| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 106272 | 2010-01-03 05:04:00 | Tagger Killer To Be Freed | Twelvevolts (5457) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 845157 | 2010-01-03 21:17:00 | So what? You justify a killing because he possibly might have sprayed a wall previously?? So if it was the first time he sprayed a wall - would you have settled for life imprisonment or would the death penalty still have been your chosen solution? And would there be any age restriction on your sentencing regime? Would you put a six year old to death for the same thing? So looks like Sensible Sentencing means the death penalty for any allegation over any offence at any age . Gee - your world sounds like a really fun place to live . If they choose to disregard others rights they should be prepared to pay the consequences,if it was left to the likes of you,they would spend most of their time laughing at you . ,my method there is no laughing at all . |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 845158 | 2010-01-03 21:26:00 | If they choose to disregard others rights they should be prepared to pay the consequences,if it was left to the likes of you,they would spend most of their time laughing at you.,my method there is no laughing at all. Oh is that your real problem - you think people will laugh at you so you justify killing people for that. Sorry - people are already laughing at you for holding such extreme views. |
Twelvevolts (5457) | ||
| 845159 | 2010-01-03 21:29:00 | Well the tagger was killed and certain people here think that was justified that he should have died for spraying a wall. We don't have the death penalty now and neither do we want it. However, if we have the "summary justice" Prefect proposes, you'd be able to kill anyone you thought had committed a crime. You know crime starts with the little things like stealing a sweet. The person gets away with it so they steal more and it just keeps growing until the person does get caught. Then because it's a "first offence" they get a low sentence which really makes them think well the penalty was not too bad so they go do it again and again etc until they get caught. Now it's a second offence and the process is still the same. At some stage the offender gets chucked in the pokey where they learn how to commit new and better offences. Actually, for some people the death penalty is in fact appropriate. An example would be Graeme Burton in my view. It was not "thought" that the tagger had sprayed the wall was it? |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 845160 | 2010-01-03 21:32:00 | No - I recall the last time you National Socialist types got power in a country, it started with summary justice and ended with concentration camps. Check this link out, its a law when someone is losing an argument in an internet forum they bring in the Nazis or Hitler. en.wikipedia.org |
prefect (6291) | ||
| 845161 | 2010-01-03 21:34:00 | Oh is that your real problem - you think people will laugh at you so you justify killing people for that. Sorry - people are already laughing at you for holding such extreme views. No problem being laughed when I am being funny,something I am sure that is foreign to you. When these menaces flaunt reason and laugh at you for doing so,then you know what they need. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 845162 | 2010-01-03 21:36:00 | Crime imo starts in NZ with kids not wearing cycling helmets, watching their care providers (used be called parents ) drive through stop signs, speeding smoking electric puha etc. | prefect (6291) | ||
| 845163 | 2010-01-03 21:38:00 | Oh is that your real problem - you think people will laugh at you so you justify killing people for that. Sorry - people are already laughing at you for holding such extreme views. I for one aint laughing at Cic for holding extreme views because the views are held by the majority of new zealanders. |
prefect (6291) | ||
| 845164 | 2010-01-03 21:56:00 | Crime IMO starts in NZ with kids not wearing cycling helmets, watching their care providers (used be called parents ) drive through stop signs, speeding smoking electric puha etc. Totally disagree with helmet law,should be our choice. Might be the right thing to do,but I find that quite offensive (force). |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 845165 | 2010-01-03 22:12:00 | No problem being laughed when I am being funny,something I am sure that is foreign to you . When these menaces flaunt reason and laugh at you for doing so,then you know what they need . Flaunt Reason??? I doubt when you can justify killing a youth for painting a wall you know much about reason . Humour isn't foreign to me at all - again you're making the mistake that people who disagree with you somehow humourless or not human - that after all is how you justify killing people for trivial offending . |
Twelvevolts (5457) | ||
| 845166 | 2010-01-03 22:12:00 | Totally disagree with helmet law,should be our choice. Might be the right thing to do,but I find that quite offensive (force). It can't be denied that cycle helmets reduce the chance of serious head injuries in the event of an accident much like the seat belts may stop people from having serious injuries as well. The fact that you disagree with a particular law though does not mean you should disregard or flout the same. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | |||||