Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 59,564
Bless. Someone’s spitting their dummy out because someone has a different opinion to him.
It’s funny watching you disappear down your rabbit hole to Gammonopia.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Whaley Bridge shooting
- Thread starter hilts
- Start date
It’s funny watching you disappear down your rabbit hole to Gammonopia.
hilts
Well-Known Member
How is that any more judgemental than deciding shooting someone in the face is justifiable based on the same limited information?
You've lost me I'm not being judgemental I'm just asking you what you would do?
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 59,564
As in if I had been burgled 16 times? I’d have moved.You've lost me I'm not being judgemental I'm just asking you what you would do?
hilts
Well-Known Member
As in if I had been burgled 16 times? I’d have moved.
Forget it I'm just asking what you would sentence him to based on the info we have, im not judging you or trying to trip you up im just generally interested in what prople think. it's bloody hard work on here sometimes.
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 59,564
I refer you back to when I answered your question.Forget it I'm just asking what you would sentence him to based on the info we have, im not judging you or trying to trip you up im just generally interested in what prople think. it's bloody hard work on here sometimes.
The farmer? Listen to the evidence and make a decision based on that, which is all I’ve done since reading the anecdotal account.
If he’s told the police he’s going to shoot them if the return, then that shows premeditation.
If they’ve burgled him 17 times, then that has to be factored into the verdict and diminished responsibility will need to be considered.
The fact they’ve visited 16 previous times and he hasn’t been killed suggests that the burglars’ MO doesn’t include violence.
Based on this evidence and this alone, it seems to be manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility or murder.
For our mutual Mexican acquaintance, this doesn’t mean that you can‘t defend your property, it just means it has to be a proportionate response to what is happening, just like the law states.
dronefromsector7G
Well-Known Member
What’s this? Tash arguing with people?
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 59,564
Executable offence to some.What’s this? Tash arguing with people?
hilts
Well-Known Member
I refer you back to when I answered your question.
That's not an answer I think we can leave it.
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 59,564
What answers are valid?That's not an answer I think we can leave it.
At the end of Rambo 5 / Last Blood, John knew there were a load of Mexican gangsters coming for him, so he set out sufficient defences as reasonable force as was aware no one else was going to help him.
Do you reckon that what reasonable force? He did make sure he killed them humanely though e.g. lost both legs from the knees he would finish them off.
What about Kevin in Home Alone - was he over the top with the Wet Bandits?
It is a difficult one, but I think John Rambo was justified but Kevin seemed to be enjoying it the sadist.
Do you reckon that what reasonable force? He did make sure he killed them humanely though e.g. lost both legs from the knees he would finish them off.
What about Kevin in Home Alone - was he over the top with the Wet Bandits?
It is a difficult one, but I think John Rambo was justified but Kevin seemed to be enjoying it the sadist.