Quote:
Originally posted by Graham
I'm sorry? Please could you explain the logic that gets you from "there's no way of proving either claim is true" to "you choose to believe..."?
|
Lets see..... you cannot 100%prove who is lying but one person is a (fairly) law-abiding homeowner and the other is a career criminal who was committing a crime during the events under debate. The latter is obviously the least credable witness
Quote:
Oh ye gods...! (shakes head)
According to your logic, those who don't find intruders on their property won't *need* to take the law into their own hands which is a blatantly circular argument!
|
Of course you don't need to take the law into your own hands if there is no burglar on your property! There is no crime being committed if there is no one there.
Quote:
|
Certainly, go back and read the *rest* of your post 94. Maybe then you'll stop trying to weasel out of this.
|
I have re-read it and cannot find any reference to me saying that I would hit first and ask questions later.
Quote:
|
However the rest of us shouldn't allow the misrepresentation of isolated cases to be "the real state of affairs" to knee-jerk us into either excessive responses or to persuade us to give up our personal freedoms to allow us to be "protected".
|
Where is the personal freedom in not being able to effectively defend yourself, as Martins uncle experienced?