But true justice prevents such excuses. Even if the act was real
aggression and even if the aggression was real censorship or
copyright infringement or plagiarism, one can't claim physical
battery as an appropriate self defense. The right to defending
one's self against aggression is not a license for brutality.
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
_____
HAH! I must laugh. And laugh.
I don't care about the conflict. I don't care about Mr. Ireland,
or Mr.
Parker. But this is an absolutely superb demonstration of
something
I've been saying ('tho I don't know if I've done so publicly, for
those
that would know) for years: The non-aggression principle is as
easily
corruptible as any other political theory, if not more so. If
NAPsters
ruled the world, they would find excuses (like this) for whatever
violence they would wish to inflict.
_____
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
