When should a country consider deadly force against it's citizens?

[talisyn]

here Mexico identifies 12 slain as federal agents - Yahoo! News

At what point does an organization of citizens pose such a threat to the well-being of a nation that carpet bombings become a viable option? I think the drug cartels in Mexico have achieved that status.

[Moksha]

here Mexico identifies 12 slain as federal agents - Yahoo! News

At what point does an organization of citizens pose such a threat to the well-being of a nation that carpet bombings become a viable option? I think the drug cartels in Mexico have achieved that status.

Mexico as well as most of the civilized world consider drug trafficking to be a criminal activity. The Drug Cartel in Mexico is out of control.

BTW, it makes much more sense for the US to lend a helping hand to Mexico rather than being embroiled in fruitless Middle East wars.

[James_Fryman]

Only when the citizens do something like violent rebellion or the drug gangs in mexico

[talisyn]

The drug cartels are actively trying to bring down the gov't, gaddianton-style. It's an outright rebellion, if not an act of war, and I don't understand why the Mexican gov't doesn't call it that.

[ploomf]

Because it's easier to stick your head in the sand and pretend it's not happening than it is to actually do something about it.

[john doe]

Because many of the politicians are either owned by or in fear of the drug cartels.

[Aesa]

It's never acceptable for a nation to kill it's own citizens. A government should never have that much power. How can people exercise personal sovereignty?

[talisyn]

It's never acceptable for a nation to kill it's own citizens. A government should never have that much power. How can people exercise personal sovereignty?

I agree, the gov't should have that much power...but citizens have a responsibility to uphold their gov't, esp with the laws that are to the benefit of the people. When those who are clearly using unrighteous dominion over the people are getting positions of power doesn't the gov't have the right to protect the law-abiding citizens?

[Aesa]

I disagree with the notion that citizens have the responsibility to uphold their government. They have the responsibility to direct the social system in the best possible direction. Upholding the government could sometimes be the exact opposite.

What citizens do have the responsibility to do is uphold the rule of law, in this system, and the judiciary absolutely must be independent from the executive and the legislature or else it becomes corrupt. Maybe this is what you meant by the term "government," you meant judiciary? I don't think it's right to call the judiciary government.

There's no need to kill people, even if they kill others, though. It's not an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, that is so terrible (thank goodness Jesus agrees with me on that one!).

[NeuroTypical]

When should a country consider deadly force against it's citizens?

Just wondering, are we thinking on the federal level, or do we consider police part of "a country".

On the federal level, I'd say in cases of civil war, and dang few exceptions to that.

With law enforcement/peace officers (and individual citizens too), I'd say deadly force can be appropriate to protect themselves or others from serious harm that could result in death. (The specific line of thinking is that you do what is necessary to STOP the threat, and often, that involves shooting someone.) I also know in at least Utah and Colorado, it's justifiable to kill someone to prevent or stop rape - I'm pretty much ok with that as well.

There's no need to kill people, even if they kill others, though.

Are you speaking just about capital punishment here, or are you also talking about defending innocents against bad guys who mean them harm?

LM

[DigitalShadow]

Killing for revenge is unacceptable in my opinion, killing people who are continually breaking the law to the detriment of their fellow citizens and kill anyone who tries to stop them... that's a different story.

Edit: I would say in this situation it is acceptable and probably necessary to use deadly force when trying to apprehend people who have shown they will kill you. I don't think they should be outright slaughtered by a military attack though unless they give military level resistance.

Edited July 15, 2009 by DigitalShadow

[Aesa]

Are you speaking just about capital punishment here, or are you also talking about defending innocents against bad guys who mean them harm?

LM

Murder. Ever.

[Moksha]

Because many of the politicians are either owned by or in fear of the drug cartels.

Are you suggesting that many steenking badges have been for sale?

[john doe]

Murder. Ever.

So you have no opinion on the issue since neither capitol punishment nor defending the innocent against people who mean them harm with deadly force are considered murder.

[Aesa]

So you have no opinion on the issue since neither capitol punishment nor defending the innocent against people who mean them harm with deadly force are considered murder.

It is murder. Capital punishment is just the state doing murder "for the public" and murder of tyrants is a sick way to solve a problem, and a very outmoded one at that.

Are you speaking just about capital punishment here, or are you also talking about defending innocents against bad guys who mean them harm?

I'm talking about a conscious effort, deliberate, killing. Of anyone. Ever. Period.

[Dravin]

I'm talking about a conscious effort, deliberate, killing. Of anyone. Ever. Period.

You may have better luck with the word homicide then, of course that also includes accidents but since I doubt you are for the accidental homicide of people either (you just don't hold them responsible baring negligence and the like). If you really want to focus on deliberate I suppose you could use the phrase deliberate homicide. Yes I know you are using the kill intentionally and with premeditation definition, but people will argue with you over the unlawful definition (and unjust but that is debatable more so than the legal aspect... to a degree).

Though just to make sure I understand you, you find self defense untenable? So if say some goon enters a village, pulls out his machete and is about to kill a house full of people nobody in that house is justified in picking up the bronze vase in the corner and braining said goon? I disagree, but you are free to think what you want.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Dravin

[NeuroTypical]

Aesa seems to figure that words can be used to help turn up the emotional appeal for his/her viewpoint. Against capital punishment? Call it murder. Against the use of deadly force in self-defense? Call it murder. The allied forces pushing the Nazi agressors back into Germany? Murder.

Phooey. Words mean things.

LM

[talisyn]

Just wondering, are we thinking on the federal level, or do we consider police part of "a country".

On the federal level, I'd say in cases of civil war, and dang few exceptions to that.

With law enforcement/peace officers (and individual citizens too), I'd say deadly force can be appropriate to protect themselves or others from serious harm that could result in death. (The specific line of thinking is that you do what is necessary to STOP the threat, and often, that involves shooting someone.) I also know in at least Utah and Colorado, it's justifiable to kill someone to prevent or stop rape - I'm pretty much ok with that as well.

Are you speaking just about capital punishment here, or are you also talking about defending innocents against bad guys who mean them harm?

LM

I was talking about a large, well-armed and organized segment of the Mexican population that has shown willingness to break laws, kill enforcers of those laws, infiltrate/bribe/intimidate members of gov't and military and police force, and kidnap and kill civilians on both sides of the border. I honestly don't see how Mexico is going to survive this without using drastic force, and once that little genie is let out of the bottle it's going to be very hard to get it back inside.

[john doe]

It is murder. Capital punishment is just the state doing murder "for the public" and murder of tyrants is a sick way to solve a problem, and a very outmoded one at that.

I'm talking about a conscious effort, deliberate, killing. Of anyone. Ever. Period.

You need to consult a dictionary or two. Just because someone gets killed does not automatically mean they were murdered.

[Moksha]

It is murder. Capital punishment is just the state doing murder "for the public" and murder of tyrants is a sick way to solve a problem, and a very outmoded one at that.

I'm talking about a conscious effort, deliberate, killing. Of anyone. Ever. Period.

When breaking up a criminal activity, police can not get close enough to use tazers when the criminals are shooting at them with armor piercing ammo.

[Guest]

When a band of citizens breaks a country's laws and becomes a threat to the public and the government, the president of a country like Mexico have the option to declare Martial Law and suspend the writ of habeas corpus enabling the military to administer justice upon the citizenry.

[Guest]

I'm talking about a conscious effort, deliberate, killing. Of anyone. Ever. Period.

I'd be careful to vehemently express something as an absolute. Only the Sith deals in absolutes...

[NeuroTypical]

Only the Sith deals in absolutes...

I've always wondered - isn't that an absolute statement itself? I mean, are we really that sure that it's impossible for someone to deal in absolutes unless that person is a Sith? And if that's true, then aren't you revealing yourself, darth anatess?

[Guest]

I've always wondered - isn't that an absolute statement itself? I mean, are we really that sure that it's impossible for someone to deal in absolutes unless that person is a Sith? And if that's true, then aren't you revealing yourself, darth anatess?

Absolute statements are absolutely of the dark side. As always, I am willing to display that I have learned much from your teachings. Do I please you, master?

[Moksha]

I'd be careful to vehemently express something as an absolute. Only the Sith deals in absolutes...

Doubt this would go over well during Testimony meetings. Or it might if everybody is nodding off or too many kids are screaming all at once.

:)