|
|
Post by T C on Mar 2, 2008 19:55:16 GMT -1
If you kill, expect to be killed. EXACTLY ! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by PASTIE on Mar 2, 2008 20:26:33 GMT -1
Si, if you and I ever get to go out for a drink it is vital that we talk football and bollocks, definitely not politics...  |
|
Goalposts for Jumpers
Sunday League Player
Posting on message boards is a lot like making love to a beautiful woman.....
Posts: 44
|
Post by Goalposts for Jumpers on Mar 2, 2008 20:41:38 GMT -1
Si, if you and I ever get to go out for a drink it is vital that we talk football and bollocks, definitely not politics... Even Imp agrees that she is the polar opposite of me regarding politics...so as I'm used to spouting bollocks and football with her, doing the same with your good self would not in itself present a problem! A wry smile from Imp upon me reading this out before posting seems to prove that aggrement.... Did anyone notice that offenders are found QUILTY in my vaginal monlogue btw?  |
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Mar 2, 2008 20:43:04 GMT -1
If you kill, expect to be killed. EXACTLY ! ;D I'm not posting this to be argumentative, but moreso out of genuine curiosity - how absolute is that stance? As a case example; in Luton recently, there was an incident where two men had a fight outside a curry house. Man A had taken offence to Man B inside the curry house, and waited outside. Man A then attacked Man B when he left, and it developed into a brief brawl. The fight was ended when B punched A in the face, and he fell down unconscious. A later died as a result of the punch. How would you rule in that instance? If the ruling is 'well, it was obviously accidental', then what about cases where intent is less obvious, or where it was accidental but due to negligence? Like I said, I'm not trying to kick up a row, but just curious. |
|
|
|
Post by T C on Mar 2, 2008 21:04:09 GMT -1
I'm not posting this to be argumentative, but moreso out of genuine curiosity - how absolute is that stance? As a case example; in Luton recently, there was an incident where two men had a fight outside a curry house. Man A had taken offence to Man B inside the curry house, and waited outside. Man A then attacked Man B when he left, and it developed into a brief brawl. The fight was ended when B punched A in the face, and he fell down unconscious. A later died as a result of the punch. How would you rule in that instance? If the ruling is 'well, it was obviously accidental', then what about cases where intent is less obvious, or where it was accidental but due to negligence? Like I said, I'm not trying to kick up a row, but just curious. I make no bones about being brought up catholic... the Bible tells us " an eye for an eye" and also "turn the other cheek" ?? which is very contradictory to say the least. Each criminal activity should be judged accordingly. Whatever punishment has to fit the crime otherwise where is the deterrent? Prevention is always better than cure and if we continue to "punish" the way we are then crime will not decline but increase. Agree ? If so then we have to change our current attitudes "If you keep doing what you're doing then don't expect the results to change" I stand by my views as should everyone and I will respect anyone's opinions but crimes in general, especially paedophilic ones are on the increase and where PROVEN the bastards should be castrated and branded at the very least |
|
Goalposts for Jumpers
Sunday League Player
Posting on message boards is a lot like making love to a beautiful woman.....
Posts: 44
|
Post by Goalposts for Jumpers on Mar 2, 2008 21:04:52 GMT -1
I'm not posting this to be argumentative, but moreso out of genuine curiosity - how absolute is that stance? As a case example; in Luton recently, there was an incident where two men had a fight outside a curry house. Man A had taken offence to Man B inside the curry house, and waited outside. Man A then attacked Man B when he left, and it developed into a brief brawl. The fight was ended when B punched A in the face, and he fell down unconscious. A later died as a result of the punch. How would you rule in that instance? If the ruling is 'well, it was obviously accidental', then what about cases where intent is less obvious, or where it was accidental but due to negligence? Like I said, I'm not trying to kick up a row, but just curious. I think that people should be completely accountable for their actions. The scenario you have explained suggests a degree of pre-meditation on account of Person A...however, although the pre-meditation suggested a confrontation, it's unlikely that A wanted to actually kill B. In which case, and in the absense of a weapon (from the scenario) it's likely that A should be found guilty of the lesser crime of manslaughter. And therefore not executed. A long term in prison should suffice there. I appreciate the way you made your suggestion - unfortunately there's no way that I can adequately qualify my views in this thread without entering into dissertation length response looking at all the numerous levels of crime and criminality. Let's just say this then. My view is that if someone is found guilty of murder, they should hang/be gassed/die by lethal injection. |
|
|
|
Post by jh1980 on Mar 2, 2008 21:08:14 GMT -1
Interesting support you show for female genital mutilation Si!  That sort of thing is even going out of fashion in most of Africa!   |
|
|
|
Post by GresleyRam©®™ on Mar 2, 2008 21:11:11 GMT -1
I'm not posting this to be argumentative, but moreso out of genuine curiosity - how absolute is that stance? As a case example; in Luton recently, there was an incident where two men had a fight outside a curry house. Man A had taken offence to Man B inside the curry house, and waited outside. Man A then attacked Man B when he left, and it developed into a brief brawl. The fight was ended when B punched A in the face, and he fell down unconscious. A later died as a result of the punch. How would you rule in that instance? If the ruling is 'well, it was obviously accidental', then what about cases where intent is less obvious, or where it was accidental but due to negligence? Like I said, I'm not trying to kick up a row, but just curious. I think that people should be completely accountable for their actions. The scenario you have explained suggests a degree of pre-meditation on account of Person A...however, although the pre-meditation suggested a confrontation, it's unlikely that A wanted to actually kill B. In which case, and in the absense of a weapon (from the scenario) it's likely that A should be found guilty of the lesser crime of manslaughter. And therefore not executed. A long term in prison should suffice there. I appreciate the way you made your suggestion - unfortunately there's no way that I can adequately qualify my views in this thread without entering into dissertation length response looking at all the numerous levels of crime and criminality. Let's just say this then. My view is that if someone is found guilty of murder, they should hang/be gassed/die by lethal injection. Thats all well and good Si, but it was A who instigated the attack and it was also A who died.  |
|
Goalposts for Jumpers
Sunday League Player
Posting on message boards is a lot like making love to a beautiful woman.....
Posts: 44
|
Post by Goalposts for Jumpers on Mar 2, 2008 21:16:49 GMT -1
I think that people should be completely accountable for their actions. The scenario you have explained suggests a degree of pre-meditation on account of Person A...however, although the pre-meditation suggested a confrontation, it's unlikely that A wanted to actually kill B. In which case, and in the absense of a weapon (from the scenario) it's likely that A should be found guilty of the lesser crime of manslaughter. And therefore not executed. A long term in prison should suffice there. I appreciate the way you made your suggestion - unfortunately there's no way that I can adequately qualify my views in this thread without entering into dissertation length response looking at all the numerous levels of crime and criminality. Let's just say this then. My view is that if someone is found guilty of murder, they should hang/be gassed/die by lethal injection. Thats all well and good Si, but it was A who instigated the attack and it was also A who died. You are indeed correct Gres...and I am a muppet for not reading Neko's thread properly... This changes things. In my book, A would have been executed anyway, had he not died in the fight, for being daft enough to pick a fight with a person stronger and harder than them! ;D I'm sorry guys, I need to return to this debate when I'm feeling less pissed....as I'm failing to take it all seriously now...and begin to laugh... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Yeboah's Lunchbox on Mar 2, 2008 22:23:19 GMT -1
I kinda agree with Si in that it should be brought back in some capacity. Sometimes, this country goes overboard on the morals front. If a member of my family were to die at the hands of someone else, I would want nothing more than equal justice. But then you have the 'Tony Martin' scenario and likewise to deal with. If it could be installed for all the sickos (E.G Roy Whiting, Ian Huntley, the guy who killed Sally Ann and then had sex with her body after) that would be a start.
|
|
|
|
Post by T C on Mar 2, 2008 22:28:34 GMT -1
I kinda agree with Si in that it should be brought back in some capacity. Sometimes, this country goes overboard on the morals front. If a member of my family were to die at the hands of someone else, I would want nothing more than equal justice. But then you have the 'Tony Martin' scenario and likewise to deal with. If it could be installed for all the sickos (E.G Roy Whiting, Ian Huntley, the guy who killed Sally Ann and then had sex with her body after) that would be a start. there's plenty who think that Tony Martin was justified for what he did |
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Mar 2, 2008 22:34:01 GMT -1
I kinda agree with Si in that it should be brought back in some capacity. Sometimes, this country goes overboard on the morals front. If a member of my family were to die at the hands of someone else, I would want nothing more than equal justice. But then you have the 'Tony Martin' scenario and likewise to deal with. If it could be installed for all the sickos (E.G Roy Whiting, Ian Huntley, the guy who killed Sally Ann and then had sex with her body after) that would be a start. there's plenty who think that Tony Martin was justified for what he did Exactly - but then he intentionally shot at someone and they died because of it. Should he be executed? (Bearing in mind here that if it were your son he'd killed, it'd certainly colour your opinion...) |
|
|
|
Post by GresleyRam©®™ on Mar 2, 2008 22:36:26 GMT -1
Thats all well and good Si, but it was A who instigated the attack and it was also A who died. You are indeed correct Gres...and I am a muppet for not reading Neko's thread properly... This changes things. In my book, A would have been executed anyway, had he not died in the fight, for being daft enough to pick a fight with a person stronger and harder than them! ;D I'm sorry guys, I need to return to this debate when I'm feeling less pissed....as I'm failing to take it all seriously now...and begin to laugh... ;D LMAO! ;D ;D you should be a judge! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Yeboah's Lunchbox on Mar 2, 2008 22:37:09 GMT -1
I kinda agree with Si in that it should be brought back in some capacity. Sometimes, this country goes overboard on the morals front. If a member of my family were to die at the hands of someone else, I would want nothing more than equal justice. But then you have the 'Tony Martin' scenario and likewise to deal with. If it could be installed for all the sickos (E.G Roy Whiting, Ian Huntley, the guy who killed Sally Ann and then had sex with her body after) that would be a start. there's plenty who think that Tony Martin was justified for what he did And I agree Tel, wholeheartedly. But obviously if we went down the 'eye for an eye' path, as a conequence of his actions, he'd have to die wouldn't he or else it would highlight the grey area even more. Not saying he'd deserve death in those circumstances but you know what I mean. No doubt in that scenario, the victim's families would say something like "Did so and so have to resort to killing them" or "how do we know the intruder intended to kill the homeowner?" etc. But surely they could knock the really evil fuckers on the head for now. |
|
|
|
Post by GresleyRam©®™ on Mar 2, 2008 22:41:21 GMT -1
there's plenty who think that Tony Martin was justified for what he did Exactly - but then he intentionally shot at someone and they died because of it. Should he be executed? (Bearing in mind here that if it were your son he'd killed, it'd certainly colour your opinion...) he shot a pikey who had threatened him and broken in before didnt he? Plus the pikey was armed but then i suppose Martin did shoot him in the back. i am also a believer that a man should have the right to defend his property/family. I know without a shadow of a doubt that if i found someone downstairs in Gresley Mansions, thieving my stuff, i would not be responsible for my own actions - hit them 1st - worry about it later. If me doing 15 years for manslaughter saves the life of any of my family then it would have been worthwhile. Its a very interesting debate, with loads of pitfalls but are we all agreed that Neko's 'MAN A' deserved to die?? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by T C on Mar 2, 2008 22:42:11 GMT -1
there's plenty who think that Tony Martin was justified for what he did Exactly - but then he intentionally shot at someone and they died because of it. Should he be executed? (Bearing in mind here that if it were your son he'd killed, it'd certainly colour your opinion...) wasn't trying to make a contentius statement mate... but he comes from round here and he had a lot of support. The family robbed him blind and he was at his wits end when he pulled the trigger. He was after all trying to protect his property and livelihood. No I'm not condoning his action, and I sympathise with the family but if the deceased wasn't out on the rob he wouldn't have got shot and subsequently died would he ? As i said earlier each case is different but no, in this instance I think it was accidental death so no execution required |
|
|
|
Post by T C on Mar 2, 2008 22:45:21 GMT -1
Exactly - but then he intentionally shot at someone and they died because of it. Should he be executed? (Bearing in mind here that if it were your son he'd killed, it'd certainly colour your opinion...) he shot a pikey who had threatened him and broken in before didnt he? Plus the pikey was armed but then i suppose Martin did shoot him in the back. i am also a believer that a man should have the right to defend his property/family. I know without a shadow of a doubt that if i found someone downstairs in Gresley Mansions, thieving my stuff, i would not be responsible for my own actions - hit them 1st - worry about it later. If me doing 15 years for manslaughter saves the life of any of my family then it would have been worthwhile. Its a very interesting debate, with loads of pitfalls but are we all agreed that Neko's 'MAN A' deserved to die?? ;D depends what they were fighting over.... if "manB" stole his donna then yes ! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by T C on Mar 2, 2008 22:49:54 GMT -1
to be fair, the "pikey" and his son had broken in several times and caused thousands of pounds in damage. Yes Martin is alleged to have shot him in the back but whether or not this was deliberate is unknown. maybe he just turned round ? I agree with Gres and I would do the same as Martin, however it is unlikely that I would have a shotgun armed for such an occassion |
|
|
|
Post by GresleyRam©®™ on Mar 2, 2008 22:51:04 GMT -1
to be fair, the "pikey" and his son had broken in several times and caused thousands of pounds in damage. Yes Martin is alleged to have shot him in the back but whether or not this was deliberate is unknown. maybe he just turned round ? I agree with Gres and I would do the same as Martin, however it is unlikely that I would have a shotgun armed for such an occassion True enough - i would be armed to the teeth with a transformer dart blaster weapon and replica lightsabers! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by PASTIE on Mar 2, 2008 22:55:10 GMT -1
Si, if you and I ever get to go out for a drink it is vital that we talk football and bollocks, definitely not politics... Even Imp agrees that she is the polar opposite of me regarding politics...so as I'm used to spouting bollocks and football with her, doing the same with your good self would not in itself present a problem! A wry smile from Imp upon me reading this out before posting seems to prove that aggrement.... Did anyone notice that offenders are found QUILTY in my vaginal monlogue btw? Imp'll just have to come to and we'll sit on the moral highground, tutting and trying not to laugh at your jokes. Quilty as charged. |
|
