4 ms·

>> the corner cases (police are there and they aren't leaving), That would imply they have a warrant which most likely means they have already busted down the

>> the corner cases (police are there and they aren't leaving), That would imply they have a warrant which most likely means they have already busted down the door negating my policy in the first place. >>and also concluding that you're willing to forgo answering the door in times it would have been beneficial Such as? I have been doing this avoidance for 20 years in multiple locations, never been an issue so far. >> If physical security is one of your hobbies that is fantastic. But it's wrong to assert that it's universal. I dont think I asserted anything of the sort, pretty sure I implicitly said "I have a policy" not that others do or should. That said outsourcing your personal security is the path to becoming a victim, when seconds count the police are minutes away >Rather, how about a simple misdemeanor law that prohibits the bringing firearms onto someone else's residential real estate, unless a sign is posted that explicitly allowed it? I am not sure what your antigun stance has to do with this story? There is no indication that the persons were armed, brandished any firearms or threaten the use of violence at all. They knocked on the door, said there were there to collect stolen property and if the home owner did not comply they would alert the police which could result in the homeowner being arrested. That threat of using state violence violence is a problem, but nothing you have stated here would prevent that. Nor am I clear how your proposes law would even be enforced, or is applicable to this situation. It is clear you just anti-gun and likely anti-self defense in general and instead believes only the state should have that power... which is ironic as you likely are anti-police and pro "defund the police" >>Breonna Taylor. I was betting it was going to be that or Rittenhouse. Both of which have soo much disinformation spread about the cases that is hard to have a rational conversation about those events online. The real solution to Breonna Taylor type situations is reform warrant policies and require the police to use the least confrontational means to effect the warrant, instead today police purposefully make the situations more dangerous IMO as a form a "street justice" but again that is not relevant to this situation as nothing even remotely like the events in Breonna Taylor happened here

mindslight 3y ago
> It is clear you just anti-gun and likely anti-self defense in general and instead believes only the state should have that power Bad guess. I'm a gun owner who believes in the natural right of self defense. But guns are not a strong hobby, and taking a basic gun class is actually what made me realize I am not the type of person who wants to carry. It's just not how I'm wired. (I will, of course, do so if I have to because society devolves to that point). > soo much disinformation spread Walker was sleeping on a couch. Police executed a 2nd-amendment-incompatible "no knock" warrant, got pissy when Walker defended himself, and so rather than retreating they retaliated by using the place as a shooting gallery. What do I have wrong here? The relevance to the situation is that Walker's self defense was exactly what the law indicates he should have done to preserve his rights, in light of rulings that have found the police have no duty to defend and as such that responsibility falls entirely on the individual. > That would imply [the police] have a warrant which most likely means they have already busted down the door negating my policy in the first place. The police can have an arrest warrant, and not just immediately bust down your door. This might be one of the reasons you'd want to preemptively answer your door, rather than getting your home unnecessarily damaged. Or maybe they're coming to notify you about a family member who was hurt. Or maybe someone is looking for a lost dog and you want to be a good neighbor. Or maybe you were about to go out and do some errands or yard work and don't want to wait 10 minutes for the Jehovah’s Witnesses to give up. Or maybe girl scout cookies. > There is no indication that the persons were armed I took a guess at the likely equipment of private security that would be part of their imposing image, to make an example of something that would be pretty clear cut and relatively easy to enforce. > Nor am I clear how your proposes law would even be enforced You make a police report, give them video evidence of someone coming to your house uninvited and armed, and they get a $500 fine or whatever. It doesn't turn into a high stakes criminal trial extravaganza because it's a misdemeanor that applies before escalation, rather than a capital crime xor completely innocent based on minute details after an escalation. But yes one could certainly write a better tailored law to criminalize extortion by private "security" forces than the simplistic bit I threw out as an example. My point wasn't a fully fledged legal proposal, but to point out the difference between technically having rights that you can protect if you do everything exactly right, and proactive enforcement against attempts to strip you of your rights through implied coercion. The fundamentalist "just do everything right" approach doesn't scale. It's like C and manual memory management. Sure, it's fine if you write bug free code (ie you're DJB). But moving most of the drudgery to a compiler frees you up to do more worthwhile higher level things.

mindslight 3y ago

> It is clear you just anti-gun and likely anti-self defense in general and instead believes only the state should have that power Bad guess. I'm a gun owner who believes in the natural right of self defense. But guns are not a strong hobby, and taking a basic gun class is actually what made me realize I am not the type of person who wants to carry. It's just not how I'm wired. (I will, of course, do so if I have to because society devolves to that point). > soo much disinformation spread Walker was sleeping on a couch. Police executed a 2nd-amendment-incompatible "no knock" warrant, got pissy when Walker defended himself, and so rather than retreating they retaliated by using the place as a shooting gallery. What do I have wrong here? The relevance to the situation is that Walker's self defense was exactly what the law indicates he should have done to preserve his rights, in light of rulings that have found the police have no duty to defend and as such that responsibility falls entirely on the individual. > That would imply [the police] have a warrant which most likely means they have already busted down the door negating my policy in the first place. The police can have an arrest warrant, and not just immediately bust down your door. This might be one of the reasons you'd want to preemptively answer your door, rather than getting your home unnecessarily damaged. Or maybe they're coming to notify you about a family member who was hurt. Or maybe someone is looking for a lost dog and you want to be a good neighbor. Or maybe you were about to go out and do some errands or yard work and don't want to wait 10 minutes for the Jehovah’s Witnesses to give up. Or maybe girl scout cookies. > There is no indication that the persons were armed I took a guess at the likely equipment of private security that would be part of their imposing image, to make an example of something that would be pretty clear cut and relatively easy to enforce. > Nor am I clear how your proposes law would even be enforced You make a police report, give them video evidence of someone coming to your house uninvited and armed, and they get a $500 fine or whatever. It doesn't turn into a high stakes criminal trial extravaganza because it's a misdemeanor that applies before escalation, rather than a capital crime xor completely innocent based on minute details after an escalation. But yes one could certainly write a better tailored law to criminalize extortion by private "security" forces than the simplistic bit I threw out as an example. My point wasn't a fully fledged legal proposal, but to point out the difference between technically having rights that you can protect if you do everything exactly right, and proactive enforcement against attempts to strip you of your rights through implied coercion. The fundamentalist "just do everything right" approach doesn't scale. It's like C and manual memory management. Sure, it's fine if you write bug free code (ie you're DJB). But moving most of the drudgery to a compiler frees you up to do more worthwhile higher level things.