Quote:
Originally posted by Ramrod
[B]No, I was replying to your questions .
|
Could you explain that again when I put the comments back into here...
* * * * *
Me: You do not *prevent* someone from robbing you by shooting them with a gun!
You: Yes you do.
Me: however attacking them pre-emptively is not an "effective way" of preventing burglary either.
You: Yes it is.
* * * * *
Now, ignoring that they were statements, you simply posted contradicting remarks with nothing else to back them up, hence my Panto Season comment.
If you wish to disagree with me, please do, but don't do it by simply gainsaying what I have written with no new material.
Quote:
|
fact: the conviction was reduced to manslaughter, therefore he is not guilty of murder but manslaughter.
|
Fact: The *original* conviction was murder. He was, therefore, found guilty *of* murder. Now that the conviction has been reduced he is only guilty of manslaughter, however it does not negate the fact that he was, in the first place, found guilty of murder.
Quote:
|
afaik he did challenge them.
|
He claimed he did. They said he didn't. There is no way to prove either.
Quote:
though rather unlikely that the neighbour wouldn't speak up if you challenged him....."don't shoot graham, its just me, the neighbour, theres some a**hole burglar in here as well!"
I would say "what are you doing in my car?"
|
The comments from several people in here imply that they'd "hit first and ask questions later"
Quote:
|
btw.....please comment on my examples of what the probation officer and police would have done in similar circumstances.
|
As has been pointed out, what people *say* they will do and what they would actually do may well be very different.