I used the word murder in its legal sense. It was the intentional causing of the death of another human being. I believe that the "sudden passion arising from adequate cause" could be shown to make it a second degree felony instead of a first degree felony. This meets the legal requirements of Section 19.02 of the Penal Code. Necessity (PC. 9,22) and Self defense (9.32) or Defense of Others (9.33) MIGHT also be able to be proven, but those are defenses to a crime, not the removal of the crime. Even if I agree with those defenses in this specific incident (which I do not), my point was that some government official made a decision that they could kill an American citizen on American soil without fear of reprisal from anyone. If one government official can do that, it stands to reason that others can also make the same decision. Most people agreed with this decision in this case because of the suspect's action, but not everyone does. How many will agree when the government decides to use a Predator drone to take out someone who is planning a terrorist act? Note that this is just planning and not necessarily have taken ANY steps towards actually doing it? Do you trust the current Secretary of Defense with this authority? The one who has just ordered the whole military to stand down for one day so he can root out right-wing extremism?Hoodasnacks wrote: ↑Sun Feb 07, 2021 1:05 amWhile I share your concern about governmental overreach, I would not call that incident a "murder." If I had to make the call to do the same, I would send the robot before I sent officers into a dangerous situation. Maybe they could wait him out, but that would still present danger to the officers. That said, if I were president I would almost never send troops into an area where I could bomb it from afar. My soldier's life is worth more than a large amount of collateral damage. I imagine I am strange in how I would approach that...but the world would fear me, which generally works out pretty well for us.
Perhaps the overreach question that we disagree on is the initial decision to kill the individual. I agree that we would all be wise to be cautious on how we allow the government making that call. For me, if a guy goes on a killing spree (whether it is officers or citizens) and is still active, take him out.
And, as a retired police officer, I oppose this act because the job of the police is to arrest, not to try and then execute sentence on anyone. If the robot could have delivered an explosive like that, could he not have also delivered other substances that could have been a temporary neutralization? I know they have large canisters of pepper spray, possibly mixed with flash bang grenades to stun him and drive him out of the position he was barricaded into. It might have been possible to keep him penned in there, even if it took a day or two to starve him out. Maybe the robot could have carried in a communication device for hostage negotiators to use. Without a person being immediately threatened, hostage negotiators generally pride themselves on taking as long as it takes. I fully understand the emotions that the Chief felt. I might have done the exact same thing in his place. I just hope I would have been professional enough to behave differently.
On both of these points, I believe we are in full agreement. Time admits there was a conspiracy to rig the election. There is nothing we can do at the national level at least for the next four years. Even in 22, if the Republicans take control of both houses, there is no way Biden/Harris would allow the bill to pass or get signed into legislation. There is a SCOTUS case (Pruneyard v. Robins) that private property owners cannot interfere with free speech. This doesn't apply to many places because it was based on the California Constitution. But if someone were to sue a company like Facebook that does business in California and allows its citizens free speech, then the equal protection clause could kick in to apply that policy nationally. Facebook's terms of service specifically require cases to be tried in California courts (either the federal Northern District or the state court in San Mateo county). It might take two cases, one by a California citizen and then one somewhere else, but maybe one case could force it. A good conservative lawyer could figure this out. I would also want to see fines for deplatforming ANYONE for political speech, not just someone running for office. But Gov. Desantis made a start at least and I give him kudos for that.Back on point--we are clearly living in a system with Oligarchical control from a "cabal" (Time's word) of government/company entities. I am almost of the mind that we cannot beat it at the national level. We should be able to create state laws that grant stronger protections against suppression of speech from big tech. Gov Desantis of Florida has introduced some good measures--e.g. fining social media for deplatforming anyone up for election in FL. I would go further to pass a state law that defines social media sites as "traditional public forums." We also need to elect people that are willing to require Texas to be a "sanctuary state" when it comes to 2A restrictions, mandates on insane education requirements, etc.
I continue to thank God that I live among Texans.
And I hope we all continue to thank God for living in Texas and other Texans.