Lolz! Fvel..you got a point there but when it comes to the sense where someone is really angry or was taken over by anger, we humans will do things that 1st come into our mind and only realise all the mistakes when it is over. I get what u mean, is still not right to do so and got to think twice before we react to something that may not benefit ourselves...
Anyway, I agree with you though but about Wayne case, i guess majority might react the same way when you were actually in front of a dying friend in pain and sorrows. All of a sudden a bastard came up and make the situation worse, which indeed did a sharp thrust into their hearts which in return they reacted to it because they were already badly hurt inside.
Is all cuz of a rush of emotions. At that situation, whatever comes into the mind 1st we will surely react to it without thinking...
By the way, are you a lawyer bro? U seem to understand the law a lot bro...
Well, to be perfectly honest with you, I do feel sorry for Wayne and what he went through. What he did does not necessarily paint him out as a bad person and I would like to think he's actually a decent chap.
What I im saying isyou may be a decent human being, but you cannot afford such major loss of emotional control that could cause you to do something with you regretting the consequences.
When I used belong to a gun club in Australia,there was one very clear piece of advice given by one of my instructors, and it is simply this. If you are in a position of responsibility, it behooves upon you not to give in to emotions despite extreme provocation. Rather you are expected to think things through cooly and respond accordingly. You don't want to escalate something just on mere provocation. I almost accepted the licence to 'carry', but it's something I never took up. But the point is, I cannot afford to go emotionally ballistic just because some guy acts the idiot.
Similarly, had Wayne got into a fight that escalated to a life threatening situation, when one of the combatants became severely injured or killed, he can be a world a trouble and no amount of reasoning will spare him if law decides to string him up.
Finally,to answer your question, I'm not a lawyer but you don't have to be one to understand law and your rights under law. As long as you are so inclined to seek the knowledge. Equally relevant, you don't have to be a mechanic to understand cars as long as you have the interest to learn about cars.
---------- Post added at 09:33 PM ---------- 6 hour anti-bump limit - Previous post was at 09:08 PM ----------
Well said. But I'm still happy to be a pure human who got blood and got meat. about the lawyer and justice, i'll leave it to other to judge themselves. Why? A snatch thief who caused young innocent civilian lost his/her life only deserved for 3 years (today's newspaper, Chinapress. Link below).
Well, I'll draw the line on the snatch thief thing. You remember that post we had in ZTH which discussed the footage of those two thieves who got walloped by cops and those two truck operators ?
Well, as far as I was concerned the beatings in that case is kosher, brother. If you recall the comments I made in that post (before it was locked by 5115) I actually supported the actions of those who apprehended the bastards. If you steal, if you put the public's life in danger on account of committing a robbery, you will and should deserve a a bollocking from the public once they apprehend you.
For the most part, it's arguably defensible even if a little heavy-handed. They are exercising force to subdue two known dangerous perpetrators who had held up somebody using a weapon and then endangered the public by leading everyone (including the police) on a wild car chase.
Contrast that with the case in this post. There is a big, big difference with how that case got initiated and how the case here got started. For the most part, the law expects you to exercise restraint according to the severity of the circumstances.
You want to beat the crap out of someone,do it in a smart way. Make sure it is defensible when you stand before the judge. I don't believe the case in this thread is defensible. Yes, Wayne had the pleasure to teach the guy some manners but he left himself vulnerable to the consequences.
Regarding the thief fell down from roof thing, it was happen in UK many years ago, my colleague's neighbor (I posted in this forum before). The thief only got few days jail but the house owner need to pay few thounds UK pounds, including the medical fee for the thief.
A good lawyer would have made mince-meat of the thief's case. A guy did a home invasion and tresspass into private property to commit crime and got damages for falling down because of defective structure in the premises.....Obviously, someone in the defence team f**ked up the case, pure and simple.
As I said, different people got different point of view and different ways of handle things.
That's true. This is just my way.
I don't know what yo wanna do regarding this case, clap hands too?
Why do you think that ? Do you equate me with that a$$hole in the Optra just because I told Wayne to exercise some restraint ? I would likely have got down to help the victims if my assistance was required and I am proud to say I have in the past stopped for accident victims.
