999tigger Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 It's a fact that the assault which led to this death wasn't premeditated in the eyes of the law. I don't need to provide evidence that that's the case. If you say otherwise it's for you to provide evidence that contradicts my statement. Dude I was merely responding to what tinfoil hat. You can see what that was about because I quoted it. No idea why you are trying to involve me in the premeditation thing? Btw that argument seems to equate to because you said it first, then it makes it true and it excuses you from providing any evidence. It would simply make it more persuasive if you backed up what you were asserting i.e linking people up to the case report/analysis. Not hard. The idea that the other person has to provide evidence where you provide none is a little silly. Just because you were first doesnt make you right or is that some special sheffield forum rule? Its good if the other person provides some supporting evidence, but if he doesnt then its at the level of two unsubstantiated claims. Anyway do carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I agree, it's not murder it's definitely manslaughter. I don't know whether society is less violent - it probably is. You don't have the level of football related violence, and I had some mates who thought a Good Friday night ended up with a punch up with like mind individuals. It's the casual nature of some of these "king hit" (I think they call it that in NZ - they're changing their laws to combat it). You've got this case, another one where it was a councillor in Scotland on a works night out. People who aren't looking for trouble, soft targets. nsw ,australia ,actually but now for some strange reason they've decided to call it a coward punch :suspect:they're trying to get a 20/25 minimum sentence for it mainly started off after this young blokes murder thomas kelly/ http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/nsw-introduces-king-hit-law-after-outcry-over-thomas-kelly-sentence/story-e6frgczx-1226758191594 they're's been a few others as well usually late night so they've decided to close alot of late night bars down earlier, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 You were suggesting it before.No I wasn't. So revenge killings are okay in your book? Does he have to be running away, or is it okay if you catch up with him later that night? How about a week later? Just trying to establish if murder is always acceptable as revenge for theft, or if there's like a time limit or something. Who said anything about revenge, killing a criminal stops them from committing more crime and ruining more lives. It a preventative measure and revenge doesn't come into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 You said that it was okay to shoot a burglar in the back in case they came back later. Shooting someone in the back is revenge or vigilantism, either way, not justice. That question that you answered was directed at Penistone though, and you only answered the first part of it. Care to try to answer the harder bits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 You said that it was okay to shoot a burglar in the back in case they came back later. Which is entirety different to this. So why dont we all go out and blow everyone away on the offchance they might come kill us in our beds. Shooting someone in the back is revenge or vigilantism, either way, not justice. That is your opinion and not my opinion, in my opinion its justice. That question that you answered was directed at Penistone though, and you only answered the first part of it. Care to try to answer the harder bits? I would need more information before answering, what as the person running away done and are they known to the victim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 This is what you said in reply to Halibut's post Shooting a man in the back - a man who is no threat to you and is running away is an act of moral cowardice and depravity on a par with killing children in my book.I don't have a problem with criminals dying during the act of committing crimes or whilst running away from such criminal acts. And you know with 100% certainty that the criminal wasn't going to come back later that night and kill Tony whilst he slept, you seam to have a lot of sympathy for criminals. It seemed to imply that you were supporting householders killing 'criminals' who are leaving their property to prevent them coming back and killing them whilst they slept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Which is entirety different to this. Not really, it's both acting on a supposition of what might happen later rather than something that is happening. That is your opinion and not my opinion, in my opinion its justice. You're obviously entitled to an opinion, but I'm factually correct, that's what vigilantism means, taking the law into your own hands. Your opinion doesn't alter that, it just means that you're demonstrably wrong. I would need more information before answering, what as the person running away done and are they known to the victim? Why should those things make any difference, either way it's clearly vigilantism and quite rightly illegal. For someone who's supposedly against criminal behaviour, you seem to be in favour of a lot of criminal behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 This is what you said in reply to Halibut's post It seemed to imply that you were supporting householders killing 'criminals' who are leaving their property to prevent them coming back and killing them whilst they slept. Which is entirely different to going out and blowing everyone away, which was your suggestion. ---------- Post added 28-02-2014 at 09:52 ---------- Not really, it's both acting on a supposition of what might happen later rather than something that is happening. No it isn't, one is assuming that everyone will brake into your house, whilst the other is evidence based, there is no reason to assume that a thief will only brake into one house and then turn into a model citizen, when the evidence suggests they will continue committing crime until they are caught or shot. You're obviously entitled to an opinion, but I'm factually correct, that's what vigilantism means, taking the law into your own hands. Your opinion doesn't alter that, it just means that you're demonstrably wrong. Why should those things make any difference, either way it's clearly vigilantism and quite rightly illegal. For someone who's supposedly against criminal behaviour, you seem to be in favour of a lot of criminal behaviour. Clearly it wouldn't be criminal behavior if the law was changed, so your point is moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Which is entirely different to going out and blowing everyone away, which was your suggestion.. Why is it? Presumably you're talking about managing risk not revenge, so anyone out there could be a risk to you, so taking your argument to it's logical extreme (since it lacks any finesse), you should kill everybody you encounter so there's no chance you could be murdered in your bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Why is it? Presumably you're talking about managing risk not revenge, so anyone out there could be a risk to you, so taking your argument to it's logical extreme (since it lacks any finesse), you should kill everybody you encounter so there's no chance you could be murdered in your bed. Which dog is most likely to kill someone. The one that as killed before or the one that hasn't even bitten anyone. To reduce the risk of someone else being killed you would kill the killer dog, not both dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.