However, try something of a different approach but look again at the picture and ignore the uniforms and other symbols of state and then pose the questions of presumption of innocense. How would the State for example see you if you acted to stop the taking of this man’s life? How would the State see you if in order to preserve the innocent man’s life, you took the life of the aggressor? Consider all aspects of this event as if all actors were non-state. The man with the gun is a neo-nazi, anti-semitic gang leader and the rest his followers and this event is some initiation rite.

Now return to the photo where the State actors have the illusion of law (legal orders to kill jews) and then commit the same actions on your part to save the man and then see on your behalf how far presumption of innocense applies from the State itself? Would it be fair to say that you’d see that day’s sunset at room temperture from the inside of a box? Executed for the purpose of preserving the presumption of innocense?

Non State actors, you are hero! State actors, you are villian! Would that be fair to say? Now consider again the presumption of innocense using the State’s standards? Should that be ours? Us and Them? They set the rules so make them live with it? Reject morals and ethics because they did? Tempting is it not?

This may in no way answer the greater question at hand and what the moral direction might be but it sure blows the lid off the illusion of presumption of innocense IMO that anyone dealing with state actors might think they have. When we fight among ourselves as non-state actors, the presumption of innocense may exist although one might consider this link http://officer.com/web/online/Investigation/Training-Cops-to-Lie—Pt-1/18$49343 before accepting even that as fact. Go against the state, do as I in the 80’s and 90’s and thumb the nose at IRS even with good legal standing, and like Toto, you’ll see real quick how the man behind the curtain really acts.

However, to follow their example IMO negates the need to dissolve from their system to create our own but rather stay in their system and fight it from within. Good luck with that!

I don’t pretend to answer the many vexing questions that Mike’s original comments have posed or the many good ones posed by others but understand, the state when you oppose it sees only one thing, GUILTY AS HELL and that’s before the theater of trial by jury.

I abhore violence as violence begets violence but how far to exact punishment on State actors can become a deadly question. Revolutions can start out under noble reasons but devolve into killing fields once the revolters take control and the blood stains on their hands can be just as bad if not worse than the previous monster.

Consider the words to the song “The Knife” by Genesis and how easily we can take a wrong turn and become what our enemies were!

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/The-Knife-lyrics-Genesis/627DE6E8A6CD3D124825696000122CEE

enjoyed thoughts of all on this subject

http://fr33agents.ning.com/profiles/blogs/classical-liberalism-fail

Of course they can present their case. Common law rules should be observed.

“The presumption of innocence – being considered innocent until proven guilty – is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern countries.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

So if you’re talking about it outside of a legal context, it’s up to you to specify that and define it’s meaning there.

Don’t forget that any such loosening in the rules can be turned against people, as in Robert Bolt’s A Man For All Seasons:

Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

In the picture, it is war. In the war, many resistance fighters killed many Nazis. At check points. By luring them to restaurants. By guns, by poison, by whatever. In war, there is a presumption of guilt – you wear the uniform of the enemy you can get gunned down without warning. Even if you wear it as a spy and someone shoots before asking for the pass word. And I say the resistance fighters were right, and that there was no need for a trial.

The men in the Warsaw ghetto who took a single gun, went out, found a Nazi soldier, killed him quietly, and brought back his gun and ammo (and food, and other salvage) didn’t have to wonder whether this particular Nazi had killed a Jew, or a dozen. None of them were off limits, all were fair game.

Now, if it is war, fine. AP would be then just a method of hiring fighters and compensating them. Don’t bother with trials, you don’t have time, and you don’t have to explain. They’ve been killing us for many years. Carl Drega, the Waco killers, the students at Kent State, many others to name.

But if it is war, more effective tools than AP would be needed.

You’re right, state justice is rigged. See my recent post on “The Take” (2004) where I argued this point and asserted that workers who occupy their factories against the wishes of the “owners” and judicial system are doing the right thing.

We can start our own free market justice system anytime. Bad guys can be tried in absentia. AP could simply be the death penalty for bad guys tried and found guilty.