Soft sentencing from our courts....not any more!

[Bobman]

Life should mean life. No parole.

If someone chooses to take someone else's life in such a manner, why should they ever be released?

This comes after a man who killed his toddler will be released soon after only serving 20 years. What a joke!

[fiery]

Well done to the judge, bout time the law and sentencing was followed instead of taking the soft line

The one thing that irritates me no end is how some of you can judge the parents without knowing the 'full story'.
I have known plenty of good kids turn bad for whatever reason (getting in with the wrong crowd, using drugs which unfortunately is very easily bought on the streets or unfortunately at schools).

Majority of parents have tried their best but our system really lets them down. Our kids get told by schools, television etc (society) that they can not be disciplined harshly (by this I do not mean beating the living daylights out of them either).

How many of you saying it must be the parents faults (not just in this particular thread either) have raised kids from ages 10 to 20 in the NOW city / suburban areas? It is a really tough job and from raising my first son to my second son times are different, what worked to keep one safe and decent doesn't always work on the next child.
Have any of you had a problem child that you have asked help with because you are at your wits end and don't know what to do? I can tell you the help just isn't really available and the worst part is kids are told that when they are 14 (almost 15) they can leave home and get money from Centrelink.

I wish you ALL all the best in raising kids (in particular boys) and hope you never have to face a Police Officer because your once great child is now not behaving the way they should be. Kids sneak out or just walk out of the home and do whatever they want because Parents can not force them to stay at home and you can not get Police to help you to bring them home...

In saying all the above I honestly don't know the background of these boys but I certainly would not judge any parent unless I did know and they were truly of the types that couldn't be bothered trying to care for their kids.

[Trek]

Every action should have an appropriate consequence, but unfortunately this is not practised often enough in the legal system.

Fair is fair and at the end of the day, the kid would have been quite aware that there's adverse effects to his decision making. Except I'd also guess he was quite apathetic about this prior to the following actions.

Now to have this resonate with others who would be likely to follow a similar path would be ideal.

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

absolutely, speechless.

Well you managed two mediocre words.

I forgot, on AFF everything is black and white...odd when looking through blue glasses.

Im not saying they dont deserve it, but there are much bigger problems here than whether a kid gets 10, 20 or 30 years in jail. All these sentences are handed out and what actually changes? Really, the size of our prisons....

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Their parents wouldnt care less im guessing... lack of real parenting these days is an issue which just appears to get worse and worse.

I also doubt the 14yr old was following orders... There has been several rape cases in the past few yrs (one here in Townsville) where 13 and 14yrs males have commited this crime.

Sorry but at the age of 14 i never had the urge to rape someone, or bash them even with afence post... even while plastered!

This to me is key, and one of the better posts about sensitive issues of late.

Where the heck are the parents? Or someone...I know you cant watch kids 24/7 but if some kind of punishment or charge started coming onto the parents how many out there might start paying a bit more attention.

Perhaps it might be that a certain part of society just doesn't care, but there must be a target on responsibility otherwise nothing will change and things like this will get worse.

[Professor Farnsworth]

Originally Posted by Polyal

Well you managed two mediocre words.

I forgot, on AFF everything is black and white...odd when looking through blue glasses.

Im not saying they dont deserve it, but there are much bigger problems here than whether a kid gets 10, 20 or 30 years in jail. All these sentences are handed out and what actually changes? Really, the size of our prisons....

no, i managed a lot more than that, then retracted it as i couldn't be bothered any more.

Your comment is absolutely absurd. To feel pity that the attacker's life is over is beyond belief and perplexing, in light of what has been inflicted upon the victim. Then to say words to the effect of "don't you remember when you were 17?" just makes your post even more ludicrous. When i was 17, i was in TAFE studying for my future, hanging out with friends, drooling over cars and girls and respecting other people around me. Unsure what you were doing, but after your comment, i'm not sure i want to know.

[Polyal]

Your right, everything is so straight forward. I did mention what I was up to at that age, and I cant fathom how something like that happens, but it does and I dont pretend to understand why.

But again, sentence the people all you like, but if history is anything to go buy locking him up until he dies wont change alot.

[Professor Farnsworth]

Originally Posted by Polyal

Your right, everything is so straight forward. I did mention what I was up to at that age, and I cant fathom how something like that happens, but it does and I dont pretend to understand why.

But again, sentence the people all you like, but if history is anything to go buy locking him up until he dies wont change alot.

Seems straight forward to me:

Kids get high and drunk
Kids pick out random innocent passer-by
Kids beat passer by to death for no reason
Kids go to jail

which part isn't straight forward? What would you like done in the same circumstance. If you were Judge, what would you do? Honestly, what would be your choice?

[Dave_Obsession]

Perhaps it's not the kid that the sentence is aimed at influencing.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, one of the purposes of a sentence is to act as a deterrent. Generally speaking, you would think that the harsher the sentence = the greater the deterrent.

Of course there will always be those who will never be deterred from doing the wrong thing, no matter how harsh a sentence may be. That's just society.

[BA GT-HO]

I think the kid got off lightly.

I would build a coliseum Roman style and hold 'games' with lions and such on weekends, free entry for the victims family.

Judges are way too soft thesedays because of the bleeding heart brigade! Put yourself in the position of the victims family, how angry would you be?

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

Seems straight forward to me:

Kids get high and drunk
Kids pick out random innocent passer-by
Kids beat passer by to death for no reason Theres a lot left out here in regard to reasons.
Kids go to jail

which part isn't straight forward? What would you like done in the same circumstance. If you were Judge, what would you do? Honestly, what would be your choice?

I dont think Poly is saying the kid should be let out, or that the poor kid is simply misunderstood.

It appears he is saying there is more to this than simply punishing this kid. Punishing this kid wont stop the next one. If youre genuinely concerned for the poor bugger who was dreadfully beaten to death, then how about some concern for the next one before they are beaten to death?

The red section above, is in regard to how some kids get to a place where instead of drooling over cars and girls while attending TAFE, is often because of parents.

Ill reiterate as it seems to be necessary around here at times, Im not saying the kid is misunderstood, hes a ***** who should be locked up for good IMO, but it does nothing to stop it from happening again.

How can people hold the idea that this sentence is the answer, when at the same time talk about how speeding fines dont stop people speeding or keep the roads safer? Does a penalty work or not?

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by fmc351

I dont think Poly is saying the kid should be let out, or that the poor kid is simply misunderstood.

It appears he is saying there is more to this than simply punishing this kid. Punishing this kid wont stop the next one. If youre genuinely concerned for the poor bugger who was dreadfully beaten to death, then how about some concern for the next one before they are beaten to death?

The red section above, is in regard to how some kids get to a place where instead of drooling over cars and girls while attending TAFE, is often because of parents.

Ill reiterate as it seems to be necessary around here at times, Im not saying the kid is misunderstood, hes a ***** who should be locked up for good IMO, but it does nothing to stop it from happening again.

How can people hold the idea that this sentence is the answer, when at the same time talk about how speeding fines dont stop people speeding or keep the roads safer? Does a penalty work or not?

Praise the lord ..your post saved me some time.

The kid is messed up no doubt, but in general we are made up of our surroundings, be that geographical, family etc. Also our laws state that under the age of 18 we are not legally fully responsible for our actions...so if we live by that law why is it that the parents/guardians that let things get out of control over a long period of time get off scott free?

This situation might have happened in a blink of an eye, but it was a result of a much longer break down in society. To simply say that "thats how society is" is just letting it continue. Thats my point.

[Professor Farnsworth]

Originally Posted by fmc351

How can people hold the idea that this sentence is the answer, when at the same time talk about how speeding fines dont stop people speeding or keep the roads safer? Does a penalty work or not?

How is a speeding fine anything like someone being put in prison for life?

[pottery beige]

cry for the poor child..... this little creep is no little angel... three cheers and many sore bums to him....

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

Seems straight forward to me:

Kids get high and drunk
Kids pick out random innocent passer-by
Kids beat passer by to death for no reason
Kids go to jail

which part isn't straight forward? What would you like done in the same circumstance. If you were Judge, what would you do? Honestly, what would be your choice?

Kid is born to single, usually single, usually abused, sometimes rapped teenage mother
Kid is raised early on probably by a mother with a dependency of some sort relying on welfare
Kid is less than likely enrolled in school and even if he is he probably wont receive the support needed to attend regularly.
Kid without direction and support follows well travelled path and begins experimenting with drugs/alcohol usually funded by petty crime
Kid becomes homeless heads to Brisbane
Kid fathers 2 children despite only being a kid himself. (I wonder what sort of life these children will have) Social services are unable/under resourced to help so kid and his kids probably return to streets.

Kids get high and drunk
Kids pick out random innocent passer-by
Kids beat passer by to death for no reason
Kids go to jail

More than likely, this 17 year old has gone from living on the streets to having a roof, a bed and three square meals a day. Something I doubt he has ever had.


Everyone loves talking tough, but why don't you put your money where your mouth is and head on down to Musgrave Park after dark and make an informed decision.

It doesn't exonerate these 2 boys, or lessen the load of the family who have lost a loved one. But there were a lot of crimes that were left unpunished that could have prevented this kid on the streets and saved a life.

[ThaFlash]

sadly i know someone that killed another person with an iron pipe, he was 15 at the time as was I. The victim was a 30 year old.

this guy i know can still use a bullet in the head some 20 odd year later.

they aint required on planet earth!

[ThaFlash]

he only got 2 years on a farm too

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

How is a speeding fine anything like someone being put in prison for life?

Its a penalty, that is said to act as a deterrent. Note, deterrent. We are not talking about the punitive value of the sentence, merely the deterrent value. Theres a difference, and its none too bloody subtle.

We had a death penalty, there were no murders. Wait, that didnt happen. We had a death penalty and there were still murders. You can up the ante all you like, you wont stop the senseless killing of innocent people that way, history clearly demonstrates that point. None of this is to say we shouldnt be punishing sick b4stards with very long sentences, or even for the term of their natural lives. We should be, that is the punitive portion of sentencing.

How, does that stop the next poor b4stard from being beaten to death? This is the deterrent value of a sentence. A week or so ago, several people were shot on the GC, at least one for no reason whatsoever as far as we can tell.

I cant see what you find so hard to grasp. HE IS NOT SAYING DONT PUNISH. He is saying we need to look further in reference to deterrent values. That is, hailing this one judge as the savior is sticking your head in the sand. Good on him, but its not the answer to the problems of society, it simply deals with one sick twisted kid. No different if it was an adult. There is far more to prevention than that.

Or is that too complex for you?

[leighm]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Hmm you obviously dont see the "white" trash that i do.... considering that we are a majority here in this country, they (young white kids) cause the majority of problems.

Aboriginals are 2% of the population in NSW and make up 29% of the prison population. That is a statistic I heard on 2GB this week in referral to try and tackle the problem. There is a large social problem with aboriginals more so than us invaders.

Good on the judge on the sentence in this case....it is about time more emphasis was put on the victim than the hard life the defendant might have had. Murder has no excuse and in general, you could be pretty confident the majority of Australian society want to see this level of no tolerance.

People are asking how to stop all of this stuff from happening in the first place....how do you honestly stop scum from breeding and producing more scum? We have DOCS in NSW to look after children, we have services for homeless people (albeit not too great from what I hear) but none the less if you want to get off the street you can with some effort if you make enough noise. Do we want government so far into our lives that we need to check in and pass their tests to make sure we don't end up like these scumbags? I don't.

There will always be people whom fall through the cracks of the system, and some poor people suffer at their hands. Locking these kids up will stop them killing someone else, but won't stop the next one waiting to explode or the ones in the making now.

[Professor Farnsworth]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Its a penalty, that is said to act as a deterrent. Note, deterrent. We are not talking about the punitive value of the sentence, merely the deterrent value. Theres a difference, and its none too bloody subtle.

We had a death penalty, there were no murders. Wait, that didnt happen. We had a death penalty and there were still murders. You can up the ante all you like, you wont stop the senseless killing of innocent people that way, history clearly demonstrates that point. None of this is to say we shouldnt be punishing sick b4stards with very long sentences, or even for the term of their natural lives. We should be, that is the punitive portion of sentencing.

How, does that stop the next poor b4stard from being beaten to death? This is the deterrent value of a sentence. A week or so ago, several people were shot on the GC, at least one for no reason whatsoever as far as we can tell.

I cant see what you find so hard to grasp. HE IS NOT SAYING DONT PUNISH. He is saying we need to look further in reference to deterrent values. That is, hailing this one judge as the savior is sticking your head in the sand. Good on him, but its not the answer to the problems of society, it simply deals with one sick twisted kid. No different if it was an adult. There is far more to prevention than that.

Or is that too complex for you?

You, my Northern friend are the one who is not grasping the conversation, so lose the attitude sport. Since you're having so much difficulty and mixing it with out of place attitude and attempted sarcasm, i'll break it down for you. A speeding fine is issued to an individual as a deterrent to that particular person. Not many people who receive one will go around the neighbourhood banging on about how they got a fine and how no one should do it, as the $200 odd fine is such a huge deterrant that they'll never do it again. It is up to the individual to decide whether they are going to continue exceeding the speed limit. Speeding fines may be publically pushed in the vein of being a deterrent to the rest of us, but they aren't. The reason why people say they're not a deterrant is because when received, they're paid, forgotten, and so trivial in amount and penalty that the 'crime' continues. Murder however, or possibly manslaughter, (i haven't read up on the entire case) is generally punished by far harsher sentences, which will obviously result in the defendant being put in prison for an extended period of time, like this case. Of course this won't stop the same crime occurring again, it never will, it however stops the convicted from doing it again (for a while). THIS is what i and others have been talking about, not the fact that humanity will continue to break down further in the future.

In other words, a deterrent to the person committing the crime, not others, who will continue to do it anyway. I've never been talking about others, i said the case was simple FOR THIS INDIVIDUAL. Deterrents are never going to stop crime. When capital punishment was in force, people still murdered others amazingly, and some paid the price. A speeding fine lightens your bank balance, and allows you in most cases to continue driving and having the potential to do it again. A life sentence, although not literal most of the time, prevents the crime for at least some years.

DETERRENTS DO NOT WORK, ALL THAT CAN BE DONE IS TO TRY TO PREVENT OFFENDERS FROM DOING IT AGAIN. So until cops have pre-emptive vision like Minority Report, all that can be done is to dish relevant punishment to crime.

Comprehend?

[ThaFlash]

also being sentenced to jail does not mean jail in a prison behind bars. jail be many diferrent things.

the guy i know that did what he did in my earlier post, to him it's a badge of honour, that's the mentality of some people.

[ST]

Originally Posted by fmc351

How can people hold the idea that this sentence is the answer, when at the same time talk about how speeding fines dont stop people speeding or keep the roads safer? Does a penalty work or not?

If the sentence was life in prison it would indeed be the answer. All everyone else is saying is that the longer this 'kid' is kept away from society, the better.

There is no miraculous psychological cure for people like this (also they don't need a bad background/family life to be what they are and do what they do).

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

Of course this won't stop the same crime occurring again, it never will, it however stops the convicted from doing it again (for a while). THIS is what i and others have been talking about, ...

No, you responded to a comment by polyal. Its in the posts, you can go look for yourself. His post had a specific meaning which you misrepresented. Polyal said nothing about the sentence being too harsh. Think about what youre claiming, in light of that underlined sentence. He said there are ADDITIONAL issues to concern ourselves with. Additional, added too, not in place of. We can have harsh sentences AND proper early prevention. See, that saves lives, not all, but some. See, the kid that is yet uncaught, yet to go on his rampage is still out there, the little kid yet to be created as a ticking timbbomb, is yet to be do anything wrong. These are the ones Poly is addressing. And the obvious innocent lives of the victims yet to be.

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

In other words, a deterrent to the person committing the crime, not others, who will continue to do it anyway. I've never been talking about others, i said the case was simple FOR THIS INDIVIDUAL. Deterrents are never going to stop crime. When capital punishment was in force, people still murdered others amazingly, and some paid the price. A speeding fine lightens your bank balance, and allows you in most cases to continue driving and having the potential to do it again. A life sentence, although not literal most of the time, prevents the crime for at least some years.

Youre making no sense at all. Deterrent cant possibly apply in reference to the offender, that event has passed. You cant deter something that has already occurred, that is just stupid unless you have a time machine. For it to be any kind of deterrent it must clearly be aimed at others yet to follow.

The words youre looking for are punishment, and prevention of that one individual repeating it. PREVENTION, not deterrent. You may want to consult a dictionary. This is where the point needs to be remembered, no-one is saying the sentence was too harsh.

Again, we can address the issues that give rise to some of these little monsters, before they act. Thus saving more lives than simply sentencing the current offender. Still, we do sentence the current one, just as they have, or harsher. See, youre asking for less, poly is asking for more to be done

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

DETERRENTS DO NOT WORK, ALL THAT CAN BE DONE IS TO TRY TO PREVENT OFFENDERS FROM DOING IT AGAIN. So until cops have pre-emptive vision like Minority Report, all that can be done is to dish relevant punishment to crime.

Excellent. Now finish the thought. Poly is talking about saving the next poor bugger to meet a similar fate. By society trying to address the multitude of earlier crimes that 'irlewy' highlighted. No need for some fantasy view based off a movie. We do have skills and resources to use, maybe we need more. Just a thought.

Read back. You responded to a particular post. That post is the sub topic. Poly did not say the sentence was too harsh, which is the premise of your diatribe. He said there was more to look at. Its is unfortunate you are unable to see beyond your own little interpretation, a misinterpretation at that.

Repeat, you based your posts off the concept a poster said the penalty was too harsh and its ruined a young mans life. There is another interpretation of his words, and youve missed it.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by leighm

Aboriginals are 2% of the population in NSW and make up 29% of the prison population. That is a statistic I heard on 2GB this week in referral to try and tackle the problem. There is a large social problem with aboriginals more so than us invaders.

Good on the judge on the sentence in this case....it is about time more emphasis was put on the victim than the hard life the defendant might have had. Murder has no excuse and in general, you could be pretty confident the majority of Australian society want to see this level of no tolerance.

The numbers given by 2GB are only half the information needed to draw any conclusion. One number not included is the likelihood of an Aboriginal offender to be jailed for an offence that a white person would get a good behavior bond or suspended sentence for. Some of those numbers may simply be because they are Aboriginal. Stats need to be used properly.

I grew up in Melbournes west, Sunshine, there were bugger all Aboriginals there, but plenty of crime I can tell you. Underbelly mentioned a couple of people I knew, not mates, just knew them.

Ive lived in Cairns too, saw plenty of alcohol abuse, some of it with Aboriginals, but not all, nor was it the largest part. The hideaway, the Playpen, full of white drunks, some having a good time, others looking for trouble. I now live on the Sunshine Coast, Ive known a few aboriginals here, most were decent people. One teacher at my sons school, one tutor at the local uni, and a couple of kids from my sons school and the local skate park. Ive never seen them doing anything wrong, nothing other kids werent doing anyway. They were just normal teenagers. And yes, I spent a lot of time at that and other skate parks with my son.

Ive also seen the problems associated with alcohol and Aboriginals, and it is disturbing to say the least. Ive seen the same stuff from whites, or other immigrant backgrounds too, and it is equally disturbing.


Its the Lebs ...no wait
Its the Aboriginals ...no wait
Its the ....all of them except the whites.


Nah mate, its all of them including the whites. Its not colour, its attitude, and all peoples have their fair share of it.

Originally Posted by ST

If the sentence was life in prison it would indeed be the answer. All everyone else is saying is that the longer this 'kid' is kept away from society, the better.

There is no miraculous psychological cure for people like this (also they don't need a bad background/family life to be what they are and do what they do).

Yeah, but no-one is arguing against that. Im also well aware that good parents can end up with awful kids. Ive seen plenty of both sides, read the above part of this post. Ive seen wild people, worse than most.

While there isnt a silver bullet, there are things we can do. unfortunately, the narrow mindedness results in people branding everything social, as being nanny state or do gooder. While theres plenty of that, its not all like that. Arguments like why should we be paying this money for these kids etc, when what youre really paying for, is the victims life you save. Pity very few can look at a problem from the other perspective.

Much like this thread has headed.

[Professor Farnsworth]

Originally Posted by fmc351

The words youre looking for are punishment, and prevention of that one individual repeating it. PREVENTION, not deterrent. You may want to consult a dictionary.

de·ter
1. to discourage or restrain from acting or proceeding: The large dog deterred trespassers.
2. to prevent;

a deterrent to RE-OFFEND, thus the LIFE SENTENCE, not a deterrent to commit crime in the first place. Polyal said the young offender's life had finished, THAT was the premise.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Repeat, you based your posts off the concept a poster said the penalty was too harsh and its ruined a young mans life. There is another interpretation of his words, and youve missed it.

Amen to that, because you're on a completely different train. I believe in heavy punishment for violent crime, you, from your wildly inaccurate and arrogant posts, seem to believe in pre emptive aprehension of would be criminals, or 'healing the world' in order to prevent any crime at all. Well, good luck with the mind melds.

[ST]

There is a line than can be crossed when it comes to alternative penalties and when a 14 year old kid willingly bashes a man (unprovoked) to death with a fence pailing it pretty well crosses it.

If a life sentence is not the answer then what is?

[Dave_Obsession]

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

I believe in heavy punishment for violent crime

+1,000,000,000

Sick of all this softly-softly approach on criminals, violent or not. I'm sick of seeing all the crap that goes on....especially in Melbourne, the CBD has become a far more dangerous place to go on a Saturday night etc.....which is why I don't go anymore.

Lock all the morons up, keep society for the normal people...it may take a generation for the message to get through, but if that's what it takes to make our country a better place for our children, then let's do it.

And furthermore, bring back capital punishment - but that argument is surely for another thread....one day.

EDIT - Also have compulsory national service for 3 months / 6 months for ALL school leavers - regardless if you finish year 12 or not - as soon as you leave school, into the service you go. Learn some respect and discipline.

[SILENT_RAPTOR]

He deserves the chair no if's or but's, he killed another person with such anger and violence that he doesn't deserve to live.

He is scum and nothing but... people like him dont deserve second chances, how many people does he have to kill before being put down?.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

de·ter
1. to discourage or restrain from acting or proceeding: The large dog deterred trespassers.
2. to prevent;

a deterrent to RE-OFFEND, thus the LIFE SENTENCE, not a deterrent to commit crime in the first place. Polyal said the young offender's life had finished, THAT was the premise.

Prevention is the appropriate word. Context is key. This is a past act, he is being prevented by his removal from society. If I hog tie you with a rope, you are not deterred from moving, you are prevented from moving. If instead of tying you, I hang a car over your head, set to fall if you move, you are deterred, you still have the option to move. He has no option to act in society. He can act on his tendencies in jail, where deterrents do exist, additional sentences, solitary, whatever. Context.

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

Amen to that, because you're on a completely different train. I believe in heavy punishment for violent crime, you, from your wildly inaccurate and arrogant posts, seem to believe in pre emptive aprehension of would be criminals, or 'healing the world' in order to prevent any crime at all. Well, good luck with the mind melds.

Again. You comprehend abysmally.

No I believe in a system that allows intervening forces to try and correct the actions of kids in danger of becoming delinquents.

one could argue,
- military school
- national service
- removal from the current home and adoption or foster care.
- more active schools with options that might keep the kid there and wanting to be there, thus not the problem for other kids.
That is if home life is the problem. They are just a few examples.

If its simply the kid, and not the fault of the home, then harsher penalties for the offences that start the path. Funny how you missed that.


You seem to spend too much time watching Orwellian nonsense.


NOTE: Im not saying the above is the answer. Its just one possibility to look at, it is merely an example.

[fmc351]

Do you people even read? Yes its all caps, it seems it needs to be.



NO-ONE, I REPEAT, NO-ONE IS SAYING THE KID SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH LIGHTER.

THEY ARE SAYING THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES TO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL TO SENTENCING.

NOT IN PLACE OF, ADDITIONAL TOO.

IT DOES NOT MEAN LET HIM OUT, OR SENTENCE HIM TO A LIGHTER SENTENCE.

HANG HIM IF YOU LIKE. I HAVE NOT READ ONE PERSON ARGUE THAT HE WAS TREATED UNFAIRLY.


YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT IF THAT IS WHAT YOURE READING.

[SILENT_RAPTOR]

i wasn't debating with anyone i was simply stating that if you want to take a life you must lose your own.