Home invasion victim survives one; can he survive the second?
Provisional good news! Someone tried to break into a home and consequences caught up with him. All home invasions should end this way; with the invader dead. In a free society, people like the dead man might decide to get honest work. Or be darwinized out of the gene-pool. Of course, this event may still cause problems for the home's residents if the "law" has its way. No good deed goes unpunished in Governmentland.
Why is the case being sent to the DA? Must make sure there isn't something, anything, that the defender can be charged with before they let him go about his life. Did the LEOs unethically confiscate his gun, his protection, as "evidence" until they can decide if he should have died quietly instead of adding to their workload? What if someone else decides to break into this same home in the meantime? Will the "law" accept responsibility?
Of course, we all know why the enforcers want a search warrant for the home that was being invaded: they are hoping to find "drugs" or some other "reason" the aggressor was trying so desperately to get inside. This is just another example of the stupidity of the War on (some) Drugs. Government causes the theft and violence problem by artificially limiting supply through prohibition, then uses the logical results of prohibition to net even more innocent people.
This is why the policy of "shoot, shovel, and shut up" is still the best, and why his neighbors did him no favor by calling the LEOs. Good luck to the defender, good riddance to the parasite, and "Good grief" to the "law".
Thursday, January 21, 2010
"Arrest"- the definition
"Arrest" is the euphemism for a kidnapping committed by government employees while they are "on the clock".
Too many cats? Says who?
Too many cats? Says who?
Ridiculous! That was my first thought when I heard about the dozens of cats taken from a local home. And I don't mean it was necessarily ridiculous to have "too many" cats.
Should a person have 50 or 100 cats in their house? It is not up to me or the government to decide. Like it or not, domestic animals are property. You can generally tell how good a person is by how they treat their animals. If I know of someone who abuses animals I will probably not trust him with people, either, and would choose to exercise my right of association.
Sometimes, as seems to be the case in this instance, a person finds themselves in a situation not of their making (his recently deceased wife was the cat collector). Even the misnamed "public safety" (gag!) spokesman/goon acknowledged that the man cared about the cats and meant no harm. No force was initiated and no theft/fraud was committed. This means he did no wrong.
The city claims it "can not allow" that many cats to live in a house. Really? It is none of the city's business. Period. "Animal control" and the LEOs are, once again, the aggressors. Why are they not being held accountable? Because too many people don't care as much about rights being violated as they do about cats and cops.
Now, the man is being charged with "crimes" (of course!). Government can't leave anything alone if it sees an opportunity to turn someone else into a "criminal" and steal more property and money. And, in this case, destroy a man's home in the process.
In a free society, this man would probably be helped, not violated by coercive thugs. He would have no reason to fear asking for help, since no one could "legally" attack him as they did in the police state which surrounds us today. He could be assisted in finding homes for the cats he did not wish to keep. His home could be cleaned by volunteers if he is unable to do it for himself and if he wants the help. If he preferred to stay in his house surrounded by dying cats and filth, that, too would be his business alone, whether anyone liked it or not. Only if his house became a credible threat to the health or property of others (who were not able to contain the threat without using defensive force) could they take defensive actions themselves; not by using thugs hired with stolen money.
Ridiculous! That was my first thought when I heard about the dozens of cats taken from a local home. And I don't mean it was necessarily ridiculous to have "too many" cats.
Should a person have 50 or 100 cats in their house? It is not up to me or the government to decide. Like it or not, domestic animals are property. You can generally tell how good a person is by how they treat their animals. If I know of someone who abuses animals I will probably not trust him with people, either, and would choose to exercise my right of association.
Sometimes, as seems to be the case in this instance, a person finds themselves in a situation not of their making (his recently deceased wife was the cat collector). Even the misnamed "public safety" (gag!) spokesman/goon acknowledged that the man cared about the cats and meant no harm. No force was initiated and no theft/fraud was committed. This means he did no wrong.
The city claims it "can not allow" that many cats to live in a house. Really? It is none of the city's business. Period. "Animal control" and the LEOs are, once again, the aggressors. Why are they not being held accountable? Because too many people don't care as much about rights being violated as they do about cats and cops.
Now, the man is being charged with "crimes" (of course!). Government can't leave anything alone if it sees an opportunity to turn someone else into a "criminal" and steal more property and money. And, in this case, destroy a man's home in the process.
In a free society, this man would probably be helped, not violated by coercive thugs. He would have no reason to fear asking for help, since no one could "legally" attack him as they did in the police state which surrounds us today. He could be assisted in finding homes for the cats he did not wish to keep. His home could be cleaned by volunteers if he is unable to do it for himself and if he wants the help. If he preferred to stay in his house surrounded by dying cats and filth, that, too would be his business alone, whether anyone liked it or not. Only if his house became a credible threat to the health or property of others (who were not able to contain the threat without using defensive force) could they take defensive actions themselves; not by using thugs hired with stolen money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)