A right to not be shot......where is that at?

SmarterthanYou said:
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?
Click to expand...

OK sport. How many times has the SCOTUS upheld a death penalty death sentence for murder? They must believe it is covered in the Constitution or they would rule against it. Sorry but your logic is faulty.
 
Eagle Eye said:
OK sport. How many times has the SCOTUS upheld a death penalty death sentence for murder? They must believe it is covered in the Constitution or they would rule against it. Sorry but your logic is faulty.
Click to expand...

the implementation of a death sentence handed down by a judge or jury does not establish a right to not be shot, just that the unlawful taking of anothers life can merit execution. sorry, but your logic appears to be the faulty one.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the implementation of a death sentence handed down by a judge or jury does not establish a right to not be shot, just that the unlawful taking of anothers life can merit execution. sorry, but your logic appears to be the faulty one.
Click to expand...

You are really grasping at straws trying to keep your position afloat. No! The right "not to be shot" isn't specifically spelled out in the Constitution but then that doesn't mean the Founding Fathers didn't mean that it doesn't exist. All you're doing is playing moronic word games!!!!! "Oh mister Bob if it isn't spelled out it must not be there."

Tell you what can you see the air you breath in? It must exist even though you can't see it or you would be dead, same principal here.
 
Eagle Eye said:
You are really grasping at straws trying to keep your position afloat. No! The right "not to be shot" isn't specifically spelled out in the Constitution but then that doesn't mean the Founding Fathers didn't mean that it doesn't exist. All you're doing is playing moronic word games!!!!! "Oh mister Bob if it isn't spelled out it must not be there."

Tell you what can you see the air you breath in? It must exist even though you can't see it or you would be dead, same principal here.
Click to expand...

notice one of my posts above where the COURTS have stated that there is no clearly established right to not be shot.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, that is not right.

You have every right you want...unless that "right you want" has been declared illegal.

You have a right to drive as fast as you want...until the right to drive faster than a set limit has been declared illegal.

If you know of a law that declares it illegal not to be shot...tell us about it. THEN...it possibly would be up to the Supreme Court.

I understand what you are trying to do here...I think most of us do. You are suggesting there is no right "not to be shot' because you cannot find that "right" enumerated anywhere (in the Constitution). But not all rights are enumerated, Smarter. You have a right to eat pancakes for breakfast. That right is not enumerated ANYWHERE.

If a law is passed to make it illegal to eat pancakes...that right would no longer exist. If a law were passed to make it illegal not to be shot...then THAT right would no longer exist.

Said another way:

You are trying something here that dosn't work. Go back to the drawing board.
 
Frank Apisa said:
No, that is not right.

You have every right you want...unless that "right you want" has been declared illegal.

You have a right to drive as fast as you want...until the right to drive faster than a set limit has been declared illegal.

If you know of a law that declares it illegal not to be shot...tell us about it. THEN...it possibly would be up to the Supreme Court.

I understand what you are trying to do here...I think most of us do. You are suggesting there is no right "not to be shot' because you cannot find that "right" enumerated anywhere (in the Constitution). But not all rights are enumerated, Smarter. You have a right to eat pancakes for breakfast. That right is not enumerated ANYWHERE.

If a law is passed to make it illegal to eat pancakes...that right would no longer exist. If a law were passed to make it illegal not to be shot...then THAT right would no longer exist.

Said another way:

You are trying something here that dosn't work. Go back to the drawing board.
Click to expand...

what I did was use court cases to show you that there is no right not to be shot. read the case. its in a post above.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the supreme court has reversed many appeals court rulings based upon similiar situations, the denial of qualified immunity over use of excessive force. that should settle it for you.

and in case it doesn't.....

http://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_co...urt-warns-circuits-on-qualified-immunity.html
Click to expand...

Smarter...if you want to assume you have no right not to be shot...fine with me.

I only hope I never get so tangled up in the kind of nonsense you allow yourself to become entangled in.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
its not me assuming it, it's the courts flat out telling you that.
Click to expand...

Okay, you may be right.

IF YOU ARE...(something I am not yet convinced of)...with any kind of luck, our nation will one day be rid of the crud producing a society where one does not have such a right.

It'll take a while. I acknowledge that. Right now we are in a right-tilted political climate. But that disgusting political climate will change.

The myopic world of 1918...eventually gave way to the more enlightened age of the late 20th century. We look at the Jim Crow, anti-women's rights, backward thinking American conservatives of 1918 as trash we are well rid of. I expect that in 2118...they will look back at the troglodytes of today's American conservatism and wonder how supposedly intelligent humans could have thought as they do. And I am sure they will say, "We are well rid of that trash."
 
Frank Apisa said:
Okay, you may be right.

IF YOU ARE...(something I am not yet convinced of)...with any kind of luck, our nation will one day be rid of the crud producing a society where one does not have such a right.

It'll take a while. I acknowledge that. Right now we are in a right-tilted political climate. But that disgusting political climate will change.

The myopic world of 1918...eventually gave way to the more enlightened age of the late 20th century. We look at the Jim Crow, anti-women's rights, backward thinking American conservatives of 1918 as trash we are well rid of. I expect that in 2118...they will look back at the troglodytes of today's American conservatism and wonder how supposedly intelligent humans could have thought as they do. And I am sure they will say, "We are well rid of that trash."
Click to expand...

while it's nice to see you try to paint this as a left/right paradigm of politics, these cases and decisions have been done by both dem and rep nominees......in other words, establishment statist judicial fucktards who are pro government. I certainly do hope that the day comes when we can sit back in comforting knowledge that the government can't shoot us in our homes just because, but that day is not here so until you can force the government to acknowledge that they have no right to shoot us, you can't force citizens to acknowledge that there's a right not to be shot.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
court rulings aren't good enough for you? should I ask god for a directive? try post 32
Click to expand...

Not without knowing why they ruled the way they ruled. So unless you can produce verifiable data to support your position I will have to assume you are clueless on this subject.

Oh and your other example has nothing to do with the subject it applies to the 4th amendment.

"The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly ...

So Sorry!!!!!!!
 
Eagle Eye said:
Not without knowing why they ruled the way they ruled. So unless you can produce verifiable data to support your position I will have to assume you are clueless on this subject.

Oh and your other example has nothing to do with the subject it applies to the 4th amendment.

"The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly ...

So Sorry!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

so sorry you're unable to accept federal court rulings on the subject. the board will just have to consider you a clueless idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top