They Are Apparently Serious About This

Headline: "The Parents Of This Dead Robber Are Really Mad His Victim Had A Gun."

Well, you know, I'm not that sorry for your loss. But the worst argument is this one:
“If there was to be a death, it was not the place of the employee at Pizza Hut. That is the place of law enforcement,” said Hairston.
No, it is not the place of law enforcement to serve as the dedicated killers of American citizens. We all have a duty to uphold the common peace and lawful order. If your son violated it to the degree that it placed others in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm, then any of us has a right to stop him by any means necessary.

The idea that the government should stand over us in this way, like the riflemen over Harambe, is disgusting. If we have a problem, we'll sort it out like free men.


Gringo said...

This is not the first time in recent months I have read such reactions from the family members of a deceased thug justifiably killed in the act of armed thuggery. I can understand their sadness at losing a family member. To the degree that these family members attack those who justifiably killed their family member, they are lending support to those who view criminals not just as people who have made bad choices, but as the manifestation of a degraded subset of society. Thug society, shall we say.

Gringo said...

“If there was to be a death, it was not the place of the employee at Pizza Hut. That is the place of law enforcement,” said Hairston.
I would wager that had the police killed him in the act of robbery, she would have been screaming for the arrest and conviction of the policeman.

If you follow he link, there is a link to the following story: Baltimore City Council Proposes New Ordinance to Ban Toy Guns.
The murder rate is skyrocketing in Baltimore, This ordinance shows how much the Baltimore City Council is on top of things.

At the link: The parents of a dead armed robber are very angry over his death, and are demanding to know why his innocent victim was allowed to be armed.

If you follow the link at "allowed to be armed," there are a number of stories of armed robbers shooting and yes, even killing.

I would suggest to the media that they refrain from interviewing family members of armed thugs killed in the act of armed thuggery, as the family members tend to come across as fools. They are grieving,and cannot think straight. OTOH, I have seen examples where family members seek out publicity, such as having a public vigil at the site their family member was killed in the act of armed thuggery.

E Hines said...

So Hairston, et al., believe that it's entirely appropriate that the Pizza Hut employee(s), and any customers that might have been present, should be killed, that the cops arriving later should sort things out, and the employees' (and customers') survivors should be left to grieve and wonder why the Hairstons' son had been allowed to be armed.

Sort of like the Hairstons are left to do, with the critical difference that their son and his accomplices were committing a felony or felonies while the PH employee was exercising his obligation to defend his own life and those of his fellows and customers.

That's the typical hypocrisy of the Left and the meek docility of the Left's dependents.

Eric Hines

james said...

The apple does not fall far from the tree. What is the background of the parents?

Anonymous said...

Amen Brother

The Principle of Subsidiarity in Action.

Subsidiarity. .....It’s the idea that problems should be solved at the smallest and most intimate level possible. For example, the federal government shouldn’t be solving problems states can solve, states shouldn’t be solving problems that communities can solve, communities should not be solving problems individuals can solve. and so on.........

.........It is not the role of law enforcement to protect individual lives. This is immutable truth that which is also both a practical fact and a legal reality. One person and one person alone is responsible for defending your life against violent predators, and that person is the individual...............

Remember John Halpin and John Pedesta in Wikileaks hate the
Concept of "Subsidiarity" and "Thomistic" thought



............St. Thomas recalled that, according to Exodus 22:2, “if a thief be found breaking into a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die, he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood.” St. Thomas then commented that, “it is much more lawful to defend one’s life than one’s house. Therefore neither is a man guilty of murder if he kills another in defense of his own life.”

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, “if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists (Cap. Significasti. De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.), ‘it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.’ Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s life than of another’s.”......

raven said...

This is what happens when the entitlement disease runs unchecked.

What these people are saying, put simply, is that their son was entitled to rob, assault, and perhaps kill, with no resistance from his victims, that this was his RIGHT.

I have more respect for the dead robber than his parents.

jaed said...

When parents lose a child to violence, my rule of thumb is that they can do or say pretty much anything they want, short of ax-murdering, for a year afterwards. The loss is terrible and the shock must be literally crazy-making. You get a year of being insane without my judging you for it.

That being said, the media is doing them and the rest of us no favors by publicizing this sort of statement.

E Hines said...

That being said, the media is doing them and the rest of us no favors by publicizing this sort of statement.

The media isn't in it for those parents or the rest of us.

Eric Hines

Ymar Sakar said...

The Japanese believe that criminality and sin, is passed in the blood. Thus the son of a criminal will always be a criminal in the eyes of Japanese society, although the reasons are a little bit complicated for me to transliterate however. To them it makes sense, to me, it doesn't make as much sense.

However, scientific studies (not Gaia cult cargo cult science) have begun experimenting with emotional memories and other fragments passed on via DNA. There was a story that via activating muscle memory and movements, a son of a Vietnam war veteran was able to recall the looting and sacking of a village in Vietnam, which his father had not told anyone about. I call them "ancestral memories" which is what the Japanese called it.

From the American pov, it's merely that welfare degrades the human spirit and ambition, which causes generation wide criminals and broken families. It's passed in the blood. Freedom is not passed in the blood, but knowledge may be. Those families that do a lot of evil, will pass that knowledge unto the next generation, and thus what God said about the sin passing from father to son may in fact be true, for reasons other than what people thought superstitiously at the time.

Of course, my studies in the mystery of water can also link in with this phenomenon. Water would serve as a better medium for the transfer of information, than DNA, since water as a medium can hold vast amounts of data and is more easily changed over time. Especially by strong emotions.