Death is a common end for victims of the drug war as well.
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/08/17/drugWarVictims.html
Was there a reason for any of these people to have been killed (by police)?
Missykins - the issue here is one of rights.
Either people have rights or they do not.
If the people have rights, the laws are WRONG - and those enforcing the laws are CRIMINALS.
If people have no rights - the government is supreme and passes down the ability to do EVERYTHING to the people as a privilege (through license), then the laws are valid, and those disobeying their Sovereign Government are guilty of treason - to be dealt with as the state sees fit.
I don't like Johnny's abortion example.
There is no "Abortion Issue" - this is a misconception leading to the opposing viewpoints we have today.
If a fetus has RIGHTS, abortion is murder - regardless of the woman carrying the fetus's rights. If a fetus has NO rights, any law attempting to force anyone to do something with their body against their will is a CRIME.
Essentially, the woman wanting an abortion is being raped by the laws - forced into doing something with her body she doesn't want to do.
I don't like the idea of abortion laws. They shouldn't exist. There is no need for them.
If a fetus has rights, it has rights as a person - and killing it is murder. There is no need for a special law protecting the "group" rights of fetuses.
An Amendment recognizing a Fetus as a Full Person With Rights might be called for, but no special laws CAN or SHOULD be made regarding "Fetus Rights" nor "Women's Rights" as these concepts do not exist under the Constitutional Equal protection clause.
If a fetus has NO rights, it is not murder. There is no need for a law making abortion legal (i.e. "Protecting Women's Rights) as there are no WOMEN'S rights beyond her rights as a person.
If the fetus has NO rights, the woman is entitled to do whatever she wants with her body - and what's inside it. Anyone forcing her to NOT do what she wants is committing a crime against her (rape - the forcing of one's desires upon another without their consent, coercion - through threat of violence or force, or murder (if it comes to that).)
***Abortion - either a fetus has rights - or not. If so, abortion is MURDER - depriving the fetus of its right to life. There is no exclusion clause for murder unless it is done in self defense. If the woman's life is in jeopardy - many advocate a clause permitting an abortion; but this is unnecessary as it would be an act of self-defense.***
Terrorism - or placing one under duress by threatening violence if one chooses to do something - is NOT a legitimate act of government.
"Don't have an abortion or we'll come after you with guns!" is not a valid act of Congress (provided that a fetus has no rights).
"Don't use drugs or we'll come after you with guns!" is equally inappropriate conduct by government. These are acts of terrorism - and cannot be tolerated in a free society.
There are NO collective GROUP rights. This is a fallacy perpetuated by the State in an attempt to divide and conquer the sovereign people. Preying upon the people's desire to belong - the desire for collective groups, the government makes up terminology that ensures polarized groups are created advocating for "group rights" instead of recognizing all humanity as the only group - and that we all receive our rights as individuals. This is
Individualism v. Collectivism. If you haven't read my posts in CeP, check that link out. It explains this better than I have >_<
So - the drug laws...
Do I have a right to choose what I put into my body? Do I have a right to own property? Do I have a right to pursue happiness in my own way?
If so - and I hold that these are unalienable rights, as defined in the Declaration of Independence as being pre-existent to government (beyond the government's reach of power), what are the limitations on these rights?
How can Government take these rights from me - through legislative acts (exercise of power) when it was made clear that they could not infringe upon my rights without due process of law?
The limit of my rights is the beginning of the rights of anyone else.
"My right to swing my arm ends at the tip of your nose..." Heard that before?
No one has the RIGHT to violate anyone else's rights. This is CRIME.
Laws are meant to provide equal protection from CRIME.
If you violate X right, you get X punishment, regardless of motive, regardless of social standing, regardless of wealth, regardless of race/creed/gender/age/etc.
This is all LAW is supposed to do (according to the Constitution) - provide equal protection of ALL rights through equal application of the law.
If no right is violated... what CRIME exists?
If you rob a bank and there is no law against this, is robbing the bank a CRIME - or is it acceptable - because there is no law?
Nazi Germany - the Jew's lives were being lost due to the direct intervention of the Nazi's. Their right to live was being violated - in accordance to the law of the country. Does this LAWFUL deprivation of life make the acts NOT-Criminal?
Do laws MAKE actions criminal?
Nearly everyone considers the actions of the Nazi's to have been wrong.
Were they
criminal though? Considering that in Germany, at the time, the government was sovereign (Empire - rule by Right of hereditary derivation from Source of Power [I.e. God-King line of power]) - the people were SUBJECTS of the all-powerful state - the actions of the German government CHOOSING to eliminate those under its power was well within its authority.
The "Constitution of the German Empire" currently enforced established that its power was derived from the consent of a collection of "Kings" over provinces - and one of them to be the "Empire of Germany"
The source of "Rights" was these kings.
The lives, liberties, and property of ALL subjects were listed as "privileges" in the Constitution (called "Rights" but clearly defined as being GRANTED by the Emperor to the people - privileges; being granted and revoked through Empirical Decree)
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_German_Empire
That link talks about Hitler's "Subversion" of the Constitution - but that was not the case. He suspended "privileges" afforded the people by Consent of the Ruler/Emperor... As was the right of the Emperor, should he choose to do so. Hitler took authority of the Emperor in doing so - but did not violate the Constitution (the suspension of "Rights" was done under legitimate power of the supreme state - as the state was the SOURCE of these "RIGHTS"... it could grant or revoke these "RIGHTS" as it saw fit. Any "RIGHT" that can be revoked is not a RIGHT, but a mere privilege.).
(Partially over-simplified. Their representative republic had full authority - a majority vote was the supreme deciding factor - there were no RIGHTS recognized as being beyond the reach of the legislature - a simple majority vote could make a law undermining the RIGHTS of any citizen - or group of citizens. The Emperor was not the sole seat of power - however the legislature was appointed by Imperial Proclamation - therefore the legislature was a branch of the Emperor's authority... so the over-simplification stands.)
By law, the Emperor could claim the life of any citizen - order others to kill any citizen (or group; i.e. "The Jews") and have that order carried out. BY LAW (German), the actions of the Nazi's were NOT criminal.
They committed NO crimes.
The concept of LAW defining CRIME falters at this point - as clearly, law itself cannot define crime, if there are to be any RIGHTS the law cannot overcome (Law cannot define CRIME if the Nazi's actions were CRIMINAL or WRONG.. Law cannot define Crime in America so long as the Constitution of the U.S. remains the Supreme Law of the Land).
This comes down to the Standing Doctrine - which prevents the Courts from hearing any matter in which there is not a party complaining of a violation of one of their protected rights.
The sole purpose of the Federal Government of the U.S. is to protect the rights of the people. Period.
The source of ALL authority of government IS the rights of the people. Period.
There is NO ONE - elected, born, or otherwise risen to power - in the United States that has ANY authority greater than the right of ANY individual citizen.
This is why the drug laws are invalid - as they raise the false right of Government (i.e. Congress - mere people with no rights greater than that of your neighbor) to control property that does not belong to them.
The false "GOVERNMENTAL RIGHT" to define an act as "CRIMINAL" when there is no violation of a specific "RIGHT" of another.
This is legislative theft - deprivation of one's property without due process of law.
It is also the first step in undermining the fundamental rights of the people - in an attempt to establish that the State is above the law (above the rights of the people), supreme authority (Totalitarianism) that cannot be challenged by its subjects (the people).
People seem to have trouble accepting that everyone's rights are equal.
People seem to have trouble accepting that Congress is only a collection of other people - with no rights greater than their own.
There is no "right" of government to take anything from anyone. That is THEFT - organized CRIME under Color of Law (False authority). (**Direct Taxation - the authority to TAKE -
a Constitutional Amendment IS recognized as Due Process of Law. The government HAS, through due process, taken authority beyond the rights of the people through the 16th Amendment** - side note, Prohibition - control over one's property by the state - must be done through the requisite due process; Conviction of a crime or Constitutional Amendment. There is no other way for government to make any claim over the property of any citizen.)
There is no "right" of government to create privileged classes (Women's Rights, Gay Rights, Fetus's Rights, Black Rights, White Rights, Jewish Rights, Hispanic Rights............) - these "Classess" or "Groups" are not recognized under the Constitution.
An individual has all the rights they need to exist equally in society.
Discrimination BY society because of one's perceived existence in one of these groups - amounting to a violation of the rights of the individual - is CRIMINAL, regardless of the law.
This is where things get sticky - because people do not understand the difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEGE.
And the state has done nothing to enlighten the people... but has done much to cloud this issue with the false concept of group rights - which are naught BUT privileges affording special extra protections of the rights of individuals belonging to a certain group.
This in UNEQUAL under the Law (of the Land - i.e. the Constitution) and is precisely what the Constitution was written to prevent.
The "Right" of "Society" - the collective group - to "control" property perceived to be dangerous (drugs); to exclude the owner of the property all his fundamental rights of ownership, is simply a right that does not exist.