The Ultimate Slam Dunk argument against reparations

I am not a fan of reparations. And I have had enough "black history" to know that the "four hundred years of slavery" is sheer bullshit. Let's start with 1619 as being the beginning date and end with "Juneteenth" in 1865, even though those slaves had been legally free since the Emancipation Declaration in 1863. That's 246 years.

And 155 years ago. And no one is that old.

The years after emancipation saw blacks move from the South in the Great Migration. Blacks had businesses and did well. And some blacks moved west. Some of them even joined the US military.

Which is where this is going to.

Ever hear of the Buffalo Soldiers?

Several African-American regiments were raised during the Civil War as part of the Union Army (including the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry and the many United States Colored Troops Regiments), the "Buffalo Soldiers" were established by Congress as the first peacetime all-black regiments in the regular U.S. Army. Buffalo Soldiers originally were members of the 10th Cavalry Regiment of the United States Army, formed on September 21, 1866, at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

The Buffalo Soldiers were a fairly significant part of the post-Civil War US Army. Buffalo Soldiers comprised 12% of the U.S. Army infantry force and 20% of the cavalry force during the time of the Indian Wars f(1866 to 1891).

And one that engaged in the ethnic cleansing of the first nations during the "Indian Wars".

Now, if you are going to call me racist because of one cop in a place I have never been, then I have to tell you that you are guilty of the ethnic cleansing of the US Native American from their land. You also engaged in the Imperialist Spanish American War and Pancho Villa's rebellion.

If I am guilty, then you are guilty.

So, get in line because you ain't getting your payout until the Native Americans get their more than well deserved reparations. Native American women are disappearing while you are chanting "Black Lives Matter". Their sacred water is being polluted. Yet no one is bending a knee for the Native Americans.

Murder or self-defence?

Person gets out of a car, or leaves their house, with a loaded gun. There was a stated intent to go after someone who looked "suspicious".

Is it self-defence or murder if the person who "looked suspicious" is killed?

To make it fun, let's use this statute!

Feel free to use this guide to help you come up with something vaguely intelligent should you wish to answer this: open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/4-2-criminal-intent/

BTW, this uses two situations where get away with murder laws were used.  Extra credit for guessing which two situations I am thinking of and their outcomes!

Testing the Limits of "Stand Your Ground"--can you really get away with murder?

Calling these laws "get away with murder" may not be as inaccurate as the "pro-gun" side might like to admit with lots of murderers and would be murderers finding that if they say they were scared or protecting their home that they might actually be able to pull a George Zimmerman.  Although, it didn't work as well as Michael Dunn had hoped it would in his case: even though he may actually get away with murdering the one person he intended to kill.

It was those stray shots that got him found guilty (attempted murder).

Wonkette addresses this truly US legal phenomenon in the post: OUR COLD DEAD HANDS--These People Trapping And Shooting These Teenagers Are Not Very Nice, No, Not At All

Thankfully, with a lot of states broadening the scope of what counts as “self defense,” several brave Responsible Gun Owners have taken to killing folks for the sake of finding out what kinds of homicide are justified. No applause necessary; these everyday Second Amendment Heroes just see it as their civic duty.

Some people see these wonderful new laws that prove that life is worth less than property and that the concept of "right to life" by not having life arbitrarily taken is something that means they can see if they can indeed "get away with murder".

Wonkette's conclusion:

And so our glorious experiment in ground-standing continues; future cases will no doubt help us gain a better understanding of just when it becomes OK to purposefully set a trap for a human being you want to kill. We bet there will be lots of volunteers from the Responsible Gun Owning community to serve as the armed portion of those experiments, and tough shit for those who get killed, because they never should have been there in the first place.

These laws prove that the US is in no way a "Christian Nation" which believes in the sanctity of life.

Just curious about the “get away with murder” laws

Yet another wrinkle in the assertion that the Second Amendment in some way allows for “self-Defence”:

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a Due Process Clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the Due Process Clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.

The general common law principle is that the law allows only reasonable force to be used in the circumstances and, what is reasonable is to be judged in the light of the circumstances as the accused believed them to be (whether reasonably or not). The jury should be directed to look at the particular facts and circumstances of the case in deciding whether a defendant had used only reasonable force.  After all, the defendant will always be of the opinion he used reasonable force.

Only reasonable force may be used.  Despite a common belief to the contrary, one is not at liberty to shoot dead a burglar wandering around one’s house if one does not fear for one’s own life in common law.
Anyway, historically Clause 39 of Magna Carta provided:

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

This came into US law via the Due Process guarantees of the US Constitution found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law .

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law .

The issue here is that these laws allow for summary justice and vigilantism outside of the legal process.  One should not take the law into his/her own hands for the purposes of revenge, retribution, or sheer vigilantism.  The rule of law must be maintained and violence discouraged by a proper legal system for it to have any authority.

Of course, this is just a musing, but perhaps it will be taken up by someone else who is offended by the allowance of murder by an out of whack US legal system.