|
smooth
Thanks, I'll have a read of those rights when I haven't got a hangover.
Your absolutely right that I have a bone to pick with the crown. I have had the fortune to live for some time in both UK and US, and many of my ideas stem from this cross breed.
/no reply to iccky shakes head, smiles
4thtimelucky can't argue the point that he used unreasonable force, he's in jail for it as he should be. I am arguing that he had the right to defend his home and livelyhood. Especially as this was a second incident caused by these individuals. I believe the appellate court saw my point when they reduced an overly harsh life term to five years. (My interpretation of that particular ruling). His lawyers state that he will not be a danger because he now does not own a gun. They also go on to state he will now be installing an air raid siren. Ingenious way to deafen a would be intruder. And if it happened again I would defend this man's and every person's right to defend themselves.
Furthermore that these criminals should have any rights over Mr. Martin's property is absolutely laughable. As stated in the original article they gave up their rights when they committed the offence. I believe that in ye olden days they would have been referred to as Outlaws (one living outside the law).
recomike That made me laugh, "cancel christmas", brilliant.
__________________
[color=bright blue]W[/color]e Stick To Glass
"If three of us travel together, I shall find two teachers."
Confucious
|