Once again, you're entitled to your perspective, reflection and expectation.
No, there's no defence against people willing to die. The best probable (not certain) defence is to change their minds.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
mata say paikia darren ng death due to gang related, not staring incident
- Thread starter BusNo64
- Start date
Once again, you're entitled to your perspective, reflection and expectation.
No, there's no defence against people willing to die. The best probable (not certain) defence is to change their minds.
If this is really a gang related killing and not a staring incident, you may feel less sympathy for the victim.
But there's no reason to feel less outrage at the killers. And the severity of their punishment should not be lower, in fact, it should probably be higher.
But there's no reason to feel less outrage at the killers. And the severity of their punishment should not be lower, in fact, it should probably be higher.
Mr Ramseth, for the 3rd time you are avoiding a very simple question. I have no idea why you are avoiding it. You are an intelligent chap and surely you understand the question.
IN YOUR OPINION, IS OUR POLICE AND OTHER RELATED AGENCIES COMPETENT TO HANDLE A REAL TERRORIST ATTACK GIVEN THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE PROBLEMS WITH KIDS AT DTE?
I acknowledge the socio-political factors involved etc. I too acknowledge that there is no defence against people willing to die etc - all your answers to my question.
Trust me, should you 'siam' the question again, I won't be asking you in future. But it is very strange, given your expertise and being an ex-AIO as you claimed, you avoided this straightforward question.
Avoid what? Can't you read the simple and unambiguous N O, no. The rest is just a summary of why I believe it's a no. You can skip it if you're interested in yes or no without reasoning. For your benefit, just in case you're confused again, my answer has been and still is...
No.
Bro, relax lah. I am an old man having eyesight problem. Strange, this is the first time I read a NO as your answer. Finally, I got an answer from you. Whatever your answer, I am just curious. And the more you "siam" the more curious I got. Cheers.
Don't worry about it. Saying no when it has to be a no is not a problem for me. However, this is not cross examination in court and I'm not a witness on the dock. This is a forum. We discuss. Trying to corner people into being on the defensive for the sake of defending indefensible causes doesn't work on me. Cheers.
Don't worry about it. Saying no when it has to be a no is not a problem for me. However, this is not cross examination in court and I'm not a witness on the dock. This is a forum. We discuss. Trying to corner people into being on the defensive for the sake of defending indefensible causes doesn't work on me. Cheers.
Mr Ramseth, I am not a lawyer lah. How to cross examine you? Neither was it my intention to corner you. I was merely soliciting your learned views, period. You should take it as a compliment. Cheers.
Compliment accepted. Thanks.
Don't worry about it. Saying no when it has to be a no is not a problem for me. However, this is not cross examination in court and I'm not a witness on the dock. This is a forum. We discuss. Trying to corner people into being on the defensive for the sake of defending indefensible causes doesn't work on me. Cheers.
hi there
1. ram, bingo!
2. five thumbs up.
Similar threads
