Let's get this straight on that precedent setting court case yesterday.
If I walk into the bear pit at Question Time with an Uzi and spray a few around the chamber taking out those that often themselves proclaim 'to be doing God's work', I will be alright in the subsequent court case? After all, some might say that I could not only be doing the country a massive favour, but also be acting on directions from a higher being, protecting the humanity of New Zealanders from politicians.
Possibly a valid defence with a real worthy outcome in my view rather than the mundane physical destruction of government property as was in this case.
Unfortunately I would not do such an act. I do not have the gall to believe such a defence would ever work. Ranks as bad as that other defence line used in the Weatherston case.
A mickey-mouse verdict to say the least. One that sets a path for all manner of precedence claims. And in a supposedly secular state.
Posts
About time
19 minutes ago
6 comments:
This court case does not set a precedent. Lets get that straight.
bn, please explain how so no precedent. Certainly doesn't look like that from here.
So who pays for the damage to the property? In this case, not the criminals. In this case, its you and I and all the other Kiwis. That ain't justice - that's criminal. The fact that the ruling of not-guilty seems to forget that a crime was ACTUALLY committed is perplexing. Critical Legal Studies is a jurisprudential theory that says that the law is largely contradictory and can be best analyzed as an expression of the policy goals of the dominant social group. Let's get it straight - the ruling was wrong because its contradictory to everything that we are supposed to do as law-abiding citizens.
It sets a precendent in terms of the benchmark being substantially lowered in how this defence can be applied. There is simply NO case to be argued that this is not the reality.
The intention of the law used is to do things like kick in the door of a burning building and save people. NOT make a political statment. Particularly one based on mental instability and delusion.
This is legislation from the bench, nothing else.
In future the only certain option to protect our secure facilities is what, deadly force? I'm ok with that actually. Three warnings and good night mother. Read the big print on the yellow signs.
M,
Three warnings??? The first and only warning between the eyes.
Maybe they are illiterate. It was nothing but premeditated terrorism.
Its an army thing P. You say halthalthalt really quick and then hose them.
Question: Did you give him his three warnings?
Answer: Yes I did.
Procedure has been followed.
Post a Comment