When do parents have the right to shoot back against state-sponsored kidnappers?

Miscellaneous General
1

http://www.naturalnews.com/032091_Maryanne_Godboldo_gun_rights.html

The story of Maryanne Godboldo and how armed government agents broke down her door and attempted to kidnap her daughter because she wouldn’t feed her psychiatric drugs brings to light an important question: When is it justified to shoot back?

I’ll explore both sides of this argument here and then share my own views.

On the “shoot back” side of the argument, this woman had every right to defend herself against armed assailants who were engaged in acts of violence (breaking down her door) and who conspired to kidnap her daughter. In the legal world, the term “conspiracy” simply means more than one person was involved in planning the event. This was, without question, a conspiracy to kidnap a human being.

Shooting back was the only reasonable solution remaining for Maryanne, who had already tried to verbally say no when Child Protective Services insisted they were going to take her daughter away. Notably, it was CPS that brought guns to the scene by calling the police. So the escalation of the event can only be blamed on CPS, not Godboldo.

On the “don’t shoot back” site of the argument, the only argument I’ve really heard so far is from people who say “you should never shoot back against government agents.” In other words, the fact that the kidnappers and assailants are on the city payroll somehow gives them the right to violate your rights and freedom, to assault your person and your home, and to commit the felony act of kidnapping your teenage daughter. This seems a bizarre bit of logic.

I suppose another argument against shooting back would be the philosophical argument that violence never solves anything. But it sure can be a deterrent to would-be thieves, rapists and kidnappers, which is exactly what Maryanne just proved. She was able to hold them off for 12 hours by allegedly firing a single round. Do you think they would have stayed away for 12 hours if she didn’t have a gun?

Now, to use Obama’s current doublespeak, the truth is that Maryanne didn’t even fire a gun at all. She was only engaged in “kinetic action” in the protection of her child. That term – “kinetic action” – is what Obama uses to explain how the war in Libya is not a war. It’s just “kinetic action” (i.e. pieces of lead moving at very high velocities).

I’m thinking of posting a sign on the front door of my own home that reads, “This house is protected by kinetic action.”

2

She of course had the right to shoot back. The question then becomes, “Would the exercise of that right be the most beneficial course of action?”

3

It’s almost never a wise course of action (as measured by one’s own goals) to directly confront an opponent who has overwhelming force on his side.

Clayton -

4

I agree with Jack. You may have the right to use force to defend against government agents, but is it wise? Suppose she opened fire on the police and ran away with her daughter. Maybe she would have been justified if she had done that, but perhaps bringing her daughter up where she is on the run from the government for cop killing may not be the environment in which she wanted to raise her daughter.

It’s a trade-off. Kill the police, you are on the run forever. Let them take your child away, you might not have your child until he/she is 18 (or emancipated at 16 I guess).

But, I believe that parents have the right to defend against kidnappers so long as the parent hasn’t abandoned the child.