Parents absolutely have the right to make medical decisions for their children, including the right to refuse or discontinue treatment, the right to choose their physician, the right to be guided in those decisions by their religious faith, etc., etc.
Are their limits to these rights, in extreme cases where the bests interest of the child are truly at stake? Yes. But those are more the equivalent of telling parents their kids have to be educated somehow...not that they have no say in it.
*there.
No, I will never pay the extra money for an edit button. Ever.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I mean there are text messages that night reasonably inferring she was going to his house specifically to kill him. That's...really damaging to a self-defense claim. It's *still* possible that she did, in that moment, still act in lawful self-defense. But much more complicated.
You can read more below. I want to be very clear - the asshole she killed was a horrible human being who deserved a lifetime of punishment. I have an infinite amount of sympathy for Kizer. She lived through complete hell.
This idea that only white people are allowed to avail themselves of the claim of self-defense, or that they can largely just do whatever and get away with it by claiming self-defense, is absurd: a thread.
Jaleel Stallings was acquitted of multiple attempted murder charges related to him shooting at several St. Paul police officers last summer. He [reasonably] claimed self-defense and that he had no idea these guys were cops.
It took the jury only four hours instead of four days to acquit Stephen Spencer of murder in a white man's death during a race-related dispute. Spencer claimed self-defense.
Again, I think reasonable people can have very different opinions about whether Rittenhouse had any business being there that night. But this always seemed like an uphill battle for the prosecution, even before it made some questionable choices at during trial.
There's also this weird undercurrent of the prosecution spouting off nonsensical things about self-defense and the use of force. For example, on the hand, they argued that if you're the one with a gun, you're obviously the provocateur and lose your right to claim self-defense.
Alrighty. Fact checking the president's speech re: gun control. I hope ya'll held onto your hats because he took you for a ride.
(1) We're not in a gun violence epidemic under any meaningful use of the word "epidemic." Gun homicide and gun crime rates are far lower today than in the 1990s. There's still work to be done, especially for gun suicide, but the data doesn't show an "epidemic."
(2) Speaking of the 1990s crime decline, it had nothing to do with the federal assault weapons ban. The official report on that ban literally said that its renewal would have little effect, as these guns were rarely used in crime even BEFORE the ban.
Stop this. I was here when BLM shut down the district every night for weeks, destroyed countless businesses, assaulted countless cops, and anyone arrested was basically released the next day without charges. Stop these lies about how they were treated.
It can be true at the same time that every single punk at the Capitol yesterday should have the book thrown at them. But stop pretending BLM and Antifa haven't gotten away with little punishment relative to egregious damage.
It really is not hard to want any and all mobs held accountable for violent, destructive attacks...whether against businesses, democratic institutions, or the public writ-large. It really is not hard to call for that standard.
Imagine comparing four years of a democratically elected official you don't like to decades of apartheid in South Africa and wanting to be taken seriously.
And yet, there is reality in which people like this get power and exact vengeance for all the perceived wrongs that occurred...which are largely just "Orange Man bad, we lost elections and the other side didn't do what we wanted."
For those confused about where apartheid comes in here, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was the name of the post-apartheid quasi-judicial body that investigated and held public hearings over human rights violations suffered during apartheid.