dullards and ‘law’
some of the stupidest and most crazily arrogant people i’ve met are on the pointy end of the official crime syndicate’s “justice” system — more aptly, à la peter tosh, shitstem. examine the fucked “law” under which two snowballers (or worse) were recently charged by the syndicate. it’s internally nonsensical. see if you can catch the death blow in the opening of the text’s second paragraph.
§ 18.2-154. Shooting at or throwing missiles, etc., at train, car, vessel, etc.; penalty.
Any person who maliciously shoots at, or maliciously throws any missile at or against, any train or cars on any railroad or other transportation company or any vessel or other watercraft, or any motor vehicle or other vehicles when occupied by one or more persons, whereby the life of any person on such train, car, vessel, or other watercraft, or in such motor vehicle or other vehicle, may be put in peril, is guilty of a Class 4 felony. In the event of the death of any such person, resulting from such malicious shooting or throwing, the person so offending is guilty of murder in the second degree. However, if the homicide is willful, deliberate and premeditated, he is guilty of murder in the first degree.
If any such act is committed unlawfully, but not maliciously, the person so offending is guilty of a Class 6 felony and, in the event of the death of any such person, resulting from such unlawful act, the person so offending is guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
If any person commits a violation of this section by maliciously or unlawfully shooting, with a firearm, at a conspicuously marked law-enforcement, fire or rescue squad vehicle, ambulance or any other emergency medical vehicle, the sentence imposed shall include a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of one year.
an essential component for “unlawfulness” in this regard is malice. to then state [my emphasis], “If any such act is committed unlawfully, but not maliciously” is nonsense — a logical impossibility akin to, “all ducks are camels. if a duck is not a camel, that duck is a duck.”
the two sentences collide. logic with that constraint is, of course, “all ducks are camels. something not a camel is not a duck.” the “such act” bit kills the possibility of even attempting to use one of the usual bullshit avenues such as “disorderly conduct”, “interfering with an officer”, blah blah blah; the “such” to which it refers specifies malice.
does a “judge” care about this? of course not. he rules based on tradition, not “law”.
maybe one day i’ll waste time examining in writing the contradiction of “trespassing” “law” in the goonited states, along with “loitering” and similar randian tools of base domination. after that maybe i’ll write about the scam of “cooperation” with goons, referred to regularly in the mental torture chamber (i.e., court) with no basis in “law”. and if i do that maybe i’ll include the trial transcript where i busted a judge on this and he basically conceded it was irrelevant horse shit.
June 20th, 2010 at 17:15
[...] FedEx asserts a divine right to be on my property*, point me to that assertion. big finish from the hurt psychopath: [...] Chesney, for one, [...]