Dai Kiwi wrote:Hyrion,
With respect
you are reading things into pigpot's questions which are not yet answerable. Pigpot has not yet defined to us what 'force' or 'original action' mean. Pigpot might, or might not, include threats as an 'original action'. He might, or might not, consider threats 'force'. Until pigpot tells us what his terms mean we cannot possibly answer them in any sort of a meaningful way.
Games, games, games. Such fun.
Okay. Thanks for the answers. I'll start with one example. An individual won't pay income tax / has never payed income tax and never wishes to pay income tax. He or she receives a NOTICE from the Inland Revenue (or whatever governmental department / collection agency is in place) stating he must pay his income tax or he will face a Court hearing as to his none payment. Remember at this point no-one has had harm, loss or injury occur to them.
So the man / woman sends the NOTICE back to it's place of origin stating that he doesn't care about the non-payment of income tax or the threat of Court action as he hasn't harmed another person and therefore no loss, harm or injury has occurred. Remember, that still at this point no-one has had harm, loss or injury occur to them.
So a couple of days later he gets a second NOTICE in the post demanding the payment in full after the I.R.S. / I.R. give him / her a second NOTICE to pay. So he does exactly what he did before. Remember, that still at this point no-one has had harm, loss or injury occur to them.
So now he / she gets an Order from the local Court that under the State / local law, that he / she is being summoned to Court for non-payment of income tax. So again the Order is sent back, stating that the individual doesn't consent to being made to attend an event where at this point, no-one has had harm, loss or injury occur to them.
So various trials, initial and final are conducted according to whatever code is "in place" and the accused is found guilty then sentenced in absentia and a warrannt is issued for the arrest of the non-paying of income tax person. Remember, that still at this point no-one has had harm, loss or injury occur to them.
So the individual is sitting at home and gets a knock on the door whereby he / she answers calmly and with respect. There they find a number of Police Officers at the door and the Senior of these Officers reads the Miranda warning and attempts to place handcuffs on non-paying individual. Remember, that still at this point no-one has had harm, loss or injury occur to them other than the now physically threatened non-paying individual.
The non-paying individual responds to the INITIAL threat of violent handcuffing and restraint when, still at this point no-one has had harm, loss or injury occur to them other than himself or herself, with purely defensive force equal only in strength to that of the combined strength of the number of attacking Officers. Remember, that still at this point no-one has had harm, loss or injury occur to them other than the now physically threatened non-paying individual.
Having been repelled the Police Officers call for back up and are rewarded with more of themselves. They storm the front door of the house and using stun weapons try to arrest the non-paying individual. Remember, that still at this point no-one has had harm, loss or injury occur to them other than the now physically threatened non-paying individual. He or she was not wearing the steel toe-capped boots, nor carrying a taser, mace, baton, handcuffs or possibly carrying a pistol or having attack dogs in the rear or the vehicle. In fact he or she was very much a pacifist and wore a flower behind his or her right ear. The only defensive weapon they had was guile and the strength to physically overcome the Police Officers.
Now quite irate at being ineffectual in terms of arresting the individual, the Police Officers deem it appropriate to stun the individual using tasers, mace and batons. None of this works and they are all again thrown out of the door. Remember, that still at this point no-one has had harm, loss or injury occur to them other than the now physically threatened non-paying individual.
So as a last resort after having tried all available methods other than the last and final one, a Police Officer draws his pistol during the final melee. He or she draws it out of a combination of things, fear of being beaten back again by the defender or not being able to arrest him using anything other than deadly force. The shot rings out and the defender is dead all for one initial reason, that he or she would not pay and obey a demand for income tax. This is not extreme. It is plausible. Less things have happened like a young man runs from a bus and is shot multiple times and dies on a public street due to not being able to make a payment for a dollar journey. I could give way more examples and I thank Youtube for being able to show criminals with guns at work.
Remember, that still at that point no-one has had harm, loss or injury occur to them other than the now dead non-paying individual. That harm, loss and injury resulted in a death.
My question is again (and now more structured and very specific) is it okay for the above to happen. I genuinely look forward to your replies and I thank you in advance for your valuable time which you choose to give freely in replying to my question. Please do not assume anything or build anything into the statements I have written above. If you need further clarification as to any issue I have not been clear about or need further specifics please ask me and I'll answer.
Cheers.
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.
