I was never a philosophy major Lobo. The whole abstract "why" question I find useless.

The only practical question is if it will work. And if you are going to whine about it what is your alternative. Otherwise it is chin wagging and useless.

I agree that the only *practical* question is whether it will work, but I don't think that the only relevant questions are practical. For instance, I think the death penalty is the only just sentence for Nadal Hasan, and I would certainly invoke it, if it were up to me, regardless of whether it "works" better than life imprisonment, for the purpose of deterring crime (or any other purpose).

Lobo, you nailed it.
If you hadn't followed for so long, I'd say you'd be a fantastic cold reader.

So Glenn your position is philosophical and you admit it could never really work?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/23......3D362516

Glenn getting whooped up on all fronts lol. Time to waive that white flag, tuck your tail and run for those proverbial hills! In all seriousness, great great posts in this topic, one of the best reads in this forum that I've have had the joy to read in a very long time!

Philosophical, yes, but I do think it will work as well.

So you are arguing that it SHOULD be impliemented?

I'm arguing people should be allowed to live freely.

Glenntopia is the jungle.

No Glenn lets not get cryptic. Lobo seems to be saying you are only doing this as a philosophical exercise and the how doesn't matter.

But I think you believe this drivel and think it can and should be implemented. Now your post to Lobo seems to indicate his position is right and the how isn't important.

So stop all the cryptic nonsense because you can't back up the bs and are backed into a corner. What exactly are you doing a philosophical exercise or a genuine belief this can work?

I wasn't saying that. I was saying that he thinks it should be implemented regardless of how well it works.

Ok. Even worse than I thought.

That's a bit closer, but I would be more than happy to see a world/country with a liberty oriented minarchist state.
At such a point, I would still work towards reducing said state further, because I do believe it would work.

If I was convinced it would be a markedly worse world, I would not advocate for it.

Update to my previous post on this thread: The family of the Marine killed in his home by a SWAT team will be awarded 3.4 million.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/26......658.html

At least they are getting something for the harm done to them.
Then of course there's this:
"Despite the settlement, the county admits no wrongdoing, and none of the officers involved have been fired or disciplined."

Yup, certainly being held accountable for their actions.
Meanwhile, the tax "payers" are the ones who really are footing the bill in the end.

I definitely agree that it is a shame. However I am not sure how you would react if you were a law enforcement officer and told to breach a doorway where a supposedly dangerous drug dealer is housed and when you do, you see someone with a rifle in their hands.

Your first obligation to you and your family it so come home after your shift. Do I think it was handled correctly? I have no idea because I was not there. But if they were awarded a settlement it seems like someone was at fault. However I am not sure it was the officers who responded and shot, as they were doing a very difficult and dangerous job.

Enforcing bad laws, and "just following orders," does not alleviate one of responsibility for one's actions.

Breaking into someone's home is an act for which it is reasonable to be met with armed resistance.

Breaking into someone's home is different if you have a search warrant. I assume they did.

I heard mention of 38 seconds from when they sounded an alarm when pulling into his driveway until he was shot. While it does not sound like much time it is where firearms are concerned. However I read where it said he house was riddled with bullets. I am not sure that was from the outside of the house or the inside. I believe he was shot 22 times. They fired somewhere around 70 rounds. Not a very good hit average that is for sure. They sure do not sound like professionals. Sounds like it was spray and pray. Whether he was a guilty person or not it sounds like it was a bungled operation.

You statement just following orders does not hold water. I do not believe they were told to go in and shoot him. Unless you know differently. However it is probably a good shooting if when you breach a door of an "expected" criminal and are met with said person with a rifle in their hands you don't say good evening sir would you please put down that rifle. You are in an adrenaline rush situation. While these are supposed to be professionals. I believe this would go down as a good shooting. I am not saying it was carried out correctly. I am saying the officer was more than likely justified in firing his weapon and also his back up were justified. The officers I am sure did not make up the plan. It was done by higher ups. The officers are the grunts in this situation and the ones who put their life on the line.

Just put yourself in the lead officers place. You have a weapon in your hands and you encounter a suspected criminal with a gun in his hands, more than likely pointed in your direction. What would you do? Also if you are the officers back up what do you do?

Acesover, YOU were the one who brought up their orders being a deferal of responsibility.

I never said they were ordered to shoot him, I said they were ordered to do something immoral, and that ended in a person being shot and killed.

It doesn't matter WHY you were doing something, if you kill someone, you are responsible for that action.

Now that doesn't mean the actions can't be justified, but when you are the one breaking into people's homes, waging yet another prohibition "war," your actions are anything BUT justified.

Regarding having a warrant, an immoral act does not magically become moral because you have a piece of paper.