NOT GUILTY verdict in officer involved shootings death of Pamela Turner

If you maneuver your eyes to the left-hand side of your screen (don't go too far), there are picture boxes and a word above. That word above is my name.

That's obviously not the point. The fact that you would glean "anarchist dreams" from my statement alone, especially considering that "Avery" and I have never had discourse up until this point and that your profile suggests you've been here a bit more than a month--not to mention your familiarity with DDO--leads me to suspect that you are aware of my politics--politics which I do not advertise on my profile. In essence, I'm accusing "Avery" of being an alt. account. So, who are you?

You might like living in a stateless society.

I most certainly would.

Oh you're right.

When people are on edge, that gives them the right to grab people's weapons.

My bad.

When being threatened on their own property, they most certainly have the prerogative to effectively end said threat.

I'm curious: do you think it would be okay to assault or even kill a police officer for attempting to arrest you?

The attempt to arrest or detain is a violation of one's person and sovereignty. So yes, one has the prerogative to seek the end of all acts of aggression to which one is subject.

What about asking for I.D?

You don't ask police officers for their badge numbers and confirm that they are who they say they are?

What about existing?

Police officers are enforcers for the State. The State is an institution defined by its capacity to coerce. So yes, their existing constitutes a threat.

Where do you draw the line?

STATE = IMMORALITY.

I’m going to sleep right now, got past a few lines of  your reply and all I can say at this point is…

You are an IDIOT!!! 

I’ll shred your ignorant retort in the morning over coffee. 

The more prudent approach is to yield to police officers and let them do their jobs. You can always sue after-the-fact.

Ha!

You're just shocked I was able to determine your political ideology so quickly!

Consider me flattered <3

This thread isn't about the validity of Anarchy (I'm aware that I brought it up first, too)

The more prudent approach is to yield to police officers and let them do their jobs. You can always sue after-the-fact.

Besides, police officers are in the right the vast majority of the time.

Wow.

Well, at least you're honest. 

I'm surprised you're still alive with that attitude.

Sounds like original sin...

UNDERSTOOD.

->@TWS1405

Non Sequitur

Define non sequitur. Because, I believe you don't know what it means.

This thread is about criminals on the street and how cops are treated by not only them, but the general public as well. It has NOTHING to do with politics and who is or is not running the so-called "government."

This thread may be about what you described, BUT THE POINT I ADDRESSED is about the latitude afforded to criminals in a "stateless society."

Both she and the officer lived in the same apartment complex. They were in the parking lot. It was NOT "her own property."

I stand corrected.

Knowing she lived in the same building, the officer attempted to serve said warrant. During which Turner became hostile, belligerent, combative and resisted lawful arrest.

Which was instigated when the officer attempted to "lawfully" arrest her.

she has no right to act in such a manner, especially towards a peace officer.

Except in defense of her own person when a "peace" officer is attempting to detain her.

She was the threat, not the officer. 

Unless the terms in which she was renting her apartment were nullified, and the landlord wanted to evict her, the officer was still the threat.

You clearly know nothing about the law, constitutional law, and the laws governing the authority law enforcement officers possess when enforcing said laws.

There's a difference between knowing about the law, and arguing in defense of them. I AM NOT arguing in defense of them.

A lawful arrest is NOT "a violation of one's person and sovereignty."

Yes it is.

Period. Fact. Period. So, NO!

Ordnung Mein Fuhrer!

No one has the right or prerogative "to seek the end of all acts of aggression" in such a case as this.

Because?

God! You sound like one of those nut job sovereign citizen clowns. 

"Sounds like" is not an argument.

Another non-sequitur.

Define non sequitur. Because I don't believe you know what it means.

Everyone knows that 99.90% of the time anyone with a badge IS a law enforcement officer. Imposters are far, few and between. 

So you don't ask police officers for their badge numbers and confirm that they are who they say they are?

FFS! Another non-sequitur.

Define non sequitur. Because I don't believe you know what it means.

She is asking about existing as a human being, being physically present. 

I suppose your guess is as good as mine was.

Police officers may be employees of the state, but they are not "enforcers" (i.e., mercenaries) of the state.

Non sequitur. No one said anything about "mercenaries." Do you see how the term non sequitur is properly used?

They are CIVIL SERVANTS!!

They most certainly are not. They are obligated and loyal to the State.

And there are millions upon millions of victims of crime, especially violent crime, that would wholeheartedly disagree with your last, albeit asinine, assessment. 

I neither entertain nor indulge ad populum arguments.

...you'll receive no response from me. Have a nice day, sir.

I guess we can use the word, "debater" resorts to ad hominem statements to convey discontent with an opponent's contention. What a concept..

I will take that as your concession that you know you are wrong and have resigned from the debate/discussion.

I guess we can use the word, "debater" resorts to ad hominem statements to convey discontent with an opponent's contention. What a concept..

When the observation is true, it is not a fallacious ad hominem. 

-> @TWS1405

CRITIQUE = RESPECT

name-calling is not a critique

sprinkled with uncreative insults

none of which add up to a "sound-argument"

if you honestly believe your opinions are "objective"

i do so wish you the best of luck

Why are you trying  to define TWS1405’s behaviour instead of simply asking him to stop insulting Athias?

Most of your posts end up in circular reasoning around a play with words that you have very little comprehension of.

if you honestly believe your opinions are "objective"

i do so wish you the best of luck

--> @Athias

Your image looks feminine, and you come off as remind. So you were considered a she. 

So pardon me, he. 

You’re still behaving like an intellectual coward. If you cannot handle strong criticism of your piss poor positions, you should consider excusing yourself from any debate/discussion then. Because you, anyone for that matter, will be called out for their idiocy when positing wholeheartedly stupid positions as you have here within. 

Your image looks feminine

and you come off as remind.

If you cannot handle strong criticism of your piss poor positions, you should consider excusing yourself from any debate/discussion then.

I’m insulting the lack of intelligence and ignorance (stupidity) of the positions argued, not him “personally”

seeing as I don’t know him “personally”

->@Shila @TWS1405

Your image looks feminine

Which image is that? The obviously male character which serves as my avatar, the origin for which I've explained before?

and you come off as remind.

Don't know what this means.

If you cannot handle strong criticism of your piss poor positions, you should consider excusing yourself from any debate/discussion then.

I have no qualms handling criticism of my "piss-poor" positions. However, what I will not tolerate is a lack of decorum and respect. The irony of this statement is that I did in fact excuse myself in the advent of regressive back-and-forth, for which you'd subsequently call me "an intellectual coward."

I’m insulting the lack of intelligence and ignorance (stupidity) of the positions argued, not him “personally”

Define "idiot," "coward," and "ignoramus," because I believe you do not know what they mean.

seeing as I don’t know him “personally”

Which is the reason you can only "try" to insult me, not actually insult me.

Anyway, as I've stated, I have no intention of resuming my engagement in discussing this subject with you. So, carry on mouthing-off.