If you burn down a building in a built up and populated area you put people's lives at risk. Nobody has the right to that risk, to maim, or murder whether it's people in the building you own, fire fighters, people in adjacent buildings, or the whole street if there's a gas explosion.
I find your self-righteous tantrum with no concept of the consequences exceedingly worrying.
I can't believe you just said anything quite so idiotic.
It's the deliberate burning of a building which counts as arson. Making an insurance claim is not arson, it's fraud if done under false pretences.
Plainly you bypassed any thoughts of the expenditure involved in putting the fire out/clearing/rebuilding, but more astoundingly, you did not include the potential risk of causing harm, or death to any number of people in, or near the building.
I went to school in England not all that long after the war ended and I had a German mother.
As far as some adults were concerned I was a Jewish imposter in a Catholic school and some of my peers assumed I was the most diminutive member of the SS. It was all very confusing because I didn't know I was Jewish, nor did I realise I was a member of the SS.
I thought I was Jac.
It gave me one helluva insight into prejudice and how it attempts to strip one of one's identity.
I thought people were unhinged at times, it was distressing often, it was hilarious in retrospect and I'm grateful for having that experience. I learned, my word I learned.
I felt an urge to be cynical at first about financial gain being the goal of advertising, but on reflection, this is a damned clever bandwagon to jump on.
If you are online you appear near the top of search lists.
The longer you are off line, the further back your profile goes. People are less likely to look at profiles which have been inactive for a while. They have no idea whether you are coming back to CS, whether you have met someone, whatever.
I think your profile is more likely to be prominent in all sorts of places if you are logged in regularly, or are a regular contributor to the various facilities.
Don't expect people to search you out from obscure places and hang around waiting to see if you'll reply to a mail. It's not going to happen.
You can cancel your profile and reactivate it, cancel your profile and create a new one, or you can 'hide' and 'unhide' your profile.
I suspect you're noticing the people who 'hide' their profiles when they are offline.
If you hide your profile when offline no one can send you mail, so for most people it's a way of avoiding coming back to loads of scammer mail every time they log in.
Some people may be hiding a less than honest profile, some may be worried about their account being hacked, some people may be concerned about being discovered on a dating site. There may be as many reasons as there are people, but I think it's mostly about the scammer mail.
"Now I'm thinking about my children. The same thing could happen to them. A person could have that much power over your life and without being hold accountable for it. I can throw the evidence away and still try to kill you whether you did it, or not without no consequences. That's scary. That should be scary to everybody in the whole world." John Thompson
If prosecutors in the US withhold evidence that they are legally obliged to hand over to the defence, even if that evidence proves the defendant can not have possibly committed the crime, there is no recourse for for the defendant of the wrongful conviction and no consequence for the prosecutors.
If someone is executed under these circumstances it is in effect a premeditated murder. The prosecution knowingly files for the death penalty of a person they know is innocent.
There is no mention of any rehabilitation this man had, so you cannot make a judgement about whether rehabilitation failed in this case.
A life sentence without parole would have prevented the second murder, so you have no case to claim that execution was the only way to prevent the second murder.
All that this news story tells you is that this man was released while he was still a risk. This is the issue which should be examined in this case. This is point at which you ask the questions.
In a country like the US there is a seriously flawed judicial system where the frequency of innocent people getting convicted is alarming.
Innocence is not constitutionally relevant in the appellate courts: if there is evidence of innocence it cannot be considered unless it is demonstrated that there was a technical flaw in the original trial. Technical flaws can be circumvented by lawyers stating they made professional judgements about tactics, rather than admitting incompetency.
If you're going to have the ultimate punishment, you need to have a flawless judicial system. Given that some people are convicted due to incompetent investigation and handling of evidence, or even tampering thereof, you will likely never establish a flawless system.
What you're saying is that you're concerned that 1n in 25 victims aren't condoled by having an innocent and unconnected person executed because their ability to heal hinges on someone else dying, regardless of who they are.
You could have pretended not to have found them for a couple of pages just as a kind gesture.
Have you lost anything else we could help you out with? We do a good line in trying to find humanity, or sanity round here. We can keep that game going for ages.
jac_the_gripper Forum Posts (5,363)
RE: Amsterdam: Businessman Returns From Vacation to Find His Property Occupied by 40 Asylum Seekers
I have no idea what you asked yourself.