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

SmarterthanYou said:
i've heard this many times over the last few years, so someone show where, exactly, this right exists.
Click to expand...

The unalienable right of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Being shot can take your "life." Being shot can take your "liberty." Being shot certainly will make you UN- "happy."
 
Robo said:
The unalienable right of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Being shot can take your "life." Being shot can take your "liberty." Being shot certainly will make you UN- "happy."
Click to expand...

take it up with the numerous courts and the US Supreme Court who have said there isn't one.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so sorry you're unable to accept federal court rulings on the subject. the board will just have to consider you a clueless idiot.
Click to expand...

Oh I am more than willing to accept documented cout cases. Unfortunately all you have produced is blogs and hearsay crap. If you are so sure you are right then you should have no problem citing documented court cases that supports your position.

I will close with this if you are so positive there is no right not to get shot then try shooting someone and see what happens.
 
Eagle Eye said:
Oh I am more than willing to accept documented cout cases. Unfortunately all you have produced is blogs and hearsay crap. If you are so sure you are right then you should have no problem citing documented court cases that supports your position.

I will close with this if you are so positive there is no right not to get shot then try shooting someone and see what happens.
Click to expand...

read post 30 and 32 then
 
Robo said:
The unalienable right of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Being shot can take your "life." Being shot can take your "liberty." Being shot certainly will make you UN- "happy."
Click to expand...

Those are not rights but just a philosophical statement in the Declaration. They have no legal standing.
 
Eagle Eye said:
I will close with this if you are so positive there is no right not to get shot then try shooting someone and see what happens.
Click to expand...

If you shot a person then he obviously did not have the right not to be shot; or, if he did, it was obviously unenforceable. You can try to deter shooting someone by criminal laws to punish the shooter, but it does not guarantee the person's right not to be shot.
 
Considering it's illegal to do such, you have the right not to get shot. Of course this is voided if you screw around with guns, and blast yourself by accident.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
take it up with the numerous courts and the US Supreme Court who have said there isn't one.
Click to expand...

The courts have said Obamacare was constitutional and military conscription too. The courts don't necessarily follow the Constitution, they often like to interpret it with bias and absurd majority opinions.

Government is force by definition and corruption by nature.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
i've heard this many times over the last few years, so someone show where, exactly, this right exists.
Click to expand...

No such ENFORCEABLE right exists. Nor does a "right to be safe" or to "feel safe".

Lefties love to wax poetic about this supposed right, "your right to own/carry a gun does not supercede my right to life" or "my right to not be shot" . . . But the reality is, IT DOES!

Courts, all the way to SCOTUS have held that no government agent is responsible for any citizen's safety, even if they have made statements to that effect and/or they know of imminent threats to the person. Whatever protection government agents can be said to owe "society," it is only to society as a whole.

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 6 (D.C. App. 1981) is the most often cited case. The noteworthy excerpt:


"[It is] a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen. "​



One's "right to life" is a right to not be killed arbitrarily by a government action.
It is also an immunity from prosecution for justifiable homicide, a right to defend your life with lethal force (self defense).

A government entity/agent can only be held liable for a person's safety or protection if government action has rendered that person incapable of acting in their own behalf (in self defense) either through some custodial circumstance or incarceration.

The Supreme Court held in DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT., 489 U.S. 189 (1989):


" The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf... it is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf - through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty - which is the "deprivation of liberty" triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interests against harms inflicted by other means. "​



Many states have passed laws codifying this indemnity; California's Government Code §845 is quite typical:


" Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service. "
​


The brutal truth for you liberals out there is . . . You have no right to not be criminally assaulted, you have no right to not be shot, you have no right to be or feel safe.
 
Frank Apisa said:
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.
Click to expand...

Frank,

He is smarter than a “yew”. Barely
 
Eagle Eye said:
"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.
Click to expand...

All rights are alienable.

Your creator is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Life is taken away by your government. Looks like they override your creator.
 
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 doesn't work. Go back to the drawing board.
Click to expand...

The OP's position has nothing to do with the right being unenumerated. It has everything to do with who is held responsible when a legally enforceable right is violated.

Claims that a "right" exists is a statement that one believes the government at some level, is liable for damages for violation of the right.

That is the only benchmark to measure the true existence of a right; if you can bring legal action against a government agency/agent when the right is harmed.

As my earlier post proves, governments at all levels have refused to accept any responsibility for your personal security or criminal breaches of your personal safety (at the hands of a third party).

Therefore, a "right to be safe" or a "right to not be shot" does not exist.
 
Abatis said:
What happened?

Where did everybody go?
Click to expand...

it's unsettling for most people to be shown the reality that their government isn't their benevolent protector, or that they are actually going to be beholden to fulfilling their constitutionally assigned role. It's why most posts of mine are ridiculed or met with insults.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top