Kaimani 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. agreed. agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 This is completely irrlevant, do you think he would not have done it if the police had not had armour on? He has never practiced throwing an extinguisher (I would hope) themrefore throwing it at the gap is not an adequate defence. You are defending him for throwing a heavy object off a building at people. I accept the argument that he will probably not do it again but I do not accept that his actions could not have led to serious harm even if whoever it hit had riot armour on. At people? I seriously doubt he aimed it, more likely it was pure luck it missed rather than bad luck it missed. Thrown randomly in the heat of the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 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? I've demonstrated that the penalisation of a drunk driver who hurt no one now tallies exactly with a thug hurling a weight from a building into a public gathering. Lots of criminals aren't penalised every day. Cannabis was the reason the idiot hurt the child. So much for the fact that it's harmless. I'm on about the fact that drug users get even less penalties applied to them for breaking the law than drunk drivers. They should either all get penalised to the maximum allowed for the crime or none of them should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba 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. agreed. agreed. Seconded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 I've demonstrated that the penalisation of a drunk driver who hurt no one now tallies exactly with a thug hurling a weight from a building into a public gathering. Lots of criminals aren't penalised every day. Cannabis was the reason the idiot hurt the child. So much for the fact that it's harmless. I'm on about the fact that drug users get even less penalties applied to them for breaking the law than drunk drivers. They should either all get penalised to the maximum allowed for the crime or none of them should. I've demonstrated that killer drivers frequently get away with a trivial fine. I'd like to see the medical report that state cannabis was the reason a child was hurt, can you post this evidence please? What usually happens is a plea bargain takes place and a plea of diminished responsibility is put forward if the accused used drugs, but since you still haven't linked to the story or the medical report I have no idea what you're talking about. And I never said it was harmless, don't misrepresent what I've said please. And what's your evidence drugged drivers get away with more than drunk drivers? I don't think you could have got more misrepresentations, dodgy conclusions and straw men in that post if you tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Yes that really is absurd. I agree, the dodgy drivers should get given a harder time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I agree, the dodgy drivers should get given a harder time! Certainly should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I've demonstrated that killer drivers frequently get away with a trivial fine. I'd like to see the medical report that state cannabis was the reason a child was hurt, can you post this evidence please? What usually happens is a plea bargain takes place and a plea of diminished responsibility is put forward if the accused used drugs, but since you still haven't linked to the story or the medical report I have no idea what you're talking about. And I never said it was harmless, don't misrepresent what I've said please. And what's your evidence drugged drivers get away with more than drunk drivers? I don't think you could have got more misrepresentations, dodgy conclusions and straw men in that post if you tried. I don't need evidence of anything -you need to prove i'm wrong. But just to add meat to the bones - its in the newspaper about the effect cannabis had on his behaviour, perhaps you might like to look for it. Drug testing has not been carried out on anyone involved in an RTA as standard - hence they MUST get away with more crimes as drugged/driver than drivers tested for drink. Therefore no evidence is available. I never accused you of saying anything at all anywhere in my posts. I haven't made any conclusions or misrepresentations -so as thats bordering on libellous i'd like you to retract the statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell 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. Apart from, whether he deserves to be used as a detterent or not. Nobodys debated my point about whether our prison system can handle locking people up when we supposedly dont have enough places. I still say hes one that couldve gone without taking up a space and itd still have sorted his head out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 I don't need evidence of anything -you need to prove i'm wrong. But just to add meat to the bones - its in the newspaper about the effect cannabis had on his behaviour, perhaps you might like to look for it. Drug testing has not been carried out on anyone involved in an RTA as standard - hence they MUST get away with more crimes as drugged/driver than drivers tested for drink. I never accused you of saying anything at all anywhere in my posts. I haven't made any conclusions or misrepresentations -so as thats bordering on libellous i'd like you to retract the statement. willman, what on earth are you talking about? Drug testing is common for drivers after a RTC, you haven't posted a link to any story so I have no idea what you are talking about when you keep banging on about a child's death and cannabis which has nothing to do with the subject! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.