Violent mob attacks Jehovah’s Witnesses in Bulgaria during annual observance of Christ’s death?
Violent mob attacks Jehovah’s Witnesses in Bulgaria during annual observance of Christ’s death BURGAS, Bulgaria—On Sunday, April 17, 2011, at 7:30 pm, Jehovah’s Witnesses in the city of Burgas were peacefully gathered at their Kingdom Hall for the annual commemoration of the death of Jesus Christ. About 20 minutes before the program was to begin, an angry mob of about 60 men, some waving flags of the political party VMRO, gathered in front of the Kingdom Hall. The mob threw large stones at the Witnesses who were at the entrance of the building. After that, the mob stormed the door. The Witnesses called the police immediately, but they were slow to respond. At the time of the attack, more than 100 people were inside the hall, including women, children and elderly ones. Injuries resulted from the attack, and five victims were taken to the hospital by ambulance with severe injuries, including concussions. Representatives of the political party VMRO have disrupted the peaceful meetings of Jehovah’s Witnesses on several occasions in the past and have repeatedly used the media to circulate defamatory lies about the Witnesses. Criminal complaints against this political party have been filed on numerous occasions, but the attacks have continued. Now, the international community is watching to see how the authorities of the Bulgarian government will react to these lawless and criminal acts. In Bulgaria last year nearly 4,000 attended the Witnesses’ annual commemoration of Christ’s death. Worldwide there are over 7.5 million Jehovah’s Witnesses who peacefully meet together for worship. Watch the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVAQ3emFu9U&feature=fl_lolz&playnext=1&list=FLvJyT281Pajg
How does 'murder' violate criminal law if criminal law is between person and state?
...and murder is between a person and another person. Perhaps my understanding of what criminal law entails is wrong (most likely). I was under the impression that anything 'criminal' was against the state. Also, in the question, should I be using the word 'violate'? Would breaking criminal law be 'violating' criminal law, or what word would be better to use? I think the problem is that I don't really understand what criminal and civil law are... :S. Thanks!
Is it legal for the U.S. government to kill U.S. citizens with military force?
"Legal" is that which the law permits. Simple as that.Was it legal for Union troops to fight and kill what were, essentially, American Citizens seceding from the Union during the Civil War? Was it legal for the US to kill American citizens fighting on behalf of Italy or Germany during WWII? (some did)If US citizens are outside the USA, fighting on behalf of the US's enemies, with explicit intent on doing harm to the USA, frankly, I have no issue with the US government killing them the same way the US government might target a terrorist or enemy combatant. Ultimately the Supreme Court is the arbiter of these things. My guess is that they'll come down on the side of the US government and thus, such actions become de jure legal and not just de facto.
Why is it hard for the government to locate individual terrorists?
Why is it hard for the government to locate individual terrorists?Terrorists rarely have the word terrorist tattooed on their foreheads. They do not, except perhaps in hindsight, stand out.For example, recently the Chinese Embassy in Kyrgyzstan. At least one of the bombers was a local. He probably looked a lot like the other members of his community who had nothing to do with any political activism. Remember that 99% of any group are hardworking people who just want to do their jobs and raise their kids. They bitch and moan about their government, that is a human constant, in private and this bomber probably did the same thing.So when the police come to look at this random group of 100 people, the soon to be bomber does not stand out.After he does the attack, finding him is not the problem, cleaning him off the walls is.China’s Terrorist Problem Goes GlobalThanks for the A2A.
If someone is assaulted and the victim does not press charges, can the assaulter still get into legal trouble?
Others have written good answers and some of those others are lawyers or police officers ... Me? I'm neither, but I think I have a little to add that may help clarify things (but not really add a lot new).In a criminal case, the case reads e.g. New York vs. Joe Smith. In a civil case, it would be Jane Doe vs. Joe Smith. In a criminal case, the prosecution is done by some combination of police officers, other investigators, and the city, state or federal authorities. The police are paid by the "people". If it goes to trial, the attorneys for the prosecution are also paid by the people. Several people raised the fact that, in a murder case, the victim can't press charges. True. But hardly unique! This also happens in many drug cases, prostitution cases and child/spousal abuse cases. However, it wasn't always so and it isn't so everywhere. All the above is centered on the USA (although I believe many other countries are similar). Some states have, however, not even tried to prosecute criminals and others make only minor efforts to do so. This failure may be due to the actual law or it may be due to lack of resources or it may be due to corruption. When this is the case, people take the law into their own hands. Such places are always very violent. E.g. the "wild west". I'd be interested to hear about how criminal cases work in other countries.
In your ideal Libertarian society, when is it allowable for a third party to initiate violence or threat of violence on behalf of an attacked party?
The legal standard for the justification of the employment of potentially lethal force is fairly unambiguous and provides a perfect foundation for the employment of lesser means, as well. That standard is tripartate: ability, opportunity, jeopardy. I would add to this a standard of proportionality.What this means is that the use of lethal force may only be justified in the course of preventing immediate gross harm to oneself or others by an actor who posesses the clear means to commit harm at that moment. I believe that the State must be held to the same standard as the People, and for this reason, I reject the empowerment of the State to inflict the capital penalty in punishment for a crime.Action post facto is only permissible insofar as it pursues reparation for material harm committed in proportion to that harm, or in fulfillment of a reasonable and legitimate public interest in maintaining public order. Equal protection and due process of law must apply, as well as the rights to be free from self-incrimination and cruel and unusual punishments. "Cruel and Unusual" punishment means that not only must the potential penalty bear some reasonable relationship to the nature of the offense, but that all defendents charged with a particular crime must face the same potential penalty.