Re-offending by the guilty party yes but I meant to be made an example of for other before thinking happy slapping is a great idea...
And they shouldn't commit crimes in the first place if they can't handle prison sentences. Large or small.
Justice done?
- Thread starter Tombstone
- Start date
Re-offending by the guilty party yes but I meant to be made an example of for other before thinking happy slapping is a great idea...
And they shouldn't commit crimes in the first place if they can't handle prison sentences. Large or small.
I like to call this the Man vs Woman method. Logic vs Emotion (Not all women).
If only we could follow the logical path, it's the one I would prefer too.
No, for it to be murder, you have to intend to kill.
Criminals (rightly in the UK, our cleanup rate is around 10-15%) don't expect to get caught, hence harsh sentences don't act as a deterrent.
Please don't compare going 8mph over the speed limit to a senseless act of violence that resulted in a man's death, you look like an absolute moron.
What is your point here? That men will lightsaber people on the street then get put in prison?
Or that people with such deep pyschosocial and neurological issues they plot revenge or just meaningless harm to an innocent by faking a scene where that innocent hurts another so as to put them in prison?
The way I see it, It's all irrelevant, whether they intend to kill a person or not doesn't change my views, anyone who purposely inflicts severe pain or injuries to anyone completely innoccent (especially infront of a child) is unforgivable.
No, you just have to not rely on single pieces of evidence (video, DNA, whatever) as a silver bullet for guilt, because none of them are.
Ah that's your point - it's very watery. Especially as we have eye witnesses too.
Dolph, learning how to do a rotoscoping video and faking a CCTV video etc to be used in court are two very different things. Are there any cases of altered videos been used in a court? Surely, someone trained in video forensics can spot fakes too?
Last edited:
No, just that video 'evidence' isn't the be all and end all. Technology has seen to that, unless the system is very tightly controlled and regulated.
It is certainly not secure and safe enough to use as a sole piece of evidence to determine someone's guilt, which was the claim that brought it up in the first place.
But it is and you are bordering on conspiracy Dolph.
Especially as we have eye witnesses and a man lying there on the ground - dying.
Edit - Also DNA due to physical interaction from one offender and also video evidence on their phone perhaps if they were filming it.
Last edited:
Eye witnesses can be very unreliable, it's best to use scientific inference based on data, dna and other evidence. In short, you need to have a whole slewth of evidence to safely incarcerate someone. I am not FOR death penalty but I'm sure there could be a sure-fire way of ensuring that for-life incarceration could be safely administered by courts without fear of innocent people getting jail time.
Either way this is derailing the discussion. It shouldn't turn into a pro-death-penalty or against thread.
Thats the part that I find the most hard to understand, why on earth would you want to run around the streets assaulting random people anyway. What sort of bizarre messed up mentality does that require.
I was a kid, I was a teenager...at no time, ever, did I feel the urge to run about randomly hitting people.
So are you saying that where the only evidence is CCTV it should be disregarded?
They are - I agree. But DNA, Video, eye witness, word of mouth can be used in this situation.
But I see that people are just encompassing all cases, which I also did to an extent due to my emotions relating to the video on the sky news website.
Well put.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
What about playing footy or rugby and doing a harsh challenge on someone to put him off his game (or maybe out of the game)?
What about putting a load of chilly powder in someone's coke?
What about using peer pressure to get someone to drink that shot/take a puff of that joint?
Never?
Not necessarily, but the situation where the only piece of evidence is CCTV is quite rare anyway.
What I objected to was someone saying that if we have video, we should assume they are guilty, we need nothing else. That isn't true.