peacefuljeffrey 0 #1 August 28, 2004 Marine's bereaved father won't be charged for vehicular arson Okay, the guy's son was killed in military service. I have compassion and sympathy for that. But in stories I've read, the military spokespeople said that this kind of violent reaction is unheard of. This is not a lashing-out with fists, a flailing and flopping around in unimaginable grief. This is a deliberate act of walking in one direction, picking up tanks of flammable liquid, walking in another direction, pouring the flammable liquid, and deliberately setting it on fire on and in a vehicle. So now, out of sympathy and compassion for this man over the loss of his son, the man will not be charged for what are CLEARLY criminal acts. While it may seem hard-hearted of me, I DO NOT AGREE with the policy decision of not charging him for arson. He put people in danger, whether they claim he was trying to hurt others or not. He damaged government property; I wonder if the decision to not charge him means they also won't seek compensation from him for the total loss of the van. Just imagine if "compassion" becomes the measure by which we determine what offenses are chargeable. And just imagine if other relatives of other K.I.A. soldiers start using this as their excuse to also get violent. After all, a precedent has been set here: "We cut slack to those whose relatives have been killed in war, even for criminal acts." Why charge a woman who kills her husband after he beats her? -- and I mean kills him at a point when he is not a present threat to her, like a day or two after a fight. I mean, we can sympathize with her position, her pain, her feelings of hopelessness, right? What about people who show up at an airport to check on the status of relatives they fear lost in a crash? What if one of them drove an SUV into the wing of a 737 upon learning that their relative had been killed on a place that wasn't maintained properly? How far do we take this touchy-feely bullshit where it impacts on enforcement of the LAW?! --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base283 0 #2 August 28, 2004 Applying peaceful logic i came to this. Okay, the administration´s van was killed in military service. I have compassion and sympathy for that. But in stories I've read, the spokespeople said that this kind of violent reaction is unheard of. This is not a lashing-out with diplomacy, a flailing and flopping around in unimaginable desire for oil. This is a deliberate act of deceiving the public in one direction, propagandizing , walking in another direction, pouring the propaganda, and deliberately setting it on fire on and in a venue to control the world´s 2nd largest known oil reservoir. So now, out of sympathy and compassion for this administration over the loss of their van, the administration will not be charged for what are CLEARLY criminal acts. While it may seem hard-hearted of me, I DO NOT AGREE with the policy decision of not charging administration for manslaughter. They put people in danger, whether they claim they were looking for WMD or that Saddam was trying to hurt others or not. the administration damaged the family; I wonder if the decision to not charge the administration means they also won't seek compensation from them for the total loss of the son. Just imagine if "deception" becomes the measure by which we determine what offenses are chargeable. And just imagine if other supporters of other deceptive politicians start using this as their excuse to deceive. After all, a precedent has been set here: "We cut slack to those politicians whose supporters have been deceived, even for criminal acts." Why not charge a government who sends their citizens to mortal danger after they deceive them? -- and I mean continues to send them at a point when there is not a present threat, like a year or two after the deceivement. I mean, we can sympathize with the administration´s deception, their greed, their feelings of profitability, right? What about the administrations who show up at a country to check on the status of profitability they fear lost in a crash? What if one of them drove propganda into the heart of the people upon learning that their potential profitability had been killed on a place that wasn't maintained properly? How far do we take this touchy-feely bullshit where it impacts on enforcement of the PEOPLE?! Take care and thanks for setting the frame work for getting my opinion across. I´m only funnin´, don´t take it seriously space Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
