There was still no other reason to use the term kid for this scumbag other than to fraudulently paint him as a child or minor.
I'm sorry James, but you are making an issue of a very minor and really quite irrelevant point. I have not called the young man who was killed a 'kid', and I do not consider myself a 'kid', so I do not know why you are flogging this particular horse.
I do not know how old you are, but I suspect that you are somewhere between 20 and 35, and there are older people who would refer to you as a kid as a matter of habit. I would consider that inappropriate from the perspective of my age group, but I would not take issue with it, nor would I presuppose they are expressing automatic support for your thoughts and actions by doing so. Neither would assume fraudulent intentions of the part of people who might refer to you as a kid.
They are still scumbag sympathizers IE people who have misplaced their sympathies and sympathize with scumbags.
I see what you mean, but I think using terms like 'scumbag' is not constructive in these decisions. It is a pejorative which makes objective discussion difficult.
It is because you do not know what that burglar is going do why lethal force is justified.
Actually, in the absence of aggressive action by a potential burglar, the opposite is justified. Unless a threat is obvious, lethal force is not justified either by reason or existing law in most jurisdictions.
What good that that do other than getting himself blown up?
RPG Minimum Arming Distance: 5 Meters | The Real Revo
I was using hyperbole - the likelihood of an RPG lying about in a shed in an used car lot is not high. :mrgreen:
If he attempted to flee then why not go the way his buddy went? people do not want to get caught and will sometimes do what ever it takes to keep themselves from getting caught including harming the occupants of that property.
I take your point, but perhaps the shed was closer than the fence, and offered more immediate shelter and means of escape.
The fact that man was even tried is atrocious. It makes the statement that criminals matter more than you and that you have no right to defend yourself or property. Hopefully they make more attempts.
The fact your country would prosecute a property owner for using lethal force to defend himself and property means that the only people your justice system gives a **** about are the criminals. So it is not not a ad hominem to state that I am surprised your country has not banned rape victims from defending themselves.
Well, I don't want to hijack this thread with too much discussion about the Tony Martin case, so perhaps I will start a thread in which we can discuss that matter in greater depth. British Law does not prosecute anyone for using appropriate force, including lethal force, to defend themselves or the lives of others. The Tony martin case was not one of self-defence, so extrapolating the circumstances of that shooting to include self-defence in the case of rape, is not reasonable. Yours was not strictly an ad hominem, (that can really only properly apply to a natural person, not a society,) but it was an unreasonable and unjustified characterisation of the laws of the British nation.
James, you and I have 'crossed swords' for many years at another place, and while I do not agree with many of your stated values, I do respect you as an intelligent and sincere poster. So let us continue our discussions upon a mutally respectful basis.