[Avaboormavoro]

What would you do?

[HornyMolly]

What would I do? I'd most likely die... after setting in motion a sequence of events that would GUARANTEE that several of them die first. All with a clear conscience and no remorse... I've done NOTHING that warrants them "coming for me", other than having a thirst for freedom and independence and a FERVENT desire that they simply LEAVE ME ALONE - a "favor" that I'm MORE than willing to return, should they ever change their nature. Alas, as history has proven time and time again, it's probably not to be.

What would YOU do, Buddha... Meditate? Or pull out Mr. Wesson?

[Alexeryy]

I will protect my family, property and life - from all who would UNLAWFULLY plunder them - by deadly force in needed.

Then hope and pray the Creator finds it in his plan to forgive me.

REMEMBER - Violence is only moral, just and honorable when used in DEFENSE of one's life, liberty and property.

[wonceinee]

If I have done no wrong, I will try and take out as many as I can before they get me, and they will pay dearly for it. Plus if the system got so bad it came to that I would ether fight them or die trying, because at that point life is not worth living. Unless resisting to change that system.

[retrahdggd]

Counteroffer. "I agree to lay down my arms and surrender in exchange for world peace and forgiveness" and then do it before they have a chance to come up with a better offer (for them).

I expect they would chuckle at the "world peace" but choke on the "forgiveness" aka qualified immunity.

[Txaizdxx]

my answer is the same as gaillo, americans wont fight for their country but i will fight for my property.

[perpelverw]

Counteroffer. "I agree to lay down my arms and surrender in exchange for world peace and forgiveness" and then do it before they have a chance to come up with a better offer (for them).

I expect they would chuckle at the "world peace" but choke on the "forgiveness" aka qualified immunity.

Do you really think that would work? What if they didn't care about your counteroffer but you've already laid down your arms?

[AALee]

I think the first thing I'd do is turn the sprinklers on em.

[gennick]

Do you really think that would work? What if they didn't care about your counteroffer but you've already laid down your arms?

Work? I don't expect anything to work. I would intend to show that their behavior is what should be punished rather than give them a reason to punish my behavior.

If you make a counteroffer and perform as if that counteroffer has been accepted (even silently) then you expect the terms of the counteroffer to be honored as a contract. Even criminals have a code.

forgive ... The modern sense of "to give up desire or power to punish" is from use of the compound as a Germanic loan-translation of L. perdonare (cf. O.S. fargeban, Du. vergeven, Ger. vergeben, Goth. fragiban; see pardon). Related: Forgave; forgiven; forgiving.

[RIjdrVs3]

Criminals don't have a code of honor though, they are concerned with taking as much as they can from others..at the least expense from themselves. I think what you need to do is make them think twice about taking from you. They will follow the pass of least resistance towards taking from the people who offer 'counteroffers' or any logic/reason.

As long as there is separation of powers and the writ of habeus corpus is available along with recourse to a judicial system that is semi-competent my expectation is that you have a far greater chance of seeking redress of any grievance than if your only appearance is going to be on a slab in the morgue. Providing other corpses to keep you company in the morgue just provides justification for placing you there.

If a fighting stance is presented to you and you bring up your hands to defend yourself then a challenge has been issued and accepted. If a policyman says "do this or I am going to break every bone in your body" (a contract offer if ever there was one) the proper response is not to put up your hands to defend yourself but rather to counteroffer "are you threatening me?". After all threatening is a criminal violation that is punishable. This also presumes several witnesses to help establish facts later. If no witnesses then a conscience can be a valuable guide while holding a roll of nickels in one hand.

[Qauunet]

Palani - you are most wise in the law. But when the law breaks in with lethal force your writs will be worthless if they decide in a split second to shoot you. That is really the whole argument in a nutshell - sure it's great we have habeas corpus and the ability to seek redress, but meanwhile in the real world there is no second chance. Personally I'd prefer to maintain control of the situation for two reasons: first, because it is a matter of principle, and second because capitulating to force is never a good idea as history has shown. It does not have to be a gunfight - there are many options to neutralize immediate threats - some are even non-lethal. But relying on after-the-fact justice is a fool's game in these times. I respect you for maintaining law and order in your life, but some of us would rather deal with it on our own terms if it actually happens.

[UnduttRit]

As long as there is separation of powers and the writ of habeus corpus is available along with recourse to a judicial system that is semi-competent my expectation is that you have a far greater chance of seeking redress of any grievance than if your only appearance is going to be on a slab in the morgue. Providing other corpses to keep you company in the morgue just provides justification for placing you there.

If a fighting stance is presented to you and you bring up your hands to defend yourself then a challenge has been issued and accepted. If a policyman says "do this or I am going to break every bone in your body" (a contract offer if ever there was one) the proper response is not to put up your hands to defend yourself but rather to counteroffer "are you threatening me?". After all threatening is a criminal violation that is punishable. This also presumes several witnesses to help establish facts later. If no witnesses then a conscience can be a valuable guide while holding a roll of nickels in one hand.

Understand where you are coming from, in a perfect world everyone obeys the rules way.

But the world of law is not perfect in the way they operate. When they come for you it is using a sort of "Kill them all and let god sort them out later" mentality. Your counter offer may get you shot or treated in a not so genteelly way. They do not "think" they act, and do not fool your self, they will be watching your hands and eyes, you will be on the ground before you can use your roll.

Edited: to add word, thanks, P

[kilibry]

You must be smart. I want you to think about VietNam. Every conventional operation kicked the VC asses. What did they do? They went underground. They used stealth. They extracted costs on every army that attacked them.

Do not engage in conventional war. You don't win by dying for the cause. Let them kick ass but you take names. Be smart. Don't try to win any wars. Be patient and be blameless- offering them no excuse to mess with you.

I used to be the type that would rush to help any LEO in trouble if I had the chance. I would always think the LEO was right. Now, I would not help any LEO in a fight that I knew nothing about. I might be taking the wrong side.

[Qnpqbpac]

i would offer them coffee and Krispy Kremes ... and then i would use my Jedi mind skills to convince them that they came to my place for coffee and Krispy Kremes.

in Harry Potter, the spell is called "Confundo". or, "Obliviate".

it's not guaranteed, but it's worth a try !

[Cogebrego]

some of us would rather deal with it on our own terms if it actually happens.

If you are above the age of majority and possess the capacity to engage in contracts then you ALWAYS do so on your own terms. Some contracts are voidable (and avoidable). Other contracts possess a certain terminal quality best gently declined as quickly as possible. Whatever you believe the nature and cause of events to actually be a contract offer and contract acceptance are going to be present. Knowing this should help you in fashioning your terms.

[nanyaHgoc]

Understand where you are coming from, in a perfect everyone obeys the rules way.

Perhaps studying the "perfect world" textbook solutions in advance before relying upon knee jerk reactions would make everyone happier in the end?

[Unamannuato]

Be prepared though to have to defend what's yours.

I absolutely agree. But then it might surprise you to find out that what you consider to be YOURS that you are prepared to defend to the death is actually viewed by the state to be THEIRS. You are left with an equitable right to use a thing as long as the superior claim of the state is not raised.

The above is a fundamental principle of the 10 planks ... there is no private property ... kindly don't shoot the messenger.... I am merely reporting the situation as it currently stands.

A few months back Adask had a gal called Donna Barat on his shortwave program. Seems a few years back she decided that her involvement with the mortgage loan system was fubar and she stopped making payments. It took them several years to boot her out of her home. The way it happened was ... she was home, opened her door and found a notice to vacate on it. The deputy had not bothered to knock or ring the bell. Being placed upon notice in this manner she called the clerk of court and was given the legal advice to ignore it, that the notice to vacate had not been served. Lo and behold 72 hours later she found the first notice removed and a second notice hung by the door. She ignored that one as well and 30 days later a 6 man team consisting of swat, deputy sheriffs and homeland security showed up and threw her and her belongings out on the street.

What she gained from this experience? After much thought she came to the conclusion that the first notice was to the OWNER of the house in possession. The first notice was for 72 hours. The next notice was to the TENANT ... a notice to evict from the landlord. As the OWNER did not respond to the first notice and the TENANT did not respond to the second law enforcement was merely obeying an order of the court.

So in summary you own less than you think you own. If you are prepared to argue about it when you are CLEARLY in the wrong then force will be used to correct you. For myself, being a non-communist and firm believer in both the 10 commandments and private property, I have a short list of things I actually own and would care to protect. Other things in which I have use but not usufruct I care less about.

[abishiots]

Totally depends on the situation.

On one hand, I've done nothing wrong but neither has Edgar Steele. So I could try and fight using their system, possibly win or possibly spend life in prison for a crime I didn't commit.

But it's not like they are going to tell you "ok Lucky we are framing you for some heinous crime, you can surrender or come out guns blazing" in reality you will have no clue how massive it is if they are going to frame you when they first take you in. They might at first say "you are under arrest for (insert minor charge here)" so you surrender thinking surely since you are innocent you can talk to the right person and they will sort it out and you will be on your way within the hour, but then you get downtown and the start piling more and more charges on. Remember you are playing by their rules the cops, the judges and the politicians all have the same employer.


So for me it totally depends on the situation and on a multitude of factors so great that unless you narrowed down the question (a lot) I can't even begin to answer since it ranges from gunfight, to flight, to going to court.

[P3bWjm1j]

i would become the grey man.

[DiatryDal]

Possession is, as it were, the position of the foot.

If I reposition my foot then I have changed my possession.