[Sparkle]

It seems that Chris and Derek have proven me wrong. I was sure there was no possible way I could witness a greater perversion of my words than what I'd already seen before by said individuals, but I've been proven wrong. Unravelling this misconstrued, twisted cauldron of confusion - is going to take a little while.

Originally Posted by Chris

You've demonstrated some fairly basic ignorance of the criminal justice system throughout this thread, you see, starting with your misunderstanding of how the life sentence tariff system works.

I think you'll find that you read the bits that suit your case, but ignore the rest. For starters, although I do understand how the justice system works - it is still decided by the system to define a crime as murder or not.

You need to read my posts in context, I was presenting the previous instance as an example of how someone can get off lightly (presumably because the prisons are full), but yet had it been a police officer that was run over, the full sentence would have been given.

Instead, what you read was that "Sparkle displays ignorance of how the criminal justice system works", "Sparkle thinks running someone over with a vehicle is exactly the same as shooting someone in the face" and "Sparkle thinks that any activity that results in the death of an individual is the same."
You see, you are only seeing what you want to, but these are merely your misinterpretations of what I've written. But I'm sure you won't see that, because you won't want to.

Derek set you straight on it a few posts back back. I noticed you never acknowledged his post on this subject. I assume you thought nobody would notice that you got called out on this fairly basic error. Bad luck.

Actually, Derek pretty much confirmed my point, not called me out on it.
You'll recall, my point being that there is one law for us when we assault each other, and another when we assault the police, for exactly the reasons which Derek stated. When he cited the 18 year sentence for a random shooting, that the 18 yrs is far less than 40 yrs, further corroborates my point.

Your continual wailing about what I supposedly believe on this subject is a pretty poor strawman designed to deflect attention from the shaky foundations of your own argument. Again, bad luck, I don't think anyone's falling for it.

I think you'll find it is you who is focusing on the strawman argument about whether a person who commits murder will be released within 5 years. My main focus has been the stiffer sentences that seem to be given if a crime is commited against the police. That was my first post, and the only reason I've been posting in this thread. If you don't disagree with that, then why are you wasting my time?

You are going to have to find a media report of someone being convicted in Court of murdering someone in public, with a firearm, receiving the mandatory life sentence and then being handed a tariff of only five years.

Again you distort the facts, I said "shot in face", not murder.

Twice I've reiterated in this thread that I was referring to "out in 5 years", which typically equates to 10 yr sentence.
I never said "murder as is determined by the system". Murder can be "killed in cold blood", and yet a light sentence served based upon a technicality.
10 years usually means out in 5 years for good behaviour. Your continual detraction from the points I've reiterated time and time again, simply demonstrates that you're clutching at straws, once yet again during our discussions.

Your employer blocks Google but lets you make repeated posts to internet bulletin boards? Bizarre. I guess I will just have to think myself lucky that I'll be spared your l33t Google skillz for a few more hours.

Once again, you see only what you want to. My employer does not block Google, but with other people working in the office installing a new phone system, I'd rather not be surfin' - but I understand that you needed to twist my words in attempt to claw back some leverage in what is increasing looking like a lost cause on your part.

So now, just to summarise. You say that all you're doing is asking for corroboration for my first comment (that a person can shoot someone in the face and be out of prison within 5 yrs), but yet you upgrade this to "murder by shooting in the face", and then further upgrade to "random murder by shooting in the face".

So, to be fair (without the additional add-ons), all you really need to see is an example of someone shooting someone, and then out in 5 years, eh?

I personally don't see the difference that using a gun makes, since if Moat had used a knife rather than a gun, the sentences would've been the same.
However, finding examples involving firearms shouldn't be difficult.

Now, lets find some links for you.
---------------------------------------

Boy shoots and kills friend, 5 yrs
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-5-years.html


Robbery, fatal stabbing, involving 4 men - armed with a knife and gun
Sentenced 6 yrs, 5 yrs, 35 weeks, and 35 weeks.
http://www.southnorwichnews.co.uk/ne...ch-went-wrong/

Revenge attack, 5 yrs (stabbed 7 times)
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereven..._on_wifebeater

Random bus attack, 17 yr old sentenced to 4 years
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...k-1976095.html