mj.scuba Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Nope, I've posted examples where somebody's been killed and nothing happens. Three times. What do you mean by nothing happens? Do you mean no charges brought against anybody, or do you mean there was never any investigation into the deaths in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 What do you mean by nothing happens? Do you mean no charges brought against anybody, or do you mean there was never any investigation into the deaths in the first place? Simon Jones. Anthony Maynard. Marie Vesco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Simon Jones. Anthony Maynard. Marie Vesco. I don't know who they are or the circumstances of their deaths and it's not an answer, so could you just answer the question I posed. Was there an investigation in to their deaths? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 I don't know who they are or the circumstances of their deaths and it's not an answer, so could you just answer the question I posed. Was there an investigation in to their deaths? Read the thread. Or look them up, I'm not repeating myself for the benefit of those to lazy to do either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Read the thread. Or look them up, I'm not repeating myself for the benefit of those to lazy to do either. So you want to avoid answering the question don't you? It's really rather a simple question to answer, especially as you have knowledge of them, since you are the one that quoted them. So was there an investigation or not? I suspect that it was not the case at all that "nothing happened", but something did happen, but you disagree with the outcome. Spindrift disagreeing with the outcome doesn't quite mean "nothing happened", unless of course you're claiming their deaths were not investigated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 That people kill someone by being just as negligent as the student protester and receive a lesser penalty. I notice a drunk drver who didn't hurt anyone but had an ACCIDENT and drove without INTENT to harm. has recieved two years in lockup - perhaps now you'll stop bleating on about inequality. They cant be penalised for what you think they've done but what can't be proven. In the same paper a druggie using cannabis who killed his partners child has recieved a decent sentence, proving cannabis isn't harmless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 I notice a drunk drver who didn't hurt anyone but had an ACCIDENT and drove without INTENT to harm. has recieved two years in lockup - perhaps now you'll stop bleating on about inequality. They cant be penalised for what you think they've done but what can't be proven. In the same paper a druggie using cannabis who killed his partners child has recieved a decent sentence, proving cannabis isn't harmless. Of course they can be penalised. All I have done is demonstrate that too often they are not. And what role did cannabis play in the child's death, what are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 ... and so was Peter Sutcliffe in January 1981. It seems odd that people seem to be defending him because other people get away with things, or get lighter sentences. If you choose to commit a dangerous criminal offence in front of the TV cameras it seems more likely that you are going to get caught. The fact that other criminals get sentences that, in isolation, seem light or heavy have no relevance as to whether 32 months is too light or heavy in this case. come on, Q, let's not be so flippant, what's this got to do with the ripper? anyway, i for one, am supporting the kid coz, the law is supposed to take in his history,likelihood of re-offense, intend etc to sentence him and all, i feel, were disregarded in order to make an example. that other got lighter sentences for worse just adds to my argument but is not the basis of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 So you want to avoid answering the question don't you? . Nope, I'm saying it's rude to barge into a thread and demand that people repeat themselves because you can't be bothered to read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Well i think this thread has gone full circle now and i reckon the premise of the OP has been well and truly ripped to pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.