On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 02:01:21 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik
wrote:

Peter Kemp wrote in
:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:47:07 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Nice of you folks to protect violent burglars like that (look at the
wonderful followups of what the "victimized" burglar has done since).

Which one - the one without *any* violent convictions who is
mouldering in his grave after being murdered? Or the other one (and I
can't recall any violent convicitons for him either) whose is
admittedly a miserable git?

Why are you so concerned about criminals shot while committing a crime,and
not for the poor guy who suffered repeated burglaries?

Two reasons, because in the UK burglarly doesn't carry a death penalty
without trial, especially when there was no risk to life or limb, and
I have not a huge amount of sympathy for someone who shot a teenager
in the back using an illegal weapon he obtained for that express
purpose. I have sympathy for his previous burglaries, but consider
that human life is somewhat more valuable than property. I suspect we
disagree.

What does "violent convictions" have to do with it?

Chad was referring to "violent criminals"

Shooting the crims was a public service.

Nice to see you approve of the death sentance for petty criminals.
What next, drive-by shootings for speeding?

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster