Remove this Banner Ad

Random things on your mind.. (cont..)

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

you could try that argument with an off duty copper, but as soon as the find out you knew his office you'd be toast.

and this guy did know who Rann was...

Bit here you could pretty easily prove a personal motivation.

The off duty police man is another one. Again it's a measure of degrees. Carl Williams ordering a hit on a detective while off duty has a world of difference from getting into a scrap with a few blokes who happen to be off duty cops at the local pub
 
Rann rooted his wife, he hit him with a rolled up magazine

Rann denied he knew who he was, he did know who he was.

He went to court, let out his version, and pleaded guilty.



Seems like a fair punishment to me.
 
Rann rooted his wife, he hit him with a rolled up magazine

One of these two is a crime, one isn't.

Don't get me wrong, I know which one I hold in lower regard, and it isn't the crime (assuming it did happen, which is still yet to be proved). But in the court of law you have to leave moral outrage out of it.
 
i hate child care centres..been working in one for a week & i want to die..I am soo sick! I don't think going to the game yesterday at Elizabeth and standing in the cold and wet for 3 hours helped..just made it 10 times worse :thumbsdown:
 
Disagree, there's a huge distinction in the nature of any crime by the motivation.

and in this case the motivation was unequivocally to assault someone known to you as a member of parliament.

that's the bit you're missing, whether he wanted to have a go at Rann in his capacity as a private citizen is subordinated to the fact that he knew he wasn't.

you want to talk motivation? well you can't unlearn facts, and you can't unlearn knowledge.
 
I keep coming back to the fact that Rann's job was utterly irrelevant in this case.

I don't see why certain professions should be afforded extra protection from the law when the law isnt restricting itself to protecting that profession in it's professional context
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Anyone else appreciating the irony in moving Adelaide Cup Day to March to avoid the rain?

Am not appreciating the idea of a wet Future though!
 
lol, i didnt know that, quite ironic
i also found it ironic that Brisbane vs Geelong got moved to Melbourne to bad weather on the gold coast, then it got canceled due to weather in Melbourne
 
lol, i didnt know that, quite ironic
i also found it ironic that Brisbane vs Geelong got moved to Melbourne to bad weather on the gold coast, then it got canceled due to weather in Melbourne

The Centrals v Eagles trial match got moved from Elizabeth to Thebarton last week for the same reason - ironically there was a light drizzle after the game Friday night and the rain didn't really hit Elizabeth until our game there!
 
If only you won lots of money to pick 2nd place instead of 1st..... i'd be a Rich Girl! 3times in a row.... so shattered!
I picked 4th today, 'Fairygem'. Put 20 on it, no winnings.:( I know absolutley nothing about horse raising so was a random bet and I lost haha. Happy that the rain held off most of the arvo though.:)
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I keep coming back to the fact that Rann's job was utterly irrelevant in this case.

no you choose to believe its irrelevant, and its not.

I don't see why certain professions should be afforded extra protection from the law when the law isnt restricting itself to protecting that profession in it's professional context

ok, you don't see why.
 
Lost is such a shit show now, no idea what the hell is going on this season. Used to be awesome, now it's just shit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top