If you are not prepared to actually go so far as shooting some one to enforce a law, then it's not really a law as such, it's just a political opinion, which would be ultimately unenforceable. If someone disagrees with that particular political opinion, they could just refuse "arrest", get a gun and say I have a right of self defence.

The truck did not surrender in subservience to the political policy force, so the force did what any political policy force would do anywhere in the world, they take it to the next level of enforcement action available to them. This is what the taxpayer pays them to do.

However if you point out the absurdity of "the law", people will just retort with their social conditioning: "If we didn't have laws I could just go around knifing everybody, and no on could stop me",ect., well we do have laws, and the lawmakers hit men go around murdering people and no one can stop them, not while we have politicians and laws anyway.

If you support the law, ultimately you've got to support police shooting people.

If you read the article, it says the authorities claimed the back of the truck was covered, so they assumed there were drugs in there. But:

"During interviews at a Border Patrol facility, survivors told consular officials that the men died from gunfire, and that their cover was flimsy and blowing off, enough so that the trooper in the helicopter could see them."

So, assuming they are telling the truth, the cop that fired KNEW he was shooting at a truck crammed full of people and would most likely kill someone.

Why are Parks and Wildlife Wardens enforcing drugs policy?
Surly they should be looking after the wildlife.
If they wore minding their own business the murder wouldn't have happened.

It is quite common for "Parks and Wildlife", "Fish and Game", etc. folks to be in at the start of what might turn out to be drugs, immigrant smuggling, etc. (any of a number of things unrelated to hunting/fishing regulations).

They are the only law enforcement people who can go in for a look-see without a warrant. They only need the place to be one where hunting, fishing, etc. might reasonably be expected to be taking place. They can stop people to check hunting/fishing licenses if the people have that sort of gear, search for things like illegal to possess bird feathers, out of season game, etc.

Now if in the course of doing that they happen to see something else illegal, they can call in other law enforcement whose line of country that would be. Or in a case like this where whoever it is tries to get away from them.

The point here is that might not be a package of drugs being smuggled. Might be eagle feathers, bear galls, etc.

This DOES get abused (some other area of law enforcement suggesting to Fish and Game folks that they take a look in some particular place). I have personally encountered this. But that's not necessarily collusion on the part of the Fish and Game folks (they would be fed the SAME information in the situations where the other law enforcement noticed some fish and game violations). The problem is that the other law enforcement agencies can lie to the Fish and Game folks (or be telling the truth).

>> If you are not prepared to actually go so far as shooting some one to enforce a law, then it's not really a law as such, it's just a political opinion, which would be ultimately unenforceable.

Not really. What they actually do is arrest people and put them in a prison after going to court. This happens 100s time a day. No one is getting shot.


>> If someone disagrees with that particular political opinion, they could just refuse "arrest", get a gun and say I have a right of self defence.

If they get a gun and use it as a means of refusing arrest then the is a different law being broken. We've gone from shoplifting (which we dont shoot people for), to threatening the lives of people with a gun.... which we may or may not shoot them for depending on if it is a possible not too. Unfortunately, regardless of what all the guardian readers say, sometimes it is impossible to take a gun off someone without shooting them. If you reckon you can fix that 100% of the time, then apply for the job.

>> The truck did not surrender in subservience to the political policy force, so the force did what any political policy force would do anywhere in the world, they take it to the next level of enforcement action available to them. This is what the taxpayer pays them to do.

Absolutely. There are a whole lot more taxpayers than there are crims. Tough titty if the crims think they have a right to steal/rob/attack the taxpayers and get upset when they are arrested.


>>However if you point out the absurdity of "the law", people will just retort with their social conditioning: "If we didn't have laws I could just go around knifing everybody, and no on could stop me",ect., well we do have laws, and the lawmakers hit men go around murdering people and no one can stop them, not while we have politicians and laws anyway.

Utter tripe. I want laws because i was mugged by a guy with a knife who threatened to stab me. WIthout laws, i think that would happen more often. As yet, there have been instances where i have been murdered by a law maker. I dont know anyone who have been murdered by a lawmaker. But i do know a lot of people who have benefited from the law and the lawmakers and enforcers.


>> If you support the law, ultimately you've got to support police shooting people.
If you don't support the law, then ultimately you've got to support the criminal thieves and killers becasuse you are basically KNOWINGLY sitting on your arse and obstruction of the protection of innocent law abiding taxpayers (who vastly outnumber your opinions - so what you think isn't really relevent anyway).

It is very important to understand that self defence is no the same as threatening some one else. If some one is attacking you, you can always defend yourself from attack, always.

> It is very important to understand that self defence is no the same as threatening some one else. If some one is attacking you, you can always defend yourself from attack, always.

Unless the police are attacking you in order to defend someone else.

You can go on about the right and the wrong of this and that, but you have got to remember to be practical. Are you going to be able to defend yourself against a crack squad of heavily armed and trained front line coppers armed with the latest weaponry.

Yes? Then they will call in the military.
Still yes? Then they will bring in attack helicopters with 40mm high-explosive rounds, each one with the power of a hand grenade.

Still think you can defend yourself? Well they will go all the way up to a nuclear bomb if this country needs to. What have your got? A half-can of lager and a big gob.

"If some one is attacking you, you can always defend yourself from attack, always."
Should be: "If some one is attacking you, you can always 'try to' defend yourself from attack 'and lose', always."

So just pay your parking tickets, unless you are prepared for nuclear war! lol
Just let's not forget, these people were gunned down because they disobeyed "authority", and not because they harmed anyone.
May they rest in peace, while "authorities" burn in hell.