Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Carter
No, not at all.
It was a tactically stupid suggestion.
It gave the "holier than thou clique" an excuse to hijack the thread and take a morally superior position without actually contributing anything.
|
There's nothing morally superior about it. It was a rubbish suggestion which noone would take seriously, anywhere. It's like suggesting a jewel thief work in a jewellery store as 'rehabilitation'..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Carter
Do you also take the same "grain of salt" for the massively blown out of proportion "Melbourne is under seige" articles that appear in the daily papers?
|
Don't live in Melbourne so I wouldn't have a clue about the type of articles you're mentioning here. Feel free to post a link if you feel like it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Carter
|
Obviously I can't say for sure what the situation was like but in the article it never mentioned whether the man had died from the shooting or from self-harm. It says the officer shot him in the right shoulder. Don't know of many people dying after they'd been shot in their right shoulder. Maybe the officer in question deemed the situation dangerous enough to use his firearm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Carter
|
How about saying it like it really happened? "One officer tasers girl in leg after being assaulted by the girl. Needed 2 other officers and a security guard to restrain her".
The person who reviewed the matter found no fault in the officer's actions, so I fail to see the problem. Just another case of sensationalist journalism I'm afraid. You need to take it with 'A grain of salt'...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Carter
|
I read that article and the girl's own mother gave permission for the officer to taser the girl. Not that I'm suggesting that's in any way the right thing to do but I think what happened is more indicative of the way the mother treats her child rather than the way the officer handled the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Carter
|
Officer in question who tasered the man was suspended from duty. Obviously did the wrong thing and was punished for it.
The above incident and the 10 year old girl both occurred in the US anyway. I thought we were discussing the change of law in Australia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Carter
I could go on and on.
|
Why? You're not proving anything. I'm sure I could find videos and articles of random assaults to make my point, instead of actually explaining it in my own words. Have you formed a concise opinion, or are you merely scared that the sky is falling on your head?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Carter
You must shower regularly.
|
I do, thanks for asking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Carter
The term "Draconian" was invented for situations just like this. That kid got 5 years off the judge and 15 years off the media.
How can a 20 year old have a long history of violence and go undetected from the law for so long?
|
i don't know the whole story, only snippets of what I've read from here. Why don't you post the story and breakdown for me what you thing is wrong with the sentence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Carter
Well it's going to cost at least $800,000 in todays value to keep this kid in jail, let's try to get the kid cured and share the money amongst the victims instead?
|
Yeah, they try to cure prisoners all the time to prevent them from repeat offences, unfortunately some people will always be bad people. Lack of education, poor upbringing, poverty, social circles, etc.. all play a part in whether a person is going to be a repeat offender or not. When they're released, you can't prevent them from socialising with the same people or getting into the same situations. A person has to want to change, you can't force them to be different.