Sparks has lost the plot

Dyr

Cabaal wrote: »

Second off if anybody is using a thread like its a chat client (msn, aim, irc etc) and has been told to stop then they also deserve a ban!

Jaysis there wouldnt be a mod left in the feedback forum if ye enforced that rule.:pac:

Cabaal

Bambi wrote: »

Jaysis there wouldnt be a mod left in the feedback forum if ye enforced that rule.:pac:

Its been voted on several times and people just like the random and lolcats so can't see them leaving,

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

And you wouldn't mind, but it's not like there's a lot being waved, y'know?

Speaking about yourself, again

Adam

bunny shooter wrote: »

Speaking about yourself, again

Stop acting like a child.

bunny shooter

Reganio 2 wrote: »

What scares me the most about this thread is the fact that bunny shooter is over 18 and carries a gun.

I do not carry a gun :rolleyes:

I USE IT SOLELY FOR SPORTING PURPOSES

bunny shooter

Mirror wrote: »

Stop acting like a child.

he started it

Esel

^ Ban the am-ego one.

TerrorFirmer

Does this picture make you feel inadequate?

hullaballoo

bunny shooter wrote: »

I will PM "It Wasn't Me" to give his opinion here as he is the "injured" party and he didn't actually make a complaint. And in law without a complaint there ain't a crime

Wow! For serious?!

I have to remember that one, because that's a great defence for murder: 'Judge, I believe that the accused in this case may, indeed, have killed the victim, Ms Walsh. However, Ms Walsh failed to subsequently make a complaint regarding her murder to the Gardaí. Judge, for these reasons, it is my firm view as Counsel for the defence that there was no crime committed and therefore the accused has no case to answer and the jury should be dismissed.'

bunny shooter

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Does this picture make you feel inadequate?

Jealous

bunny shooter

hullaballú wrote: »

Wow! For serious?!

I have to remember that one, because that's a great defence for murder: 'Judge, I believe that the accused in this case may, indeed, have killed the victim, Ms Walsh. However, Ms Walsh failed to subsequently make a complaint regarding her murder to the Gardaí. Judge, for these reasons, it is my firm view as Counsel for the defence that there was no crime committed and therefore the accused has no case to answer and the jury should be dismissed.'

What a limited knowledge of the law you have. :rolleyes:

Generally, without a complaint from a victim, the Gardai cannot seek a prosecution against the accused. The dead body would be the "complaint" in this case. Incidentailly, if there was no body there could be no trial as there would be no proof of a crime.

And you an SMod in Legal, honourary appointment ?

bunny shooter

esel wrote: »

^ Ban the am-ego one.

+1, oh no, did you mean me ?

hullaballoo

bunny shooter wrote: »

What a limited knowledge of the law you have. :rolleyes:

Generally, without a complaint from a victim, the Gardai cannot seek a prosecution against the accused. The dead body would be the "complaint" in this case. Incidentailly, if there was no body there could be no trial as there would be no proof of a crime.

And you an SMod in Legal, honourary appointment ?

Lol, no. There isn't a rolleyes smiley anywhere on earth that adequately depicts my reaction when I saw that.

Perhaps, though, I have been too quick to judge you on that: I actually see where you are coming from, but you are entirely misinformed as to what the term 'complaint' means. The victim doesn't ever have to make a complaint to the Gardaí. The 'complaint' is how the Garda investigating the offence first submits the case to the courts. The complaints procedure doesn't involve the victim of a crime, it's purely procedural. Basically what happens is that the investigating Garda goes into the relevant court and lodges the complaint there. The court is then seised of the case and can hear it.

As it happens, once the Gardaí (and the prosecutor) have notice of an offence, the victim is more of a third party, or a witness (where applicable). Say for instance, I'm mugged by a local group of thugs. The Gardaí hear about it and ask me if I'd like to press charges. I say no, because I'm scared that the local thugs will reckognise me on the street. The Gardaí may also be investigating the local thugs as part of a drugs ring, but they cannot get evidence to prosecute a drugs offence. They may decide to prosecute (irrespective of my wishes) even if I try to 'waive' my grievance against them.

I want a feedback thread. But apparently it's hard for Zombies to type.

bunny shooter

hullaballú wrote: »

Lol, no. There isn't a rolleyes smiley anywhere on earth that adequately depicts my reaction when I saw that.

Perhaps, though, I have been too quick to judge you on that: I actually see where you are coming from, but you are entirely misinformed as to what the term 'complaint' means. The victim doesn't ever have to make a complaint to the Gardaí. The 'complaint' is how the Garda investigating the offence first submits the case to the courts. The complaints procedure doesn't involve the victim of a crime, it's purely procedural. Basically what happens is that the investigating Garda goes into the relevant court and lodges the complaint there. The court is then seised of the case and can hear it.

As it happens, once the Gardaí (and the prosecutor) have notice of an offence, the victim is more of a third party, or a witness (where applicable). Say for instance, I'm mugged by a local group of thugs. The Gardaí hear about it and ask me if I'd like to press charges. I say no, because I'm scared that the local thugs will reckognise me on the street. The Gardaí may also be investigating the local thugs as part of a drugs ring, but they cannot get evidence to prosecute a drugs offence. They may decide to prosecute (irrespective of my wishes) even if I try to 'waive' my grievance against them.

In a perfect world yes, but in the real world in the court I could claim it was a horrible mistake and that they didn't mug me at all, it was only horseplay and I gave 'em my stuff willingly.

Without co-operation of "victim" it would be a lost cause.

hullaballoo

Let's not get into the what ifs. I was just using that as an example to show the mistake you made, it's no biggie.

I was just clearing up the misinformation that you can have crimes without complaints all the time. Another example is the statistic on the number of unreported rapes that happen. You cannot say that those crimes are not crimes simply because no complaint is made. As such, were there somehow to be enough evidence independent of victim testimony (unlikely, but there could be third party witnesses), the Gardaí could and would prosecute.

I just realised that I shot myself in the foot by using robbery as an example since theft is an element of robbery and the victim of a theft must testify that he owned the stolen goods and did not give anyone consent to take them. It was just a bad example: the point still stands.

bunny shooter

hullaballú wrote: »

Let's not get into the what ifs. I was just using that as an example to show the mistake you made, it's no biggie.

I was just clearing up the misinformation that you can have crimes without complaints all the time. Another example is the statistic on the number of unreported rapes that happen. You cannot say that those crimes are not crimes simply because no complaint is made. As such, were there somehow to be enough evidence independent of victim testimony (unlikely, but there could be third party witnesses), the Gardaí could and would prosecute.

I just realised that I shot myself in the foot by using robbery as an example since theft is an element of robbery and the victim of a theft must testify that he owned the stolen goods and did not give anyone consent to take them. It was just a bad example: the point still stands.

Therefore, do you agree that without a "complaint" there can be no investigation and/or prosecution, in the real world.

pirelli

bunny shooter wrote: »

In a perfect world yes, but in the real world in the court I could claim it was a horrible mistake and that they didn't mug me at all, it was only horseplay and I gave 'em my stuff willingly.

Without co-operation of "victim" it would be a lost cause.

There was a district court case in tallaght where someone was charged with assault even though there was no complainant. A row in the pub. It's a recorded law case on the matter. I am not going to drag it up, but you can definetly be found guilty of a crime even though there is no complaint made against you.

However, Profane language is not a tort, so lets move away from the crime and law and all that.
The natural law of justice and all that is more appropiate for when your being judged by someone on matter that doesn't neccessarily involve the public acts of law.


Sparky: It's a bit ridiculous that you use the fact that the Department of justice and the gardai read the forum everyday. That's such a hearsay remark and totally irrelevant. Your clearly have a super duper agenda to represent the shooting times of ireland, but in reality your just a sport enthusiast who might be bit high strung to be a fair moderator also.Then again you have been given a gun so I presume your a perfectly level headed person who makes reasonable decisions everyday.

Anybody should be allowed to use the shooters forum whether they have a gun or not, it's based on an interest in the sport. It isn't monitored by the local superintendent to make sure that the shooters are behaving themselves. IS it? lol

bunny shooter

pirelli wrote: »

There was a district court case in tallaght where someone was charged with assault even though there was no complainant. A row in the pub.

Someone had to have been assaulted then. I refer to my previous post if the assaultee claims it was ok for defendant to hit them then what can the judge do ?

People, ever heard "the law is an ass" or go to Court, "you will get a lot of law but no justice"

pirelli

bunny shooter wrote: »

Someone had to have been assaulted then. I refer to my previous post if the assaultee claims it was ok for defendant to hit them then what can the judge do ?

People, ever heard "the law is an ass" or go to Court, "you will get a lot of law but no justice"

Bunny, you haven't broken the law, It doesn't apply in this scenario, the natural law of justice is what you be discussing.

Just about the case where there was no complainant. There were witnesses.
It happened the guy was charged with assault, The assault was witnessed and it was in a public place and the judge explained by giving a long winded sociological reason for it, about society and the people must see justice to be done etc.

This doesn't apply to you because you haven't broken the law. Therefore maybe there should be a complainant. In any case Sparky is defending the reputation of the shooting fraternity, I think that is being unreasonable and it is a public forum and a ownership of a gun is not required and therefore Sparky is being biased and he has implicated himself openly. Therefore he should not be judging or infracting you.

bunny shooter

pirelli wrote: »

......the natural law of justice is what you be discussing.....

That's it

bunny shooter

Now in the light of It Wasn't Me's post should the infraction be removed from my "User CP" on the grounds that It Wasn't Me wasn't offended by the commet, which Sparks alleges was personal abuse and in contravention of the forum charter, as I did not breach the Charter, as it cannot be deemed to be personal abuse if the alleged abusee claims they weren't personally abused ?

( I wish I could sleep )

Reganio 2

No because if the mod deems it to be personal abuse whether the other guy complains or not. You can and will get an infraction or worse. Just because he didn't take offense to it dosn't mean its ok to do it.

bunny shooter

pirelli wrote: »

......However, Profane language is not a tort, so lets move away from the crime and law and all that.......

Just for the record. I called him "yellow", as in a coward

bunny shooter

Reganio 2 wrote: »

No because if the mod deems it to be personal abuse whether the other guy complains or not. You can and will get an infraction or worse. Just because he didn't take offense to it dosn't mean its ok to do it.

I got an infraction

But if the guy it's aimed doesn't feel it's personal abuse, how can it be considered personal abuse ?

Cabaal

bunny shooter stop complaining, your not eveen mildely entertaining like alot of feedback threads.

Can someone just ban him/her at this stage, somebody think of the children!

the_syco

Sparks wrote: »

And now we're here, 'cos, you know, I'm mean. And have no sense of humour. At three in the morning after a full day's work.
I guess I'm just unreasonable that way...

Totally unreasonable. I think you should give him something to moan about... like a week long ban?

randylonghorn

the_syco wrote: »

Totally unreasonable. I think you should give him something to moan about... like a week long ban?

The way he's going, he'll get one or worse when DeV happens by.

Coz DeV just LUVS hedge lawyers on his site! :rolleyes:

Some people don't know when to cop on and fade back into the relative safety of obscurity.

the_syco

randylonghorn wrote: »

Coz DeV just LUVS hedge lawyers on his site! :rolleyes:

/me grabs popcorn

Vegeta

pirelli wrote: »

Sparky: It's a bit ridiculous that you use the fact that the Department of justice and the gardai read the forum everyday. That's such a hearsay remark and totally irrelevant. Your clearly have a super duper agenda to represent the shooting times of ireland, but in reality your just a sport enthusiast who might be bit high strung to be a fair moderator also.Then again you have been given a gun so I presume your a perfectly level headed person who makes reasonable decisions everyday.

Anybody should be allowed to use the shooters forum whether they have a gun or not, it's based on an interest in the sport. It isn't monitored by the local superintendent to make sure that the shooters are behaving themselves. IS it? lol

I cant tell if this is sarcasm or not but the odd Super does check the forum