Homicide, Manslaughter, Justifiable Homicide and Genocide
Homicide, Manslaughter, Justifiable Homicide and Genocide
“Homicide” is the general and neutral term for the killing of one human being by another. One of the chief concerns of all systems of law from the earliest times is the nature of the responsibility of the slayer to the state and to the slain’s relatives. It also concerns itself with the slayer’s motives and intentions.
English law presumes all homicide to be:
“… malicious, and therefore murder, unless it is either justified by the command or permission of the law, excused on the ground of accident or self-preservation, or alleviated into manslaughter by being the involuntary consequence of some act not strictly lawful or occasioned by some sudden and sufficiently violent provocation.”
A jury determining the truth of the facts alleged in justification, excuse or alleviation. The court (Judge) determining whether if true they support the plea for which they are put forward.
In English law the term “manslaughter” is applied to homicide, though neither justifiable nor excusable, are attended by alleviating circumstances that bring them short of wilful murder.
Two main forms of “manslaughter” are recognised:
- “Voluntary” homicide caused by sudden provocation or on a sudden quarrel in the heat of passion, without the slayer taking undue advantage or acting in an unusual manner. Guilt lies in the absence of time for cool reflection or the formation of a premeditated design to kill. Provocation must be by acts and not by words or gestures, and must be serious and not trivial, and the killing must be immediately after provocation and while the slayer has lost his self-control in consequence of the provocation. The provocation need not be by assault or violence e.g. a husband slaying a man found committing adultery with his wife. In the case of a sudden quarrel it does not matter who began or provoked the quarrel.
- “Involuntary” homicide from great rashness or gross negligence in respect of matters involving danger to human life, e.g. dangerous driving, handling dangerous weapons, performing surgical operations, taking care of the helpless.
“Justifiable Homicide” is not deemed criminal when the killing is done in the execution of the law.
The most important case of justifiable homicide is the execution of a criminal to satisfy public justice. A condition most stringently interpreted:
“To kill the greatest of malefactors deliberately, uncompelled, and extra-judicially is murder … And further, if judgment of death be given by a judge not authorised by lawful commission, and execution is done accordingly, the judge is guilty of murder”
Stephen’s Commentaries book vi. c. iv.
The execution must be carried out by the proper officer or his deputy. Any person executing the sentence without such authority (even the Judge himself) would be guilty of murder.
The sentence must be carried out according to strict protocol. Executing a criminal by a death other than that to which he has been judicially condemned is murder e.g. death by poison instead of by hanging.
Justifiable Homicide is not deemed criminal when an officer of justice does the killing in the course of carrying out his duty e.g. a felon killed resisting legal arrest; where officers in dispersing a riot kill any of the mob.
The homicide must be shown to have been absolutely necessary.
Justifiable Homicide is not deemed criminal when committed in the defence of person or property against forcible and heinous crime, such as murder, violent robbery, rape or burglary.
Justifiable Homicide is not deemed criminal when committed either by misadventure or in self-defence.
“Misadventure” is where a person in the course of lawful work, accidentally and without intention kills another, e.g. shooting at a mark and hitting and killing a man.
“Self-defence” is excusable when the slayer is himself in immediate danger of death, and has done all he could to avoid the assault.
“Genocide” is a modern term coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jew jurist who, along with thousands of other fellow tribesmen, served as an “adviser” to the US Department of War during World War II.
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide defines the crime of genocide in international law.
“Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.”
On 9 December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Genocide Convention, which came into force on 12 January 1951.
130 nations have ratified the Genocide Convention and over 70 nations have made provisions for the punishment of genocide in domestic criminal law. Article 6 of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court included Genocide Convention’s Article II as a crime.
All law systems identify murder’s various forms, proscribe them and prosecute those who commit them. All identify it as the unlawful intentional killing of one human being by another and the perpetrator as the murdered and demand the slayer pay a penalty, the ultimate being forfeit of his life.
How can Eugenics and Population Control advocates call for mass murder using “saving the planet” as justification and believe they do not commit any capital crime? How can they rationalise their agenda to mass murder and Genocide?
They do so because the leading proponents are minions of the Triumvirate of Evil: Organised Jewry, Judaeo-Freemasonry and the Judaeo-Roman Catholic Church. Many are active occultists and follow Luciferian and Ahrimanic Doctrines believing they too “shall be as gods.”
That they are separate from greater humanity, which they look upon as something profane, corrupt and beneath contempt. Something akin to “human cattle” … what the Protocols’ demonically-inspired author described as “goyim.”
Gentle reader, can you sense how Evil the Great Game is?
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!