It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Damla
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy
i didnt say 'in this thread'. i said 'here'.
I missed this, sorry.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: burdman30ott6
Curious factoid but I support ignorance of the law rules as they stand.
If you break the basic rules of society then you must be a prick.
Pricks get beaten up in my community and I'm happy with it.
I live in the USA, pricks get defended while the good, hard working and law abiding get victimized... either by the pricks or, if the good people defend themselves, by the system. This is a nation with an infestation of self entitled vermin.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy
The trouble with law, is that what is legal is not always right, and what is right is not always legal.
For example, it is illegal in some places in the United States, to feed homeless people, and if you insist on continuing to do so while the cops are standing there, they can haul you off to jail over it, then put you before a judge in the morning. That is simply wrong, on every level, but its the law. An example around the other way, is that it is apparently perfectly legal in the UK, for a controlling man who knows his victim is mentally unstable, to trigger her altered state and push her into a pub full of people she cares about, like a primed grenade, so that SHE looks like a villain when she is rampaging around the place, breaking stuff and striking out. But doing that is not only wrong, but makes one of the victims look and feel like the guilty one.
The law also treats practically all violence as equal. If you are attacked and defend yourself, you may be charged with affray or something similar. If you are attacked with lethal force and not in your own home, defending yourself once again, and you kill your attacker, you are considered a murderer, not a survivor. This also is wrong, regardless of the law. The law SHOULD reflect that not all violence is the same, that violence forced on a person by the unreasonableness of another person IS different to wanton, chaotic violence absent a genuine and legitimate initiator. But it does not.
The law is a pitifully blurred series of lines, established by people who wrote them for the sake of ambiguity to aid the powerful and wilfully evil, and with stringency only where the only people likely to encounter that law are powerless but decent.
This is why most people develop codes of practice which are superior to the law, in order that they do not end up violating the law, either because they do not wish to attract attention from the authorities, or because they feel they MUST keep a higher standard, if only because the bar set by what is legal, is so hideously low.