Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

From my understanding he violated an ASBO then sort of got an ASBO.

I can probably count on one hand the number of people that never told someone "I will kill you" in a fit of passion.

Lets get past all this politically correct nonsense.

The fether is 19.

If he was 12 sure, maybe the system could turn his life around, but he is 19.

By 19, your an adult, not a malleable child. If your a no good fething scumbag at 19, your going to be a no good fething scumbag at 39.

Id put both barrels into this fether. Ill even do it myself.

Frazzled, your a lawyer! Contact the Prime Minister and have him write me an official pardon then drop the young chap around mine at 1800hrs tonight and Ill gleefully blow his face off with my service revolver.

Oh no hang on.. my nephew is cleaning it.

Looks like ill have to use the shovel then.

Nothing is ever easy in this fething house!

d-usa wrote:I can probably count on one hand the number of people that never told someone "I will kill you" in a fit of passion.

Did they threaten children too?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote: Lets get past all this politically correct nonsense.

The fether is 19.

If he was 12 sure, maybe the system could turn his life around, but he is 19.

By 19, your an adult, not a malleable child. If your a no good fething scumbag at 19, your going to be a no good fething scumbag at 39.

Id put both barrels into this fether. Ill even do it myself.

Frazzled, your a lawyer! Contact the Prime Minister and have him write me an official pardon then drop the young chap around mine at 1800hrs tonight and Ill gleefully blow his face off with my service revolver.

Oh no hang on.. my nephew is cleaning it.

Looks like ill have to use the shovel then.

Nothing is ever easy in this fething house!

WE're missing an opportunity here. Matty could create a British version of the Dirty Dozen (now with more haggis!). He could be your first recruit.

I'd say just take it off of him rather than wait for him to finish cleaning it, will need to be cleaned again after it anyway.

I say load it, saves a ton at christmas.

Wait a minute... If the law doesn't apply to him. Does that mean if he gets murdered the murderer gets no setence for the crime using the rappers logic.

rockerbikie wrote:Wait a minute... If the law doesn't apply to him. Does that mean if he gets murdered the murderer gets no setence for the crime using the rappers logic.

Now there's a solution. I like the way you think.

Maybe let him get a load of money before getting nailed with a law suit?

Frazzled wrote:30 years in maximum or a needle.
-10 years for threatening the woman's life
-20 years for threatening a child.

Alternatively, and more appropriately, taking him out with a rifle, like you would an animal with rabies, is the more humane method.

Oh, okay, so we're going to be ridiculous. Serves me right for thinking we could have a sensible conversation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

InquisitorVaron wrote:My personal opinion on the matter is simple, he should be locked up. It doesn't set a very good example and he can then reflect on what he did.

I also think the death sentence should be re-introduced, stops over crowding of the prisons and stops the crimelords from still running the show.

Locking up 19 year old kids for losing their cool produces overcrowding. And putting them in there with the crimelords gets them connected to serious crime, and that only strengthens those crimelords.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Did your middle classed kids threaten the life of a child too? If so you need to meet a better class of people and phone in the coordinates for the Arclight mission.

No, you're right. Better to give him 30 years, because then no 19 year old kid will ever lose his bottle again, and the kid in question will totally reform his ways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote: Lets get past all this politically correct nonsense.

The fether is 19.

If he was 12 sure, maybe the system could turn his life around, but he is 19.

By 19, your an adult, not a malleable child. If your a no good fething scumbag at 19, your going to be a no good fething scumbag at 39.

It isn't politically correct to acknowledge that 19 years can act impulsively, but that such behaviour will decrease as they mature, it's common fething sense.

So if you use racial epithets you get arrested.

But threaten to kill a woman and her child and you get to go free.

Interesting justice system you've got over there.

Well, he was arrested, and he also spend time in jail already for this offense. So it's not like he got away without any punishment.

I would be surprised if he didn't have something like a deferred sentence going on.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:30 years in maximum or a needle.
-10 years for threatening the woman's life
-20 years for threatening a child.

Alternatively, and more appropriately, taking him out with a rifle, like you would an animal with rabies, is the more humane method.

Oh, okay, so we're going to be ridiculous. Serves me right for thinking we could have a sensible conversation.

***That is sensible. Protip - if you don't want opinions, DON'T ASK FOR THEM. Other wise you're just trolling for self righteous indignation. (edit: anyone know how hard it is to type 'self righteous indignation' at 5.30 in the morning without coffee - damn hard. But Frazzled will motor through it).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:So if you use racial epithets you get arrested.

But threaten to kill a woman and her child and you get to go free.

Interesting justice system you've got over there.

Indeed. However in their defense it would be the same here if he had bank in the bank.

Frazzled wrote:Indeed. However in their defense it would be the same here if he had bank in the bank.

That has to be the only way that celebrity felon Lindsay Lohan is still out of jail (although she should have run out of bank quite a while ago).

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Indeed. However in their defense it would be the same here if he had bank in the bank.

That has to be the only way that celebrity felon Lindsay Lohan is still out of jail (although she should have run out of bank quite a while ago).

Exactly. Any claims that the US justice systemn is superior to anything outside of some banana republic hellhole is strictly for patriotic purposes.

I tend to agree with Mattyrm and Frazzled on this one.

I'm sure if it was someone's mother and sister that was threatened they'd be equally cavalier about the incident.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm sure if it was someone's mother and sister that was threatened they'd be equally cavalier about the incident.

Which is why we don't leave important things like justice up to the family of the victims.

If someone did it to my family, I'd want them killed. That's EXACTLY why it wouldn't be ok for me to have a say in it.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm sure if it was someone's mother and sister that was threatened they'd be equally cavalier about the incident.

Which is why we don't leave important things like justice up to the family of the victims.

If someone did it to my family, I'd want them killed. That's EXACTLY why it wouldn't be ok for me to have a say in it.

We do actually, to an extent. Depending on the jurisdiction, relatives of the victims get to testify to the harm.

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm sure if it was someone's mother and sister that was threatened they'd be equally cavalier about the incident.

Which is why we don't leave important things like justice up to the family of the victims.

If someone did it to my family, I'd want them killed. That's EXACTLY why it wouldn't be ok for me to have a say in it.

We do actually, to an extent. Depending on the jurisdiction, relatives of the victims get to testify to the harm.

Not even close. A witness has no actual power.

For every "Hellfire" avenger there might be a Christian minded forgiver, leading to sentences being all over the place for similar crimes.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm sure if it was someone's mother and sister that was threatened they'd be equally cavalier about the incident.

Which is why we don't leave important things like justice up to the family of the victims.

If someone did it to my family, I'd want them killed. That's EXACTLY why it wouldn't be ok for me to have a say in it.

We do actually, to an extent. Depending on the jurisdiction, relatives of the victims get to testify to the harm.

Not even close. A witness has no actual power.

Yes even close. A witness can weep in front of a jury deciding sentence recommendations.

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm sure if it was someone's mother and sister that was threatened they'd be equally cavalier about the incident.

Which is why we don't leave important things like justice up to the family of the victims.

If someone did it to my family, I'd want them killed. That's EXACTLY why it wouldn't be ok for me to have a say in it.

We do actually, to an extent. Depending on the jurisdiction, relatives of the victims get to testify to the harm.

Not even close. A witness has no actual power.

Yes even close. A witness can weep in front of a jury deciding sentence recommendations.

Yes, and?

My original statement was

"Which is why we don't leave important things like justice up to the family of the victims."

And we don't.

Rented Tritium wrote:"Which is why we don't leave important things like justice up to the family of the victims."

And we don't.

They are involved in the process a lot of the time.

The fact that you don't seem to want to acknowledge that fact makes me wonder about your knowledge on this subject.

Monster Rain wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:"Which is why we don't leave important things like justice up to the family of the victims."

And we don't.

They are involved in the process a lot of the time.

The fact that you don't seem to want to acknowledge that fact makes me wonder about your knowledge on this subject.

I don't want to equate involvement in a trial to having it left up to them. They do not decide guilt. They do not decide sentencing. Period.

The entire point of my post was that we PURPOSEFULLY do not let the victim's family decide these things SPECIFICALLY because they are emotional. The fact that they are at the trial does not damage that thesis whatsoever.

I don't think I should have to explain to adults that justice is dispassionate and is not decided by people with a stake in it.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:30 years in maximum or a needle.
-10 years for threatening the woman's life
-20 years for threatening a child.

Alternatively, and more appropriately, taking him out with a rifle, like you would an animal with rabies, is the more humane method.

Oh, okay, so we're going to be ridiculous. Serves me right for thinking we could have a sensible conversation.

Yes, this is the stupidest thread I've seen on Dakka for quite some time. I once pointed my finger at another persons face and threatened to kill them whilst in a fit of rage. Hopefully, the judge will be lenient and only give me 20 years.


Grow up, everyone.

Rented Tritium wrote:
I don't think I should have to explain to adults that justice is dispassionate and is not decided by people with a stake in it.

I so want what you're smoking.

Is your position that we do in fact leave justice "up to the family of the victims"? because you need to redefine some words for that to be true.

Albatross wrote:Yes, this is the stupidest thread I've seen on Dakka for quite some time. I once pointed my finger at another persons face and threatened to kill them whilst in a fit of rage. Hopefully, the judge will be lenient and only give me 20 years.

Surely you see the difference between that and the case being discussed?

Rented Tritium wrote:I don't want to equate involvement in a trial to having it left up to them. They do not decide guilt. They do not decide sentencing. Period.

But they often influence it.

It's okay to admit you're wrong.

Rented Tritium wrote:Is your position that we do in fact leave justice "up to the family of the victims"? because you need to redefine some words for that to be true.

I think my "position" is pretty clear but I will requote.

We do actually, to an extent.

Your thought that the participants are some sort of independent dispassionate arbiters of justice with no stake in the game is severely misplaced.

Everyone besides the bailiff has a stake in the game.

Monster Rain wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:I don't want to equate involvement in a trial to having it left up to them. They do not decide guilt. They do not decide sentencing. Period.

But they often influence it.

So does the defendant. But you wouldn't say that we leave justice up to defendants.