If I decided to commit some horrible crime, perhaps a murder, and I publicly announce what I'm going to do, and to whom, but I say the victim will just have to let the courts decide afterward whether it was wrong or not (and I personally face no consequences either way), wouldn't that be premeditation at least? Wouldn't I be clearly making a credible threat, making self-defense against me ethical?
It is obvious that this is the case.
It's not hypothetical; it matters in the real world because this is exactly what anti-gun politicians do every day.
Yet there seems to be nothing anyone can do about it until after the damage has been done because of the rules of the system, even though the bigots give plenty of warning of what they are planning to do (making credible threats), and it's already known to be a crime.
Could no one intervene and say, "No, that's not OK. We've warned you not to murder anyone and if you attempt to do so you will be stopped, using whatever amount of violence it requires, before you can harm the victim in any way"?
Everyone is supposed to just sit and watch (and comply or be punished) until it crawls back through the court system again, just so the decision can be ignored by these same criminals in the same way again later when they impose their next legislative crime? Is there no way to shut them down "legally" once and for all?
If that's your system, screw your system!
-
Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon
