Liberal ideology does not allow for use of force except in extreme conditions. Conditions like if they have to use force - well their body guards anyway... They will always arm chair quarterback anyone who does. This should not be a surprise as the liberals including the Obama White House have made it nearly impossible for our troops in a war zone to defend themselves.
For example:
The rules of engagement (ROEs) governing a U.S. soldier's response to enemy fighters in Afghanistan has made that country more dangerous for U.S. soldiers under the Obama administration.
I was recently able to discuss this with members of a Cavalry Scout Platoon that was on the ground near Camp Wright in Kunar Province, Afghanistan.
They gave me numerous examples of how the ROEs by which they must abide not only make their jobs harder, but put their lives at increased and unnecessary risk:
During the Bush administration, we were able to engage terrorists planting IEDs with greater ease. Now, if we see two guys on the side of the road and it looks like they're planting an IED, we are told to wait -- because they might be farmers.
It's like our goal is to kill them with kindness. We're going to win Afghans over with money, clinics, roads, etc., instead of winning their confidence by killing the Taliban or the Hezb-i-Islami Gulbuddin (HIG).
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...In-Afgahnistan
Liberals hate the 2nd amendment because it gives citizens the right to defend themselves. What happened during Katrina should be a wake up call. The law abiding citizens were disarmed and the criminals were given free reign because no one would or could stop them. The liberals pay lip service to the second amendment and the right of self defense but their actions always speak louder than their words.
The GZ affair is a small microcosm of the whole liberal mindset. Only the state should be allowed to "defend" people. Citizens should not have that right. Yet, the Justices have already ruled that the Police have no duty to protect the citizenry:
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005
WASHINGTON, June 27 -
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...otus.html?_r=0
So here we are. A citizen defends himself and the liberal courts are trying to crucify him to the point of misleading (lying) about the event so an arrest warrant can be issued. As you said hindsight is 20/20 and this is a tragedy.
Based upon my understanding of the events, which could be wrong and I reserve the right to change my mind in light of evidence heretofore unknown to me, GZ should never have been arrested. The govt. cowered to unreasonable mobs. I have not heard of any arrest warrant being sent out to those who are inciting to violence including the New Black Panther Party which is full of racists. If/when something bad happens to GZ or there are riots then those racists hate mongering pimps are to blame.
Linear Mode
