TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote: There you go making false assumptions and assertions....I don't even consider help from the authorities a possibility. Where I live, should I need to be "rescued" from a deadly or dangerous situation in all likelihood I'd be dead before anyone could even show up. Should I need saving, my neighbors might save me if they could, but no, I've never screamed for help of any kind from the government. In fact, the government often obstructs those who are perfectly capable of saving others from doing so.....under the phony mantra of "safety." I've never called the police for help and can't imagine any scenario where doing so would "rescue" me from anything. In fact, the whole basis of this board is people providing for their own defense because we don't have any expectation that the police will be around to "save" us.

So, no, I didn't "misunderstand" your point. You believe the government is here to "help" us and simply stated, I don't. Furthermore, I don't want the government to "help" me.....they've done enough already. Right now they're working very hard to "help" me into poverty. I want the State to leave me alone.

VMI77 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:A couple of drunk hotheads. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's apparent the surviving brother is a liar.

He definitely screwed up. OTOH, it's my business if I want to get my truck out of a ditch full of water. Calling it a "high water rescue" attempt is a really big stretch. I don't quite buy E's contention that OC isn't a factor either since seeing the gun was apparently part of the justification for using deadly force. I also don't think the cop with the attitude was acting very professionally....he seemed very intent on imposing his authoritah....but the video doesn't show what proceeded the attitude so maybe it was justified.

First it's not your business when someone would have to go get you out if needed rescue. You may not think that it should be anyones business but it's settled law. That and when you add in that they were on a public road which law enforcement can and do control usage of that road, well, you are obligated to comply.

It is my business if I'm the one supposedly being rescued and don't want to be. These guys didn't need to be "rescued" --the "rescue" claim is clearly a pretext for involvement. Controlling a public road, ok, that could be a legitimate justification...if being in a ditch on the side of the road presented a danger to motorists or was obstructing traffic. I drive by plenty of roadside ditches where my presence attempting to retrieve my vehicle would harm no one, represent no danger to anyone, and would not obstruct or impede traffic. And btw, it's also "settled law" that the police have no duty to protect any individual. So unless these guys represented a danger to other people they had no duty to "rescue" them, especially if they didn't want to be "rescued."

In many of your comments you seem to be tremendously impressed by whether something is "settled law" or what some court said, regardless of how it intrudes on individual liberty. We can also say that it's "settled law" that the DEA can approach you on a train and rob you since they've been doing it for a least a decade. The fact that the government presides over a legal system that ratifies its violations of moral law and civil liberties is irrelevant to me. I may have to obey the law but I don't have to agree with it. I flatly reject your legalism as legitimizing the exercise of authority. Something being legal does not equal that something being moral or being right.

All you're really saying when you excuse government conduct as "settled law" is that the government can make up whatever rules it wants and impose them at gunpoint, and to a point, I agree: it obviously has both the means and the power to impose its will at gunpoint and does so. The difference in our positions appears to be that you believe authority exercised in this way confers legitimacy while I judge the conduct independently from how it is rationalized and labeled.

VMI77 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:A couple of drunk hotheads. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's apparent the surviving brother is a liar.

He definitely screwed up. OTOH, it's my business if I want to get my truck out of a ditch full of water. Calling it a "high water rescue" attempt is a really big stretch. I don't quite buy E's contention that OC isn't a factor either since seeing the gun was apparently part of the justification for using deadly force. I also don't think the cop with the attitude was acting very professionally....he seemed very intent on imposing his authoritah....but the video doesn't show what proceeded the attitude so maybe it was justified.

VMI77 wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... nt-pastor/

Not clear, but based on comments in the article, open carry may be a factor in his death.

Maybe if the fog on Hectorville Road hadn’t been so thick. Or if the flood waters hadn’t been so furious. Or if Nehemiah Fischer didn’t have that shiny new handgun on his hip.

Maybe then he’d still be alive.

Uncertainty and anger are swirling like storm clouds in Oklahoma, where, on Friday night, state highway patrolmen shot Fischer during a roadside rescue gone horribly wrong. Authorities claim that Fischer, 35, attacked officers after they told him to leave his disabled pickup truck, giving them no choice but to defend themselves.

But Fischer’s family says the troopers had no reason to be there, let alone gun down “a god-fearing man.”