Is it constitutional for government or law enforcement agents to use or be in possession of deadly force instruments?

Nov 2017
1,938
937
.
#1
Unless we're at war or under martial law, or someone has been sentenced to death, I don't see where in the US Constitution it says that it's ok for the state to use deadly force against US Citizens. What I do find is the opposite with Amendment V:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Just about all police in the US are armed with deadly force (there actually seem to be some exceptions, from what I've read) and they have actually killed many people.

 
Dec 2013
33,472
19,270
Beware of watermelons
#2
How else do you convince a few hundred million people to listen to a handful of narcissistic geriatrics and pay them for the privilege?
 
Nov 2017
1,938
937
.
#3
How else do you convince a few hundred million people to listen to a handful of narcissistic geriatrics and pay them for the privilege?
If someone who was shot by LEOs, or the family of someone who was shot and killed by LEOs, decides to litigate based on this argument (that they or their victim family member had their constitutional right infringed from being shot by LEOs) and wins, does it matter? I'm talking about anyone who gets shot at by LEOs, even if it's someone who was shooting at them and LEOs are returning fire. Yes, any reasonable person would say that if someone's shooting at the cops then the cops ought to be able to retaliate, but when it's prohibited by the constitution, that seems irrelevant to me (if I'm being logical, objective, impartial, etc.).
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,170
Barsoom
#4
The Fifth Amendment only applies to the federal government, not the states, according to the men who wrote and ratified it.
 
Nov 2017
1,938
937
.
#5
The Fifth Amendment only applies to the federal government, not the states, according to the men who wrote and ratified it.
With the 14th Amendment that changed, rendering this as a nothing more than a history lesson that's obsolete & no longer applies.
 
Likes: RNG
Jun 2012
41,958
15,170
Barsoom
#6
With the 14th Amendment that changed, rendering this as a nothing more than a history lesson that's obsolete & no longer applies.
Actually the Fourteenth Amendment did not change anything regarding the first ten amendments. Neither the 39th Congress or did any nineteeth century court believe in incorporation; incorporation is a twentieth century Supreme Court creation with no basis. Moreover, it impossible to incorporate something that does not exist.
 
Nov 2017
1,938
937
.
#7
Actually the Fourteenth Amendment did not change anything regarding the first ten amendments. Neither the 39th Congress or did any nineteeth century court believe in incorporation; incorporation is a twentieth century Supreme Court creation with no basis.
Are these claims just your opinion, or do you have arguments or some sources/references that you can provide to support or back them up?

I don't know what it means to believe in incorporation. What do you mean by saying that incorporation is a creation? Are you talking about it as a word with a definition, or are you referring to the concept or notion of incorporation?

Seems to me that there is a basis, in that there's the Constitution, an amendment process, and the Bill of Right as well as the 14th Amendment as a result of being ratified by the amendment process.

Moreover, it impossible to incorporate something that does not exist.
This may be correct as a general hypothetical statement, but what does that have to do with anything? Are you saying there's something having to do with the states or the Constitution that don't exist? What is the actual "something" that you're referring to that you say doesn't exist, if there actually is a something in question? I don't know what you're referring to.

The states do exist; the state governments do exist; the federal government does exist; the Constitution does exist; the amendments to it do exist; We The People do exist. We The People exist both as individuals and as a collective whole body.

We The People don't each exist in separate independent universes isolated from each other in such a way that they can't affect each other. What I do can and does affect you and everyone else; what you do can and does affect me and everyone else; what someone else does can affect you and me and everyone else; etc.

Force and its use does exist in the form of individuals serving as agents; if a state does something that a federal court ruling says it's not supposed to do, then the federal government can send agents to that state to impose force upon that state to put a stop to whatever that something is.
The interaction of the individuals, whether private citizens, federal legislators, federal law enforcement agents, federal judges, state officials, office holders, or agents, and other parties or entities and who collectively make up our country do exist, and they do exist to each other.
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,170
Barsoom
#8
Are these claims just your opinion, or do you have arguments or some sources/references that you can provide to support or back them up?

I don't know what it means to believe in incorporation. What do you mean by saying that incorporation is a creation? Are you talking about it as a word with a definition, or are you referring to the concept or notion of incorporation?

Seems to me that there is a basis, in that there's the Constitution, an amendment process, and the Bill of Right as well as the 14th Amendment as a result of being ratified by the amendment process.


This may be correct as a general hypothetical statement, but what does that have to do with anything? Are you saying there's something having to do with the states or the Constitution that don't exist? What is the actual "something" that you're referring to that you say doesn't exist, if there actually is a something in question? I don't know what you're referring to.

The states do exist; the state governments do exist; the federal government does exist; the Constitution does exist; the amendments to it do exist; We The People do exist. We The People exist both as individuals and as a collective whole body.

We The People don't each exist in separate independent universes isolated from each other in such a way that they can't affect each other. What I do can and does affect you and everyone else; what you do can and does affect me and everyone else; what someone else does can affect you and me and everyone else; etc.

Force and its use does exist in the form of individuals serving as agents; if a state does something that a federal court ruling says it's not supposed to do, then the federal government can send agents to that state to impose force upon that state to put a stop to whatever that something is.
The interaction of the individuals, whether private citizens, federal legislators, federal law enforcement agents, federal judges, state officials, office holders, or agents, and other parties or entities and who collectively make up our country do exist, and they do exist to each other.
To start to substantiate your argument, several things need to be verified. The purpose for these five questions is to establish a baseline before going further.

You would need to provide any evidence that a bill of rights was ratified in 1791.

You would need to provide any evidence that a bill of rights were referenced or used after 1791.

You would need to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress referenced a bill of rights.

You would need to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress ever debated incorporating any of the first ten amendments.

You would need to provide any evidence that the language of the Fourteenth Amendment mentions any of the first ten amendments.
 
Nov 2017
1,938
937
.
#9
To start to substantiate your argument, several things need to be verified. The purpose for these five questions is to establish a baseline before going further.

You would need to provide any evidence that a bill of rights was ratified in 1791.

You would need to provide any evidence that a bill of rights were referenced or used after 1791.

You would need to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress referenced a bill of rights.

You would need to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress ever debated incorporating any of the first ten amendments.

You would need to provide any evidence that the language of the Fourteenth Amendment mentions any of the first ten amendments.
Ok, well I really don't want to quibble or debate over any of these issues here on this thread. I want to keep the focus on the point, so how about I rephrase the question:

Suppose all these issues you mention are not in dispute (or given that they're all settled/verified, etc.), is it constitutional for government or law enforcement agents to use or be in possession of deadly force instruments?
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,170
Barsoom
#10
Ok, well I really don't want to quibble or debate over any of these issues here on this thread. I want to keep the focus on the point, so how about I rephrase the question:

Suppose all these issues you mention are not in dispute (or given that they're all settled/verified, etc.), is it constitutional for government or law enforcement agents to use or be in possession of deadly force instruments?
Ok, well I really don't want to quibble or debate over any of these issues here on this thread. I want to keep the focus on the point, so how about I rephrase the question:

Suppose all these issues you mention are not in dispute (or given that they're all settled/verified, etc.), is it constitutional for government or law enforcement agents to use or be in possession of deadly force instruments?
Yes to a degree. Actual law enforcement agencies can be armed. The concept dates to Boston in the 1630s with armed constables and watchmen. By the mid 1700s, towns had armed sheriffs. In 1833, Philadelphia created the first 24 hour police force and other cities followed suit.

Agencies such as the IRS, etc, should not be armed.