Quote:
Originally posted by Zathras
It is revenge, revenge because you have been targeted and wish to teach this person a lesson. I don't wish to go into a semantics argument here, but revenge is a perfectly adequate word for that sort of behaviour. 'Teaching someone a lesson' for the action they are taking against you isn't taking revenge?
I've also shown the areas in which Tony Martin could be expected to show reasonable remorse, first for actually killing someone rather than incapacitating them and second for leaving them there to bleed to death instead of reporting the incident. There's no justification for that, other than the justification of a sick minded person. If you support these actions then you're supporting capital punishment for non-aggrievated theft, pure and simple. The justice system works more than adequately. It's not perfect but then again nothing is. As a citizen of the UK you agree to abide by it. This includes the right to make reasonable attempt to apprehend someone committing a crime, plus reasonable force in self defence. If this isn't enough for you and you feel the need to cave someone's head in, you desperately need anger therapy. God forbid anyone making you angry, through illegal act or legal. Don't like it? There's always the option of emigrating.
Knox: when is it 'allowed' to be angry? Why does the feeling of anger give legitimacy to acts of violence against someone, after all that's what we're discussing here, the 'paying someone a lesson' because of anger at what they have done. The 'man in a dress' you so quickly denigrate would happen to be an expert in legal matters and would have ample training of situations, plus expert counsel who will have spent many years on the issues of situations of burglaries and fear and anger, something you don't have, period.
I'm not even gonna discuss the tony martin side of things now, shooting the guy in the back was wrong. i'm now gonna take this personally as i found your post pretty patronising