Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Maxperson]

To continue, the cited case is presented as setting the standard for the use of deadly force. For example, see
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force

Here is another view:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0074.htm



Bold added by me.

Thx
tomB

Then you agree with me that all that is needed is for an officer to fear for his safety. An officer is not going to fear for his safety unless he reasonably believes that he is in danger from someone about to use imminent deadly force against him and that it is necessary to use deadly force on that person.

All you've done in the last few posts is support my position.

 

[Umbran]

An officer is not going to fear for his safety unless he reasonably believes

Stop right there.

This is the crux of the issue. An officer can fear for his safety if he *un*reasonably believes things as well.

It is also not entirely clear that the real-world officers are actually always responding out of this fear. Some of them may be responding in anger, pride, or arrogance, or many other things, and claiming they felt there was a threat to their lives after the fact. Humans are demonstrably very good at rationalization.

Police officers are *human*. They are not perfect beings. Our approach to police officers cannot be blind to this.

 

[billd91]

The Constitution protects Americans from that legislation.

The Constitution protects far more than Americans. Most of its protective provisions don't apply just to citizens but to persons, a designation that goes way beyond citizens. So exactly how are Americans different from non-Americans, again?

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

The Constitution protects far more than Americans. Most of its protective provisions don't apply just to citizens but to persons, a designation that goes way beyond citizens. So exactly how are Americans different from non-Americans, again?

Because Murica, that's why. On a serious note, I doubt there is any real difference, besides U.S. citizens being U.S. citizens, which to some people with a twisted view makes them somehow special as compared to non-U.S. citizens, especially when compared to immigrants or worse... Muslims. I'm sure Max will put forth some explanation which will make total sense.

 

[Umbran]

that pesky Constitution that guaranteed him a jury trial. That legislation when used to deprive Americans of their Constitutional rights is invalid.

Have you read the text of the 5th Amendment recently? Please allow me to remind you of it...

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Not that the word "citizen" or "American" does not appear in the text. It is "person". The 5th Amendment is not citizenship specific (neither are the 6th, 7th, or 8th, which also deal with jurisprudence). So, please stop beating that drum.

Apples and oranges. Americans are different than the enemies we usually face.

The Constitution protects Americans from that legislation.

Nope, and nope. The text does not support that interpretation.

So, now we have an issue. When the 5th through 8th amendments apply, they apply to everyone, regardless of citizenship. We are now dangerously close to saying that the US cannot prosecute a war, because it cannot deprive anyone of life without due process of law, and you define that as trial by jury. This is clearly a balderdash interpretation, as the document was written after the Revolutionary War - the Founding Fathers clearly believed that war was okay. The 5th includes, "...in time of War or public danger". They recognized there were exceptional circumstances where normal jurisprudence did not apply - war *and* public danger.

Then, we have a sticky bit. The Constitution does give Congress the power to declare war. But, it *DOES NOT DEFINE WAR*, nor even how Congress should go about declaring it. The document also declares the President to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces - presumably with attendant rights to give particular orders.

We might take the AUMF to be a declaration of war - nowhere are we told that the declaration must include the word "war". We can certainly take it as a declaration of a time of public danger, as it references stopping future attacks. It seems pretty clear that Congress intended this to be considered a time when normal jurisprudence did not apply to members of Al Qaeda.

If Congress wanted to, at any time they could have rescinded the AUMF, and remove the President's power to order the military to attack Al Qaeda. They didn't.

We may find it unseemly, and undesirable for our military forces to be used in such a manner. That doesn't mean they were technically illegal. We may, in retrospect, have preferred such action not be legal - but hindsight is 20/20. We should not hold people accountable for the unintended consequences we were not wise enough to consider, retroactively. Next time, elect thoughtful Congresspeople who put limits on authorizations of use of military force, and move on.

 

[Maxperson]

Stop right there.

This is the crux of the issue. An officer can fear for his safety if he *un*reasonably believes things as well.

It is also not entirely clear that the real-world officers are actually always responding out of this fear. Some of them may be responding in anger, pride, or arrogance, or many other things, and claiming they felt there was a threat to their lives after the fact. Humans are demonstrably very good at rationalization.

Police officers are *human*. They are not perfect beings. Our approach to police officers cannot be blind to this.

Yes. Some officers do unreasonably believe they are in danger. They are more and more frequently being prosecuted for it. That doesn't mean that those who reasonably believe themselves to be in danger from an unarmed person that they don't know is unarmed, are in the wrong for shooting.

 

[Maxperson]

The Constitution protects far more than Americans. Most of its protective provisions don't apply just to citizens but to persons, a designation that goes way beyond citizens. So exactly how are Americans different from non-Americans, again?

Not outside of the U.S. Our laws don't extend beyond our borders except for our citizens.

 

[Maxperson]

Have you read the text of the 5th Amendment recently? Please allow me to remind you of it...

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Not that the word "citizen" or "American" does not appear in the text. It is "person". The 5th Amendment is not citizenship specific (neither are the 6th, 7th, or 8th, which also deal with jurisprudence). So, please stop beating that drum.

I have read it. No law, including the Constitution applies outside of our borders except when it concerns our citizens, and even that is limited with regard to our citizens also being subject to the laws of the country they are in.

Let me also remind you of this part of the Constitution.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It speaks only of the U.S., not of other countries. Our Constitution only applies to America and American citizens. Citizens of other countries who are in other countries do have its protections.

Nope, and nope. The text does not support that interpretation.

The murder (yes, I'm going to keep using that word) deprived him of his ability to confront his accusers.

Also, the law congress wrote is not sufficient to count as due process.

"Standing by itself, the phrase “due process” would seem to refer solely and simply to procedure, to process in court, and therefore to be so limited that “due process of law” would be what the legislative branch enacted it to be. But that is not the interpretation which has been placed on the term. “It is manifest that it was not left to the legislative power to enact any process which might be devised. The article is a restraint on the legislative as well as on the executive and judicial powers of the government, and cannot be so construed as to leave congress[p.1345]free to make any process ‘due process of law’ by its mere will.[b/]”

Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co. 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272, 276 (1856). Webster had made the argument as counsel in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518–82 (1819). And see Chief Justice Shaw’s opinion in Jones v. Robbins, 74 Mass. (8 Gray) 329 (1857).

So, now we have an issue. When the 5th through 8th amendments apply, they apply to everyone, regardless of citizenship. We are now dangerously close to saying that the US cannot prosecute a war, because it cannot deprive anyone of life without due process of law, and you define that as trial by jury. This is clearly a balderdash interpretation, as the document was written after the Revolutionary War - the Founding Fathers clearly believed that war was okay. The 5th includes, "...in time of War or public danger". They recognized there were exceptional circumstances where normal jurisprudence did not apply - war *and* public danger.

We aren't even remotely close to saying the US cannot prosecute a war. Outside of American citizens, the Constitution literally cannot apply to any other person. The laws of a country do not extend beyond its borders except with regard to its citizens, and even then they take back seat to the laws of the country the American is in.

We might take the AUMF to be a declaration of war - nowhere are we told that the declaration must include the word "war". We can certainly take it as a declaration of a time of public danger, as it references stopping future attacks. It seems pretty clear that Congress intended this to be considered a time when normal jurisprudence did not apply to members of Al Qaeda.

That's why precedent is so important. Look at what we did when we declared war in the past.

We may find it unseemly, and undesirable for our military forces to be used in such a manner. That doesn't mean they were technically illegal. We may, in retrospect, have preferred such action not be legal - but hindsight is 20/20. We should not hold people accountable for the unintended consequences we were not wise enough to consider, retroactively. Next time, elect thoughtful Congresspeople who put limits on authorizations of use of military force, and move on.

I hold little faith in that ever happening. We re-elected people who passed Obamacare so that they could see what was inside it. If we're re-electing people who pass massive legislation blindly, there's no way it's going to get any better any time soon.

 

[Sadras]

I hold little faith in that ever happening. We re-elected people who passed Obamacare so that they could see what was inside it. If we're re-electing people who pass massive legislation blindly, there's no way it's going to get any better any time soon.

I believe this is sadly true. Despite beautifully crafted legislature and well-meaning intentions, Congress is so obviously corrupt that even if an attempt is made to fight the 'system' - us the people stand little chance - against the might of the Corporations and the Story-Spinning Media, and if that doesn't work 'fixing' elections or assassinating are always possible options on the table.

 

[Janx]

Stop right there.

This is the crux of the issue. An officer can fear for his safety if he *un*reasonably believes things as well.

It is also not entirely clear that the real-world officers are actually always responding out of this fear. Some of them may be responding in anger, pride, or arrogance, or many other things, and claiming they felt there was a threat to their lives after the fact. Humans are demonstrably very good at rationalization.

Police officers are *human*. They are not perfect beings. Our approach to police officers cannot be blind to this.

I recall once, an acronym:

False
Evidence
Appearing
Real

It was meant to indicate what fear was. I never bought into that, as logically, you can be afraid of something that is quite real. But the inverse is also true. You can be afraid of something that looks scary, but isn't, or claim to be afraid of something. In Concealed Handgun License training, we hear the phrase "in fear for life" as a catch-phrase to use to help justify the shooting to a jury. Ideally, that's not intended for fraudulent purposes, but if you're a sniper/bad-ass and get mugged, you might not actually be afraid, but technically you are in danger if you don't take action, and thus have a right to shoot. A jury won't buy that unless you frame it as "I was afraid for my life"