3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

It was just reported that he has been annoying her for two years , it didnt go into detail , apart from on-line abuse from him to them

 I believe it said he has been “flirting” with her for 2 years. 

Does that constitute “previous encounters”

Edited October 5, 20187 yr by Kadilo

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Read the link to the story I sent you earlier, where it shows he has been charged.

Or just read the quote below.

"Pol Capt Wasan Tangtham charged him with attempted murder and weapons offences. 

Police opposed bail at a first appearance in court on the grounds that the incident was serious, the defendant might flee and could be involved in witness tampering." 

Yes, once again, that is what he has been charged with and the Court will decide whether its lawful or not .

   Of course you will face legal action for shooting someone .

If the Court decides that it was self defence , that will show that you can indeed lawfully  shoot someone .

   You claimed that it was "against the law to shoot an unarmed person" , it isnt against the law .

  Yes, you will get arrested and go to Court and THEY will decide whether you acted lawfully or not

20 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

 

Shooting an unarmed man IS against the law.

After reading your other posts , it seems that what you mean to say is *Shooting an unarmed person is an arrestable offence * and therefore he will face charges .

    Is that what you meant ?

 

8 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Yes, once again, that is what he has been charged with and the Court will decide whether its lawful or not .

   Of course you will face legal action for shooting someone .

If the Court decides that it was self defence , that will show that you can indeed lawfully  shoot someone .

   You claimed that it was "against the law to shoot an unarmed person" , it isnt against the law .

  Yes, you will get arrested and go to Court and THEY will decide whether you acted lawfully or not

Good we agree you can’t shoot an unarmed man.

 

You will face charges. 

 

Fairly easy ones to decide upon. 

2 minutes ago, sanemax said:

After reading your other posts , it seems that what you mean to say is *Shooting an unarmed person is an arrestable offence * and therefore he will face charges .

    Is that what you meant ?

 

No. 

 

I said charges should be easy to decide upon. 

 

You can’t just shoot an unarmed man. 

U-then should have done a U-turn

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

No. 

I said charges should be easy to decide upon.

You can’t just shoot an unarmed man. 

In the post that I quoted above , you quite clearly stated that its against the law , and in reply to that you now just say cannot "shoot an unarmed man" completely disregarding the "against the law" bit .

   I am getting confused now .

You dont seem to be able to tell the difference between "against the law" and "facing charges"

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

No. 

 

I said charges should be easy to decide upon. 

 

 

I'm fairly sure there will be plenty of mitigating circumstances if it's true that the harassment has been going on for 2 years, or if the young guy has a history of violence.

9 minutes ago, sanemax said:

In the post that I quoted above , you quite clearly stated that its against the law , and in reply to that you now just say cannot "shoot an unarmed man" completely disregarding the "against the law" bit .

   I am getting confused now .

You dont seem to be able to tell the difference between "against the law" and "facing charges"

The charges made (which should have been easy to decide upon) show you can’t just shoot an unarmed petson. 

 

Your “confusion” is of your own making, not mine. 

Edited October 5, 20187 yr by Bluespunk

7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I'm fairly sure there will be plenty of mitigating circumstances if it's true that the harassment has been going on for 2 years, or if the young guy has a history of violence.

Doesn’t change the fact charges should have been easy to decide upon. 

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

The charges made (which should have been easy to decide upon) show you can’t just shoot an unarmed petson. 

Yes, but if the goes to Court and gets a not guilty verdict , that will show that you can indeed shoot an unarmed person

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The charges made (which should have been easy to decide upon) show you can’t just shoot an unarmed petson. 

Your “confusion” is of your own making, not mine. 

What exactly do you mean by "can't" (shoot an unarmed person )?

1 .Physically impossible to do ?

2 . You will get arrested and face charges in Court ?

3 . Its illegal and you will go to jail ?

 

   (BTW , number 2 is the answer)

5 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Yes, but if the goes to Court and gets a not guilty verdict , that will show that you can indeed shoot an unarmed person

What happens in court due to evidence, circumstances or whatever has nothing to do with my point. 

 

As the charges prove, you can’t just shoot an unarmed person. 

2 minutes ago, sanemax said:

What exactly do you mean by "can't" (shoot an unarmed person )?

1 .Physically impossible to do ?

2 . You will get arrested and face charges in Court ?

3 . Its illegal and you will go to jail ?

 

   (BTW , number 2 is the answer)

You shoot an unarmed person, you face charges. 

 

The reason being you can’t just shoot an unarmed person. 

Edited October 5, 20187 yr by Bluespunk

Just now, Bluespunk said:

What happens in court due to evidence, circumstances or whatever has nothing to do with my point. 

 

As the charges prove, you can’t just shoot an unarmed person. 

Two contradicting sentences there above .

If there is evidance provided in Court to show that the man acted in self defence , that would mean that your second sentance isnt correct

2 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Two contradicting sentences there above .

If there is evidance provided in Court to show that the man acted in self defence , that would mean that your second sentance isnt correct

You remind me of my ex wife ????

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Two contradicting sentences there above .

If there is evidance provided in Court to show that the man acted in self defence , that would mean that your second sentance isnt correct

No contradiction. 

1 minute ago, Kadilo said:

You remind me of my ex wife ????

And if I was your Wife , I am jolly well pleased that I would now be your "ex" ????

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

No contradiction. 

If he goes to Court and gets a not guilty verdict .

Would that mean that you can or cannot shoot an unarmed person ?

If you feel that the answer is "cannot"

Explain why you feel that way .

Just now, sanemax said:

And if I was your Wife , I am jolly well pleased that I would now be your "ex" ????

Ditto old bean. You would be well suited. I’ll introduce you. ????

 

4 minutes ago, sanemax said:

If he goes to Court and gets a not guilty verdict .

Would that mean that you can or cannot shoot an unarmed person ?

If you feel that the answer is "cannot"

Explain why you feel that way .

You’re just repeating yourself now. 

 

I’ve  answered this. 

 

No intention of explaining myself to you again. 

Edited October 5, 20187 yr by Bluespunk

Just now, Bluespunk said:

You’re just repeating yourself now. 

I’ve  answered this. 

No intention of explaining myself to you 

You havent answered that and I am not repeating myself .

It is a straightforward question and you cannot answer and you are avoiding the question by stating that youve already answered it .

You cannot answer the question  "Why cant he shoot an unarmed man " ?

He can physically do it and if its proven in Court that he acted lawfully , then, why cant he do it ?

21 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Two contradicting sentences there above .

If there is evidance provided in Court to show that the man acted in self defence , that would mean that your second sentance isnt correct

.. Moreover, the facts prove that one can indeed shoot an unarmed man.

12 minutes ago, sanemax said:

You havent answered that and I am not repeating myself .

It is a straightforward question and you cannot answer and you are avoiding the question by stating that youve already answered it .

You cannot answer the question  "Why cant he shoot an unarmed man " ?

He can physically do it and if its proven in Court that he acted lawfully , then, why cant he do it ?

My point has been clear. 

 

He shot an unarmed person. 

 

This means charges should have been easy to decide. 

 

As the attempted murder charge shows, you can’t just shoot an unarmed person. 

 

I’m not avoiding anything. 

 

Its quite simple really. 

 

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

My point has been clear. 

He shot an unarmed person. 

This means charges should have been easy to decide. 

As the attempted murder charge shows, you can’t just shoot an unarmed person. 

I’m not avoiding anything. 

Its quite simple really. 

 

OK, so you cannot shoot an unarmed man without facing charges .

    I agree with that .

But , you can legally shoot an unarmed man in self defence , then face charges, go to Court and get a not guilty verdict .

  So, you can indeed shoot an unarmed man (although you will face charges)

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

OK, so you cannot shoot an unarmed man without facing charges .

    I agree with that .

But , you can legally shoot an unarmed man in self defence , then face charges, go to Court and get a not guilty verdict .

  So, you can indeed shoot an unarmed man (although you will face charges)

I’m not interested in discussing the court’s decision making process. 

 

That’s not what this story or thread is about. 

 

The fact the man has been charged shows you can’t just shoot an unarmed person. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I’m not interested in discussing the court’s decision making process. 

 

That’s not what this story or thread is about. 

 

The fact the man has been charged shows you can’t just shoot an unarmed person. 

 

 

Yes, and the fact that the old man has shot an unarmed person show that one can be charged for that

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I’m not interested in discussing the court’s decision making process. 

That’s not what this story or thread is about. 

The fact the man has been charged shows you can’t just shoot an unarmed person. 

The Courts decision is the all-important factor here.

If they give a not guilty verdict

That will show that you can indeed shoot an unarmed person

(although you will face charges prior to that)

Just now, mauGR1 said:

Yes, and the fact that the old man has shot an unarmed person show that one can be charged for that

2 minutes ago, sanemax said:

The Courts decision is the all-important factor here.

If they give a not guilty verdict

That will show that you can indeed shoot an unarmed person

(although you will face charges prior to that)

I won’t bother repeating my point to you, you know it.

 

I haven’t talked about the court’s decision making process. 

 

If you wish to discuss it, find someone else to talk to.