invention_45
New member
I'll have you know that this is the first word I have had to look up (and not figure out the meaning of by context) in 30 years.
You have ruined my entire life.
If you were on a Jury, would you convict someone charged with carrying W/O license?
- Thread starter Doug.38PR
- Start date
I'll have you know that this is the first word I have had to look up (and not figure out the meaning of by context) in 30 years.
You have ruined my entire life.
Wildalaska
Moderator
It's Quisling. And whys that?...becasue YOU dont like the penalty? You counter argument makes no sense...your equating a criminal offense against public order presumably studied, passed, voted on and tested by the courts with genocide?...give me a break.
And it is straw man becasue it aint gonna happen.
Well if they were opposed by a majority of citzens they wouldnt get passed would they..its called representative democracy. Thats a jumbo shrimp argument...and you no likey a law? Vote em out!
O right....lets substitute a myownmilitia that I cant get rid of instead of a politico I can...
WildhellletsgetridoflawsalltogetherAlaska
Wildalaska
Moderator
Which is an insult not only to me, but to the memories of millions of folks who died because some folks thought they were above the law.
WildlookslikeanotheroneonmyblockedlistAlaska
Yes, please pardon the confusion of the changing wording of that line. It took a while to track down the word I was looking for.
And yeah, "kapo-esque" is exactly it. I can't think of a better way of describing a behavior that sees nothing wrong with collaborating with an unjust law. It is the duty of every citizen to refuse to punish a person convicted of (in the hypothetical you were answering) death under an unjust law.
As to who decides? Every citizen, under their own conscience and understanding of the Constituition. Had more people done that in 1939, that whole mess you referred to (and it was you who brought the Holocaust into this) wouldn't have ever happened.
Soldiers don't have to take unlawful orders - I see nothing wrong then in refusing to help enforce unconstitional laws.
What is right HAS to come before what is legal.
-K
And yeah, "kapo-esque" is exactly it. I can't think of a better way of describing a behavior that sees nothing wrong with collaborating with an unjust law. It is the duty of every citizen to refuse to punish a person convicted of (in the hypothetical you were answering) death under an unjust law.
As to who decides? Every citizen, under their own conscience and understanding of the Constituition. Had more people done that in 1939, that whole mess you referred to (and it was you who brought the Holocaust into this) wouldn't have ever happened.
Soldiers don't have to take unlawful orders - I see nothing wrong then in refusing to help enforce unconstitional laws.
What is right HAS to come before what is legal.
-K
When people have to start pulling up such ridiculous examples as being shot for littering thats when you know they are grasping.
Bottom line, if a representative proposed a law (never happen), and it made it to the floor for a vote (never happen) and congress actually passed such a law (never happen), and someone was arrested and a DA decided to prosecute (never happen) and the defendant was convicted and the appellate court upheld the conviction (never happen) and the supreme court upheld the conviction (never happen)... then I promise you that everything else will have gotten so bad that its time to vote from the roof tops.
We are NOWHERE near this, and NONE of us will get anywhere near this in our lifetimes. As a result, we all have an obligation to work within the system to fix things we don't like.
If they pass a law prohibiting CCW, then challenge it in court. If you carry and you know there is a law against it the you are a MORON. Use the appropriate channels. If you don't, don't bitch about the consequences.
As an aside to all of those who like to post things from FIJA. There isn't a single reputable attorney in this country who thinnks this association is anything but a joke. And before you start in with more conspiracy talk, JN benefits about half of the attorneys in the criminal system, and they still don't recognize this organization as legitimate.
Bottom line, if a representative proposed a law (never happen), and it made it to the floor for a vote (never happen) and congress actually passed such a law (never happen), and someone was arrested and a DA decided to prosecute (never happen) and the defendant was convicted and the appellate court upheld the conviction (never happen) and the supreme court upheld the conviction (never happen)... then I promise you that everything else will have gotten so bad that its time to vote from the roof tops.
We are NOWHERE near this, and NONE of us will get anywhere near this in our lifetimes. As a result, we all have an obligation to work within the system to fix things we don't like.
If they pass a law prohibiting CCW, then challenge it in court. If you carry and you know there is a law against it the you are a MORON. Use the appropriate channels. If you don't, don't bitch about the consequences.
As an aside to all of those who like to post things from FIJA. There isn't a single reputable attorney in this country who thinnks this association is anything but a joke. And before you start in with more conspiracy talk, JN benefits about half of the attorneys in the criminal system, and they still don't recognize this organization as legitimate.
Well how about a not so far fetched scenario. What if a western democracy took organized action against a single religious group. Laws were passed that persecuted them specifically because of their religious beliefs. You are in a position to act as juror for one of these people's trial. Do you refuse to convict?
From your previous posts it is obvious you know of the persecution I speak. You also know that Germany was a Democracy. Never assume that the "far fetched" cannot happen when it comes to governments run amok. Jury nullification in such cases can easily be the last line of peaceful resistance.
And who exactly decides whether a law in unjust. You? Me? If that were the case then we would have millions of different interpretations on jaywalking. Because you live under this government, you agreed to waive your right to determine which laws were just and unjust so long as 1) the law were passed in accordance with a certian process, and 2) you had an avenue to challenge laws that you felt were still unjust i.e. unconstitutional.
You still have these protections in place, so don't violate your end of the bargian.
Wildalaska
Moderator
The entire government and the people. You arent going to tell me that murder is legal?
O now you are saying that the death penalty for weapons behavior is "unjust". How do you make that leap?
Take it one step further (although I shouldnt be responding to folks who prefer invective rather than argument)..under your definition of duty, to some folks Eric Rudolph should be a hero.....
That is absolutely nonsensical.
Good. Let me know when we all agree on whats "right".
WildhadmorebutbetternotAlaska
Wildalaska
Moderator
O give me a break this aint 1939 in Germany. Read Stage2s post:
"Bottom line, if a representative proposed a law (never happen), and it made it to the floor for a vote (never happen) and congress actually passed such a law (never happen), and someone was arrested and a DA decided to prosecute (never happen) and the defendant was convicted and the appellate court upheld the conviction (never happen) and the supreme court upheld the conviction (never happen)... then I promise you that everything else will have gotten so bad that its time to vote from the roof tops."
WildhowsthatforasimpleanswerAlaska
I already answered this. Kindly see above.
Really? I did? Can you tell me what document I signed, because I can't seem to find a copy of it.
My duties as a citizen are not part of a "bargain" - they are well spelled out in the Constitution and the example of the founders.
They include being willing to suffer punishment under the law of the land rather than actively aid an oppressor.
If as already noted we're talking about a guy in a Shall-issue state who was carrying without a license as one of a host of charges.. that doesn't qualify. If we're talking about a guy who hid a .38, scared off a mugger after getting lost in a bad Boston neighborhood, and is facing ten years on a carrying charge - that absolutely qualifies. So would, of course, someone on trial for their life for doing the same.
Well, when the gov't is making the law and enforcing it.. yeah, in that case murder was legal.
It was also wrong.
You think carrying a concealed weapon against the law merits the death penalty?
How so?
I'm saying if enough people in 1939 Germany said "you know.... this whole slaughtering Jews thing... not such a good idea" and broke the law... Auschwitz wouldn't have happened.
What leads to death on the scale of the Holocaust is people doing just as you're advocating - going along with what their gov't tells them because it's the law, regardless of what their conscience tells them. Yes with my beliefs you'll occasionally get an Eric Rudolph let loose by a sympathetic jury. That sucks. But it beats the heck out of millions of people going up the chimney because everyone's just doing their duty to the state.
Of course we don't all have to agree on what's "right."
... just enough of us to hang a jury.
-K
Wildalaska
Moderator
Good. Show me the German Law, passed by a democratic legislature, that permitted mass murder. Guess what, never existed.
Both of those points are a crock of **** and I am so tired of every little interest group with a bitch about something dancin on the graves of the Holocaust dead...from PETA chicken holocausts to "o my god of they take our guns the gubmint gonna gas us" crowd.
You wont even be able show me a "law" within the meaning of the term that authorized the holocaust so the comparison between actual 1939 Germany and the case at hand is silly.
Fuirthermore, the vast bulk of Germans under Nazism were willing accomplices to Hitler's crime....wasnt a situation of going along with unjust laws...there is no comparison between the two
So let me undersatnd this...you are equating our system of laws and protections with the nutcases in Hitlers Germany and Stalinist Russia?:barf:
Furthermore...lets talk about death for carrying a gun. Lets say that due to uncontrolled immigration, Arizona is now a battleground. The people demand that their legislators BAN the carrying of weapons and punish it with the most draconian penalites, up to and including death (by the way, there isnt any MANDATORY death penalty anywhere, its unconstituional, but we will ignore the insurrmountable legal problems in the example at hand since it is just a rhetorical flourish to distract from the lack of legal and factual basis of the jury nullifcation position)...the legislature enacts, the Courts test, the jury finds the facts, the penalty is imposed, the appeals start. So thats "unjust"? You think that just becasue you think the law is unjust that gives you the right to impose you pewrsoanl morality on everyone else? It isnt your morality, it isnt mine...its ours..its a process of folks democratically concluding that this isz the law and this is what happens if you break the law and touGH nuggies to you if you do?
And you are equating that process with hitlerian MURDER?
O well, I have a moral problem with women wearing short skirts, guess Ill just go out and nullify THE LAW in a rape case.
WildAlaska
Hey buddy, you're the one who pulled out the Holocaust as a dance hall.
I'm just sayin' the dance card you filled out looks a whole lot more like those putting up the wire than those milling around inside.
And of course this isn't a dictatorial regime. I never said it was, don't be silly.
(What was that about straw men and invective?
)
Nonetheless, the principle of resistance to an immoral law remains the same whether you're living in a fascist state or a representative Republic. Selma's right here in the good ol' US of A after all.
-K
(PS.. I hope I'm on the jury of the woman who shoots your rapist in the noggin.)
I'm just sayin' the dance card you filled out looks a whole lot more like those putting up the wire than those milling around inside.
And of course this isn't a dictatorial regime. I never said it was, don't be silly.
(What was that about straw men and invective?
)Nonetheless, the principle of resistance to an immoral law remains the same whether you're living in a fascist state or a representative Republic. Selma's right here in the good ol' US of A after all.
-K
(PS.. I hope I'm on the jury of the woman who shoots your rapist in the noggin.
)Wildalaska
Moderator
Hey sweetheart, do you really understand what I said? let me help you:
"When each and every person is given the power to decide "right" no matter what the law says, then folks like me get killed."
WildandselmaisadifferentcaseAlaska
And when lawmakers that are voted in by a majority in their region pass laws that sound nice to their constituency at the time (Nuremberg Laws, Jim Crow laws, etc etc etc) people like you (and people not like you) still get killed.
The difference is your way gets people killed or oppressed wholesale instead of in ones and twos.
I prefer my atrocities on the retail level, thank you very much.
-K
and of course it was different. It was in America, where we voted on it.
CobrayCommando
Moderator
Give it a rest
I'm sure you think Sacha Baron Cohen is a horrible anti-Semite.Ok WA, I'm totally lost as to where this train of thought originated, or as to how I magically became an anti-Semite in your eyes, but you're sounding seriously paranoid.
Hitler elected legally, Hitler given dictatorial powers legally, slaughter of the Jews done by the state. I don't think there was ever a law saying "and now we kill all of the Jews". Didn't Hitler outline all of this crazy **** in Mein Kampf, who I'm sure many people who voted for him read? He said that if only a few thousand Jews were gassed, the sacrifice of Germany's soldiers would not be in vain. This doesn't mean he only wanted a few thousand gassed, it pretty much implies he wanted as many dead as possible.
So what you've got here is a failure of democracy, and a failure of the state in stopping the rise to power of a madman who outlined his plans in great detail years and years before in a best selling book.
What I'm trying to say is, there is no God hovering over my shoulder telling me I have an obligation to the state and its laws, to carry them out and enforce them no matter how unjust. If the law tells me that I can't shoot someone who is raping a girl or boy (for example), screw the law. It's wrong, and I know that in my heart. I don't feel bound in the slightest to stay around and get arrested afterwards either.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Who the heck is that?
really? And I dont even have a "Glock on the rope" in the shower
Eric Rudolph.
WildneverfeartheenemyyoucancontrolAlaska
Wildalaska
Moderator
You would almost make sense if you left out the Nuremburg Laws, so I'll mentally redact that and point out that the US legal/political system fixed old Jim Crow didnt it.
Wildcareforsomeexamples?Alaska