Posted on 04/30/2016 2:23:11 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The entitlement is to a “fair AND SPEEDY” trial. Shooting on sight gets him at least 50% of his rights. That seems to be more than they want to give us, don’t you think?
Self defense is racist
Oooops. Meant to say “self defense” not “shoot on sight”. Ugh.
Obviously.
The person being killed is denied their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those 3 rights trump the 1 right to a trail.
The attacker has voluntarily nullified his rights the moment the attack begins by virtue of the attempt to infringe upon and/or deny the attacked person’s rights.
Your right to swing your fist ends just before you make contact with any part of my body.
To even engage in a discussion with Justin Curmi about this would be a form of perverted mental masturbation of the absurd. His contention is insane and any consideration of it legitimizes him even more.
If you do indeed shoot someone, make sure it is a legal self defence and shoot to kill.
Avoid being sued for damages or injuries.
So what this guy is essentially saying is that his right to a trial is more important than my life, because if he is willing to break into my home, he may be willing to take my life.
One can only hope that brian anderson or a family member is violently accosted and we will see a change in him and if we dont he is mentally ill
You mean Justin Curmi, not Brian Anderson.
Rights are balanced against each other not equal.
E.g., you can’t deny my right to shoot somebody because it denies my free speech - I am expressing my displeasure with them.
In that case, the victim’s life is more important than your speech. If you don’t believe that, shoot somebody you don’t like and see what happens.
What I missed in those debates is that the Bill of Rights is what the government cannot take from you. It dies not govern the conduct of individuals. If you’re in my home, I have every right to not respect your rights. If I’m in your home, you can do the same to me.
The Left never defines the term, 'justice.' If they did, their irrational, bumper-sticker fallacies would disintegrate. The ambiguity surrounding their use of 'justice' lets them get away with an assortment of dangerous fuzzy ideas, such as social justice, environmental justice, racial justice, . . .
OTOH, we conservatives should regard justice as compliance with Natural Law, the Law of Reason, meaning "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Armed with truth, we can slap Leftists down every time.
“Those 3 rights trump the 1 right to a trail.”
Happy trails to you!
This latest liberal pipedream-—to place violent killers on an equal footing w/ law-abiding citizens-—showcases the liberal mindset at its most bizarre.
We need to turn our attention to getting these liberals declared non compes mentis.
Locking up cockamamie liberals seems to be more rational than incarcerating murderers, felons and child molesters.
Philosophically a criminal is not responsible for his actions because society caused him to be a criminal and his acts are irrational i.e. he can't help it. One who defends himself from the criminal is a rational actor because it is rational to not want to be robbed, hurt, or killed. Thus self defense is a considered rational act and is deliberate inflicted harm to the assailant making it the greater or the only crime.
This has to be satire...right?
Not quite correct, but you're close.
"White people defending themselves against blacks/browns/hispanics/other minorities/special "protected classes" attempting to commit violent crimes against them is racist/a hate crime."
That would be a more accurate view of the current SJW thinking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.