Y’know, we shoot dangerous dogs if they cannot be kept on a leash or in a fence to protect the surrounding people .
After all, they can seriously hurt, maim, or in some instances, kill people
This is how we SHOULD should treat dangerous people in our society……
But no, there are two or more tiers of justice. One for white people, another for high profile Black people.
It matters little : “insane” or or not, at least to me .. He is dangerous and should not be allowed, ever, to be free in the rest of our society. He is a danger to others, especially women and children. Like an aggressive dog, he should be locked up for the safety of the community….(Personally, I think he should be euthanized like a rabid dog, but others in our society (Women , pussies, and liberals) feel that is too harsh….).
Either way, removing or locking up the threat to people is what we to protect society in general from dogs, bulls, and other aggressive and dangerous animals. So should it be for people who have demonstrated they are a danger to the people in our society.
So by saying he is not mentally capable of understanding the consequences of his actions, the court is saying:
– His right to slash you is more important than your right to being safe in public
This is the same fallacy that they use to subvert castle-doctrine… if by their own admission, the person is not-capable, by allowing said incapable person loose in public, they are defacto placing everyone else in public at risk, rather than impact the crazy-person’s rights. The same argument is used to defeat lethal-force laws like Stand-your-ground – if you shoot and kill the perp, they are denied their right to a fair trial to determine their guilt. That is literally the argument – you should allow yourself to be raped or killed, rather than kill your attacker, because of THEIR right to a trial. Your right to living peaceably is subordinate to the state’s right to mete out justice through the courts. And ultimately, despite their lies and obfuscation, THAT is what it is about – the state wants to posses the sole license to lethal force in society, it is not to be allowed for individuals (underpins the arguments against the 2nd amendment, too).