as an analogy to a suspect.
The dog has no rights; shoot the f0cking thing.
The human has rights on NAP; your suspicion has no validity in violating his rights. i.e., Don't f0cking shoot him.
Where is the confusion?
If you're comparing the rabid dog to a human with a gun pointing it at you, fine, I agree with that. You should neutralize the threat.
But according to NAP, he hasn't committed aggression, and should be released. No victim, no crime, as the lovely Josie the outlaw says.
A drunk driver is recklessly endangering pedestrians and drivers, and the guy pointing the gun around is doing the same. There's no proof either would ever have harmed anyone, and there are no victims.
NAP says they walk, and the person who attacked them did so aggressively, since they were not violating anyone's rights.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endo