JT> "Yesterday a taxi was badly damaged in a car-jacking
JT> attempt, the driver escaped without injury, but one
JT> of the offenders was run over." I think fucking not.

RS> Sure, but clearly a boong being used as a speed hump would have
RS> made the news. The reason it didnt wasnt because the media chose
RS> not to run it, it was because they never found out about it.

JT> And even if they did, I think they would change and twist it
JT> around like they usually do to make it look like something else.

Dunno, I've never been into conspiracy theorys myself.
They certainly do manage to comprehensively mangle what
did happen into something else quite a bit of the time tho.

JT> If everyone knows that the taxi driver got away, after possibly
JT> killing a boong, they would start chasing him down to question him.

Sure, and obviously thats news, interviewing him like that.

JT> What weapon did the boongs have?  A half-brick? That is not a
JT> weapon, therefor the taxi driver automatically becomes the guilty.

RS> Unfortunately thats more the current state of the law than the media.
RS> The law is just plain fucked on that sort of thing. The short story
RS> is that you aint supposed to end up with a dead boong in that case.

JT> Possibly dead boong or possibly dead taxi driver, it was his choice. 

Come on John, you dont know that the taxi driver was gunna end up dead.

I doubt it actually happened at all in fact. Smells like an urban myth.

JT> And he chose to leave.

Sure. And the law currently doesnt allow you to just drive over people
in the process of doing that. I'm not saying that that makes sense.

RS> I think the law should be changed so that the only thing that
RS> matters is if they were actually attempting an assault etc.

JT> Wrong planet Rod,

Crap, there are places on THIS planet where that *IS* the law John.

JT> here in reality, intending to relieve someone of their
JT> property without their consent LEADS to assault.  If that
JT> were not the case, then the robbery would never occur.

You've mangled what I was talking about, I was actually just talking
about EITHER assault or robbery or robbery USING assault etc.

RS> If they end up dead that just too bad. Ditto inside your
RS> own house too, if a burglar ends up dead or seriously injured,
RS> stiff shit for him, if he doesnt like that risk, he's always
RS> got the choice not to do the burglary in the first place.

JT> Nice, except it will never happen.

Now try explaining how it HAS happened in some countrys John.

JT> The law won't change to have an exception to the rule on who gets killed.

We can change it to anything we like John.

JT> They say that no-one should get killed for any reason.

Thats complete crap too. The CURRENT law says that if you have
reasonable fear for your life, you are entitled to kill the assailant
if there is no other reasonable course of action available to you.

And there is considerable latitude on reasonable fear too. If the
assailant turns out to have a fake gun, its still reasonable to assume
that its real, you dont have to wait for bullets to come out of it.

JT> There have been many cases where the thief sues the innocent just
JT> because the innocent have tried to stop the thief in the first place.

Oh crap, you have mangled that utterly. What HAS happened is that the crim
has sued when EXCESSIVE force has been used. An ENTIRELY different matter.

And I'm talking about changing the law so that if the say burglar
you find in your home gets badly injured, thats just too bad for
the burglar. We can change the law to that any time we like.

JT> Even a friend who was a security guard, was told during training,
JT> if they EVER take out their firearm for ANY reason, it will be
JT> to shoot to kill, not maim or scare, but shoot to kill.

Pity thats just the usual utterly mindless bullshit you often see in that
particular situation. Bears absolutely no resemblance to the law whatsoever.

Its actually just an approach which removes the possibility of the
crim being able to make his claims about what actually happened and is
totally and irretrievably outside the law. Tho proving that is obviously
gunna be hard with just a dead crim. If there happens to be a credible
witness tho, or say video footage, that security guard is fucked.

JT> They were also told the reason for this
JT> is the thief in question can't sue afterwards.

Says absolutely nothing useful whatever about the LAW John, thats
just eliminating the person so they cant sue. Bit hard to do that
when dead and even their relos have a problem without his evidence.
If they do have a decent witness tho, the security guard is fucked.

JT> There has been some real blunders, but as far as I can see, most
JT> of the time, the guilty party gets off lightly, no real incentive
JT> to not do the crime again.  Crime does pay, and bloody well too.

RS> True, but thats almost entirely the current state of the law, not the media

JT> The media doesn't help the situation BTW.

Its not THERE to 'help the situation' John.
@EOT:

---