1 in 5 women get raped?

So you are into vigilante justice are you?

No trial needed...................

Odd for a man who was crying that I was being unfair to men convinced by two juries of murders and having something in the range of twenty years of appeals on top of that by not thinking that more delays was call for.

I thought you were all for blaming the weak and stupid, he was a known nonce and he was stupid enough to threaten to rape someone's sister. Surely it was his own fault.

Why waste police time and money in ruining those young men's lives when they're clearly no risk to normal people?

How is it any different from stand your ground?

Stand your ground is for self defense from violent attack.

It was self defence, he threatened to rape the guy's sister. He won't be raping anyone now.

Let me get this straight, if a woman has a drink and then gets raped, it's all her fault, but if a convicted paedophile threatens to rape someone's sister, he bears no responsibility for his own demise?

You've certainly made it clear where your priorities lie.

Don't you think raping children is more serious than stealing cigars?

Yes. The chicks r safer now,
but I was under the impression that the sister was not around
at the time of the threat; i.e., it was not an imminent emergency,
just empty talk, tho insulting & offensive.

IF the sister were present, then the danger woud be more acute.

Thay r both very serious felonies.
It was not only "stealing" cigars; it was violent robbery.
Cigars can be non-violently stolen, but not in this case.

If pressed, then I 'd have to admit that I deem rape to be more serious.

I have posted of an interview of Barbara Walters with the actor
called: "Mr. T", who told of his mother complaining to him
of having been mugged by one of their nabors. He said that
he got his brothers and: "u won 't see him no more, because
he put his hands on my mother." I admired him for that.





David

A verbal threat that there is no danger of happening at once no matter how evil does not called for murder at the most beating the man up but the far wiser thing to do instead is to called the police.

When some crazy woman got into my face on a parking lot and threaten to killed me in fact following me home and killed me short of her pulling a deadly weapon out I had no right to shoot her dead and would had rightfully been try for murder have I done so.

If I had killed the crazy woman on the parking lot her own actions surely would bear some responsibility for her own death but that would still not had impacted my murder charge or my legal punishment for doing so.

Try to restate that so it has some semblance of meaning.

Is BillRM capable of that?

You really have got a problem with women. I don't want to think about what you must have done to provoke such an outburst.

Triumph of hope over experience.

Seem clear to me even in Florida you do not have a right to killed someone unless your life or someone else life is in reasonable and immediate danger or to stop a ongoing repeat ongoing forcible felony such as rape or car jacking.

A threat to rape someone in the future even a child does not raised to that requirement nor does some crazy woman getting into my face and threatening to killed me short of her having some means to do so.

Once more if I had killed the crazy woman on the parking lot she would bear some of the responsibility for her own death but I still would have ended up in prison for likely the full remainder of my life span.

And a woman who has had a drink doesn't deserve to get raped.

I tap her rear car bumper with a shopping cart on the Home deposit parking lot and there was no damage or harm done to her car by the tap.

She was a nut case.

You rail against the law when paedophiles are sentenced. When paedophiles are murdered you suddenly think the law is a good thing. The same when it lets people get off with racist killing, and executing people without examining evidence, then it's a good thing.

Is there a pattern?

Once more I have no problem with anyone who directly harm a child getting any sentence up to life in prison and I have no problem with the kind of sentencing being given to those with CP in your nation.

I do think it is riddle to have such sentence as 27 years for having CP alone and that opinion is once more share by the majority of the sitting Federal Judges in the US.



I think that anyone of any color have a right to defend his or her life no matter what the color of his or her attackers happen to be. People like you are the racists for stating that a mixed race Latin male with black family members in his family tree have no right to defend his life if he is attacked by a black teenager.

An he got off because a jury hear the evidence and agree with me that it was a valid act of self defense not some racist motive killing.



We are talking about a case that been in the US court system of twenty plus years where there had not been one jury but two juries who convicted the men in question.

Playing games where it is all too likely that the families of the victims and even the murderers themselves are all too likely to die of old age before the murderers are executed is a miscarriage of justice.