SmarterthanYou
rebel
i've heard this many times over the last few years, so someone show where, exactly, this right exists.
A right to not be shot......where is that at?
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
Cancel 2018.1
New member
Not sure what the point is but it sounds like you're saying I have the right to be shot or you have the right to shoot me? 
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Not sure what the point is but it sounds like you're saying I have the right to be shot or you have the right to shoot me?
the point is that people are claiming that they, kids in schools, or grandmas at starbucks seem to have this right not to be shot. to date, nobody has been able to point out where that right is listed.
BodyDouble
New member
There is no inherent right that you are 100% protected from bad guys, evil, or any and all other disastrous situation.
I have a right to eat scrambled eggs for breakfast.
Do YOU suppose I actually have to document that right?
For the record, we have a RIGHT to do anything we want...unless civilization sees reasons to limit us in various areas by laws enacted through governments.
By the way: I am still looking for anyone here that YOU are smarter than.
That is one hell of a tough search.
Do YOU suppose I actually have to document that right?
For the record, we have a RIGHT to do anything we want...unless civilization sees reasons to limit us in various areas by laws enacted through governments.
By the way: I am still looking for anyone here that YOU are smarter than.
That is one hell of a tough search.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you're talking about shooting people unlawfully being a criminal act, fine. is there a RIGHT to not be SHOT?????
SmarterthanYou
rebel
i would think that something as important as not being shot would be listed, no?
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
"The introduction to the Declaration of Independence contains the following words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”"
That is one of the reasons we have laws against murder. Life is a right given by our creator not government.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so you're saying that the right to not be shot is in your above statement?
I would think something as important as the right to eat BBQ'ed spare ribs would be listed also.
But it ain't.
The right to eat food is not listed.
The right to have a decent night's sleep is not listed.
The right to come in out of the rain is not listed.
The right to get married is not listed.
They're all pretty important.
Do you see a pattern here?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so the only way to know, for sure, that there is a right to not be shot would reside in the US Supreme Court, am I right?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
is that all you have? broken record and angry at being made to look like the dumbass you are?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
can a mod retroban the dumbfuck katzgar, please? it appears he is only interested in repeating himself.
Jade Dragon
And I'm the one that jaded you.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I assume that inclines living without fear of being shot, especially the life part. Now rename yourself Notsmarterthana5thgrader.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
perhaps you should start practicing law and you can start schooling the courts on the right to not be shot, since they seem to think there is no clearly established right to not be shot.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...illed_man_in_his_own_home_cannot_be_sued.html
Andrew Scott and his girlfriend were playing video games in their Florida apartment late at night when they heard a loud banging at the front door. Scott, who was understandably disturbed, retrieved the handgun that he lawfully owned, then opened the door with the gun pointed safely down. Outside, he saw a shadowy figure holding a pistol. He began to retreat inside and close the door when the figure fired six shots without warning, three of which hit Scott, killing him. Scott hadn’t fired a single bullet or even lifted his firearm.
The figure outside was Deputy Richard Sylvester. He failed to identify himself as a law enforcement officer at any point. He had no warrant and no reason to suspect that Scott or his girlfriend had committed a crime. He did not attempt to engage with Scott at all after he opened the door; he simply shot him dead. And on Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that Scott’s parents and girlfriend cannot sue Sylvester because the officer’s conduct was not “clearly” illegal.
The court’s reasoning? Qualified immunity, a constitutionally dubious doctrine that bars individuals from suing the government for violating their rights unless those rights were “clearly established.” And what, exactly, constitutes a “clearly established” right? It’s almost always possible to argue the point either way. Consider the events that led up to Scott’s killing. Sylvester had been pursuing a speeding motorcyclist who, he suspected, might be the same motorcyclist who’d recently committed armed assault and battery. (He had no legitimate reason to suspect this particular motorcyclist was the suspect in question.) Sylvester found a motorcycle at Scott’s apartment complex and decided it was the one he was looking for, even though a license plate search revealed no incriminating information. He and three other officers drew their guns and pounded on Scott’s door. When Scott opened it, Sylvester shot and killed him.
A district court granted Sylvester qualified immunity, holding that no “clearly established law” prohibited his actions. A panel of judges for the 11th Circuit affirmed. And on Thursday, the 11th Circuit, sitting en banc, declined to revisit the panel’s decision.
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
How would you interpret it?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I would interpret it as that people, as a whole, have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. that the government can't just dismiss those on a whim or unlawfully