What’s up with the Clayton Weatherston murder trial? part 2

In my first post with this name I argue that is struck me as strange that a case with a marginal struggle (between manslaughter or murder) would get so much attention and I stated that we were being set up.

And I was right.

Here is an obvious psychopath with all the characteristics of a psychopath such as denial of responsibility and projection to avoid having to take responsibility being paraded in the MSM as if he really is important. His victim is predictably painted as the perpetrator as psychopaths are wont to do and correctly most of us identified him as an exceptionally dysfunctional character who should be in jail for the rest of his life.

So why all this hullabaloo?

Ah, there it is. No more right top use provocation as a defence. Now that is a very bad idea.
While it is obvious that Clayton Weatherstorm’s defence of provocation was totally inappropriate it is is a defence that is seriously valid and to deny people accused of an illegal act whether that be violence or other “unacceptable” behaviour is an extremely serious breach of  human rights.

What it means for example is that bullies can bully unrestrained without you being able to defend yourself against them. What it means is that if you have three dudes with bottles in front of you you are not allowed to defend yourself because provocation is not a legal defence.

What it means is that if you get raped you cannot kill your attacker because provocation is not legal any more.

If in a relationship you get abused and after a couple of years you loose it you can not say that after years of abuse you lost it because you know what defending yourself by stating that you were provoked is illegal.

What it means is that if your exercising your right to demonstrate peacefully against say the government and the police taunts you and your fellow demonstrators and you loose it you’re fucked because provocation is illegal.

In other words to have a basic human right (the right to defend yourself against bullying and oppression) ,” repealed for millions of people because one sociopath used it inappropriately is another measure of how far this government will go to erode our civil liberties.

Civil liberties will in some cases be abused but to deny a whole population the right to assert they were provoked as we all know is part of human behaviour is to deny the population as a whole to defend itself against provocation of Bullies, Governments, Police brutality, and domestic abuse.

Come on guys, your smarter then this. If an asshole and member of the international bankster/robbers class such as John Key is saying we should get rid of the right to defend ourselves however we see fit then surely by now you should understand that he is implanting an agenda that is not conducive to us; the little people.

Especially not after the revival of Don Brash.

About these ads

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s