Quote:

@swanman

The Inadequacies of your legal system are well known to most I suspect, but that in itself doesn't give anyone carte blanche to sidestep the law as it stands. The way to change it is to campaign for change. That's how the law evolves.

My 'diatribe' as you put it doesnt preclude the use of force and if you read it you would see that i'm not against self defence or even a pre-emptive strike in the case of being held captive and having to witness the extreme violence you mention. In an instance like that it would take a very hard-hearted jury or an extremely cynical and skilfull defence lawyer to successfully argue against mitigating circumstances.

Im only against the kind of indiscriminate use of force that can happen say when an intruder is making his escape having caused no physical harm or the kind of response that says any tresspass on one's property or home, armed or otherwise is grounds for killing someone. Is that so difficult a concept to take on board?

That's not pious equivocation, its called making a valid distinction

Regards

Alan




Nahhh! That's not making a valid distinction. That's just letting a thief get away. I say if he steals from you then you have the right to take him out. Oh give him/her a chance to halt and put the stuff down, then leave. But to just let a person steal your stuff? That's just plain idiodic to me. First of all, if a person broke into your house, that means he/she most likely broke a window or kicked the door in. That means he damaged your property. I'm one of those who believes in God's law. Read Deuteronomy 19.

Russ
Anyday above ground is a good day

Computer is Hp Pavillion Vision
6 Ghz quad core AMD processor
8 Gig memory
1 TB hard drive
6 GB hard drive
Windows 7 Premium
Loose nut behind the keyboard laugh