• KnilAdlez [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    4 days ago

    Now wait a minute, if one can use deadly force to stop someone from killing another, and the state has a duty to defend people from “willful destruction of their lives” doesn’t this basically codify that you can kill politicians if they try to pass laws that lead to social murder?

  • red_giant [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    4 days ago

    Specifies that any person has the right to defend the life of themselves or another, even by use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person.

    This would legalize the bombing of abortion clinics

      • purpleworm [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        4 days ago

        See at the end “who have not committed any crime punishable by death” (which they are defining seeking an abortion as being)

        So no, it’s a pass to kill these women while they are not entitled to violence in self-defense.

      • mar_k [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Yeah it honestly sounds vague and broad enough to be some kind of legal paradox

        any person has the right to defend the life of themselves or another, even by use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person.

        So if I’m in public and witness John attempting to kill Jane, I now have the legal right to kill John to defend Jane’s life… but attempting to do so means John now has the legal right to kill me to defend his own life? And let’s say Jane has Stockholm Syndrome and is defensive of John, she would also have the right to kill me? Which would then mean John has the right to kill Jane to defend me?

      • darkcalling [comrade/them, she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        4 days ago

        No because they’re in the middle of committing a crime. Someone invading your home to murder you and loot your belongings doesn’t have a legal right to self-defense in the middle of the crime. Neither would the women who have been criminalized as murders have a right to defend themselves.

  • SorosFootSoldier [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    4 days ago

    “If you’re pre-born, you’re fine, if you’re pre-schooled, you’re fucked. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. Pro-life, these people aren’t pro-life, they’re killing doctors, what kind of pro-life is that? What, they’ll do everything they can do save a fetus, but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it?”

    carlin-pog

  • mar_k [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    4 days ago

    Specifies that human life begins at fertilization. Recognizes a new human life as an individual person, entitled to the protection of the laws of this State from the moment of fertilization

    First time conservatives enshrine equality to a non-binary person, and it’s to a single-celled organism

  • mar_k [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Maybe I’m just good at noticing pedantic shit, but I skimmed for 4 seconds and immediately saw these idiots made a typo with a double (or triple?) space. Which is something any basic typing software would highlight with a blue underline. Or if they had a single person under 65 proofread it

    I mean cmon it’s an official government bill, how are you already making mistakes in the first paragraph of the front page summary. It’s glaringly obvious when you get to the sentence

  • LaughingLion [any, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    the wording as written there completely makes all forms of self defense illegal and also criminalizes incarcerating pregnant women

    also obligates the state to execute any cop who kills anyone who isnt committing a crime that otherwise would carry the death penalty

      • LaughingLion [any, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        the state would carry the duty to prosecute anyone who takes the life of any living person per this law who hadn’t committed a crime worthy of the death penalty

        so under this law a cop who slams a pregnant woman to the ground and she has a miscarriage? the state is obligated to prosecute them, they dont have a choice. or if you saw a cop do this, you would then have the right to shoot the cop. or if you feared a cop might do this, you would have the right to shoot the cop.