#Justice for Komothai Guards

The issue of whether the boys were criminals or not should not arise. The incident should be assessed from the perspective of the guards; what did they see? what did they believe they were seeing? how did they react? how were they supposed to react under the circumstances they believe they were in?
 
The issue of whether the boys were criminals or not should not arise. The incident should be assessed from the perspective of the guards; what did they see? what did they believe they were seeing? how did they react? how were they supposed to react under the circumstances they believe they were in?
Now put yourself in the shoes of the guard.
You see some six men sneak to your daughter's bedroom. And most likely they weren't in uniform.
The guards just did what they had to do.
 
As @JazzMan has pointed out, elders have assumed the boys broke into the school to rape the girls. What evidence do they have of this? None so far from any of the comments they have posted, only that they are boys and its a girl school and that isnt evidence at all.

Secondly, from what accounts I have seen, there is no mention of the boys having any weapons. So is deadly force justified?
 
As @JazzMan has pointed out, elders have assumed the boys broke into the school to rape the girls. What evidence do they have of this? None so far from any of the comments they have posted, only that they are boys and its a girl school and that isnt evidence at all.

Secondly, from what accounts I have seen, there is no mention of the boys having any weapons. So is deadly force justified?
The Castle Doctrine applies.
 
The Castle Doctrine applies.
Then lets look at English law from the same wiki article since our laws are based on commonwealth laws.
"In English common law a defendant may seek to avoid criminal or civil liability by claiming that he acted in self-defence.[56] This requires the jury to determine whether the defendant believed that force was necessary to defend him or herself, their property, or to prevent a crime, and that the force used was reasonable."

So the other boys have run or been chased away, and the guards manage to catch/corner one of them and proceed to beat him to death.
Argue self defence and justfiable force based on that above?
 
This requires the jury to determine whether the defendant believed that force was necessary to defend him or herself, their property, or to prevent a crime, and that the force used was reasonable."
Six men. At 4am. Probably not in uniform.
Isn't that sufficient reason to go full throttle?
 
That will not be rape but consentual sex between minors in which case both parties are equally liable. Bottom line no minor girl or boy should be killed under such circumstances of youthfull foolishness. They can get sent to reformed schools but murder is way over the line. I hope these guards get the maximum sentense.
When you find 6 men creeping behind your daughter's bedroom at 4am, try applying that logic.
 
Six men. At 4am. Probably not in uniform.
Isn't that sufficient reason to go full throttle?
You are ignoring the part where the other "5 men" have fled. At this point its not 6 intruders vs 1 guard.
The reports are that it was guards and staffers. This isnt self defence, its a lynching. The one kid is clearly outnumbered. How do you claim self defense? Why go through throttle? Yes, beat him up some, get him to give up his cronies, hand them over to cops.
 
We agree that the thugs were going to have sex with girls, whom we can safely assume are under 18.
From the little I know, that is rape.


stop reasoning like a feminist. The boys were under 18 too, so if they both consented, how is it rape?

This notion of only jailing male minors and letting the females go should be done with. Even court of appeal judges said that the law should be struck down
 
You are ignoring the part where the other "5 men" have fled. At this point its not 6 intruders vs 1 guard.
The reports are that it was guards and staffers. This isnt self defence, its a lynching. The one kid is clearly outnumbered. How do you claim self defense? Why go through throttle? Yes, beat him up some, get him to give up his cronies, hand them over to cops.
You are also overlooking the part where the "girls raised alarm, cornered the boy and beat him to pulp". It probably isn't the guards who delivered the fatal blow.

And again, try sneaking into a barracks with 1000 armed trained soldiers (not 500 innocent unarmed girls) and see what the soldiers on guard duty will do to your sorry self. And we are talking of soldiers perfectly capable of defending themselves. And soldiers whom you aren't likely to overpower and abuse sexually.

Let us ask ourselves a few questions.
1) Was the intrusion to be perceived as a real threat to the lives of the girls? Yes
2) Are the guards under obligation to protect the lives of these girls? Yes
3) Did the guards have any motive for killing an innocent boy? No
4) Did the guards have a way of knowing if this boy is a school boy out for a quickie or a gang member of a raping gang? No
5) Do the guards have capacity to control 500 emotional girls out to kill their potential rapist? No

What is worrying is the incompetence of the guards at the boys' school. How did they get out unnoticed?
But what is even more worrying is the boys' lack of strategy. How do you expect to go to a girl's dormitory at 4am and be unnoticed? Isn't that the time the girls wake up to shower?
 
The issue of whether the boys were criminals or not should not arise. The incident should be assessed from the perspective of the guards; what did they see? what did they believe they were seeing? how did they react? how were they supposed to react under the circumstances they believe they were in?

but they've cornered one, doesn't it make sense to tie him up or frog march him to the holding zone till police show up? isn't that what established security firms do even to adults?'
 
You are also overlooking the part where the "girls raised alarm, cornered the boy and beat him to pulp". It probably isn't the guards who delivered the fatal blow.

And again, try sneaking into a barracks with 1000 armed trained soldiers (not 500 innocent unarmed girls) and see what the soldiers on guard duty will do to your sorry self. And we are talking of soldiers perfectly capable of defending themselves. And soldiers whom you aren't likely to overpower and abuse sexually.

Let us ask ourselves a few questions.
1) Was the intrusion to be perceived as a real threat to the lives of the girls? Yes
2) Are the guards under obligation to protect the lives of these girls? Yes
3) Did the guards have any motive for killing an innocent boy? No
4) Did the guards have a way of knowing if this boy is a school boy out for a quickie or a gang member of a raping gang? No
5) Do the guards have capacity to control 500 emotional girls out to kill their potential rapist? No

What is worrying is the incompetence of the guards at the boys' school. How did they get out unnoticed?
But what is even more worrying is the boys' lack of strategy. How do you expect to go to a girl's dormitory at 4am and be unnoticed? Isn't that the time the girls wake up to shower?

you're bringing irrational arguments, one can easily tell a 16 year old boy nowadays. so many listers confessed to sneaking into girls schools. Am sure the police did investigations that's why they're holding the guards , they know something we don't.
 
That will not be rape but consentual sex between minors in which case both parties are equally liable. Bottom line no minor girl or boy should be killed under such circumstances of youthfull foolishness. They can get sent to reformed schools but murder is way over the line. I hope these guards get the maximum sentense.


according to Njoki Ndungu, both parties are not equally liable, it is the boys who are always taken to borstal institution. Teach your sons/brothers/nephews that once they get to 18 years old they should avoid their 17 year old girlfriends like plague


1635223989369.png
 
stop reasoning like a feminist. The boys were under 18 too, so if they both consented, how is it rape?

This notion of only jailing male minors and letting the females go should be done with. Even court of appeal judges said that the law should be struck down
Why are you assuming it was consented? Has any girl come forward crying that their boyfriend has been killed?
Again, if two wrongs were to happen, we don't make it right. The guards are under duty to ensure girls don't engage in such wrong, consented or otherwise. They just did their work
 
you're bringing irrational arguments, one can easily tell a 16 year old boy nowadays. so many listers confessed to sneaking into girls schools. Am sure the police did investigations that's why they're holding the guards , they know something we don't.
The boys who wrecked havoc at St. Kizito were the same age. The equipment is fully developed and deadly.
And the fact that Listers did it doesn't mean it is right or acceptable.
 
isn't that what established security firms do even to adults?'
That's what they do but there are normally no hundreds of hysterical girls screaming in semidarkness. I find people here failing to take cognizance of the suddenness of the first scream and the reaction. How long, for example, did the guards take to get from their post to the scene?
 
The boys who wrecked havoc at St. Kizito were the same age. The equipment is fully developed and deadly.
And the fact that Listers did it doesn't mean it is right or acceptable.

yes it's not acceptable, but that does not justify cornering one and cloberring him. We have laws for security guards, like i said the police know something we don't, what if they queried the girls and they said they only screamed and the guards showed up and did the rest?
 
Back
Top