US Imperialism

[egarrard]

You know, I'm beginning to think there might be some merit to that argument, however unintentional, due to the hair-brained decisions of some of the judiciary. Isn't it imperialism to declare that all the world's people are subject to the American Constitution, even if they aren't citizens of the US? No matter where in the world they might be found? Article (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20031229-091559-6347r.htm)
Prepare yourself for a petition by Saddam Hussein challenging the legality of his detention under the U.S. Constitution and international law in a federal court.

[Maro]

Originally posted by egarrard
You know, I'm beginning to think there might be some merit to that argument, however unintentional, due to the hair-brained decisions of some of the judiciary. Isn't it imperialism to declare that all the world's people are subject to the American Constitution, even if they aren't citizens of the US? No matter where in the world they might be found? Article (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20031229-091559-6347r.htm)

It would be Ironic to have a despot like him aqquited by a US Lawyer using it's own law?

[egarrard]

Originally posted by Maro
It would be Ironic to have a despot like him aqquited by a US Lawyer using it's own law? I'm beginning to think it might be appropriate, as an object lesson to the US.

[Ritalin]

hehe funny stuff

[Airmack]

yes thats right. stick up for the man who gased his own people.

give him to the kerds. im sure they want to talk to him.

[Airmack]

Originally posted by Whisp[TR]
doesnt the states still use the gas chamber on prisoners

little off topic but anyways

you have to be kidding me.... i mean really hitler done that.

We give them a shot in there arm that stops the heart and lungs wile they sleep.

[Airmack]

Originally posted by Whisp[TR]
well i think saddam should win because they gave him a time limit to surrender and attacked before the limit was up

there so called window of oppurtunity

dont get off subject. How did you go to americas practice on exacution?

I agree killing is killing but any man can kill. If your mad enough or man enough. Some one comes into home and is doing god knows what to your 4 year old girl. Id shoot him right in the face.

but thats me

get back on subject with saddam.

[Airmack]

We annihilate the bad ones, the ones that have commented a crime. And if killing people can be viewed as an humane practice then ours has to be the best way. No one gases any more, no one hangs any more, no one cuts off people heads and no one use’s the electric chair.

You comparing the us practice to CRIMINALS to saddam is totally different.

sp

[Airmack]

the people we kill are the ones that commit murder. No one is put to death for robbing a store or raping a women. But you say we murder the people who are against us.

Im not sure how to word this but it dont make since. what your saying is people who commit murder are against us. eather our goverment or the people.

so killing others must be ok in your mind then right?

[Airmack]

and saddam is having his rights. We cant touch him at all. (ganeva convention) < sp

but not every one in the world will comply to this. Hand him to the kerds as I said. I assure they will not treat him like we are.

[Airmack]

why would u say murders are anti us.

[Ritalin]

Im still persuaded Saddam is just the US's excuse for not finding massive destruction weapons. Like, wow... there are no weapons... bah let's get saddam anyway so we look good!
More on topic now, Saddam should be judged like Milosevic (even though i dont support that kind of tribunal thingy cuz i mean Milosevic is screwed, im not even sure why he bothers defending himself lol) or by his own people. If they want to kill him and chop his testicles off it's their call, im not sure why the US is even keeping him still.
The last thing i wanna see is another Guantanamo prison camp thingy... for whatever reason...

[splashtech]

Whisp, I think I have to agree with you on this topic.

What I want to know is why the US even started this. It wasn't their country. Maybe it has helped the Iraqi people... some people say so, some people say not. But why do they persist in holding him..... IT IS NOT THEIR PROBLEM!

Hand him back to the iraqis...... its where he comes from. Then it is their law which determines his future. The US can feel happy in that they handled it in a fair way, becasue they cannot possibly be accused of doing anything dodgy that way.

But anyway, that is just my opinion. I'm sure people will disagree.

:smash

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by splashtech
Whisp, I think I have to agree with you on this topic.

What I want to know is why the US even started this. It wasn't their country. Maybe it has helped the Iraqi people... some people say so, some people say not. But why do they persist in holding him..... IT IS NOT THEIR PROBLEM!

Hand him back to the iraqis...... its where he comes from. Then it is their law which determines his future. The US can feel happy in that they handled it in a fair way, becasue they cannot possibly be accused of doing anything dodgy that way.

But anyway, that is just my opinion. I'm sure people will disagree.

:smash

The U.S. is holding him to guarantee his safety so he can be tried before a court. The general consensus is he will be turned over to the Iraqi government when it has been established and is capable of applying justice. The last thing the U.S. wants is for him to be killed before standing trial whether it is by the Iraqis or anyone else. This is like someone being jailed before his or her trial except there is no bond in this case.

[splashtech]

Originally posted by bejohnson
The U.S. is holding him to guarantee his safety so he can be tried before a court. The general consensus is he will be turned over to the Iraqi government when it has been established and is capable of applying justice.

Well that is fair enough then I think. But you do see my point of view right?

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by splashtech
Well that is fair enough then I think. But you do see my point of view right?

I agree. It is the right of the Iraqi people to apply justice in this case. Justice does not fall to the U.S. or any other country. A war crimes tribunal by the U.N. should only take place after Iraq has it's say in the matter.

[splashtech]

Hmm... I think that is fair.

But I guess we all just need to wait and watch now really......

[Airmack]

the u.s. is murdering people that oppose there way of life (the prisoners)

murders oppose our way of life because i dont murder people.


what?

[Airmack]

eye for an eye?

[Airmack]

so if some one broke into your home god forbid with the intent to hurt your family would you kill em?

[Airmack]

i know that if they are in your home and facing you, you can shoot. If they are running away from you or leaving your home you can not shoot.

[egarrard]

Originally posted by Whisp[TR]
it is still murder regardless of the circumstances
as soon as someoome takes someones life that is murder Suppose someone steps out in front of your car on a dark night when you can't see them, but you still run over them and kill them, even though there was no way to avoid it. By your definition, you are still a murderer.

[wazman]

Originally posted by Whisp[TR]
nice try egarrard

the keyword in there is knowingly (Definition: [adv] with full knowledge and deliberation; )

please come again hehe

;)

The word "knowingly" does not appear anywhere in what egarrad quoted:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Whisp[TR]
it is still murder regardless of the circumstances
as soon as someoome takes someones life that is murder
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You took someone's life in his example. By the definition he quoted, which are your words - are they not? - you are a murderer.

Again, you fail to actually read the post and just reply for the sake of having your say.

Please come again. We know you will.

[XxFaeryOnFirexX]

First Degree Murder
Having the intent to kill a person with Malice, Forethought and afterthought of the deed.

Second Degree Murder
Having the intent to kill a person with malice.

Manslaughter
The unlawful, but unintended killing of a person. Can be voluntary, like when someone is killed unlawfully under circumstances that don't include a premeditated intent to kill. Or involuntary, like when someone is killed unintentionally as a result of someone else performing another unlawful act or negligently performing a lawful act.

intruders in the house
A home owner is allowed to use the same (not greater) force than the intruder to protect family or property.

Example - If a person has a gun, you are allowed to use a gun to ward them off, but you cannot kill unless their intent would be to kill you. (hard to disprove they weren't cause if they had a gun... they probably would) If a person has a bat, you are allowed to use an item equivalent of a bat and so on and so forth. If the intruder has a gun and they flee from the house (but are still inside) you cannot shoot them unless they are facing you. If outside of the house, you cannot do anything.

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by XxFaeryOnFirexX
First Degree Murder
Having the intent to kill a person with Malice, Forethought and afterthought of the deed.

Second Degree Murder
Having the intent to kill a person with malice.

Manslaughter
The unlawful, but unintended killing of a person. Can be voluntary, like when someone is killed unlawfully under circumstances that don't include a premeditated intent to kill. Or involuntary, like when someone is killed unintentionally as a result of someone else performing another unlawful act or negligently performing a lawful act.

intruders in the house
A home owner is allowed to use the same (not greater) force than the intruder to protect family or property.

Example - If a person has a gun, you are allowed to use a gun to ward them off, but you cannot kill unless their intent would be to kill you. (hard to disprove they weren't cause if they had a gun... they probably would) If a person has a bat, you are allowed to use an item equivalent of a bat and so on and so forth. If the intruder has a gun and they flee from the house (but are still inside) you cannot shoot them unless they are facing you. If outside of the house, you cannot do anything.

In Georgia and most other states if the intruder is inside your home and you fear for your life or anyone else's life in the house you may use any force necessary to subdue the intruder. This includes deadly force by any means. Self-defense is not a game and is not about being fair or balanced; it is about saving your life.

As for shooting a person just to wound them, that is the best way to lose your life. Any competent shooting or self-defense school will teach you to never point a firearm at anyone unless you intend to kill them. If it has come to the point of pointing a firearm at someone you are in fear of your life and you should be prepared to do what is necessary to handle the situation.

Remember, in self-defense the goal is to survive. My cousin is the captain in charge of the Criminal Investigation Division in the Newton County, Georgia sheriff's department. (Newton county was made famous by being the filming location of "In the Heat of the Night" TV series.) The above comes directly from him and also with this comment, "It's better to be tried by a jury of 12 than to be carried to the grave by a group of 6." Also you cannot rely on the police to protect you for two reasons:

1.) By the time you place a call to 911 and the call is answered, the police are dispatched and arrive at your house, you are most likely dead.

2.) The job of protecting you is yours not the law enforcement officers. The police are there to enforce the law not to protect you. It may be trendy to have "To Serve and Protect" on the side of the police car but the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that the responsibility of the police is not to protect. That responsibility is the individuals.

Here is some interesting reading:

Self Defense Law and the Martial Artist. (http://www.ittendojo.org/articles/general-4.htm) This is written for the Martial Artist but applies equally to any self-defense situation.

Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals (http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html)

No Duty To Protect (http://www.mcsm.org/noduty1.html)

[Rhythmking]

Interesting links. I will be sure to look at them. Thanks!

[XxFaeryOnFirexX]

ahh... yes.

HOWEVER, I'm just quoting what the law states.

if you want to get technical... you can always talk to my mother.

2 Masters, 3 Bachelors and 3 Associates. Teaches law. Can recite nearly anything you want her to. Plus she knows plenty of martial arts.

Anyway...

ever heard of excessive force. Yeah. Unfortunately you can be arrested if you kill them when they are not armed or such. Even if you thought they were armed.. you can be arrested.

also... if you shoot them through the wrists guess what... i doubt they will be doing anything.

yes, i know all about only point a weapon if you intend to kill them. Unfortunately that is wrong. I would rather shoot to disable than shoot to kill. What do you think the POLICE are told? Shoot to disable. Am I correct or not? Well, forget it.

Back to what someone said earlier. Yes, we have lethal injection and gas chambers.

[Rhythmking]

Originally posted by XxFaeryOnFirexX
ahh... yes.

HOWEVER, I'm just quoting what the law states.

if you want to get technical... you can always talk to my mother.

2 Masters, 3 Bachelors and 3 Associates. Teaches law. Can recite nearly anything you want her to. Plus she knows plenty of martial arts.

Anyway...

ever heard of excessive force. Yeah. Unfortunately you can be arrested if you kill them when they are not armed or such. Even if you thought they were armed.. you can be arrested.

also... if you shoot them through the wrists guess what... i doubt they will be doing anything.

yes, i know all about only point a weapon if you intend to kill them. Unfortunately that is wrong. I would rather shoot to disable than shoot to kill. What do you think the POLICE are told? Shoot to disable. Am I correct or not? Well, forget it.

Back to what someone said earlier. Yes, we have lethal injection and gas chambers.

But I don't think there are that many people that are that good a shot. Most people just buy guns and never really take the time to learn how to use them.

But that gets into another whole topic and not the one we are discussing here so I will not say any more.

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by XxFaeryOnFirexX
ahh... yes.

HOWEVER, I'm just quoting what the law states.

if you want to get technical... you can always talk to my mother.

2 Masters, 3 Bachelors and 3 Associates. Teaches law. Can recite nearly anything you want her to. Plus she knows plenty of martial arts.

Anyway...

ever heard of excessive force. Yeah. Unfortunately you can be arrested if you kill them when they are not armed or such. Even if you thought they were armed.. you can be arrested.

also... if you shoot them through the wrists guess what... i doubt they will be doing anything.

yes, i know all about only point a weapon if you intend to kill them. Unfortunately that is wrong. I would rather shoot to disable than shoot to kill. What do you think the POLICE are told? Shoot to disable. Am I correct or not? Well, forget it.

Back to what someone said earlier. Yes, we have lethal injection and gas chambers.

You can be arrested for any reason; being convicted is another matter.

Most people including police officers in time of stress cannot accurately target a bullet in an area to disable a person. That is why everyone including police officers are taught that when you pull the weapon you must be prepared to take a human life. Yes police officers are taught to shoot to disable but they spend hours on a firing range and must qualify and re-qualify constantly. BTW have you ever wondered why the police use a torso silhouette to target practice? This is because the training teaches you to aim for the largest area of the body, the torso and head.

The point is when your life is in danger you do what you have to do to survive and worry about the law later.

[XxFaeryOnFirexX]

i just have to say it. My mom shoots better than the State troopers.:p

it'd be super hard to get into our house anyways.

[residentevil3]

GOD IM SICK OF OFF THIS F U C K I N G BICKERING OVER THE U.S, ITS ALWAYS THE U.S ALWAYS OUR FAULT, WERE SO HORRIBLE WERE SO BAD.


WHISP WHY DONT YOU PUT YOURE F U C K I N G MOUTH WHERE U ASS IS AND SHOVE IT.


YOURE LUCKY I DONT COME OVER TO YOURE HOUSE AND THROW U IN MY GAS CHAMBER, YOU DUMBASS, WHY MUST U ALWAYS ALWAYS !!!! SAY NASTY THINGS ABOUT THE U.S AND WHAT IT DOES. I UNDERSTAND IF U SAY A FEW THINGS HERE AND THIER BUT U ALWAYS SEEM TO JUST LET IT LOOSE AND BASH ANYTHING YOU SEE FIT.


WE DONT DO THE GAS CHAMBERS ANDMORE WE DO LEATHAL INJECTION. WHAT SADDAM DID TO HIS OWN PEOPLE AND THE KURDS CANNOT BE COMPARD TO WHAT WE DO TO OUR SERIAL KILLERS, BABY MURDERERS, CHILD KILLER, AND WHATEVER FILTH HAPPENS TO DO SOME STUPIDE SH!T.

I TRULY HOPE U ROT IN F U C K I N G HELL CUSS I CAN STAND READING ONE MORE THING FROM YOU. I T SEEMS EVERY TIME I JUST CLICK ON THREAD I ALWAYS SEE WHISP WITH HIS ANTI AMERICAN POSTS, THEN HE SAYS OH NO ITS JUST YOURE GOVERNMENT, WELL IM SORRY TO SAY BUT OUR GOVERNMENT IS ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE AND IF YOU DONT LIKE IT THEN SHUT THE F U C K UP,

Oh and if any mod thinks of banning me for ths then go right ahead, Im just sick of nothing being done to this *****, canadian on not forum, you really need to do something about this guy cuss me and others cant stand him anymore.

[residentevil3]

Oh no no you got it wrong i can handle it, i just cant handle you and youre rude nasty mouth.


You are always nasty always rude, even when the U.S or anyoff this crap is not mentioned you nasty and rude, people ask questions on other forums like the overclockeing or whatever youre just really ****ing nasty.


I asked awhile back about painting cases and window mods and u literally were a real jerk and didnt help out at all. I read posts from newbs asking help and u bash them for no givin reason.

Maybe you have some kinda genetic disease or some other problem, or maybe its just that canadian attitude alot of people seem to have ?

[wazman]

Originally posted by residentevil3
GOD IM SICK OF OFF THIS F U C K I N G BICKERING OVER THE U.S, ITS ALWAYS THE U.S ALWAYS OUR FAULT, WERE SO HORRIBLE WERE SO BAD.


WHISP WHY DONT YOU PUT YOURE F U C K I N G MOUTH WHERE U ASS IS AND SHOVE IT.


YOURE LUCKY I DONT COME OVER TO YOURE HOUSE AND THROW U IN MY GAS CHAMBER, YOU DUMBASS, WHY MUST U ALWAYS ALWAYS !!!! SAY NASTY THINGS ABOUT THE U.S AND WHAT IT DOES. I UNDERSTAND IF U SAY A FEW THINGS HERE AND THIER BUT U ALWAYS SEEM TO JUST LET IT LOOSE AND BASH ANYTHING YOU SEE FIT.


WE DONT DO THE GAS CHAMBERS ANDMORE WE DO LEATHAL INJECTION. WHAT SADDAM DID TO HIS OWN PEOPLE AND THE KURDS CANNOT BE COMPARD TO WHAT WE DO TO OUR SERIAL KILLERS, BABY MURDERERS, CHILD KILLER, AND WHATEVER FILTH HAPPENS TO DO SOME STUPIDE SH!T.

I TRULY HOPE U ROT IN F U C K I N G HELL CUSS I CAN STAND READING ONE MORE THING FROM YOU. I T SEEMS EVERY TIME I JUST CLICK ON THREAD I ALWAYS SEE WHISP WITH HIS ANTI AMERICAN POSTS, THEN HE SAYS OH NO ITS JUST YOURE GOVERNMENT, WELL IM SORRY TO SAY BUT OUR GOVERNMENT IS ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE AND IF YOU DONT LIKE IT THEN SHUT THE F U C K UP,

Oh and if any mod thinks of banning me for ths then go right ahead, Im just sick of nothing being done to this *****, canadian on not forum, you really need to do something about this guy cuss me and others cant stand him anymore.

Wow...

I guess you really ARE leaving the forums...

[bejohnson]

Wheeeeeet!!!! TIME OUT YOU TWO

Whisp you go to this corner and Residentevil you go to that corner and DO NOT come out fighting.

Sheeesh, can't we discuss anything in a civil manner. There has been uncalled for exchanges from both sides. Let it rest.

The attitude here is atrocious. Everyone here is entitled to express an opinion but the shouting and name calling has got to stop. If you can't be civil then do not post. If you want a flame war take it to the PMs or elsewhere.

I would not be surprised if Rod locks this thread because of the above exchange and all that does is punish those of us that were having a nice discussion.

Now, go to the showers and cool off.

[egarrard]

Thanks, y'all...

I was poking fun at the US and our currently goofy courts, not at other forum members.

[Hyprium]

Common guys its new years eve lets all all be a bit friendleyer to eachother! and lets dump this Canada versus US, and if you cant stand each other just ignore to look at these kind of threads !

[ChKFlores]

To be on topic here, I find that our judicial system is horrible in many ways. However, keeping Saddam alive does allow for the Iraqi people to serve justice properly to him.

[Airmack]

that video was sick. I understand that in war, people die but to cheer about it?

Thats sick.

but now that i watch it you can see the edit from him saying they killed em and saying it felt good. What did they cut out?

I like CNN but its so damn Liberal

[Artcwolf]

Originally posted by XxFaeryOnFirexX
ahh... yes.

HOWEVER, I'm just quoting what the law states.

if you want to get technical... you can always talk to my mother.

2 Masters, 3 Bachelors and 3 Associates. Teaches law. Can recite nearly anything you want her to. Plus she knows plenty of martial arts.

Anyway...

ever heard of excessive force. Yeah. Unfortunately you can be arrested if you kill them when they are not armed or such. Even if you thought they were armed.. you can be arrested.

also... if you shoot them through the wrists guess what... i doubt they will be doing anything.

yes, i know all about only point a weapon if you intend to kill them. Unfortunately that is wrong. I would rather shoot to disable than shoot to kill. What do you think the POLICE are told? Shoot to disable. Am I correct or not? Well, forget it.

The law varies from state to state. In Texas, we have the right to defend our home with lethal force...you can ask him/her if they have a gun after you've shot them.

The only time you have, in self defense of the home, to make a decision is, what you are shooting at. An extremely important decision as you do not wish to shoot a family member. Using a firearm as defense of your home requires proper training which seems to be a much overlooked step during the purchase of a handgun.

bejohnson made the statement about not shooting as well under stress. I've been through the police acadamy. One of the first things they teach you before you get to the firing range (after safety) is that your score under stress will be 20 points lower than your score on the range. For example, if you shoot 80% accuracy then, in a fire fight, you would hit 60%. Now, trying to hit an arm or leg is a good way to get yourself killed. The chances of you missing are extremely high.

Not to mention, you can be held liable for things your bullet hits that you did not intend it to hit. For example, you tried to shoot the leg of an intruder, but missed and killed your dog, fluffy. You can be held liable for the murder of your dog fluffy. Should have shot the intruder...in the chest.

Please remember that, in defending a home with a firearm, you only have a few precious moments (I did NOT say seconds...I said moments) to make things count. The situation usually will not lend itself to be the best defensive situation and, unfortunately, does not usually allow you to spare their life.

Just my $0.02

[XxFaeryOnFirexX]

i still guess its a good thing that our house is very hard to break into. the professional locksmith took 2 1/2 hours to unlock our door cause our copy keys didn't work.

[XxFaeryOnFirexX]

Originally posted by Whisp[TR]
all i got to say is that that locksmith sucks

lol

give me the tools heheh

which reminds me of a story

but it has to do with car haha

girl was locked out and the automtive teacher at a school was trying to unlock the door for like 30 minutes

I sat there and watched

I walked over and asked for the tool set pulled out 1 tool shove the thing in and open the door within hmm i would say 6 seconds lol

should have seen the looks on there faces

this guy had been doing it for a long long time.

[wazman]

Originally posted by Whisp[TR]
he still sucks in my opinion

he should have all the tools in his truck to open any lock

and most locksmiths can get into any lock within 30 minutes pertaining to home and like businesses and stuff

not like bank security

just standard security

one of my old group brothers did it and i use to get to play with all the tools and stuff and there was tests he used to have to do that where timed

even up to 15 pin locks and higher

Gotta agree with Whisp. If some guy can break into a car and steal it by picking the lock in no time, like happens all the time in big cities, a professional locksmith should be able to do it as well... After all, they have the same tools. :)