Now here ladies and gentlemen is a special kind of cu*t

Grayson

dj jarvis wrote: »

just becasue YOU don't consider it a attack , im sure you will find most would.
And i don't consider you a troll becasue you disagree with me, far from it.
I consider you a troll from your posting, the subject matter involved, pointing out punctuation mistakes, and the worst of all,
knowing full well what people were getting at,but still pointing it out.

Good day.

Have you looked up the word in a dictionary?
There's no doubt the guys a cnut. He could at least have called an ambulance. Or have left the door open so someone else would have noticed (Unless it was night and she would have frozen).
But he didn't attack her. It doesn't matter how many people agree with you. That's not what the word means. If you're going to just use any word you want to mean whatever you want, then expect people to disagree with you. Because that's called nonsense.

No, go flange your nut, because daddy say GOAL!!!

Grayson

dj jarvis wrote: »

The documentary on RTE recently , showed they had tv's , playstations , kettle , books , heat , hot food 3 times a day , keep fit equipment, education ect ect

Not being a arse but in today's climate , some family's would be lucky to have these available to them
why all the " luxury's"?
And i did not say "anyone who looks dodgy" , these people have already been sentenced in court - so when they have been dealt with by the courts , why make prison "easy"?

Mentioned by the inmates in said documentary " its like a holiday" they even mentioned it being better than at home

so is that right ? , do that to a old lady and then get looked after, while you and i pay for it

in my opinion , no , make the ****ers do some hard time,
it MIGHT , just MIGHT make them think twice

Evidence? Seriously. Any at all to suggest that harsher prisons or corporal punishment is effective? That it prevents a first time offender or reduces repeat offending? Anything?

See, I want to see less crime. And I want to see criminals punished. But I don't believe that they both equate to the same thing. And no-one has ever been able to provide me with studies to show that in the long term, harsher punishments lead to less crime. But there are loads of studies that show taking a different approach to prison (i.e. Actively tackling rehabilitation rather than just punishing more) has greater benefits.

tayto lover

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You'd think the prick would have rang an ambulance after taking the money.

Yes indeed. He just sauntered off with her 500 euro and left her lying in pain.
No such thing as empathy, pity or any thoughts of care at all.

He should have been dropped home to his own country from 30 thousand feet (minus parachute). Save us money looking after him in prison.

dj jarvis

Grayson wrote: »

Have you looked up the word in a dictionary?
There's no doubt the guys a cnut. He could at least have called an ambulance. Or have left the door open so someone else would have noticed (Unless it was night and she would have frozen).
But he didn't attack her. It doesn't matter how many people agree with you. That's not what the word means. If you're going to just use any word you want to mean whatever you want, then expect people to disagree with you. Because that's called nonsense.

No, go flange your nut, because daddy say GOAL!!!

Its a attack on her right to be left in peace in her own home with out being robbed, and then left in distress, possible in physical danger.

Its a attack on her right to help when in distress and in danger,
when that word is being used in that context its perfectly acceptable and easily understood, I know he did not physically attack the woman, but the phrase was being used by the OP in a general way, and that is how i also understood it.

and it has nothing to do with me disagreeing with you, i just understood what the OP was getting at , even if the phrase was not entirely correct, i took it in context with the rest of his post, REALLY easy to understand

but the following bull**** is just the norm for AH, i knew what he was getting at, as did others who replied, but as normal, the condescending grammar Nazis will flog a error ( as they see it ) to death

And for what? what does this prove ?

dj jarvis

Grayson wrote: »

Evidence? Seriously. Any at all to suggest that harsher prisons or corporal punishment is effective? That it prevents a first time offender or reduces repeat offending? Anything?

See, I want to see less crime. And I want to see criminals punished. But I don't believe that they both equate to the same thing. And no-one has ever been able to provide me with studies to show that in the long term, harsher punishments lead to less crime. But there are loads of studies that show taking a different approach to prison (i.e. Actively tackling rehabilitation rather than just punishing more) has greater benefits.

yea , all great except for one thing,
This guy has 10 previous convictions - so the first time he went in "rehabilitation" did not work , so neither did it on stretch 9 or 8 or 7 and on and on.
So obviously easy easy did not work with him , so how about the hard path?

If he had been breaking rocks on spike island for 4 years, he might be less inclined to re offend

He is a low life scum bag who "attacked" a person , with 10 previous, well im sorry for ya, but your softly softly approach did not work , so now what do you suggest ?

Gatling

Labotomy then deportation perhaps

dj jarvis

Mocha Joe wrote: »

Most people would not consider it an attack. Description of an attack - An aggressive and violent action against a person or place

One of your posts was very hard to read because it had no sentences. I didn't point out on punctuation mistake and jump on my high horse.

Yes I knew what the OP was getting at. He thought the woman was attacked, she wasn't. I pointed out his mistake.

yea you are correct - but also the word can be used in the context of "Its an attack on my civil rights" you don't have to be physically attacked for it to be a attack on you, your property or rights.

And i have to disagree with you on what the OP was getting at, im sure he read his own news clip, and read that she was not physically attacked , but used the word in the context as i have above.

I suppose at least we can agree that the bloke involved is a total scum bag,
but will differ on how to deal with him, Im getting sick of scum getting away with stuff like this, time for the gloves to come off.

If it was a relation of mine, or i caught him in the act, it would be me going to prison

Grayson

dj jarvis wrote: »

yea , all great excepts one thing,
this guy has 10 previous convictions - so the first time he went in "rehabilitation" did not work , so neither did it on stretch 9 or 8 or 7 and on and on
so obviously easy easy did not work with him , so how about the hard path?

If he had been breaking rocks on spike island for 4 years, he might be less inclined to re offend

He is a low life scum bag who "attacked" a person , with 10 previous, well im sorry for ya, but your softly softly approach did not work , so now what do you suggest ?

Where's the evidence that any effort to rehabilitate him took place? Or that he served time?
Irish prisons are a joke. I'm all in favor of punishment, but it should be mixed with a proper amount of rehabilitation. Like one of the guards on that scandanavian prison island said (The one in the michael moore documentary). We could stick someone in a traditional hell hole of a prison, but we have to accept that they're going to be released someday. He'd prefer that if an ex-con moved in down the street from him, that it was one who had been to his prison (the island) rather than one who had been incarcerated for years.

And yeah, as you said. She wasn't attacked. You really have to stretch the definition of attack to crowbar it in there.

gallag

Grayson wrote: »

Where's the evidence that any effort to rehabilitate him took place? Or that he served time?
Irish prisons are a joke. I'm all in favor of punishment, but it should be mixed with a proper amount of rehabilitation. Like one of the guards on that scandanavian prison island said (The one in the michael moore documentary). We could stick someone in a traditional hell hole of a prison, but we have to accept that they're going to be released someday. He'd prefer that if an ex-con moved in down the street from him, that it was one who had been to his prison (the island) rather than one who had been incarcerated for years.

And yeah, as you said. She wasn't attacked. You really have to stretch the definition of attack to crowbar it in there.

Can you rehabilitate someone who does something so scummy for his 11th crime (that we know), why not just deport him back to his home country?

Grayson

gallag wrote: »

Can you rehabilitate someone who does something so scummy for his 11th crime (that we know), why not just deport him back to his home country?

Or australia?

That'd be handy for non nationals. Who as we know are responsable for 99% of the crime in this country.

Of course, we'd end up with any irish criminals who break laws abroad just being shipped back here with a clean slate and without having served time. You'd be ok with that? If Larry Murphy butchered someone in Holland, they just ship him back here.

dj jarvis

Grayson wrote: »

Where's the evidence that any effort to rehabilitate him took place? Or that he served time?
Irish prisons are a joke. I'm all in favor of punishment, but it should be mixed with a proper amount of rehabilitation. Like one of the guards on that scandanavian prison island said (The one in the michael moore documentary). We could stick someone in a traditional hell hole of a prison, but we have to accept that they're going to be released someday. He'd prefer that if an ex-con moved in down the street from him, that it was one who had been to his prison (the island) rather than one who had been incarcerated for years.

And yeah, as you said. She wasn't attacked. You really have to stretch the definition of attack to crowbar it in there.

well he was convicted in Ireland , so stands to reason he would do time in a Irish prison, and if he did not seek rehab , then maybe a harder regime is needed, and not once did i mention a hell hole or anything like it , i said take away the perks - BIG difference.

As for using Micheal Moore to reference anything, really ? killing your own point are you not.

As for crow baring of the phrase in the post , read my above post , the phrase attacked is used for a description of a home invasion , someone loosing liberty, loss of rights to freedom or help, many many uses of that word in that context - FFS its even used in football commentary as a description of play, do you ring SKY up and tell them that actually the goalie was not ACTUALLY attacked :rolleyes:

Gatling

You come to Ireland or any other country primarily to commit crime,your sent packing plain and simple
So what he shouldn't go to prison ,
He shouldn't be deported

Why don't bleedin heart tree huggers offer to take in and personally support these foreign criminals then

Grayson

dj jarvis wrote: »

well he was convicted in Ireland , so stands to reason he would do time in a Irish prison, and if he did not seek rehab , then maybe a harder regime is needed, and not once did i mention a hell hole or anything like it , i said take away the perks - BIG difference.

As for using Micheal Moore to reference anything, really ? killing your own point are you not.

As for crow baring of the phrase in the post , read my above post , the phrase attacked is used for a description of a home invasion , someone loosing liberty, loss of rights to freedom or help, many many uses of that word in that context - FFS its even used in football commentary as a description of play, do you ring SKY up and tell them that actually the goalie was not ACTUALLY attacked :rolleyes:

In football, there is a physical action against a person. In this case there wasn't. Attacking a right, is not attacking someone. Even if it was, you would have to show that he was attacking them, rather than ignoring them. Attacking them would be taking some deliberate action to remove them. In this case, they are passive rights, not even active rights. It was a right for something not to happen, rather than a right to do something. So it's even harder to priove. But really, that's semantics. She was not attacked. And you really have to jump through mental hoops to imagine that she was.

Laugh at Michael Moore all you want. But you can't provide a single argument against my case. Punishment does not lessen crime or prevent future crime. So I guess you're ok with old women getting robbed or beaten in future, just so long as this guy serves a bit of a tougher time?

dj jarvis

Grayson wrote: »

Or australia?

That'd be handy for non nationals. Who as we know are responsable for 99% of the crime in this country.

Of course, we'd end up with any irish criminals who break laws abroad just being shipped back here with a clean slate and without having served time. You'd be ok with that? If Larry Murphy butchered someone in Holland, they just ship him back here.

After he has served his time in Holland for that crime , then yes, he is not a citizen of that country , hes a murdering bastard , why in gods name would they NOT send him back to where he comes from.

And you are being very smart with the 99% comment, no one said or implied on this thread that this was the case,
And once again you mention deportation for criminals and the bleeding hearts start.

Any Irish citizen after serving time abroad has the right to return here, but equally we should have the right to deport people who have served their time in Irish jails.
They have proven they dont want to be functioning members of our country, so why put up with them ,we have enough home grown scum bags to deal with.

El Guapo!

An old woman is left on the floor while a dirtbag robs her, and people come in here to argue about the wording of the op?
The mind boggles.

This scumbag should be locked up and then deported when his sentence his up.
And yes....he deserves a good clatter aswell.

dj jarvis

Grayson wrote: »

In football, there is a physical action against a person. In this case there wasn't. Attacking a right, is not attacking someone. Even if it was, you would have to show that he was attacking them, rather than ignoring them. Attacking them would be taking some deliberate action to remove them. In this case, they are passive rights, not even active rights. It was a right for something not to happen, rather than a right to do something. So it's even harder to priove. But really, that's semantics. She was not attacked. And you really have to jump through mental hoops to imagine that she was.

Laugh at Michael Moore all you want. But you can't provide a single argument against my case. Punishment does not lessen crime or prevent future crime. So I guess you're ok with old women getting robbed or beaten in future, just so long as this guy serves a bit of a tougher time?

Yea , that's EXACTLY what i was getting at - and today's top prize for condensation goes to...............
I can and have put many arguments against your case, and i NEVER said punishment lessens crime, not once did i say that, what i did say is that while they are inside , don't make it easy , take away the perks , and if they are not Irish citizens , when they are finished ship them the **** out.

It could not be any easier to understand than that.

And yes i do laugh at Micheal Moore, as do most people with a spark of intelligence, his "documentary" Films are as accurate as Al Gores global warming tripe, they have been shown to be, how shall i put this, one sided to put it mildly.

Grayson

dj jarvis wrote: »

Yea , that's EXACTLY what i was getting at - and today's top prize for condensation goes to...............
I can and have put many arguments against your case, and i NEVER said punishment lessens crime, not once did i say that, what i did say is that while they are inside , don't make it easy , take away the perks , and if they are not Irish citizens , when they are finished ship them the **** out.

It could not be any easier to understand than that.

And yes i do laugh at Micheal Moore, as do most people with a spark of intelligence, his "documentary" Films are as accurate as Al Gores global warming tripe, they have been shown to be, how shall i put this, one sided to put it mildly.

Bravo

ahnowbrowncow

Considering that he only stole €500 4 years seems like a harsh sentence considering manslaughter and rape can get less.

I know it was in a the UK but the fella who killed the kid with autism by setting him alight got less time than this, crazy.

It's good to see harsher sentences for criminals, makes a change.

dj jarvis

El Guapo! wrote: »

An old woman is left on the floor while a dirtbag robs her, and people come in here to argue about the wording of the op?
The mind boggles.

This scumbag should be locked up and then deported when his sentence his up.
And yes....he deserves a good clatter aswell.

it really does beggar belief, but sadly boards is full of posters who revel in this kind of crap.

Artful_Badger

dj jarvis wrote: »

it really does beggar belief, but sadly boards is full of posters who revel in this kind of crap.

Says the guy knee deep in the argument. :rolleyes:

Mocha Joe

The incorrect wording completely changes the situation. It needed to be pointed out. It's very very relevant. You can't just say because there was a poor old woman involved that we can add on our own extra little parts to the story and anyone who calls us up on it is a tree-hugging member of the PC brigade.

"He's a scumbag so it doesn't matter if we say he is a violent attacker without evidence."

Nonsense.

HondaSami

Heath Hallowed Tummy wrote: »

I'm not a violent man, but for the love of sweet f*ck give me a few rounds with this bastard.

I'd a great aunt who was similarly attacked in her home and died in the weeks afterwards.

Scum like this 'man' (I'd nearly vomit in my mouth calling him a man) really, really boil my fvcking piss.

He was breaking into houses so I'm not sure compassion is one of his strong points. If he had one decent bone in his body he would have called 999 to make sure she got help.

dj jarvis

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Says the guy knee deep in the argument. :rolleyes:

i]I am knee deep in many it would look like , but in fairness , i was not the one that jumped on the OP for what SOME see as a error in syntax,
I still dont see why it was even pointed out? as anyone with a primary education could work out what he was getting at.
IMO its the height of bad manners to point something like this out, when the point was easily understandable, and then it progresses into the usual AH slander fest becasue someone misses a coma, or a punctuation point,
taking away from the point of the tread , not how it is formulated.

I have said repeatedly that i understand she was not psychically attacked,
but understood the context of the OP use of that word , as some would and do see the crime as a attack on her, physical or not.

as for the punishment of people like this, it has been done to death on AH,
but i always have to wonder, when the tree hugging brigade shout down people in favor for a stricter regime, would they be so understanding if it was their relation left on the floor, for all that scum bag knew, she could have had a heart attack with the shock - no pity for him or his like , hard time , and if they are not Irish then ship them out
It really is that simple.

If Ireland gets a reputation for not taking any crap from criminals Irish or otherwise, they might not be so inclined to visit to rob old people.

Chemical Burn

antodeco wrote: »

This thread is probably going to descend into a "romanian gypsies" rant!

ROMA Gypsy. Sorry to be a correction Nazi here, but that has to be pointed out that Gypsys are Roma and nothing to do with Romania. However, I do agree. This person is scum and I wouldn't feel sorry if he was inflicted with the most painful illness.

BRAIN FEEDs

Heath Hallowed Tummy wrote: »

STORY.



I'm not a violent man, but for the love of sweet f*ck give me a few rounds with this bastard.

I'd a great aunt who was similarly attacked in her home and died in the weeks afterwards.

Scum like this 'man' (I'd nearly vomit in my mouth calling him a man) really, really boil my fvcking piss.

calm down dear.:)

dj jarvis

Mocha Joe wrote: »

The incorrect wording completely changes the situation. It needed to be pointed out. It's very very relevant. You can't just say because there was a poor old woman involved that we can add on our own extra little parts to the story and anyone who calls us up on it is a tree-hugging member of the PC brigade.

"He's a scumbag so it doesn't matter if we say he is a violent attacker without evidence."

Nonsense.

In a court you would be totally correct, and properly so, she was not psychically attacked ( has been pointed out to death at this stage)
It even stated this in the court reporting - for all to read who saw it.

But i would still be considered a good enough usage of the word in the context of a debate on AH, the OP did say " Similar attack", i took from that that his relations house was also broken into , robbed , so in essence it was a similar attack , i can not see the confusion or problem.

Artful_Badger

dj jarvis wrote: »

i]I am knee deep in many it would look like , but in fairness , i was not the one that jumped on the OP for what SOME see as a error in syntax,
I still dont see why it was even pointed out? as anyone with a primary education could work out what he was getting at.
IMO its the height of bad manners to point something like this out, when the point was easily understandable, and then it progresses into the usual AH slander fest becasue someone misses a coma, or a punctuation point,
taking away from the point of the tread , not how it is formulated.

I have said repeatedly that i understand she was not psychically attacked,
but understood the context of the OP use of that word , as some would and do see the crime as a attack on her, physical or not.

as for the punishment of people like this, it has been done to death on AH,
but i always have to wonder, when the tree hugging brigade shout down people in favor for a stricter regime, would they be so understanding if it was their relation left on the floor, for all that scum bag knew, she could have had a heart attack with the shock - no pity for him or his like , hard time , and if they are not Irish then ship them out
It really is that simple.

If Ireland gets a reputation for not taking any crap from criminals Irish or otherwise, they might not be so inclined to visit to rob old people.

I didnt see anyone "jumping" on the OP. Someone stated that he didnt attack her which seemed like a valid statement to me given what happened. The fact it descended into the pedantic crap it did was entirely the fault of the OP.

And just like the op with his brain dead comment here you with more shíte about primary school education. The op made a stupid statement that could only be backed up with the pedantic crap you and he took issue with.

Perhaps its not others who are brain dead or lacking the primary school education.

Dwork

Dravokivich wrote: »

You can't just go around knocking people senseless for being cúnts.

Mores the pity. But, yes, yes you can. Eldest lads nursing a broken knuckle. He knocked a cnut senseless. I for one approve. Some cnuts just need a good smack, they don't understand anything else.

If this was my Mother, I'd be waiting when he got out. And no, I'm not even vaguely joking.:) I'd be old-fashioned with stuff like that.

mewithoutyou

Dont know the situation he coulda been in tho do ya, could been addicted to drugs or something ya know

3ndahalfof6

You gave him credence by calling him special.

Artful_Badger

Dwork wrote: »

Mores the pity. But, yes, yes you can. Eldest lads nursing a broken knuckle. He knocked a cnut senseless. I for one approve. Some cnuts just need a good smack, they don't understand anything else.

If this was my Mother, I'd be waiting when he got out. And no, I'm not even vaguely joking.:)

Problem is though you'd be knocking someone senseless because you want to. Is that really any different than what any other violent criminal does ?

You cant fight thuggery with more thuggery and be anything other than a thug imo.

3ndahalfof6

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Problem is though you'd be knocking someone senseless because you want to. Is that really any different than what any other violent criminal does ?

You cant fight thuggery with more thuggery and be anything other than a thug imo.

Well doing it a couple of times over a lifetime would more than likely be for the better of the community, doing it everyday or every 2-3-4-5-6 days is a road to the first part.

Artful_Badger

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

Well doing it a couple of times over a lifetime would more than likely be for the better of the community, doing it everyday or every 2-3-4-5-6 days is a road to the first part.

Allowing people to assault others isnt going to be of any benefit to the community. Who's gonna come out on top of a community run in this way ? The people who revel in violence.

Phill Ewinn

Anyone work out why the gypsy fella is going to jail. Think the lady would sleep more soundly in her bed if he was deported. Or just dropped off half ways from a flight from Dublin to Croatia.

3ndahalfof6

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Allowing people to assault others isnt going to be of any benefit to the community. Who's gonna come out on top of a community run in this way ? The people who revel in violence.

Tis the reason we will not allow, while we feel it not to be right we must use some sort of force, to lie down and be beaten will get us nowhere, but to understand how to contain our anger and only release it when needed is to be able to hold order.

mathepac

Heath Hallowed Tummy wrote: »

If you think for a moment a home invasion, esp one on an elderly and injured person isn't an attack you're brain dead.

I find the tone of your posts (and their wild inaccuracies) disturbing.

I have asked the moderators to take appropriate action. That'll probably mean they'll add more sycophantic thanks to your wild, psychotic posts.

Heath Hallowed Tummy wrote: »

... you're brain dead...

This is the most disgusting, insensitive, hateful and hurtful comment anyone could make about another human being.

Do you know what it's like to sit at the bedside of a relative who is in a permanent vegetative state, (brain dead) watching the machines do their work to keep the person from death? I do and watched the poor parents of my beautiful grandchild agonise over the awful decisions facing them.

I hope you made you comments that I quoted above out of ignorance or in a drunken rage, because I cannot believe that a sober, sensate human could make such remarks knowingly.

humanji

Next person to go on a pedantic whine about the phrasing of anyone else's posts is getting a ban. Seriously folks, the bickering here is mindbogglingly pathetic. Stick to the actual topic.

Artful_Badger

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

Tis the reason we will not allow, while we feel it not to be right we must use some sort of force, to lie down and be beaten will get us nowhere, but to understand how to contain our anger and only release it when needed is to be able to hold order.

We have a judicial system for dealing with criminals and an appointed force in the Gardai to keep order.

BRAIN FEEDs

humanji wrote: »

Next person to go on a pedantic whine about the phrasing of anyone else's posts is getting a ban. Seriously folks, the bickering here is mindbogglingly pathetic. Stick to the actual topic.

3ndahalfof6

Artful_Badger wrote: »

We have a judicial system for dealing with criminals and an appointed force in the Gardai to keep order.

This is true and while I respect today's way of punishing the guilty there are many times it falls short, hence the relapse of the bad people doing badder than before because the punishment was, a walk in the park,

save the criminals and fook the law abiding people, I would never strike out against civility, but I would have no problem decreasing the amount of people who do.

Artful_Badger

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

This is true and while I respect today's way of punishing the guilty there are many times it falls short, hence the relapse of the bad people doing badder than before because the punishment was, a walk in the park,

save the criminals and fook the law abiding people, I would never strike out against civility, but I would have no problem decreasing the amount of people who do.

It does often fall short but I think ignoring it in favour of vigilante justice isnt a solution that would lead us anywhere but backwards.

Duck Soup

sillysmiles wrote: »

Is there not a law about being required to help someone in distress?

Yes, there is. If you remember, although they weren't eventually charged with it, the two people who procured drugs for Katy French were initially going to be charged with "failure to get medical assistance in a timely fashion, which created a substantial risk of death or serious harm to another."

So the law is there.

3ndahalfof6

Artful_Badger wrote: »

It does often fall short but I think ignoring it in favour of vigilante justice isnt a solution that would lead us anywhere but backwards.

The fact that it falls short does no justice to the people who believe in it, what is their out when someone who has done something wrong get the chance to do it again, just because they believed the powers that be were going to take care of it and did not,

my reasoning is, I gave them the chance to prove to me that I was right to let them give a punishment, and they fooked up, not only did they fook up, some other family suffered at the hands of the not punished human,

I hope you never have to feel this distaste, I hope you never have to go through a period of your life wondering, what could you have done to make it better, while knowing the only way was to put something into place to empty the earth of such vile humans,

your thinking leaves you and your family, sons, daughters, wife, grand child, open to being one of the people who will succumb to death, a taking of a life close to you, (your family or friends) afraid of going out and being part of the community, just because the bad people who torment and think it is ok having the safe net of the conscience of society.

tayto lover

Duck Soup wrote: »

Yes, there is. If you remember, although they weren't eventually charged with it, the two people who procured drugs for Katy French were initially going to be charged with "failure to get medical assistance in a timely fashion, which created a substantial risk of death or serious harm to another."

So the law is there.

Also the Wexford couple who allowed the elderly mother to starve to death.

dj jarvis

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I didnt see anyone "jumping" on the OP. Someone stated that he didnt attack her which seemed like a valid statement to me given what happened. The fact it descended into the pedantic crap it did was entirely the fault of the OP.

And just like the op with his brain dead comment here you with more shíte about primary school education. The op made a stupid statement that could only be backed up with the pedantic crap you and he took issue with.

Perhaps its not others who are brain dead or lacking the primary school education.

meh

Artful_Badger

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

The fact that it falls short does no justice to the people who believe in it, what is their out when someone who has done something wrong get the chance to do it again, just because they believed the powers that be were going to take care of it and did not,

Its there to protect society though and I understand it doesnt always do that in every case but it still protects people in a lot of ways and keeps a lot of bad people from hindering the lives of a lot of good people.

my reasoning is, I gave them the chance to prove to me that I was right to let them give a punishment, and they fooked up, not only did they fook up, some other family suffered at the hands of the not punished human,

I hope you never have to feel this distaste, I hope you never have to go through a period of your life wondering, what could you have done to make it better, while knowing the only way was to put something into place to empty the earth of such vile humans,

your thinking leaves you and your family, sons, daughters, wife, grand child, open to being one of the people who will succumb to death, a taking of a life close to you, (your family or friends) afraid of going out and being part of the community, just because the bad people who torment and think it is ok having the safe net of the conscience of society.

However hard it is to see the failings directly affect you in such a way I still dont think there is any solution other than trying to fix those shortcomings. And I dont think vigilante justice will do anything but hinder that. For better or worse the judicial system is a crucial element of civilised society. And for it to work people have to accept it cannot be ignored at will.

smileyj1987

I wouldn't imagine he will be telling any of the in-mates what he did because I'd say they would even give him a kicking for it .

3ndahalfof6

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Its there to protect society though and I understand it doesnt always do that in every case but it still protects people in a lot of ways and keeps a lot of bad people from hindering the lives of a lot of good people.



However hard it is to see the failings directly affect you in such a way I still don't think there is any solution other than trying to fix those shortcomings. And I don't think vigilante justice will do anything but hinder that. For better or worse the judicial system is a crucial element of civilised society. And for it to work people have to accept it cannot be ignored at will.

While this is true, it has to be created, a position that the people believe, it is for the people and not for the powers that be, to be in contact with wrong doings while getting to power, well it makes you understand smiley faces are for facebook and promises are made to get you to the higher end of society.

Grayson

Artful_Badger wrote: »

However hard it is to see the failings directly affect you in such a way I still dont think there is any solution other than trying to fix those shortcomings. And I dont think vigilante justice will do anything but hinder that. For better or worse the judicial system is a crucial element of civilised society. And for it to work people have to accept it cannot be ignored at will.

Vigilante justice is about nothing more than a persons need to feel in control. It rarely has anything to do with justice.

Chemical Burn

Grayson wrote: »

Vigilante justice is about nothing more than a persons need to feel in control. It rarely has anything to do with justice.

Disagree, this frail old lady has nothing against a man person animal scum disease virus like this