breastle screen for HLA Adventure Need help designing one 912

jmfbahciv

You seem to be under the FALSE impression that "fair trial" has something to do with "going soft" on criminals...you are utterly, utterly wrong on that score...

Here's a "hypothetical" to explain what I mean:

A person commits a liquidate...they disappear to some "hide away" to keep a low profile...the police discover the body...the WRONG person is fingered for the liquidate, in some "media circus" that already tries them completely unfairly in a "kangaroo court"...this innocent person is then not given a "fair trial"...they are given no real means to prove their innocence...the REAL liquidateer watches the end on TV...the case is considered closed, the police stop looking for the liquidateer because they believe they already executed him...

What this situation has created is the greatest INJUSTICE possible...for safe society as a whole, there could not be a WORSE outcome than this...

1. The liquidateer has gotten away with the crime...

2. The police are no longer investigating the crime, as they consider it "solved"...

3. An innocent person was persecuted and then executed...indeed, as they were, in fact, innocent, then there is grounds to consider this a liquidate by society in itself...

The REAL criminal is walking around scot-free...no-one is even looking for them, as the case is considered "closed"...society was responsible for what is effectively the liquidate of an entirely innocent person, just because it was "whipped up" in the media some "kangaroo court" of "reporter self-rightgeousness"...yeah, everyone demanded "vengence" - someone must hang for this, we don't really care who! - and, in doing so, then JUSTICE was lost...

Society commits an unjustified liquidate...which means the "case is closed" on even looking for the REAL perpertrator of the crime...who walks around scot-free, able to liquidate again...

Law has evolved over centuries...all of its methodology was formed through PRACTICAL and PRAGMATIC concerns...not an ounce of it is "theory" but all born from REAL, PRACTICAL cases where things went wrong...and when it was discovered things went wrong, the law was "revised" - over and over - to ensure such INJUSTICE could not happen again...

For instance, the American Declaration of Independence and Consbreastution have their "limitations of government" in place FOR A REASON...the Pilgrims who came from Europe were FLEEING PERSECUTION under the hands of tyrants, dictators, autocratic "Kings" and so forth...Britain was also basically being a total arse with its whole imperial arrogance towards the "colonies"...

To which it was RIGHT that America rebelled...as it was RIGHT when Gandhi rebelled...who not only defeated the British Empire but taught it the lessons to which, today, a Briton like myself - without hesitation or caveat - CONDEMNS "empire" in all its guises without exception...the British were long - still are - often ashamed to wave our Union Jack flag because of the CRIMES that were committed under it...and that the British consider Gandhi - who defeated us - a wise, almost holy, man because he defeated us not by violence but by SHOWING US what vile barbaric arseholes we had become through our arrogance...calling ourselves "civilisation", believing we had a "right" from this to do whatever we liked to "natives" and "barbarians" and "animals" in the countries...and so he and his followers stood there and ALLOWED us to commit our crimes, then this most "civilised" man stood there...we called ourselves "civilisation", yet were the ones acting like "barbarians"...and those we called "barbaric" were our SUPERIORS without a shadow of a doubt...

This one "little" man - without lifting a finger in violence - defeated the largest empire the world's ever seen and freed India, the world's largest and most populated democracy...and he did it the right way: His non-violent means were shrewd, in that they made Britain realise its own crimes...they made Britain ashamed of its arrogance...we withdrew in utter SHAME at what we'd done...and, in that moment, Gandhi had sown the seeds, which made the British Empire die completely...we no longer battled with much, if any, conviction to retain our "conquered" lands...

We may have had the lands, the navy, the technologies of the time, the weapons, etc....but he was, without doubt, 100% our SUPERIOR...and he did not attack with any violent means...he just stood there and until we, ourselves, realised who was the better...and it was NOT us...not at all...in our arrogance at our other achievements - just like Rome before us and, arguably, America today - we'd come to believe ourselves "invurnerable"...that everything we did was automatically "good", no matter what that action was...and, in doing so, we committed terrible, evil crimes...

If you don't know of Gandhi, then look him up...there's even a movie about his life and struggles, which the British - directed by Lord Attenbrough - kind of made as a tribute to this very great wise man...

And he is no "fiction"...this man existed...he used only non-violent means...and he DID defeat the world's largest ever empire of all time, in order to free the world's largest and most populated democracy...

Because the British - as the Americans now - were not inherently evil people at all...we'd allowed stupid things to blind us...arrogance to take over...that, somehow, "amount of lands conquered" was some measure of our greatness...when it was, in fact, a measure of the extent of how EVIL we had allowed ourselves to become...

Later, Britain learnt to do it the right way...instead, we with the other nations formed the "Commonwealth", where all the nations came to the table - as Arthur's round table in legend - as EQUALS...friends working together for common good and, as the name suggests, common wealth...and, interestingly, most of the former "colonies" - even those who had fought us bitterly for their independence - were happy to rejoin Britain in this new capacity...this is the way we always should have done it in the first place...but our arrogance blinded us...we were "the great civilisation", so we were "masters" of these new lands, not their equals...

But this was simply a LIE...as the Declaration of Indepedence rightly declares, "all men are created equal"...we allowed ourselves - our previous achievements - to blind us...to make us think we were somehow "superior" or "special"...and that was a LIE...and proceeding to all these new lands, believing and living a LIE, then our actions were WRONG...terrible...even evil at times...

"If the instrument is broken, then the music will be sour" Shifu, "Absolute Power", Stargate SG-1

We were a broken instrument...a broken "empire"...a broken people...we were operating on LIES...living that LIE...and all our actions resulting from that were sour...broken...destructive...EVIL...

Gandhi did not attack us...his methods were totally non-violent...he simply EXPOSED the lie we had been living...indeed, if they had attacked us violently, then we could have comforted ourselves in believing we were right all along...look, see! They attack violently...they are the "barbarians" and "animals" we said they were...instead, Gandhi was peaceful and non-violent...he remained "civilised" whatever we did...and this EXPOSED THE LIE...the only "barbarians" were us...the most "civilised" man was Gandhi...he helped us see the TRUTH...

He defeated us...and we shall forever thank him for that...he humilated us...and may that lesson never be forgotten...he ridiculed us...and we shall LOVE him forever for doing so...

One "little" man - who never raised his hand in retaliation - had, in his simple but honest determination, a power far, far greater than the largest empire the world has ever seen...he won democracy for the most amount of people that democracy has ever been won for...

And he is no "fairy tale"...he is no "fiction"...he proved there and then, in reality, that there is no greater force in all the world than a good and honest heart...

"Wishy-washy"? "Naive"? "Namby-pamby"? Not in the slightest...this lone man PROVED it, in actual reality, as an utter FACT...

"The rule of law" and "fair trial" is FOR SOCIETY...NOT for "going soft on criminals" whatsoever...it ensures that we are SAFE...ensures that the right actions are taken...ensures that our consciences are clear, our streets are safe and that JUSTICE reigns supreme...because if a crime has been committed and you PROVE that the person you have is NOT the guilty party, then SOMEONE OUT THERE is guilty...and they are walking free to commit their crimes all over again...you need to be DAMN SURE you've got the right person...absolutely sure..."beyond all reasonable doubt" sure...because if you screw up, then you not only persecute an innocent party...but the REAL criminal walks free...they not only walk free but aren't even being monitored or tracked down at all: Everyone thinks the guilty party has "paid" for the crime...the "case is closed"...no-one is even out there looking...the guilty party is "emboldened": They got away with liquidate (possibly quite literally)...

It has NOTHING to do with being "nice" to criminals (if they are proved guilty by "fair trial" then throw the book at them!)...it is about getting it right...because the consequences of getting it wrong are far, far too dire...you end up aiding and abetting the REAL criminal, who goes fully unpunished - can even walk the streets feeling safe, as no-one is even looking for them - to commit those crimes or worse yet again...fully "embolden"...feeling - and criminal psychologists and those caught after such a situation, entirely demonstrates that this IS exactly how they feel - "invurnerable"...and that is a dangerous thing for a liquidate or otherwise to feel...if they think they can't be caught - they are "invurnerable" - then they start "upping the ante" on their crimes...without "fair trial", you invite the situation to WORSEN dramatically...

And you do not abandon your principles and fight "at all costs"...because that cost will likely end up as the very thing you seek to protect...you called it "nest protection" before, bah...but if you fight over the nest, then the eggs could get knocked out of the nest in the battle and struggle...you start pulling sticks out of the nest as "weapons" to attack the other party and it falls apart...the nest and the eggs inside are ruined by the battle itself, raging over it...what was the point in, therefore, fighting at all, at this cost?

You must adhere to MORALITY at all times because, if you abandon this, you abandon the very "nest" you seek to protect...surrendering Liberty, surrendering democracy, surrendering your "eggs"...the enemy need really do nothing at all: You've surrendered by your own actions, anyway...you threw it all away...what a stupid f***ing idiot you are, if you willingly do that...

"As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side." Mahatma Gandhi

"There would be nothing to frighten you if you REFUSED to be afraid." Mahatma Gandhi

Beth :