due process is not something that should be ignored.
All of the events you listed above are terrorist actions performed in retaliation for what they perceived as wrongful actions committed against them or on behalf of others for which they feel they are getting retribution.
or a continuation of their efforts to attack Western civilization
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Lol. Still don't want touch the question? Who decides if the circumstance required lethal force?
In the case of a SWAT team, there are specific requirements to be met before lethal force can be used. Usually the commander on the scene is responsible to make sure the law is followed. These guidelines are practiced by SWAT teams so that there will be no doubt what circumstances are legal and what are not. Ultimately NY State law authorizes lethal force.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
In retaliation for the continued deaths of innocent people around them. Terror is terror. Putting a flag on it does not change the facts. Acceptable innocent lives is taught to the military. Good job. That's where Tim McViegh learned it. Acceptable taking of innocent lives is terrorism.
Your train of thought is derailed as usual.....
since McVeigh learned it there, what about the other millions of soldiers????
How come they didn't turn into McVeighs.
and I stand on CONTINUED EFFORTS TO ATTACK INNOCENT WESTERN CIVILIZATION!
What did Spain do to deserve the attacks in their country?
Stop being blind!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
In the case of a SWAT team, there are specific requirements to be met before lethal force can be used. Usually the commander on the scene is responsible to make sure the law is followed. These guidelines are practiced by SWAT teams so that there will be no doubt what circumstances are legal and what are not. Ultimately NY State law authorizes lethal force.
But ultimately they have to prove to somebody their actions were legal. There are 3 branches of government, which branch checks the powers of the executive branch to make sure they executed the law legally?
But ultimately they have to prove to somebody their actions were legal. There are 3 branches of government, which branch checks the powers of the executive branch to make sure they executed the law legally?
Yes if they follow the guidelines they will be legal. If they deviate from them, they may be held for their actions in a court of law.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
or a continuation of their efforts to attack Western civilization
a common 'enemy' keeps a nation together like glue.....who makes them an enemy? I don't have an issue with Islamists/Jews/Buddhist etc etc....
maybe cannibalists but haven't had the scary opportunity yet....
most enemies are because of $$$/resources/trade control etc etc etc....we like to think the humanitarian sh!t is the reason but, if that's the case then why isn't the US in places like the african desert countries....BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE AN ENEMY WHEN THEY HAVE NOTHING YOU WANT TO STEAL/BUY/TRADE OR TALK OUT OF......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Logged
