Cable Forum - View Single Post

Jerrek · 27-01-2004, 13:52

Scarlett:

I agree that both are wrong but if someone is still alive, then at least you can attempt to make things up to them, pay compentsation, let them start to rebuild their lives not much I know but...
Come on. Both are equally unacceptable. Who is going to pay compensation anyways? *I*? Because you sure as hell have no right to use MY taxes for that. Perhaps the jury? Perhaps the judge? Come on. You're debating the judicial process now. It is the judicial process' responsibility to make sure they don't sentence anyone that is innocent. I'm not about to let the fear of sentencing someone that is innocent do so much harm by keeping violent criminals that should be dead, alive. It simply does not justify it. If you're THAT scared, or if it happens THAT often, then you *seriously* need to re-evaluate your judicial system, because there is *major* flaws in it.

what about those who have a large amount of money and can afford good Lawyers ?
Yeah, what about them?

then the police are under a lot of pressure to show results and at that point, mistakes can be made (and have been made)
Then you need to really fix your judicial process. You're trying to solve problem A by applying a totally irrelevant solution to problem B.

And we don't vote for the party that is most benificial to ourselves ? I know that I vote for the party that most closely matches my philosophy.
Right, but WHY EXTEND THAT RIGHT to those that are HARMFUL to society? MAn, don't you guys want to PROTECT yourself and your families? What the hell is wrong with you? /banghead

Well cannot just be taken away from you, you have to effectivly surrender it by taking part in criminal activity and then getting caught. What I am saying is that maybe you lose the right to vote when inside but once released it is restored to you. i.e. it is not for life.
Certainly not. MAYBE after you've been good for 25 years AFTER your release. I do NOT want someone that has harmed society to say how society should be government. They've demonstrated once that they are a harm to society, and revoking their right to vote for life really isn't causing me sleepless nights.

What happens if the person coming in is your home help but she forgot to tell you she was coming in today...
Then shooting her wouldn't be self-defense, would it? Unless she attacks you, or you feel threatened. Then it is quite justified.

In a country where the criminal generally knows more than the victim about what the law is this is exactly what the situation is. I witnessed a shoplifter and gave pursuit and managed to hold them until the shop staff can got there. All the girl was shouting, in between her 'I'm innocent' speech, was that she would do us all for assault, that shop staff said that all they can do is to stand in front of the people and keep your arms at you side. and get in there way as they run.
And that is why your laws are ****ed up. And, that is why I would keep a shot-gun or a hand-gun with me. You come into the store and try to rob me, I'll give you the money, wait for you to turn around, and then make some circulation holes in some vital organs. We don't need these trash in society. (And watch: now some will defend the criminal again)

But how does killing someone really punish them ?, they're out of it but there are other people life, friends and relations etc. who are also punished (by having someone removed from there lives) for the crime of the criminal.
Oh please, it is universally considered a punishment. If you now want to sound some nutty professor and debate the meaning of life, by all means. I'm not interested.

Liberals, understand this: When there is a question whether I or some other thug will survive, I will always win the decision.

27-01-2004, 13:52	#49
Jerrek Inactive Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 2,545	Re: Justice Scarlett: I agree that both are wrong but if someone is still alive, then at least you can attempt to make things up to them, pay compentsation, let them start to rebuild their lives not much I know but... Come on. Both are equally unacceptable. Who is going to pay compensation anyways? I? Because you sure as hell have no right to use MY taxes for that. Perhaps the jury? Perhaps the judge? Come on. You're debating the judicial process now. It is the judicial process' responsibility to make sure they don't sentence anyone that is innocent. I'm not about to let the fear of sentencing someone that is innocent do so much harm by keeping violent criminals that should be dead, alive. It simply does not justify it. If you're THAT scared, or if it happens THAT often, then you seriously need to re-evaluate your judicial system, because there is major flaws in it. what about those who have a large amount of money and can afford good Lawyers ? Yeah, what about them? then the police are under a lot of pressure to show results and at that point, mistakes can be made (and have been made) Then you need to really fix your judicial process. You're trying to solve problem A by applying a totally irrelevant solution to problem B. And we don't vote for the party that is most benificial to ourselves ? I know that I vote for the party that most closely matches my philosophy. Right, but WHY EXTEND THAT RIGHT to those that are HARMFUL to society? MAn, don't you guys want to PROTECT yourself and your families? What the hell is wrong with you? /banghead Well cannot just be taken away from you, you have to effectivly surrender it by taking part in criminal activity and then getting caught. What I am saying is that maybe you lose the right to vote when inside but once released it is restored to you. i.e. it is not for life. Certainly not. MAYBE after you've been good for 25 years AFTER your release. I do NOT want someone that has harmed society to say how society should be government. They've demonstrated once that they are a harm to society, and revoking their right to vote for life really isn't causing me sleepless nights. What happens if the person coming in is your home help but she forgot to tell you she was coming in today... Then shooting her wouldn't be self-defense, would it? Unless she attacks you, or you feel threatened. Then it is quite justified. In a country where the criminal generally knows more than the victim about what the law is this is exactly what the situation is. I witnessed a shoplifter and gave pursuit and managed to hold them until the shop staff can got there. All the girl was shouting, in between her 'I'm innocent' speech, was that she would do us all for assault, that shop staff said that all they can do is to stand in front of the people and keep your arms at you side. and get in there way as they run. And that is why your laws are ****ed up. And, that is why I would keep a shot-gun or a hand-gun with me. You come into the store and try to rob me, I'll give you the money, wait for you to turn around, and then make some circulation holes in some vital organs. We don't need these trash in society. (And watch: now some will defend the criminal again) But how does killing someone really punish them ?, they're out of it but there are other people life, friends and relations etc. who are also punished (by having someone removed from there lives) for the crime of the criminal. Oh please, it is universally considered a punishment. If you now want to sound some nutty professor and debate the meaning of life, by all means. I'm not interested. Liberals, understand this: When there is a question whether I or some other thug will survive, I will always win the decision.