You opinion that people should abide by the law regardless of that law itself is your usual establishment fetishism. It's a reality that most people obey most laws precisely because those laws work. However, in situations where they don't or when they are inadequate the reality is that people respond in different ways.

I've gone over these arguments before with you but either your memory fails you or your love of repetition knows no bounds.

Once again I'll give the same example, though there are many others, Homosexuality was once illegal.....going by your commentary all those homosexuals should have just remained within the law until such time as they could change it.

Personally I have no criminal record and have stayed within the law all my life. However, that isn't out of some slavish adherence to laws as if they exist as my god or something.

In my view you are just unrealistic and obsessed with the idea that because the rule or laws exist that this means people should be compelled regardless of what those laws are to follow them. It fits with your usual authoritarianism.

People lives are more complicated than that and sometimes events slip between the cracks of laws and sometimes there are just bad laws. I can think of several bad laws over the last couple of decades.

Many of today's laws are how they are precisely because previous generations didn't follow the previous ones. In your commentary all those people were criminals.

I think that's narrow minded because context matters.

Edited by Stirlingsays (12 Apr 2022 2.55pm)

You opinion that people should abide by the law regardless of that law itself is your usual establishment fetishism. It's a reality that most people obey most laws precisely because those laws work. However, in situations where they don't or when they are inadequate the reality is that people respond in different ways.

I've gone over these arguments before with you but either your memory fails you or your love of repetition knows no bounds.

Once again I'll give the same example, though there are many others, Homosexuality was once illegal.....going by your commentary all those homosexuals should have just remained within the law until such time as they could change it.

Personally I have no criminal record and have stayed within the law all my life. However, that isn't out of some slavish adherence to laws as if they exist as my god or something.

In my view you are just unrealistic and obsessed with the idea that because the rule or laws exist that this means people should be compelled regardless of what those laws are to follow them. It fits with your usual authoritarianism.

People lives are more complicated than that and sometimes events slip between the cracks of laws and sometimes there are just bad laws. I can think of several bad laws over the last couple of decades.

Many of today's laws are how they are precisely because previous generations didn't follow the previous ones. In your commentary all those people were criminals.

I think that's narrow minded because context matters.

Edited by Stirlingsays (12 Apr 2022 2.55pm)

Homosexuals who broke the law before it changed did get prosecuted on occasions and were found guilty. As they should have been. The law is the law. No-one is above it.

That it began to be seen as wrong meant that, at first, homosexual acts in private were ignored by the Police and eventually legalised. Homosexuality itself, as was pointed out to me on here recently, was not illegal.

I don't see any realistic similarity to murder or manslaughter, and no chance of them being legalised in any circumstances. Martin killed illegally. That's wrong, and it cannot possibly be argued it was right.

That the authorities administer the laws with common sense and compassion is a completely different matter. No-one expects to be fined for driving at 75 mph on a motorway the first time you do it. Kill someone whilst drunk and driving over the limit, and it will be added to the charge sheet.

No law has been changed because people didn't follow it. It might have been because it was impossible to administer it, but that's again different. The poll tax comes to mind. Disobedience campaigns can work, but everyone who takes part is breaking the law and risks being prosecuted. What they do is raise awareness, but they are just part of a campaigning process. Want to campaign against people being prosecuted for shooting people?

I think your approach opens the door to ignoring whatever you disagree with. That's dangerous. We all need to know where we stand, and the line is the law. Step over it and you risk prosecution.

Martin acted in self defence and that is not against the law.

No he didn't. He shot them in the back as they were running away. That's not self-defence. He was found guilty, so that's what the law says. That he claimed self-defence, and you agree, doesn't make it so.

We clearly don't agree. Nor do most others here.

I find it amazing, and appalling, that anyone can try to defend an illegal act, whatever their personal belief that it ought not be illegal might be.

The whole basis of democracy is that we are free to behave as we wish, so long as we stay within the law.

Not doing so, in any circumstances, is the thin end of a very dangerous wedge and ought, in my opinion, be something that every responsible citizen resists with the utmost determination.

Martin was shown understanding and clemency, but he was
guilty and, being unlawful, was also wrong. The one follows the other. By all means, argue for a change in the law. Good luck with that. Until then, argue that everyone abides by it.

I've still very scant knowledge of Le Pen, but had no idea she had shot a few burglars, murdering one, all whilst masquerading as a Cambridgeshire farmer!

I don't have to in fact BlueJay, my specs won't be ready until Friday (I need very nerdy lenses so have to wait longer) so I still have a warm, comforting, fuzzy view of the world for now and I can therefore see the similarities without being distracted by finer detail!

Perhaps they were running to get weapons or to bring reinforcements!
Perhaps they only wanted to sell Martin some lucky heather or clothes pegs?
They broke into someone's home, not for the first time, and sufferred the consequences. If he had not been armed, Martin would possibly have been beaten to death.
It would not be a bad thing if a few more burglars got their comeuppance.

Edited by georgenorman (12 Apr 2022 6.55pm)

I've still very scant knowledge of Le Pen, but had no idea she had shot a few burglars, murdering one, all whilst masquerading as a Cambridgeshire farmer!

I've heard it all now!

Also actually, for what it's worth, I would like to know what the correct order of ceremony is once burglars enter your home in terms of establishing barometers of violence etc and how these are lawfully agreed.

I only think it fair all parties understand what is and is not fair game and I have no idea why home invaders should be so maligned as to not think you could hold a reasonable conversation with them