Thursday, January 28, 2010

This isn't a defense, it's an excuse for breaking the law

I wonder if these clowns are so effing stupid they don't realize what a bag of rabid monkeys they'd be opening if this defense is bought,
“We have an obligation to resist, not just a right to resist. That is what these protests have been about since we started to do the human blockades against the Strykers,” Imani said.
“People have been against this war for over eight years and the fact that people came out to resist these wars and take responsibility and stop the crimes of their government, those are the people who should be supported,” Herrera said.
The judge just ruled that the women will be able to use the necessity defense. “That our clients did what they did to prevent the commission of a greater harm,” said defense attorney Larry Hilde , referring to the Iraq War.
“I think this is exciting and this enables us to show that this act of civil resistance. Breaking a lesser law is very important to uphold higher laws,” Imani said
or if they're so damn self-righteous that they don't think anyone else could use it in defending other actions, actions the progressives wouldn't like?


Anonymous said...

You're right. If this defence succeeds, it will be VERY interesting to watch the Law of Unintended Consequences after effects.

I can see it now. . . . "But Your Honor, I shot the burgler with my unregistered gun because I felt that breaking a lesser law is important to upholding higher laws, such as the life of my family."

B Woodman

Anonymous said...

...providing aid and comfort to the enemy with more than two witnesses to their act, sure sounds like treason according to the constitution. Warn 'em once, then aresst, try, and hang. there's no statute of limitions for sedition and teason, so look up 60's radicals next.