Quote:
|
Originally posted by Ramrod Strange way to end our discussion. I am confused and hurt by your comment.
|
<Sigh> I'm probably going to regret this, but let me explain:
Quote:
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 [...] The latter is obviously the least credable witness
|
A "law-abiding homeowner" with a history of mental illness and in possession of an illegal weapon who had just shot someone in the back and thus whose word could be considered to be possibly less than reliable!
Whilst he may be "more credible" according to your lights, I'd point out that if the latter was 10% credible and the former 15% credible, it doesn't make either of them *reliable* witnesses whose evidence would *prove* anything.
Quote:
|
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.
|
As I've said, this is such an obviously circular argument that it doesn't even need addressing.
Quote:
|
Where is the personal freedom in not being able to effectively defend yourself, as Martins uncle experienced?
|
It has been said too many times already in this discussion that Martin exceeded the bounds of "reasonable force", hence his conviction for Manslaughter (even though reduced from murder).
As regards your post #94:
Quote:
Me: And what happens if they weren't actually intending to cause damage or steal stuff, but you didn't take the time to check and you kick seven bells out of someone who is innocent?
You: So what were they doing there in the first place?! [...]?
Me: "Oh well, they shouldn't have been on my property in the first place..."
You: Damn right!
|
You're going to have to split some hairs pretty fine to claim that this isn't "hit first and ask questions later", however I'm just not interested in playing any more.