The
link is to a South Dakota Supreme Court decision regarding the
allowability of "self-defense" or "prevention of a greater harm" as a
defense argument in a possession of marijuana case, a violation of
22-42-6.
The four SoDak Supremes who concurred in this joke of a decision are horses' asses. If you read it (shit like this is not easy to read) you will see what I mean.
Browse over it. Something will catch your eye. You'll read for a while and get tired of it. Come back to it tomorrow and scan it again.
Heres an example: "Ducheneaux cannot show that he engaged in the crime because of the “use or threatened use of unlawful force upon him.”
Is it not "unlawful" to put people in jail for saving their own lives while harming no one? The Supremes could have done the right thing. Instead they said absurd things to justify agreeing with an insane law.
http://www.sdjudicial.com/sc/
The four SoDak Supremes who concurred in this joke of a decision are horses' asses. If you read it (shit like this is not easy to read) you will see what I mean.
Browse over it. Something will catch your eye. You'll read for a while and get tired of it. Come back to it tomorrow and scan it again.
Heres an example: "Ducheneaux cannot show that he engaged in the crime because of the “use or threatened use of unlawful force upon him.”
Is it not "unlawful" to put people in jail for saving their own lives while harming no one? The Supremes could have done the right thing. Instead they said absurd things to justify agreeing with an insane law.
http://www.sdjudicial.com/sc/
No comments:
Post a Comment