From: Kevin Elliott <k-elliott@wiu.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:09:41 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: RE: RE: IP: Fwd: Evaluation of Vehicle Stopping Prototype ("KillSwitch")
In-Reply-To: <362F83C1.5929@lsil.com>
Message-ID: <v04020a00b2557a5da4f6@[143.43.192.181]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>Like it or not our society needs a police force. They have a dangerous
>and difficult job and I would never contend that the they should risk
>their lives unnecessarily. Furthermore, the 'suspect's' behavior is not
>defensible. But anyone who classifies a DOG as a HUMAN is DANGEROUS to
>other humans.

agree in principle.

>> Definitely manslaughter, probably 2nd or even 1st degree murder.  In

To clarify I presented this as the current likely punishment.

>That's FUCKING NUTS. Take the word manslaughter apart.

Manslaughter is a legal crime, it does not NECESSARILY mean that one has to
kill a man to be guilty.  This is exactly the same reason that women
cannot, by the meaning of the word, be guilty of rape.  To rape is to
sexually penetrate by use of force.  Women don't have the plumbing.  (see
seperate thread)

>There are so many damn laws that anyone can be destroyed whenever the
>powers that be decide they're inconvenient. So you think a human should
>go to the gas chamber for killing a dog? Has the constitutionality of
>this been tested in any recent cases? What about the punishment fitting
>the crime? A few thousand bucks for a dog vs. a human life?

So what would you recommend?  Their has to be a substansial punishment for
shooting the dog, otherwise their no reason suspects should not habitually
shoot police dogs if it would increase their chance of escape.  For
comparison purposes does anyone know what the punishment would be for
blowing up a police car?

>I like animals and I think they should be treated with some respect but
>they are not people. My opinion of the incident was formed by the
>treating of a dog as human and the human as animal.

How was the human treated as an animal?  I think a strong argument can be
made that the dog is serving in the same role (or similar) that a human
would otherwise be in and that is the reason for the harsh punishment.  Not
because you shot a dog but because you shot a "police officer".

>BTW - what is your opinion of recent proposed laws banning the use of
>horses and dogs as food?

Anyone know a place you can get good dog in the US?  <G>

>A) Common sense.
>B) How could you eat such nice, smart animals?
>C) Tyranny of the Disneyfied majority.
>D) Total Bullshit.
>E) Both C and D.

In general E.  See comments below.

>What about cockfights? It usually lasts about 5-15 seconds and the loser
>becomes lunch. There is no *significant* difference between buying the
>chicken at the grocery and a cockfight. If you say that the difference
>is one of enjoying the violence - grow up. Just because the violence on
>the grocery store shelf is individually wrapped for your convenience
>doesn't alter its nature.

I think part of this comes back to a sticky issue in the libertarian view-
at what level are people allowed to tell other people they cannot do
certain things in certain places. The federal government should not be
making laws about peoples eating habits.  Neither should the state.
However-  the small community feels that dog eating, cock fighting, etc.
are not things they want to live around.  Do they have the right to say we
don't want those things going on around us?  I think the way the
constitution was originally written made it quite clear that they did.  It
is interesting to note that without the 14th amendment (not added until
after the civil war) their is no prohibition of the state of New Hampshire
declaring that only Catholics can live inside its borders.  If you don't
like it move.  I'm not saying this is what I want to happen but I believe
it is an issue that has not been adequately addressed.  Remember before you
write this idea off who is going to enforce the law saying don't make rules
saying people can't do these things?


>Maybe we need a new law - a license to eat meat. Anyone who doesn't go
>through a course on killing their own meat should not be issued a
>carnivore permit with different stamps for different animal foods.
>
>Before you write the rant off as rambling crap the theme is - moronic
>personification and lack of perspective.

My basic view is that regardless of ones personal views about such issues
the government is the wrong medium to enforce them.  If you think eating
meat is wrong convince people to quit eating meat!


___________________________________________________________________________
"DOS/WIN based computers manufactured by companies such as IBM, Compaq,
Tandy, and millions of others, are by far the most popular, with about 70
million machines in use worldwide. Macintosh fans, on the other hand, note
that cockroaches are far more numerous than humans, and that numbers alone
do not denote a higher life form." - New York Times

-Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott <mailto:k-elliott@wiu.edu>