Ah...
Funnily enough, I think most normal people would describe calling innocent people 'lawbreakers' as 'thinly disguised obnoxious language' ...
Personal identification
- Thread starter Biguns
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Still struggling with the concept of Guilty i see.
Ah...
Funnily enough, I think most normal people would describe calling innocent people 'lawbreakers' as 'thinly disguised obnoxious language' ...
J
joinerjohn
In the weird world ellal lives in, there's no such thing as guilt (even when you've been to court and found guilty (I think it's some conspiracy theory by the whole state, police etc and involves maritime law (thought that was the laws at sea, but what the hey, if i'm ever found speeding in a speedboat on the M1 I'll own up to that)
Funnily enough I live in the world where someone has to be convicted in a court of law to be described as 'guilty'..a bit different from being branded as 'Law Breakers' without a trial!
But obviously that's not good enough for some idiots here...
But obviously that's not good enough for some idiots here...
Sponsored Links
J
joinerjohn
Going by that last statement then, you'd probably say that someone fleeing the scene of a crime, caught on cctv committing the offence, then not being caught by anyone was not guilty?? Or let's say someone gets knifed and the perpetrators fingerprints are found all over the weapon. DNA evidence proves they were the only person present at the crime scene. They are still not guilty until found guilty by a court, and you'd defend their god given right to be not guilty until a trial????
What do you say about these thugs etc that actually admit to doing crimes, before it goes to court? "Ooh your honour, I want 20 other charges to be taken into consideration." After their confession, they could change their minds and still be found not guilty? Are they therefore innocent?? I'm sure you don't live in the same world most of us on here inhabit.
Heaven forbid that at some time in the future, you become a magistrate or judge (or even get called for jury duty)) (unless it's my trial for a murder or some other heinous crime)
PS for the sake of argument, would you care to tell us what an actual lawbreaker is?. Perhaps I'm being a bit pedantic here, but a guilty person has broken the law, and a lawbreaker, also has broken the law. (please don't try to dilute your answer with references to maritime law and what we perceive as the law) (if you can)( I know you'll use this to confuse the masses)
What do you say about these thugs etc that actually admit to doing crimes, before it goes to court? "Ooh your honour, I want 20 other charges to be taken into consideration." After their confession, they could change their minds and still be found not guilty? Are they therefore innocent?? I'm sure you don't live in the same world most of us on here inhabit.
Heaven forbid that at some time in the future, you become a magistrate or judge (or even get called for jury duty)) (unless it's my trial for a murder or some other heinous crime)
PS for the sake of argument, would you care to tell us what an actual lawbreaker is?. Perhaps I'm being a bit pedantic here, but a guilty person has broken the law, and a lawbreaker, also has broken the law. (please don't try to dilute your answer with references to maritime law and what we perceive as the law) (if you can)( I know you'll use this to confuse the masses)
So still struggling with the language.Funnily enough I live in the world where someone has to be convicted in a court of law to be described as 'guilty'..a bit different from being branded as 'Law Breakers' without a trial!
But obviously that's not good enough for some idiots here...
According to you, someone can actually carry out an offence, admit to it but are only 'guilty' if 12 numpties in a court say so.
Explain how the salford burglar died. did the householder kill him or not?
Bear in mind he admitted he did.
Going by that last statement then, you'd probably say that someone fleeing the scene of a crime, caught on cctv committing the offence, then not being caught by anyone was not guilty?? Or let's say someone gets knifed and the perpetrators fingerprints are found all over the weapon. DNA evidence proves they were the only person present at the crime scene. They are still not guilty until found guilty by a court, and you'd defend their god given right to be not guilty until a trial????
What do you say about these thugs etc that actually admit to doing crimes, before it goes to court? "Ooh your honour, I want 20 other charges to be taken into consideration." After their confession, they could change their minds and still be found not guilty? Are they therefore innocent?? I'm sure you don't live in the same world most of us on here inhabit.
Heaven forbid that at some time in the future, you become a magistrate or judge (or even get called for jury duty)) (unless it's my trial for a murder or some other heinous crime)
PS for the sake of argument, would you care to tell us what an actual lawbreaker is?. Perhaps I'm being a bit pedantic here, but a guilty person has broken the law, and a lawbreaker, also has broken the law. (please don't try to dilute your answer with references to maritime law and what we perceive as the law) (if you can)( I know you'll use this to confuse the masses)
You're not merely being pedantic - you're behaving just like that old warhorse 'soft in the head', who was a pedantic semantic...
What you are suggesting of course is that a 'lawbreaker' is defined by arbitrary means...Sane people realise that 'guilt' can only be defined in a structured way, and thus someone who hasn't been found guilty of an offence has not broken that law...
You of course wish to go back to the age of the witch finder general - which as I've said shows you up as what you are - a numpty!
(So let's see if the mods save you again, given that they ignore such words (and worse) in other threads depending on the authors...
)Just like numpty1, you display a complete lack of understanding of the word 'guilty', and the process whereby that guilt is determined ...
Oh, and btw...admitting you have killed someone doesn't mean you will get convicted of anything - ever heard that there are actually different offences concerned with a killing, and that there are also defences in law?...
Says the person who calls others a 'tool' eh....Good of you to confirm your lack of grasp of the language.Just like numpty1, you display a complete lack of understanding of the word 'guilty', and the process whereby that guilt is determined ...
Oh, and btw...admitting you have killed someone doesn't mean you will get convicted of anything - ever heard that there are actually different offences concerned with a killing, and that there are also defences in law?...
You really haven't a clue.
As always, avoids answering.
Just like you did when questioning an incident i put to you recently. Your response was to ask what was the offence - like that makes any difference to whether guilty of commiting it or not.
Just like you did when questioning an incident i put to you recently. Your response was to ask what was the offence - like that makes any difference to whether guilty of commiting it or not.
Oh but I did, but then you don't accept an answer you don't like do you...
You are what you say- a complete 'tool' ....
But since you are so slow, just for you a recap...
Answer:
admitting you have killed someone doesn't mean you will get convicted of anything - ever heard that there are actually different offences concerned with a killing, and that there are also defences in law?...
I'm afraid that doesn't quite cut it, does it...
So you're not so sure about your argument now are you...
And of course everyone else can see that ...
Sponsored Links
