Legal evidence??? And I have to come up with this "LEGAL EVIDENCE" but I can't use a news story or the White House. So who does that leave for me to obtain Cicero's LEGAL EVIDENCE???
I'll call my lawyer today and see what he can do for yo Cissy!
Well, in case you don't know how the constitution works, the defendant is granted a trial to defend themselves against accusation by the state. In the event that the state's accusation resulted in an execution, I would think the constitution provides legal protection and is granted the opportunity to defend themselves and challenge the state's evidence.
But, I see that the state's evidence is all you need to convict and kill an American citizen. God bless American justice!
Well, in case you don't know how the constitution works, the defendant is granted a trial to defend themselves against accusation by the state. In the event that the state's accusation resulted in an execution, I would think the constitution provides legal protection and is granted the opportunity to defend themselves and challenge the state's evidence.
But, I see that the state's evidence is all you need to convict and kill an American citizen. God bless American justice!
So what Cissy seems to be saying is that when a SWAT team kills someone it's always illegal. No matter if the person they kill was about to set off a bomb in a crowded school, or shoot a hostage or any other situation. Interesting.
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
So what Cissy seems to be saying is that when a SWAT team kills someone it's always illegal. No matter if the person they kill was about to set off a bomb in a crowded school, or shoot a hostage or any other situation. Interesting.
A drone flying at 30k feet in a land 10k miles away isn't SWAT. Unless you believe the drone was in imminent danger. Even if that is the case, victims of death or injury due to wrongful SWAT raids can sue the govt for wrongful death or injury. The Al Awlaki family has been denied legal recourse to challenge the WH justification of what you are grasping at straws and calling a "SWAT" raid.
Why would the fed govt deny the family their right to sue? Oh yeah, "nation security" and classified information.
A drone flying at 30k feet in a land 10k miles away isn't SWAT. Unless you believe the drone was in imminent danger. Even if that is the case, victims of death or injury due to wrongful SWAT raids can sue the govt for wrongful death or injury. The Al Awlaki family has been denied legal recourse to challenge the WH justification of what you are grasping at straws and calling a "SWAT" raid. Why would the fed govt deny the family their right to sue? Oh yeah, "nation security" and classified information.
Well, in case you don't know how the constitution works, the defendant is granted a trial to defend themselves against accusation by the state. In the event that the state's accusation resulted in an execution, I would think the constitution provides legal protection and is granted the opportunity to defend themselves and challenge the state's evidence.
But, I see that the state's evidence is all you need to convict and kill an American citizen. God bless American justice!
Again... Cicero sees any SWAT shooting of a dangerous suspect as being ILLEGAL. I wonder if he has LEGAL EVIDENCE of his beliefs?
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
Again... Cicero sees any SWAT shooting of a dangerous suspect as being ILLEGAL. I wonder if he has LEGAL EVIDENCE of his beliefs?
When did I say that?
Box is saying the SWAT team can shoot whoever they feel is dangerous, and they can never be held legally liable for a wrongful death caused by their actions. Not just that, the victim cannot even sue for wrongful deaths, so long as a person on the SWAT team felt in danger. In essence, police and SWAT are above the law and breakdown the wrong door because the warrant was based on inaccurate evidence, and the govt agents that caused the wrongful death are Immanuel.
That makes perfect sense as to why no knock raids have increased over the decades. Why wouldn't they, they don't have to worry about any liability for their actions.
A job is a job....no matter what they are employed at!!!! No one is above another....PERIOD!!
I never asked anyone to give up their life for me via a government issued job....just like I never asked anyone to be a cashier at walmart!
It's their choice of 'employment'!
Don't ask folks to place one above another....k?
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Well, in case you don't know how the constitution works, the defendant is granted a trial to defend themselves against accusation by the state. In the event that the state's accusation resulted in an execution, I would think the constitution provides legal protection and is granted the opportunity to defend themselves and challenge the state's evidence. But, I see that the state's evidence is all you need to convict and kill an American citizen. God bless American justice!
I'm just trying to understand your post Cicero. Is it or is it not sometimes legal and justified for a SWAT team to shoot a dangerous criminal. You seem to post that it is always illegal and unjustified. So..... Is it sometimes legal and justified for a SWAT Team to shoot someone or not?????
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
A job is a job....no matter what they are employed at!!!! No one is above another....PERIOD!!
I never asked anyone to give up their life for me via a government issued job....just like I never asked anyone to be a cashier at walmart!
It's their choice of 'employment'!
Don't ask folks to place one above another....k?
You havent flown anywhere for a while ? notice that uniformed service men board the plane with the first class passengers. The walmart cashiers board the plane with thier boarding group.
You havent flown anywhere for a while ? notice that uniformed service men board the plane with the first class passengers. The walmart cashiers board the plane with thier boarding group.
all by design. they are all one in the same....one not more valuable than the other.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
I'm just trying to understand your post Cicero. Is it or is it not sometimes legal and justified for a SWAT team to shoot a dangerous criminal. You seem to post that it is always illegal and unjustified. So..... Is it sometimes legal and justified for a SWAT Team to shoot someone or not?????
Yes, it is sometimes justified - in self defense. You are confusing two issues. The kill-list and SWAT raids. Al Awlaki wasn't a raid and they did not attempt to serve a warrant, he was on an execution list. It was a planned execution using a missile from 30k feet in the air. This decision was made without a judge approving a warrant, it was decided by a team of WH lawyers.
Do you understand the difference between shooting somebody while serving a warrant issued by a judge and an order of execution issued by the chief executive?
Yes, it is sometimes justified - in self defense. You are confusing two issues. The kill-list and SWAT raids. Al Awlaki wasn't a raid and they did not attempt to serve a warrant, he was on an execution list. It was a planned execution using a missile from 30k feet in the air. This decision was made without a judge approving a warrant, it was decided by a team of WH lawyers.
Do you understand the difference between shooting somebody while serving a warrant issued by a judge and an order of execution issued by the chief executive?
OK... Cissy loves to fill his posts with excess words. It's so difficult to really know just what Cissy means when he elaborates so on non issues.
SO TO BE CLEAR... Cicero posts: "Yes, it is sometimes justified - in self defense." Again his response is conflicting. YES, it's ok for the SWAT Team to shoot someone??? but then he posts... "in SELF defense". SELF??? It's only justified when the SWAT team member is defending HIMSELF??? How about a secure SWAT TEAM member sniper who shoots a terrorist who is in the middle of murdering several hostages? It wasn't S E L F defense, but it was killing a terrorist who was about to commit murder.
SO once again, in an attempt to find out what Cicero really thinks... Is it sometimes justified and legal for a SWAT TEAM member to shoot a person, say a terrorist, to save the lives of others??? (NOT SELF DEFENSE, BUT IN THE DEFENSE OF OTHERS)
(It's like pulling teeth)
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
Box, you are creating a scenario that doesn't exist in the Al Awlaki case. If it did exist, I'm not aware it was a hostage or sniper situation, maybe you have some insight and evidence the ACLU doesn't have. Who was Al Awlaki holding hostage? Whose life was in imminent danger? Please, send that to the ACLU, they are looking for that evidence as the justification for the execution of a US citizen.
Man, it's like pulling teeth. Just give up this SWAT hostage scenario in Yemen you keep on referring to. Whose life was imminently in danger? There are a lot of people looking for the legal justification for the extrajudicial execution. You are absolutely positive the justification exists. Where is it?
For a guy that claims to look for facts and evidence, you rely an awful lot on the theoretical.
Logged
