🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3922a250.2364276@news.ican.net>,
  Ivan Gowch <gowch@SPAMMENOThotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2000 16:01:46 GMT, big_toe_1@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> IG:
> ==>> The issue of self-defence is hardly relevant here.  The fact is
that
> ==>> it's stupid beyond belief -- suicidal, in fact
>
> ==>It quite probably is.   However it is relevant in the context that
> ==>people do have the right to self defense.   No one said that an
act of
> ==>self defence had to be necesarily sane.
>
> Actually, it does.  An act of "self-defence" that leads to your demise
> isn't self-defence at all.

Our founding fathers would strenuously disagree.   I believe that at
the start of the Revolutionary War, the odds were very heavily against
the colonists.

Also, the people in Chechnia would also strenuously disagree.  There
are times that people will view death as preferable to copitulation.


> Self-destruction in defiance of something
> or someone you don't like, or as a matter of principle, may be noble
> and romantic, but it's not self-defence.

I disagree.  Many people's throughout history have been destroyed while
protecting themselves.   That act of protection would be self defense.


>
> ==>That very fact alone should
> ==>have been the government's greatest clue that a full frontal
assault
> ==>was probably not the best approach against a compound of people
with
> ==>assault weapons, led by a fanatic, self appointed, minister.
>
> It was not the BATF's finest moment.  No argument here.
>
> IG:
> ==>-- to engage a heavily
> ==>> armed force of government gunmen in a firefight.  You may have
right
> ==>> on your side; you may the law on your side; you may have God on
your
> ==>> side, but the fact is that if you shoot it out with government
troops
> ==>> you're almost certain to end up dead.
>
> ==>There are those that are willing to die for right, law, and God.
>
> Dying for right is admirable, dying for the law is shortsighted and
> dying for "God" is stupid.

See above regarding sanity and self defense.


>
> ==>People that feel that they
> ==>are being threatened will eventually fight back, no matter what the
> ==>odds of their survival.
>
> Yes, but it is the nature and credibility of the threat that
> determines whether the response is sane or not.

Your assuming that all people will perceive the nature and credibility
of the threat in the exact same manner that you perceive it.


> If I decide to battle
> a snarling housebreaker who demands to know where my daughter's
> bedroom is, I suspect most people would consider that a reasonable
> response, even if he is wielding an Uzi and I am barehanded.  If,
> however, I start shooting at cops because I'm convinced they're in
> cahoots with whoever is in those unmarked black helicopters that are
> preparing the way for a UN takeover of my country, that's just plain
> nuts, even if I genuinely feel myself threatened, and can hardly be
> dignified by the term "self-defence."
>

Even if they open fire first?   You would quietly give up your home,
family, and possibly your life?

> IG:
> ==>> Faced with that kind of situation, anyone who's not certifiably
insane
> ==>> will surrender peacefully and let the lawyers argue it out later.
>
> ==>You're assuming a level of sanity that probably was not present.
There
> ==>is no denying that.   However, last I checked, even the insane
have a
> ==>right to due process.
>
> True.  If my understanding is correct, however, the BATF raid was
> backed by a warrant, which made it legal, if ill-advised.

The warrant is questionable.   There were those that testified that the
warrant was not signed until the next day.


> It's the
> courts that are supposed to provide due process -- not Smith & Wesson.
>

You might be better served to direct that statement at the BATF.

> ==> And WACO did not have to end that way.
>
> No argument here, either.  I've never understood why the FBI didn't
> simply wait the Waco wackos out.  Their food was going to run out
> sooner or later and, as crazy as they were, I doubt if they were
> prepared to engage in cannibalism.


I was generally directing that comment to the way it was handled from
start to finish.   They would have probably had a better time of it by
not using the storm trooper tactics up front.

>
> IG:
> ==>> Martyrdom may be romantic, but it's so damned permanent.
>
> ==>Yet, there will always be martyrs.
>
> Yes, as long as people delude themselves into thinking that dying
> stupidly confers any post-death benefits.
>

Sometimes it does confer post-death benefits though.   Hopefully, the
post death benefit that will be associated with Waco may be the
governments edification concerning arrests proceedures.  The Montana
incident, for example, was handled much better, as well as the recent
Elian rescue.   It was well planned and executed.


> - Ivan Gowch <gowch@hotmail.com>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.