The Forum > General Discussion > If not mandatory Death Penalty for a heinous and atrocious crime, then what ?
If not mandatory Death Penalty for a heinous and atrocious crime, then what ?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
-
- All
Just heard on the News that the Qld Attorney General, a mere kid himself, is having a go at dealing with the little craps who are already career criminals at age 12. Hats off to such a sensible move, addressing one of Labor's legacies.
Posted by individual, Monday, 10 September 2012 7:31:52 PM
| |
sonofgloin,
I have to disagree with you, those who committ these hienous crimes are not human in my view. Most animals that kill usually only do so for their own survival, there are some exceptions. The ones that tortured and killed Mrs Morse, Annita Coby, the two girls on the NSW South coast and the backpackers at Belanglo are lower than the most vile creatures imaginable. In these cases there is no doubt and they should be disposed of for the cost of a bullet. O sung wu, I have had to put down animals that I cared about and loved. That is hard, but I do not envisage any problems shooting the likes of the creatures mentioned above. I have a pretty good idea what they did to their victims. I won't go into detail here, but you notice I used the word tortured. Posted by Banjo, Monday, 10 September 2012 10:43:24 PM
| |
Banjo,
the reason why there's so much cruelty is that those who are supposedly charged with fighting crime are the ones who cause it. Take a Policeman for example, if a home owner defends his property by shooting a violent intruder then, the Policeman who is supposed to defend the victim, will actually arrest the homeowner. That's why crime is on the increase. Posted by individual, Monday, 10 September 2012 11:00:34 PM
| |
Individual you have truly my sympathy and support.
As you are well aware I AT LEAST TWENTY TIMES, have stopped talking to you. It has been every time, some statement so outrageous that it could not be ignored that bought me back. In your post above I see a needless shot, carried over from another thread at o sung wo. You take the verbal axe to police, knowing he was one. Sir, you are ill equipped to enter verbal combat with any but a mute child. EVERY ONE OF US knows Police enforce laws, in no way make them. I know good and bad, very good very bad wear police uniforms. But too without them, the better ones we are on our own. I never found a way to without even meeting them, tell the good from the bad. Leave you to it, will read you reply but yet again must retreat from such unfounded posts. Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 11 September 2012 5:19:03 AM
| |
Ah, Belly, because Police don't make the Laws it makes it alright to arrest the victim ?
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 11 September 2012 6:56:06 AM
| |
Indidual,
I add my voice in support of Belly's. Police make no laws, they uphold those our elected representatives put in place. Now, to the rest of your post. To shoot an intruder simply for intruding, is a gross over use of force and it is entirely apprpriate that the homeowner be charged. If however, the homeowner felt physically threatened, then he or she has the legal defence of self protection as a justification for shooting, and, depending on whether the court accepted the self defence argument, may walk away free. It is also appropriate that the law work this way because the self defence argument has to be tested, in case the homeowner had, just as an example, set up and murdered a neighbour by inviting him in and then claiming that he or she threatened. Anthony http://www.observationpoint.com.a Posted by Anthonyve, Tuesday, 11 September 2012 6:59:48 AM
|