[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ramrod
That's what's known as "moving the goalposts".
Quote:
|
No, the origional conviction was found to be wrong.
|
No, your original assertion was *wrong*. He was not "done" for, ie charged with, manslaughter, he was "done" for murder. The fact that it was later reduced on appeal doesn't change the nature of the original charge.
Quote:
|
I ask again: Do you feel that all those who have been found guilty of murder (through a miscarriage of justice) and then later aquitted, are still guilty of murder?!
|
No, but I have never said they were.
You seemed to be arguing that someone who was known to be mentally ill was a reliable witness.
Quote:
The above seem reasonable to me, what are you, a burglar? [/B]
|
No, I'm someone who doesn't support the right of *anyone* to take the law into their own hands.
And I'm trying to point out (through those fast moving goalposts) that your assertion that "In most cases a quick 'oy! what you doing?' would be enough to establish wether force was necessary." doesn't describe the positions of several people in here (including yourself) who have already publically and for the record(!) stated that they would "hit first and ask questions later"!