Here’s a philosophical exercise. Imagine a situation in which a civilian commits an injustice, the kind against which you believe it is permissible to use deception, subterfuge or violence to defend yourself or others. For instance, imagine your friend makes an improper stop at a red light, and his dad, in anger, yanks him out of the car, beats the hell out of him, and continues to strike the back of his skull even after your friend lies subdued and prostrate. May you use violence, if it’s necessary to stop the father? Now imagine the same scene, except this time the attacker is a police officer in Ohio, and the victim is Richard Hubbard III, who in 2017 experienced just such an attack as described. Does that change things? Must you let the police officer possibly kill Hubbard rather than intervene?
We Are the Last Defense Against Trump - 0 views
Defenses Against the Biggest Risk We Face - NextBigFuture.com - 0 views
1More
Trump's NAFTA Deal Simply Can't Solve America's Manufacturing Problems | naked capitalism - 0 views
1More
Pentagon to outsource all strategy to Booz Allen Hamilton - Duffel Blog - 0 views
A Defense of the Reality of Time - 0 views
Universa Debunks CalPERS' Defense of $1 Billion Tail Hedge Miss; Insider Accounts Expos... - 0 views
1More
Breathing Through Your Nose Is Healthier for You | Elemental - 0 views
1More
The Immune Havoc of COVID-19 - Scientific American - 0 views
1More