Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 2,548
- Location
- Leyland
In what way does it sound like manslaughter?
He had an unlicensed gun in his shop...... that's premeditated.
Premeditated and manslaughter don't mix.
Stephan Turk
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
In what way does it sound like manslaughter?
He had an unlicensed gun in his shop...... that's premeditated.
Premeditated and manslaughter don't mix.
Yup, it's always the illegally held weapon that gets them, note the "brave" fellow didn't take them on face to face in the shop.
It was self defence and stopping his property from being unlawfully removed.End of Story.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 3,814
- Location
- Cambridge/Chicago
He should be gassed while burning alive.
Why? Aliens.
Why? Aliens.
Please explain how it was self defence, given that the culprit was fleeing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 2,548
- Location
- Leyland
Thats a pretty moronic thing to say without giving and reasons to explain it.
Did you even read the news articles all over the internet or did you just troll trough this thread and come to your conclusion this way?
Perhaps he was trying to defend himself from the effort of filling in insurance forms or the risk of Being tempted to embellish the loss on said form, end of story!
Being a certain profession doesn't automatically make somebody emotionally balanced.
Ignorant of both the underline causes of crime & the wider impact on a society which permits killing outside of the grounds of self-defence.
Then it's just another meaningless antidote if it's just a case of "My friends think...".What is evident from that statement? I know the difference between retributive justice and the legal system.
I never claimed it DID have anything to do with killing people in property theft?
The old, clichéd 'Daily Mail style headline'.I also am aware what 'most' means, but thank you for the explanation. Unfortunately I can't supply data to back it up, no. Maybe I should have re-edited for the statement to read 'most people I know believe the 'justice' system' fails most people'. My mistake.
Perhaps if you need to understand that when you say phrases like "I would have paid to see the scum who did it shot in the back 'as they were running away" it tends to make out you support the actions of the people involved, not that it's just a case of "Ah well..." when you heard about criminals coming unstuck.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 2,548
- Location
- Leyland
Elmarko your pictures have pretty much hit the nail on the head with those two.
However dont you know there is no point trying to reason with a woman that already has her mind set/ opinions formed?
Whats the difference between a woman and a terrorist?
You can negotiate with a terrorist
However dont you know there is no point trying to reason with a woman that already has her mind set/ opinions formed?
Whats the difference between a woman and a terrorist?
You can negotiate with a terrorist
They were escaping with jewellery taken from his store during an armed robbery, so technically he was protecting his property (the stolen jewellery).
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 2,548
- Location
- Leyland
Erm no not really, it wasnt his anymore, they had stolen it, it was theirs.
If he had shot them inside the store, while they was physicaly robbing him then, yes, you could say he was protecting his property, still illegal but it would leave the self defence argument open for debate.
But instead he let them leave the store before retrieving hs illegal fire arm, he the ran out onto the street and shot a man in the back an killed him. So there is no argument for self defence. His life was not in immediate danger. They theives had stopped being a threat to his personal safety.
That really isn't the case, just because something is stolen it doesn't stop being yours.
Which is why I said he was protecting his property, not protecting his person. He was still protecting his property. It wasn't however self defence as he was no longer in personal danger. But to say that he wasn't protecting his property is incorrect.
You don't say.
Do you mean underlining? Do YOU know the 'causes of crime & the wider impact on a society which permits killing outside of the grounds of self-defence'? Guardian reader, I presume?
Umm, yes, I already stated I made a mistake?
Just....What?
How very dare you.
Quite possibly too close for comfort that one, but one feels compelled to ride out when a dragon appears breathing his fantastical breath of fire. Even when I can understand your point of view, well I mostly can rather I just disagree with it, this isn't really that, more that some of your recent responses seem a little over the top for what they were responding to and I can only assume you are getting fixated on the idea that the robber must be some great chap driven to steal through some made for TV movie type storyline.
It's a tough one for me, my initial reaction was maybe the opposite of what might assume and I'd be against being given free reign with intruders and/or robbers. But at the same time, I can understand that when you are robbed, you don't feel a relief that it is over when the person walks away from you (at least in the street, I've not been burgled), emotions are not so simple and I wonder that you can so easily make the leap to see a justification for robbery for all manner of reasons but when a retreating robber is shot by their victim it can only be cold revenge? Are you sure you aren't projecting your dislike for what you see as the ambivalence to factors in criminal behaviour onto the motives for the actions taken by the jeweller?
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 2,548
- Location
- Leyland
Ok so he killed somebody over a shop and some jewellery. My hero!
Lmfao, thats awesome mate, really nice of you to wish something like that on complete strangers. Then you have a cheek to call us fools, my god man get a grip of yourself and bring something useful to the thread.
Last edited:
Are you always this thick or just in this thread? Genuine question... I gave the reason,he was stopping his property from being permanently removed. That is good enough reasoning for me.Take care.
Lol.
