ChatterBank0 min ago
Dying For A Fag
More and more this country is becoming like that of the third world.
Life is so cheap you can get murdered for a cigarette.
This is the 2nd death over a cigarette recently in London.
https:/
https:/
Glad I gave up. If the Fags don't kill you someone else will.
Life is so cheap you can get murdered for a cigarette.
This is the 2nd death over a cigarette recently in London.
https:/
https:/
Glad I gave up. If the Fags don't kill you someone else will.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by retrocop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Obviously you are free to take whatever you wish from my comment. I have looked it at a few more times since and I am struggling to see how I said what you suggest.
In one story, a man who asked unsuccessfully for a cigarette was punched, then kicked while on the ground, and died. That has nothing to do with anybody being murdered for a cigarette, unless you consider the person who asked for but was refused was somehow guilty of murdering himself, or that the killer was so frightened by a man accepting his refusal and waking away without a cigarette posed such an immediate threat that he had to be killed.
In the other story, somebody who was not present at the time of the incident relays hearsay information that a man might have been friends with his attacker, but said he did not know him, was then stabbed and died.
I sincerely hope that the police are able to get better evidence than that, and are able to secure a conviction. I do not believe that I have the right to kill somebody who asks me for a cigarette, or for my views on street crime, or for the time or anything else.
I have looked at a few news websites today but not seen any comment from a politician from any party to suggest that murder should be decriminalised for any reason. What I am not sure about is how restrictive our laws would have to be to prevent any possibility of crime, violent or otherwise. I hoped that could be construed from my comment, but I see now that I simply caused confusion.
For clarity, I do not defend people's right to kill others over a cigarette, although I am in rather favour of protecting our right to say no to those who ask for one. I also support the right of smokers to walk away from a refusal without being killed.
I apologise that my original comment was so confusing. If you want further explanation, please feel free to ask.
In one story, a man who asked unsuccessfully for a cigarette was punched, then kicked while on the ground, and died. That has nothing to do with anybody being murdered for a cigarette, unless you consider the person who asked for but was refused was somehow guilty of murdering himself, or that the killer was so frightened by a man accepting his refusal and waking away without a cigarette posed such an immediate threat that he had to be killed.
In the other story, somebody who was not present at the time of the incident relays hearsay information that a man might have been friends with his attacker, but said he did not know him, was then stabbed and died.
I sincerely hope that the police are able to get better evidence than that, and are able to secure a conviction. I do not believe that I have the right to kill somebody who asks me for a cigarette, or for my views on street crime, or for the time or anything else.
I have looked at a few news websites today but not seen any comment from a politician from any party to suggest that murder should be decriminalised for any reason. What I am not sure about is how restrictive our laws would have to be to prevent any possibility of crime, violent or otherwise. I hoped that could be construed from my comment, but I see now that I simply caused confusion.
For clarity, I do not defend people's right to kill others over a cigarette, although I am in rather favour of protecting our right to say no to those who ask for one. I also support the right of smokers to walk away from a refusal without being killed.
I apologise that my original comment was so confusing. If you want further explanation, please feel free to ask.
Obviously if people (assailants) hold life so cheaply as to kill someone who asks for a cigartte then they are,indeed, very dangerous people. If the judiciary are failing to sentence them for life or if there are too few cells to accommodate them for their crimes then I suggest the system is not working and perhaps,after all,a return to capitol punishment may focus the mind of any would be assassin.
goolob - // Obviously the answer is to make the sentence fit the crime so one day they will have to bring back hanging //
Actually, I think the answer is to educate children to have respect for themselves and each other. Do that, and the crime will stop, and there will be no need for the state to murder anyone.
Actually, I think the answer is to educate children to have respect for themselves and each other. Do that, and the crime will stop, and there will be no need for the state to murder anyone.
In the 1990's my uncle went over to visit my aunt in the UK, he was buying Christmas gifts, something to bring back to hers, he also bought himself a six pack of ale, on his way home he was tackled by a group in a derelict building, they wanted his cans, he was walking away but the guy called out something to him,he turned around after 'winning' his verbal argument but the guy he was having a run in with, flicked a blade a slit his throat - dying for a drink they were in that area, I hope the killer still suffers the DT's as we are now without a wonderful uncle, he was around our own age. he told the guy to go buy his own.
//Actually, I think the answer is to educate children to have respect for themselves and each other. Do that, and the crime will stop, and there will be no need for the state to murder anyone.//
There will be no need to execute anyone by the state if people realised they forfeit their own lives if they butcher others. It's called a deterrent. Nothing else is working and your answer, as always AH, is education. Too late. The murderers are past that stage. They left school sometime back (if some bothered to attend). Action is required now. We know education is failing many youngsters as can be seen by the other OP re teachers encouraging their pupils to abandon their studies to protest climate change in school hours.
What do you have to worry about? Are you likely to kill someone for a cigarette?
Any body who does shoudn't share my oxygen and should be executed as a deterrent pour les autres. That might be all the education required.
There will be no need to execute anyone by the state if people realised they forfeit their own lives if they butcher others. It's called a deterrent. Nothing else is working and your answer, as always AH, is education. Too late. The murderers are past that stage. They left school sometime back (if some bothered to attend). Action is required now. We know education is failing many youngsters as can be seen by the other OP re teachers encouraging their pupils to abandon their studies to protest climate change in school hours.
What do you have to worry about? Are you likely to kill someone for a cigarette?
Any body who does shoudn't share my oxygen and should be executed as a deterrent pour les autres. That might be all the education required.
Latest Posts
Masterchef - The Professionals
Film, Media & TV33 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles65 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles65 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles97 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles101 mins ago
