Thread: Following someone.

As for the suggestion that aggression can't necessarily be implicated, where one might reasonably expect such behaviour, we should recognise how being followed by someone in a car, before the occupant of said vehicle then disembarks to follow on foot, is hardly a reasonable expectation.

I would expect that the majority of people in such a situation, would experience the gravest pf misgivings, upon being confronted with such behaviour. For myself, it would certainly give me pause for thought. Pedestrian setting or no.

Originally Posted by NoC_T

Not of necessity. As I've previously mentioned, self defence may easily entail aggression, yet comprise extenuating circumstances. Indeed, self defence may be a legal defence in itself.

My point is that, aggression alone needn't vitiate nor validate an action in legal terms. Because the act itself is but one half of the equation. The mens rea/intent is what's decisive. Which brings us right back to my original post.

So basically your original post was off topic, which brings us right back to my first question/response.

Originally Posted by Tucker Case

So basically your original post was off topic, which brings us right back to my first question/response.

Translation: You have now come to the realisation that there was nothing to dispute.

Let the backtracking begin in earnest.

Originally Posted by NoC_T

We might draw an analogy with legality, whereby a crime constitutes both an act and an intention.

The actus reus and mens rea, respectively.

Nope. Same position.

Originally Posted by NoC_T

Translation: You have now come to the realisation that there was nothing to dispute.

Let the backtracking begin in earnest.



Nope. Same position.

Let's do that:

Originally Posted by Tucker Case

What's the point of discussing legality in this thread? Aggressive =/= illegal.

Hey, what a coincidence! It's same position!

Originally Posted by Tucker Case

Let's do that:



Hey, what a coincidence! It's same position!

And?

I've explained just how legality is relevant. Despite the lengths you've gone to, you cannot refute it's relevance.

That, my friend, is called being pwned.

Originally Posted by NoC_T

I've explained just how legality is relevant.

No you didn't. Legality has absolutely no bearing at all on whether or not following someone is aggressive. Aggressive behavior can be, and often is, quite legal.

Originally Posted by Tucker Case

No you didn't. Legality has absolutely no bearing at all on whether or not following someone is aggressive. Aggressive behavior can be, and often is, quite legal.

As I myself was forced to point out to you, remember? And yes, the legality is evident. As I've said previously, I won't rephrase a thing, until such time as you deem that it passes muster. Or, as you do here, attempt to pass off my original position as your own.

I see how it is with you.

Btw, don't become another Thunder. There's little point in omitting my comments, if your fans can read them for themselves.

Originally Posted by NoC_T

As I myself was forced to point out to you, remember?

Considering that I made that point in this thread well before you even posted in it, it's really quite delusional of you to assume you made pointed it out to me. Exceptionally delusional.

And yes, the legality is evident. As I've said previously, I won't rephrase a thing, until such time as you deem that it passes muster. Or, as you do here, attempt to pass off my original position as your own.

Your original position was to say that we can draw an analogy to legality. I have never tried to pass that irrelevancy off as my own, nor would I ever do such a thing because it would be stupid to try and take credit for such a position.

Btw, don't become another Thunder. There's little point in omitting my comments, if your fans can read them for themselves.

I know that people can read them. That's why I only quote that which I am responding to.

The point of doing it so that you know exactly what it is I am responding to in your post to avoid confusion. Unlike you, I truly don't give a **** about what others observing our conversation think of it.

The fact that you have become so obsessed with the imaginary belief that I care about what viewers think, to such an extreme degree that you are constantly bringing it up belies how insecure you are about what others may think of you. If people like what I say, so be it. If they don't, so be it. I'm not the one who is obsessing over the perception of others.

Originally Posted by NoC_T

...Btw, don't become another Thunder.....

what's your problem????

keep me out of your petty & childish arguments.