SO you hear it and see what I have said..know for fact..

I speak honesty always when needed..

I am glad. In fact being out of character here. I support 100 percent and do hope and pray the innocent in the game will not end up in death.

President has closed many of some borders. 500 known felons heading our way. Fights before here but apparently near.

EXECUTIVE ORDER..shut down.. use lethal weapons and execute plan.. no if,  AND or buts..

These are “Trespassers” right now coming in with out the legal protocol to do so.. refuse to follow methods..refuse to listen.fighting each other and people of towns walking and driving in to.. murderers, rapist, drug lords, traffickers, smugglers..thugs who will infiltrate our shores..hurt people in communities and tax payers pay as they sit in jail being fed..clothed.educated.warm.reformed.lazy and crying out for humanitarian rights. All a crock of b.s. HELL NO WE NOT TAKING IT ANYMORE.  (Giggles..a song..we not going to take it!)

• This reply was modified 6 years ago by  lindaclemenza7.

mooosey88 wrote:

rudeboy wrote:

mooosey88 wrote:

” A 16 year old isnt a 6 year old , you can get married at 16 and its above the criminal age of responsibility- Bolgers killers were ten yet condemned as knowing right from wrong , this lad knew the risks of entering an old mans house.”

Jamie Bolger’s killers tortured and murdered a baby boy.They did not try and pinch a set of ladders.

No a 16 year old isn’t a 6 year old, its 10 very quick years later. Yes you can get married at 16, mainly because at 16 most young people are physically sexually mature. You can’t have men of 18 and 20 full of testosterone and bulging ( those things Scep called you ) running around not ‘allowed to have sex’ , and if you are allowed to have sex obviously you are allowed to marry. It doesn’t make them ‘mentally’ mature though, they can’t vote, drive a car, buy alcohol, by cigarettes , etc etc .

” this lad knew the risks of entering an old mans house.”

I seriously doubt that anyone would think the risk of entering an old mans house ( with intent to rob ) would mean they may die, be they 16 or 60 !!

The Law ( which you may say is an ass and in some cases I’d bloody agree) says you can’t murder someone for stealing, luckily we’ve moved on a bit from The Ten Commandments, a person stealing, for whatever reason or motive doesn’t expect to die for doing it, as that is Murder. Life is far too precious to be flippantly snuffed out.

I’m not sure how you can correctly term the law an ass but then go on use it as a moral template in order to ascertain right from wrong? As we have said many times on this board, laws are transient changing from one generation to another where 200 years ago you could get hung for wandering onto a monarchs estate by mistake- the laws of today will be regarded as equally ridiculous in another 200 years. The “law” is simply what a bunch of bickering, guffawing idiots in the houses of parliament say it is and shouldn’t be used as a guide to form your own views on like an unthinking sheep.

Another pet hate of mine is this nonsense of “mental health” that’s reeled out as an excuse to mitigate crime. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve read about a depressed drug addict on his 54th conviction having a defence solicitor stating the poor lamb has realised the error of his ways and is now in rehabilitation with ” mental health problems.” If I say I’m depressed and go out and gut someone like a fish, backed up by a little letter from a doctor confirming my “mental health” problems, does that mean I get a lesser sentence than someone who is a happy go lucky type of chappy singing jingle bells? You only have to read the boards and chatrooms here to realise how many mentally ill individuals are about in society, do they get carte blanche to commit crime because they are 3 sheets to the wind? Unless someone is a complete vegetable with no recognition of who or where they are, there should be no mitigation or sympathy for mental health…I doubt Jack the Ripper was the full schilling somehow, but unlikely had he been caught we would have a collection of sympathising snowflakes prevalent in todays society stating he was suffering mental health issues and need help with his rehabilitation and his addiction to grapes etc.

I used the eg of Bolgers killers not to draw parallels with severity of crime, but to illustrate how at the age of ten you are deemed criminally culpable so the full force of ” the law” should also apply to a 16 year old.

Ultimately Martin was in a dark farmhouse and couldnt see how old these two thieves were unless he politely put the gun down and asked for a birth certificate of course. The thread title describing him as ” evil” for shooting two figures in the dark having been robbed previously is utterly ridiculous and the only reason many are up in arms about it, is the age of Barrass which Martin couldnt possibly know anyway.

i understand why you used the Bolger case as an example, I agree the full force of the law should be used against a 16 year old and had they been caught breaking and entering one would hope it would be, but they weren’t caught stealing, they were murderd , premeditatedly , so I don’t see your point there.

I wasn’t using the law as a moral template. I was using it to point out that it is illigal to murder someone for trying to steal from you, today, in this country. In 100 yrs time that may well have changed. You may not agree with the law but that’s too bad . No he had no idea how old they were when they broke in, in the dark I agree, they could have been 12.

Whatever your personal views on mental health are is irrelavent . I didn’t suggest the victim had mental health issues. I was pointing out that not all 16 year olds are the same. Are you suggesting that if the lad had let’s say for instance Downs Syndrome, and was desperate to impress his pals he deserved to have a hole blown through him ? Mental Health issues does not automatically equate to druggie. As I said above, at 16 you may be sexually mature but are far from mentally mature, which is why you can legally have sex but are not deemed responsible enough to do plenty of other things, such as drink , vote, drive etc etc . So saying suggesting a 16 yr old is fully mature and therefore fully culpable is misleading , in my opinion

Well he clearly wasn’t killed prematurely in the eyes of the law as it was downgraded to manslaughter. The age thing is largely irrelevant, there are adults with a very low mental age who are children mentally- the figures he shot in the dark could have been any age so even in law terms it becomes a moot point. Two figures in the dark were back to burgle him and he shot them- it doesn’t matter whether creepy scepticals heart rending rendition of mum being played out uttered by the kid is taken into account. Those are the facts which is why he only did 3 years for manslaughter ( too long IMO)

Sophia wrote:

I am reading the boards and most of your posts show you have some type of mental health issues going on yourself with four sheets!! By the way its SHILLING not SCHILLING.. no doubt you will blame it as a typo haha

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/schilling   Either term can be used you desperate dunce, I could be in Austria for all you know referring to the currency before the euro . Scrolling through a post attempting to distinguish one countries monetary term from another says it all in a points scoring contest.

sceptical guy wrote:

Actually…

I tell a lie.

Or I had best be careful in what I say on this site.

I was over-hasty.

Sharia law merely states that the thief’s hand should be cut off.

Those Muslims must come across as real liberal snowflakes to you, Master Rude boy, waiting with his claw hammer.

I believe in the death penalty for certain crimes, not theft necessarily, but to describe someone as evil for shooting an intruder is both bizarre and unwarranted. I don’t really have a view on whether he deserved to die, I stated the home owner shouldn’t be prosecuted in circumstances like this.

Incidentally creepy scep, funny you have started piping up again when you think you have a few allies. I’m not sure why you are using the barbaric sharia law as evidence of your noble anti capital punishment stance when I am openly against all aspects of Islam yet you defend it every chance you get. A man that supports a cult which subjugates women as property of their husbands promoting violence/hatred against infidels ( non believers) has the brass nerve to then call me misogynist and barbaric for sympathising with Tony Martin. Nothing strange or hypocritical about that all of course