FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Being human.
Being human.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *r-Unique OP Man
over a year ago
Carmarthenshire |
Sometimes our impulse reactions are beyond control and sometimes we regret our reaction to things. However my question is: If death hasn't been occurred. Should we get punished for it. Whether it's by law or just company policy? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Some are not human but animals . Some are a law onto themselves .
Explain what would you consider to be human then that could be considered extreme if done enough times? "
For some no law nothing will stop them . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sometimes our impulse reactions are beyond control and sometimes we regret our reaction to things. However my question is: If death hasn't been occurred. Should we get punished for it. Whether it's by law or just company policy? "
do you define death in quantitative terms, i.e. lack of perceived years they should have had, or should have had full function during
or
qualitative terms, i.e. permanent mental or emotional trauma which causes problems, like ptsd issues or a lifetime battle with eating disorders etc.
frankly, anyone's answer to your question will hinge on what they see as death. a person can be technically alive, yet not posess an actual life. life support, catatonia, etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *r-Unique OP Man
over a year ago
Carmarthenshire |
"Sometimes our impulse reactions are beyond control and sometimes we regret our reaction to things. However my question is: If death hasn't been occurred. Should we get punished for it. Whether it's by law or just company policy?
do you define death in quantitative terms, i.e. lack of perceived years they should have had, or should have had full function during
or
qualitative terms, i.e. permanent mental or emotional trauma which causes problems, like ptsd issues or a lifetime battle with eating disorders etc.
frankly, anyone's answer to your question will hinge on what they see as death. a person can be technically alive, yet not posess an actual life. life support, catatonia, etc. "
Death basically means buried/cremated, etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *r-Unique OP Man
over a year ago
Carmarthenshire |
"Law is the law and yes .... we cant take it into our own hands even the ones who think they can .... has to be rules in life or we would be animals ."
Into our own hands normally means being calm about it all. Planning ahead, etc. But I mean if you react to a situation on the spot and you could safely say anyone would have done the same. Even though later on, a while down the line you only regretted it as now you're in trouble either from the law or because they have lowered you to their standards. Should you be punished then? Hard to explain without saying full story, which I don't want to do  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Your question would be better if it was more specific.
Mostly I would think yes
Mostly? So in what cases are things considered to be ok? "
Well if you stole my Mars bar... Shit happens.
I'm not saying that breaking any law is OK, but compared to what some people do... Some minor petty things can be overlooked |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *r-Unique OP Man
over a year ago
Carmarthenshire |
"Your question would be better if it was more specific.
Mostly I would think yes
Mostly? So in what cases are things considered to be ok?
Well if you stole my Mars bar... Shit happens.
I'm not saying that breaking any law is OK, but compared to what some people do... Some minor petty things can be overlooked "
"Petty" example here for you.
You work all day serving customers. You literally can't stand rudeness/people people impolite and Ill mannered/ignorant. You make a point saying that the next customer who does that. You wouldnt say anything bad to them or be nasty, etc. You'll just refuse to serve them. Should your boss punish you for that if you have put up with it for a while or maybe that customer does that a lot in your company? That's one of many examples.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"Your question would be better if it was more specific.
Mostly I would think yes
Mostly? So in what cases are things considered to be ok?
Well if you stole my Mars bar... Shit happens.
I'm not saying that breaking any law is OK, but compared to what some people do... Some minor petty things can be overlooked
"Petty" example here for you.
You work all day serving customers. You literally can't stand rudeness/people people impolite and Ill mannered/ignorant. You make a point saying that the next customer who does that. You wouldnt say anything bad to them or be nasty, etc. You'll just refuse to serve them. Should your boss punish you for that if you have put up with it for a while or maybe that customer does that a lot in your company? That's one of many examples.
"
The customers are not in cahoots. You decide to punish some because of the actions of others? Yes, your boss should punish you. You are in customer services and there to do a job. If someone is rude to you then you follow the procedures and deal with it not take it out on another customer.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"Your question would be better if it was more specific.
Mostly I would think yes
Mostly? So in what cases are things considered to be ok?
Well if you stole my Mars bar... Shit happens.
I'm not saying that breaking any law is OK, but compared to what some people do... Some minor petty things can be overlooked
"Petty" example here for you.
You work all day serving customers. You literally can't stand rudeness/people people impolite and Ill mannered/ignorant. You make a point saying that the next customer who does that. You wouldnt say anything bad to them or be nasty, etc. You'll just refuse to serve them. Should your boss punish you for that if you have put up with it for a while or maybe that customer does that a lot in your company? That's one of many examples.
The customers are not in cahoots. You decide to punish some because of the actions of others? Yes, your boss should punish you. You are in customer services and there to do a job. If someone is rude to you then you follow the procedures and deal with it not take it out on another customer.
"
At work, especially in a customer facing role, it is your job to handle things professionally. You don't get to throw your toys out of your pram and decide whom you'll serve and whom you won't.
If the person you have a problem with is bad enough to raise it through the correct process, do so. Otherwise suck it up. We all have crap to deal with. One incidence of something you consider to be ill-mannered or impolite is enough to refuse to do your job? What's to say it isn't your expectations that are amiss, or your interpretation that's wrong?
Yes, your boss should punish you in your example. If I were the boss I'd be wondering if a customer facing role was suitable for you and considering replacing you with someone less sensitive and more patient. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Your question would be better if it was more specific.
Mostly I would think yes
Mostly? So in what cases are things considered to be ok?
Well if you stole my Mars bar... Shit happens.
I'm not saying that breaking any law is OK, but compared to what some people do... Some minor petty things can be overlooked
"Petty" example here for you.
You work all day serving customers. You literally can't stand rudeness/people people impolite and Ill mannered/ignorant. You make a point saying that the next customer who does that. You wouldnt say anything bad to them or be nasty, etc. You'll just refuse to serve them. Should your boss punish you for that if you have put up with it for a while or maybe that customer does that a lot in your company? That's one of many examples.
The customers are not in cahoots. You decide to punish some because of the actions of others? Yes, your boss should punish you. You are in customer services and there to do a job. If someone is rude to you then you follow the procedures and deal with it not take it out on another customer.
At work, especially in a customer facing role, it is your job to handle things professionally. You don't get to throw your toys out of your pram and decide whom you'll serve and whom you won't.
If the person you have a problem with is bad enough to raise it through the correct process, do so. Otherwise suck it up. We all have crap to deal with. One incidence of something you consider to be ill-mannered or impolite is enough to refuse to do your job? What's to say it isn't your expectations that are amiss, or your interpretation that's wrong?
Yes, your boss should punish you in your example. If I were the boss I'd be wondering if a customer facing role was suitable for you and considering replacing you with someone less sensitive and more patient."
Yep, this. You choose to do a customer facing role. You are representing that company and your actions reflect on how that company is viewed by the public. You refusing to serve someone because you consider them to be rude gives that company a bad reputation.
People are rude at times and unless you do something in the 5 mins you see them to piss you off they are rarely rude because of something you have done. Maybe they have had a bad day, maybe they are distracted because they have had some bad news or have an appointment they are not looking forward to etc.
You choose to work at the place you do and therefore have to work within their policies and procedures. You would have signed to say you agreed to.do this as part of your contract. If you break one of the agreed policy or procedures then you should be disciplined accordingly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The example you gave isn't an impulse reaction though? If you decided not to serve the next person who pisses you off then that's not impulse.
I've worked with the public all my life up till I had my son in pubs, shops etc and I've served some people that I could happily of climbed across the counter and smacked round the face but I didn't.
However there was one guy who was always very rude and irritating and I asked a male colleague to serve him for me as he wasn't so bad with the male staff members. If I'd of been the only staff member available id of just had to serve him. I find the best way to deal with rude and arrogant customers Is to be waaaaaaay too polite, it confuses them! All the while with a huge fake smile on your face.
So yeah if you're in trouble with your boss then I understand why, and like others have said maybe if you find dealing with the inevitable wankers you get in customer service you might not be best suited to the job |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Law is the law and yes .... we cant take it into our own hands even the ones who think they can .... has to be rules in life or we would be animals .
Into our own hands normally means being calm about it all. Planning ahead, etc. But I mean if you react to a situation on the spot and you could safely say anyone would have done the same. Even though later on, a while down the line you only regretted it as now you're in trouble either from the law or because they have lowered you to their standards. Should you be punished then? Hard to explain without saying full story, which I don't want to do "
At times you have to rise above things in life be the better person and don't go down to others levels just to get a result . Doing this is hard i know at times. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
no you can't just choose to not do your job. i lived and worked in carmarthenshire myself for just over a decade, and can't think of a single employer who would not give a reprimand for that type of behaviour. if you're having that bad a day then yyou can ask your manager for someone to cover you for five minutes so you can compose yourself. most would do so.
there are also other factors that you cannot know which may contribute to what you perceived to be rudeness. persons with diabetes for instance can get quite rude at times when their blood sugar isn't right. not to mention that in being human yourself you may actually have become hyper sensitive to the attitudes of others after one or two and actually perceived an attitude of rudeness there wasn't one intended.
also, just because death didn't occur doesn't mean that damage or danger didn't occur. if law or company policy was broken then reprimand appropriate to the infraction should be applied. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *r-Unique OP Man
over a year ago
Carmarthenshire |
Reading the answers here on this thread. I find a bit pointless as a lot of people are answering questions to things I haven't even asked  . Then judging me for it. Even though that's not the problem I am on about . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Reading the answers here on this thread. I find a bit pointless as a lot of people are answering questions to things I haven't even asked . Then judging me for it. Even though that's not the problem I am on about ."
Problem is when you ask a very vague and hypothetical question it doesn't really give people much to go on.
Then you gave an example of what you meant which people then gave their opinions on. I don't really see what else people can do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Reading the answers here on this thread. I find a bit pointless as a lot of people are answering questions to things I haven't even asked . Then judging me for it. Even though that's not the problem I am on about ."
This is pointless then ... so why mail .  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *r-Unique OP Man
over a year ago
Carmarthenshire |
"Reading the answers here on this thread. I find a bit pointless as a lot of people are answering questions to things I haven't even asked . Then judging me for it. Even though that's not the problem I am on about .
Problem is when you ask a very vague and hypothetical question it doesn't really give people much to go on.
Then you gave an example of what you meant which people then gave their opinions on. I don't really see what else people can do. "
It was an example of what's acceptable when reacting on the spot to something that can raise anyone's negative feelings and if it was impulse and "natural" should we be punished for it. Like the example I used there was basically if one member of the public continually made the other colleague feel bad, by being personal/insulting, etc. So the colleague just refused to serve him/her on the spot and got someone else to serve them. Should they be punished?
Another example would be if you were in the company of your daughter and her partner and you saw him just acting really violent towards her for no reason at all and here wasn't even a build up to it. If she was badly hurt. (But nothing serious). Could you be blamed for being physically attacking him? Where does being human/sense come in and when should the law be enforced? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *r-Unique OP Man
over a year ago
Carmarthenshire |
"I couldn't read the whole thread due to the fact that the O.P didn't make sense but people were answering....
Ya gotta laff innit..."
Not really, shows some people try to skim things when reading and miss vital words out |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"Reading the answers here on this thread. I find a bit pointless as a lot of people are answering questions to things I haven't even asked . Then judging me for it. Even though that's not the problem I am on about ."
You haven't been clear about what you actually were asking so it's difficult to answer.
You start off talking about death and legal problems then give an example about no wanting to serve someone because you perceived them as being rude.
Surely you can see how vague that is and how difficult to answer? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"I couldn't read the whole thread due to the fact that the O.P didn't make sense but people were answering....
Ya gotta laff innit...
Not really, shows some people try to skim things when reading and miss vital words out "
I think the problem comes from words you have left out. Like explaining what on earth you are on about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
You also say about acting on impulse then give this...
You make a point saying that the next customer who does that. You wouldnt say anything bad to them or be nasty, etc. You'll just refuse to serve them....
As an example. That's not acting on impulse.
Sorry OP but your threads are often confusing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I couldn't read the whole thread due to the fact that the O.P didn't make sense but people were answering....
Ya gotta laff innit...
Not really, shows some people try to skim things when reading and miss vital words out "
It doesn't show that anyone skimmed in the reading.
In the writing of it definitely... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *r-Unique OP Man
over a year ago
Carmarthenshire |
"I couldn't read the whole thread due to the fact that the O.P didn't make sense but people were answering....
Ya gotta laff innit...
Not really, shows some people try to skim things when reading and miss vital words out
It doesn't show that anyone skimmed in the reading.
In the writing of it definitely... "
I have mentioned the word "example" several times in this thread. Yet people think this is what I am on about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *r-Unique OP Man
over a year ago
Carmarthenshire |
"Sorry OP but your threads are often confusing.
"
Can't be that confusing as I explained this once to a mate of mine earlier and he understood me first time around and he gave me advice on the situation. Whether it's right or wrong that's for me to decide. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"I couldn't read the whole thread due to the fact that the O.P didn't make sense but people were answering....
Ya gotta laff innit...
Not really, shows some people try to skim things when reading and miss vital words out
It doesn't show that anyone skimmed in the reading.
In the writing of it definitely...
I have mentioned the word "example" several times in this thread. Yet people think this is what I am on about. "
You haven't said what you are on about though so the example is all we have to respond to.
The bottom line is if you break rules, be they company rules or laws, you should expect to be punished. Whatever the rules are, whether you agree with them ir not and whether or not anyone died.
You don't get to take the law into your own hands. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sorry but the question does not make sense to me....
When should you be allowed to react on impulse on not be punished for it? (Don't get what's so hard about that )"
Fair enough ... If a woman walks buck naked into your living room. Locks the door. Shoves the key up her foof and leans over to suck you off If you are SINGLE you are allowed to respond on impulse. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I couldn't read the whole thread due to the fact that the O.P didn't make sense but people were answering....
Ya gotta laff innit...
Not really, shows some people try to skim things when reading and miss vital words out
It doesn't show that anyone skimmed in the reading.
In the writing of it definitely...
I have mentioned the word "example" several times in this thread. Yet people think this is what I am on about.
You haven't said what you are on about though so the example is all we have to respond to.
The bottom line is if you break rules, be they company rules or laws, you should expect to be punished. Whatever the rules are, whether you agree with them ir not and whether or not anyone died.
You don't get to take the law into your own hands."
Bloody hell VV you got there in the end xx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"Sorry but the question does not make sense to me....
When should you be allowed to react on impulse on not be punished for it? (Don't get what's so hard about that )"
Pretty much never. If you harm someone then you are accountable.
Even in self defence you are only permitted to use reasonable force to prevent injury to yourself. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *riendly foeWoman
over a year ago
In a crisp poke on the A814 |
"Sorry but the question does not make sense to me....
When should you be allowed to react on impulse on not be punished for it? (Don't get what's so hard about that )"
When its NOT illegal or against company policy!!
Whats so hard to understand there!
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sorry OP but your threads are often confusing.
Can't be that confusing as I explained this once to a mate of mine earlier and he understood me first time around and he gave me advice on the situation. Whether it's right or wrong that's for me to decide. "
Well I'm guessing then as he's a mate that he understands you better than we do.
Yes you said about acting on impulse then the example you gave wasn't acting on impulse it was a conscientious decision to not serve the next person who was rude. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"Sorry OP but your threads are often confusing.
Can't be that confusing as I explained this once to a mate of mine earlier and he understood me first time around and he gave me advice on the situation. Whether it's right or wrong that's for me to decide. "
As usual it's us that's wrong and couldn't possibly be that you are being vague and confusing.
Nothing is ever your fault is it, OP?
Even in breaking rules it was acting on impulse so not actually your fault. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *r-Unique OP Man
over a year ago
Carmarthenshire |
"Sorry OP but your threads are often confusing.
Can't be that confusing as I explained this once to a mate of mine earlier and he understood me first time around and he gave me advice on the situation. Whether it's right or wrong that's for me to decide.
Well I'm guessing then as he's a mate that he understands you better than we do.
Yes you said about acting on impulse then the example you gave wasn't acting on impulse it was a conscientious decision to not serve the next person who was rude. "
Current customer, not the next one. Next one would have got served. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *r-Unique OP Man
over a year ago
Carmarthenshire |
"Sorry OP but your threads are often confusing.
Can't be that confusing as I explained this once to a mate of mine earlier and he understood me first time around and he gave me advice on the situation. Whether it's right or wrong that's for me to.
Even in breaking rules it was acting on impulse so not actually your fault."
Didn't say it wasn't my fault on anything? Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *r-Unique OP Man
over a year ago
Carmarthenshire |
"Sorry but the question does not make sense to me....
When should you be allowed to react on impulse on not be punished for it? (Don't get what's so hard about that )
When its NOT illegal or against company policy!!
Whats so hard to understand there!
"
Everyone has limits for a start |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
So you write a nonsense first post,then come back and give an example of when someone is punished for acting on impulse, we reply to that example but that's not really what you wanted advice on so now we are all making assumptions and are in the wrong.
You will oy get punished for doing something if you break a rule or law. If (as has been hinted in a couple of your posts) your impulse reaction involves use of force or violence then that use of downs and violence has to be seen to be appropriate to the mitigating circumstance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
Late night posts of a confusing nature are apt to cause confusion.
OP, your posts often have some link to some incident in your life or those around you that you then try and puzzle out but state you can't say what the real thing is and provide an example of something else. This is just my observation from reading your posts over the last 9 months or so.
People, me included, respond to the example that you do provide because it is more specific than the opening post and subsequent posts.
Stick to the rules and follow the law if you want to keep your job and your liberty. Challenge them in a constructive manner when you have a case to make.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot "
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *r-Unique OP Man
over a year ago
Carmarthenshire |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk. "
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits? "
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *r-Unique OP Man
over a year ago
Carmarthenshire |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??"
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked. "
It's pretty clear to me that most of the comments say no it's not ok to lose control and break laws and you should expect to be punished for it.
"It's not my fault. I'm only human and have limits" is not a good defence!
It's not down to people to decide where the line is drawn. That's what the rules/law is for. Stick to them or suffer the consequences.
This has been echoed numerous times throughout the thread. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *r-Unique OP Man
over a year ago
Carmarthenshire |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked.
It's pretty clear to me that most of the comments say no it's not ok to lose control and break laws and you should expect to be punished for it.
"It's not my fault. I'm only human and have limits" is not a good defence!
It's not down to people to decide where the line is drawn. That's what the rules/law is for. Stick to them or suffer the consequences.
This has been echoed numerous times throughout the thread."
The law is made/changed/amended by people at the end of the day. So should a law be changed for impulsive reactions if the outcome of the reaction wasn't that bad? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The greatest mistake we make personally is to assume everyone is made the way we are, has the same wiring. This is not the case.
Trying reading without conscience by dr hare, enlightening and insightful.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked.
It's pretty clear to me that most of the comments say no it's not ok to lose control and break laws and you should expect to be punished for it.
"It's not my fault. I'm only human and have limits" is not a good defence!
It's not down to people to decide where the line is drawn. That's what the rules/law is for. Stick to them or suffer the consequences.
This has been echoed numerous times throughout the thread.
The law is made/changed/amended by people at the end of the day. So should a law be changed for impulsive reactions if the outcome of the reaction wasn't that bad? "
It is called mitigation. The law allows for mitigating circumstances and sentencing allows for mitigation to be taken into account too. I still don't understand what you mean.
Bad for whom? Nobody died, they were only frightened - that's ok then?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked.
It's pretty clear to me that most of the comments say no it's not ok to lose control and break laws and you should expect to be punished for it.
"It's not my fault. I'm only human and have limits" is not a good defence!
It's not down to people to decide where the line is drawn. That's what the rules/law is for. Stick to them or suffer the consequences.
This has been echoed numerous times throughout the thread.
The law is made/changed/amended by people at the end of the day. So should a law be changed for impulsive reactions if the outcome of the reaction wasn't that bad? "
No! Lashing out is not acceptable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked.
It's pretty clear to me that most of the comments say no it's not ok to lose control and break laws and you should expect to be punished for it.
"It's not my fault. I'm only human and have limits" is not a good defence!
It's not down to people to decide where the line is drawn. That's what the rules/law is for. Stick to them or suffer the consequences.
This has been echoed numerous times throughout the thread.
The law is made/changed/amended by people at the end of the day. So should a law be changed for impulsive reactions if the outcome of the reaction wasn't that bad?
It is called mitigation. The law allows for mitigating circumstances and sentencing allows for mitigation to be taken into account too. I still don't understand what you mean.
Bad for whom? Nobody died, they were only frightened - that's ok then?
"
^ this |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *r-Unique OP Man
over a year ago
Carmarthenshire |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked.
It's pretty clear to me that most of the comments say no it's not ok to lose control and break laws and you should expect to be punished for it.
"It's not my fault. I'm only human and have limits" is not a good defence!
It's not down to people to decide where the line is drawn. That's what the rules/law is for. Stick to them or suffer the consequences.
This has been echoed numerous times throughout the thread.
The law is made/changed/amended by people at the end of the day. So should a law be changed for impulsive reactions if the outcome of the reaction wasn't that bad?
It is called mitigation. The law allows for mitigating circumstances and sentencing allows for mitigation to be taken into account too. I still don't understand what you mean.
Bad for whom? Nobody died, they were only frightened - that's ok then?
"
Example someone close to you dies. So you're still grieving and in bits. So you can't function/think properly. If you manage the strength to carry on with life, but you are in a delicate frame off mind. If someone gets in your face too much (maybe they caused the death or insulted the person who was dead) and you lashed out once and with that one hit you gave them a split lip as it was moments after you heard the news. Should you be let off without nothing on your record, etc? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked.
It's pretty clear to me that most of the comments say no it's not ok to lose control and break laws and you should expect to be punished for it.
"It's not my fault. I'm only human and have limits" is not a good defence!
It's not down to people to decide where the line is drawn. That's what the rules/law is for. Stick to them or suffer the consequences.
This has been echoed numerous times throughout the thread.
The law is made/changed/amended by people at the end of the day. So should a law be changed for impulsive reactions if the outcome of the reaction wasn't that bad? "
So when my d*unken ex turned up here at 6am 3 weeks ago demanding to be let in and when I told him to go away he lost it and smashed all my front door in for example (true story) no one was physically hurt and it's only some broken glass which he has to pay for.. So is that acceptable?? As he's only human and it was an impulse? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"
It is called mitigation. The law allows for mitigating circumstances and sentencing allows for mitigation to be taken into account too. I still don't understand what you mean.
Bad for whom? Nobody died, they were only frightened - that's ok then?
Example someone close to you dies. So you're still grieving and in bits. So you can't function/think properly. If you manage the strength to carry on with life, but you are in a delicate frame off mind. If someone gets in your face too much (maybe they caused the death or insulted the person who was dead) and you lashed out once and with that one hit you gave them a split lip as it was moments after you heard the news. Should you be let off without nothing on your record, etc? "
Mitigating circumstances would be taken into consideration but you'd still have to go through the process. There are always at least two sides to the story and most people can only see theirs. That's why we have rules and laws.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked.
It's pretty clear to me that most of the comments say no it's not ok to lose control and break laws and you should expect to be punished for it.
"It's not my fault. I'm only human and have limits" is not a good defence!
It's not down to people to decide where the line is drawn. That's what the rules/law is for. Stick to them or suffer the consequences.
This has been echoed numerous times throughout the thread.
The law is made/changed/amended by people at the end of the day. So should a law be changed for impulsive reactions if the outcome of the reaction wasn't that bad?
It is called mitigation. The law allows for mitigating circumstances and sentencing allows for mitigation to be taken into account too. I still don't understand what you mean.
Bad for whom? Nobody died, they were only frightened - that's ok then?
Example someone close to you dies. So you're still grieving and in bits. So you can't function/think properly. If you manage the strength to carry on with life, but you are in a delicate frame off mind. If someone gets in your face too much (maybe they caused the death or insulted the person who was dead) and you lashed out once and with that one hit you gave them a split lip as it was moments after you heard the news. Should you be let off without nothing on your record, etc? "
and with that one hit you could of killed them, just a case of luck how the punch ended. If you don't think you can function in society without being violent then you need to look at getting help.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *r-Unique OP Man
over a year ago
Carmarthenshire |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked.
It's pretty clear to me that most of the comments say no it's not ok to lose control and break laws and you should expect to be punished for it.
"It's not my fault. I'm only human and have limits" is not a good defence!
It's not down to people to decide where the line is drawn. That's what the rules/law is for. Stick to them or suffer the consequences.
This has been echoed numerous times throughout the thread.
The law is made/changed/amended by people at the end of the day. So should a law be changed for impulsive reactions if the outcome of the reaction wasn't that bad?
So when my d*unken ex turned up here at 6am 3 weeks ago demanding to be let in and when I told him to go away he lost it and smashed all my front door in for example (true story) no one was physically hurt and it's only some broken glass which he has to pay for.. So is that acceptable?? As he's only human and it was an impulse? "
Not on his part as he planned to come to your place. My point would come in if you hit him or something out of fear. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
lots and lots of examples im getting a bit confoodilized .. .however we should feel all fuzzy and warm tonight because if we weren't bein human and were a blackbird for example we would have to eat live wriggling worms because i seen one do that today but we are human so we are all cuddley and fine.  x x X |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *r-Unique OP Man
over a year ago
Carmarthenshire |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked.
It's pretty clear to me that most of the comments say no it's not ok to lose control and break laws and you should expect to be punished for it.
"It's not my fault. I'm only human and have limits" is not a good defence!
It's not down to people to decide where the line is drawn. That's what the rules/law is for. Stick to them or suffer the consequences.
This has been echoed numerous times throughout the thread.
The law is made/changed/amended by people at the end of the day. So should a law be changed for impulsive reactions if the outcome of the reaction wasn't that bad?
It is called mitigation. The law allows for mitigating circumstances and sentencing allows for mitigation to be taken into account too. I still don't understand what you mean.
Bad for whom? Nobody died, they were only frightened - that's ok then?
Example someone close to you dies. So you're still grieving and in bits. So you can't function/think properly. If you manage the strength to carry on with life, but you are in a delicate frame off mind. If someone gets in your face too much (maybe they caused the death or insulted the person who was dead) and you lashed out once and with that one hit you gave them a split lip as it was moments after you heard the news. Should you be let off without nothing on your record, etc? and with that one hit you could of killed them, just a case of luck how the punch ended. If you don't think you can function in society without being violent then you need to look at getting help.
"
That's why I said if the punch only made a few cuts/bruises and nothing more.
Secondly people can be in a fragile state and may feel ok as in not know they can be violent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked.
It's pretty clear to me that most of the comments say no it's not ok to lose control and break laws and you should expect to be punished for it.
"It's not my fault. I'm only human and have limits" is not a good defence!
It's not down to people to decide where the line is drawn. That's what the rules/law is for. Stick to them or suffer the consequences.
This has been echoed numerous times throughout the thread.
The law is made/changed/amended by people at the end of the day. So should a law be changed for impulsive reactions if the outcome of the reaction wasn't that bad?
So when my d*unken ex turned up here at 6am 3 weeks ago demanding to be let in and when I told him to go away he lost it and smashed all my front door in for example (true story) no one was physically hurt and it's only some broken glass which he has to pay for.. So is that acceptable?? As he's only human and it was an impulse?
Not on his part as he planned to come to your place. My point would come in if you hit him or something out of fear. "
But he's getting done for criminal damage for the door, it's gonna cost him a fair bit as it's a security door with special glass and he will now have a criminal record. So he lashed out in a moment of anger and got arrested. So it does apply to him? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *r-Unique OP Man
over a year ago
Carmarthenshire |
"lots and lots of examples im getting a bit confoodilized .. .however we should feel all fuzzy and warm tonight because if we weren't bein human and were a blackbird for example we would have to eat live wriggling worms because i seen one do that today but we are human so we are all cuddley and fine. x x X"
Lots of examples because when I said one example. People thought I was on about me. Said my point was worded badly. So gave several to see if people's thoughts were still the same on everything and it looks like there is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *r-Unique OP Man
over a year ago
Carmarthenshire |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked.
It's pretty clear to me that most of the comments say no it's not ok to lose control and break laws and you should expect to be punished for it.
"It's not my fault. I'm only human and have limits" is not a good defence!
It's not down to people to decide where the line is drawn. That's what the rules/law is for. Stick to them or suffer the consequences.
This has been echoed numerous times throughout the thread.
The law is made/changed/amended by people at the end of the day. So should a law be changed for impulsive reactions if the outcome of the reaction wasn't that bad?
So when my d*unken ex turned up here at 6am 3 weeks ago demanding to be let in and when I told him to go away he lost it and smashed all my front door in for example (true story) no one was physically hurt and it's only some broken glass which he has to pay for.. So is that acceptable?? As he's only human and it was an impulse?
Not on his part as he planned to come to your place. My point would come in if you hit him or something out of fear.
But he's getting done for criminal damage for the door, it's gonna cost him a fair bit as it's a security door with special glass and he will now have a criminal record. So he lashed out in a moment of anger and got arrested. So it does apply to him? "
Deep down he knew he was angry and yet he came to you, which he knew could have ended in an argument, which it did. So it wouldn't affect him. If you lashed out, out of fear and you just did enough to scare him off. Should you be in trouble is my point? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"lots and lots of examples im getting a bit confoodilized .. .however we should feel all fuzzy and warm tonight because if we weren't bein human and were a blackbird for example we would have to eat live wriggling worms because i seen one do that today but we are human so we are all cuddley and fine. x x X"
I think you are my favourite poster this week. I'm going to pin you on my bedroom wall.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked.
It's pretty clear to me that most of the comments say no it's not ok to lose control and break laws and you should expect to be punished for it.
"It's not my fault. I'm only human and have limits" is not a good defence!
It's not down to people to decide where the line is drawn. That's what the rules/law is for. Stick to them or suffer the consequences.
This has been echoed numerous times throughout the thread.
The law is made/changed/amended by people at the end of the day. So should a law be changed for impulsive reactions if the outcome of the reaction wasn't that bad?
So when my d*unken ex turned up here at 6am 3 weeks ago demanding to be let in and when I told him to go away he lost it and smashed all my front door in for example (true story) no one was physically hurt and it's only some broken glass which he has to pay for.. So is that acceptable?? As he's only human and it was an impulse?
Not on his part as he planned to come to your place. My point would come in if you hit him or something out of fear.
But he's getting done for criminal damage for the door, it's gonna cost him a fair bit as it's a security door with special glass and he will now have a criminal record. So he lashed out in a moment of anger and got arrested. So it does apply to him?
Deep down he knew he was angry and yet he came to you, which he knew could have ended in an argument, which it did. So it wouldn't affect him. If you lashed out, out of fear and you just did enough to scare him off. Should you be in trouble is my point? "
He wasn't angry when he got here, he thought I'd let him in, d*unk, to see his son at 6 in the morning when he was still asleep. He only got angry when he didn't get his own way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"lots and lots of examples im getting a bit confoodilized .. .however we should feel all fuzzy and warm tonight because if we weren't bein human and were a blackbird for example we would have to eat live wriggling worms because i seen one do that today but we are human so we are all cuddley and fine. x x X. put the
I think you are my favourite poster this week. I'm going to pin you on my bedroom wall.
"
put the pins through my palms like jesus and lets see if i bleed   |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *r-Unique OP Man
over a year ago
Carmarthenshire |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked.
It's pretty clear to me that most of the comments say no it's not ok to lose control and break laws and you should expect to be punished for it.
"It's not my fault. I'm only human and have limits" is not a good defence!
It's not down to people to decide where the line is drawn. That's what the rules/law is for. Stick to them or suffer the consequences.
This has been echoed numerous times throughout the thread.
The law is made/changed/amended by people at the end of the day. So should a law be changed for impulsive reactions if the outcome of the reaction wasn't that bad?
So when my d*unken ex turned up here at 6am 3 weeks ago demanding to be let in and when I told him to go away he lost it and smashed all my front door in for example (true story) no one was physically hurt and it's only some broken glass which he has to pay for.. So is that acceptable?? As he's only human and it was an impulse?
Not on his part as he planned to come to your place. My point would come in if you hit him or something out of fear.
But he's getting done for criminal damage for the door, it's gonna cost him a fair bit as it's a security door with special glass and he will now have a criminal record. So he lashed out in a moment of anger and got arrested. So it does apply to him?
Deep down he knew he was angry and yet he came to you, which he knew could have ended in an argument, which it did. So it wouldn't affect him. If you lashed out, out of fear and you just did enough to scare him off. Should you be in trouble is my point?
He wasn't angry when he got here, he thought I'd let him in, d*unk, to see his son at 6 in the morning when he was still asleep. He only got angry when he didn't get his own way. "
He should have known his routine for seeing him that you have agreed to. Secondly he was d*unk and even if he didn't realise this. He should have known he had a few drinks anyway. Lastly at 6 in the morning people only get up for school or trips, which is no place for someone who is d*unk. So he should have known and you were right in that situation. If he smashed them and walk off? Then yes don't get that angry about it. If he got angry/abusive and threatening and smashed a window to get in. Should you be punished if you hit him once and then he walked off? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked.
It's pretty clear to me that most of the comments say no it's not ok to lose control and break laws and you should expect to be punished for it.
"It's not my fault. I'm only human and have limits" is not a good defence!
It's not down to people to decide where the line is drawn. That's what the rules/law is for. Stick to them or suffer the consequences.
This has been echoed numerous times throughout the thread.
The law is made/changed/amended by people at the end of the day. So should a law be changed for impulsive reactions if the outcome of the reaction wasn't that bad?
So when my d*unken ex turned up here at 6am 3 weeks ago demanding to be let in and when I told him to go away he lost it and smashed all my front door in for example (true story) no one was physically hurt and it's only some broken glass which he has to pay for.. So is that acceptable?? As he's only human and it was an impulse?
Not on his part as he planned to come to your place. My point would come in if you hit him or something out of fear.
But he's getting done for criminal damage for the door, it's gonna cost him a fair bit as it's a security door with special glass and he will now have a criminal record. So he lashed out in a moment of anger and got arrested. So it does apply to him?
Deep down he knew he was angry and yet he came to you, which he knew could have ended in an argument, which it did. So it wouldn't affect him. If you lashed out, out of fear and you just did enough to scare him off. Should you be in trouble is my point?
He wasn't angry when he got here, he thought I'd let him in, d*unk, to see his son at 6 in the morning when he was still asleep. He only got angry when he didn't get his own way. "
. . so now you've cooled down a bit are you goin to be a pure bitch and get him banned from comin within a mile of your home or just make him sweat a bit? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked.
It's pretty clear to me that most of the comments say no it's not ok to lose control and break laws and you should expect to be punished for it.
"It's not my fault. I'm only human and have limits" is not a good defence!
It's not down to people to decide where the line is drawn. That's what the rules/law is for. Stick to them or suffer the consequences.
This has been echoed numerous times throughout the thread.
The law is made/changed/amended by people at the end of the day. So should a law be changed for impulsive reactions if the outcome of the reaction wasn't that bad?
So when my d*unken ex turned up here at 6am 3 weeks ago demanding to be let in and when I told him to go away he lost it and smashed all my front door in for example (true story) no one was physically hurt and it's only some broken glass which he has to pay for.. So is that acceptable?? As he's only human and it was an impulse?
Not on his part as he planned to come to your place. My point would come in if you hit him or something out of fear.
But he's getting done for criminal damage for the door, it's gonna cost him a fair bit as it's a security door with special glass and he will now have a criminal record. So he lashed out in a moment of anger and got arrested. So it does apply to him?
Deep down he knew he was angry and yet he came to you, which he knew could have ended in an argument, which it did. So it wouldn't affect him. If you lashed out, out of fear and you just did enough to scare him off. Should you be in trouble is my point?
He wasn't angry when he got here, he thought I'd let him in, d*unk, to see his son at 6 in the morning when he was still asleep. He only got angry when he didn't get his own way. . . so now you've cooled down a bit are you goin to be a pure bitch and get him banned from comin within a mile of your home or just make him sweat a bit?"
"pure bitch" 
To want to protect herself and her son from a man who has numerous times proven he is violent and unpredictable?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked.
It's pretty clear to me that most of the comments say no it's not ok to lose control and break laws and you should expect to be punished for it.
"It's not my fault. I'm only human and have limits" is not a good defence!
It's not down to people to decide where the line is drawn. That's what the rules/law is for. Stick to them or suffer the consequences.
This has been echoed numerous times throughout the thread.
The law is made/changed/amended by people at the end of the day. So should a law be changed for impulsive reactions if the outcome of the reaction wasn't that bad?
So when my d*unken ex turned up here at 6am 3 weeks ago demanding to be let in and when I told him to go away he lost it and smashed all my front door in for example (true story) no one was physically hurt and it's only some broken glass which he has to pay for.. So is that acceptable?? As he's only human and it was an impulse?
Not on his part as he planned to come to your place. My point would come in if you hit him or something out of fear.
But he's getting done for criminal damage for the door, it's gonna cost him a fair bit as it's a security door with special glass and he will now have a criminal record. So he lashed out in a moment of anger and got arrested. So it does apply to him?
Deep down he knew he was angry and yet he came to you, which he knew could have ended in an argument, which it did. So it wouldn't affect him. If you lashed out, out of fear and you just did enough to scare him off. Should you be in trouble is my point?
He wasn't angry when he got here, he thought I'd let him in, d*unk, to see his son at 6 in the morning when he was still asleep. He only got angry when he didn't get his own way.
He should have known his routine for seeing him that you have agreed to. Secondly he was d*unk and even if he didn't realise this. He should have known he had a few drinks anyway. Lastly at 6 in the morning people only get up for school or trips, which is no place for someone who is d*unk. So he should have known and you were right in that situation. If he smashed them and walk off? Then yes don't get that angry about it. If he got angry/abusive and threatening and smashed a window to get in. Should you be punished if you hit him once and then he walked off?"
Hitting him is not an appropriate or constructive response. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Yes, people should be punished for breaking laws/rules even if they are lucky and nobody dies!
Mitigation, as Lickety has pointed out, deals with exceptions.
Regardless of how many examples you come up with, it's never acceptable to hit someone, (outside of boxing etc), and it is against the law. If you hit someone, even in the heat of the moment, you should expect to face repercussions.
And I say that as someone who has lost control and hit someone in the past. There is no excuse for it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked.
It's pretty clear to me that most of the comments say no it's not ok to lose control and break laws and you should expect to be punished for it.
"It's not my fault. I'm only human and have limits" is not a good defence!
It's not down to people to decide where the line is drawn. That's what the rules/law is for. Stick to them or suffer the consequences.
This has been echoed numerous times throughout the thread.
The law is made/changed/amended by people at the end of the day. So should a law be changed for impulsive reactions if the outcome of the reaction wasn't that bad?
So when my d*unken ex turned up here at 6am 3 weeks ago demanding to be let in and when I told him to go away he lost it and smashed all my front door in for example (true story) no one was physically hurt and it's only some broken glass which he has to pay for.. So is that acceptable?? As he's only human and it was an impulse?
Not on his part as he planned to come to your place. My point would come in if you hit him or something out of fear.
But he's getting done for criminal damage for the door, it's gonna cost him a fair bit as it's a security door with special glass and he will now have a criminal record. So he lashed out in a moment of anger and got arrested. So it does apply to him?
Deep down he knew he was angry and yet he came to you, which he knew could have ended in an argument, which it did. So it wouldn't affect him. If you lashed out, out of fear and you just did enough to scare him off. Should you be in trouble is my point?
He wasn't angry when he got here, he thought I'd let him in, d*unk, to see his son at 6 in the morning when he was still asleep. He only got angry when he didn't get his own way. . . so now you've cooled down a bit are you goin to be a pure bitch and get him banned from comin within a mile of your home or just make him sweat a bit?
"pure bitch"
To want to protect herself and her son from a man who has numerous times proven he is violent and unpredictable?
i was really just wantin to suss if she was a soft touch or no because she could make life hard for him depending what way she felt inclined. i was just bein nosey but mean no harm. x x X.
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked.
It's pretty clear to me that most of the comments say no it's not ok to lose control and break laws and you should expect to be punished for it.
"It's not my fault. I'm only human and have limits" is not a good defence!
It's not down to people to decide where the line is drawn. That's what the rules/law is for. Stick to them or suffer the consequences.
This has been echoed numerous times throughout the thread.
The law is made/changed/amended by people at the end of the day. So should a law be changed for impulsive reactions if the outcome of the reaction wasn't that bad?
So when my d*unken ex turned up here at 6am 3 weeks ago demanding to be let in and when I told him to go away he lost it and smashed all my front door in for example (true story) no one was physically hurt and it's only some broken glass which he has to pay for.. So is that acceptable?? As he's only human and it was an impulse?
Not on his part as he planned to come to your place. My point would come in if you hit him or something out of fear.
But he's getting done for criminal damage for the door, it's gonna cost him a fair bit as it's a security door with special glass and he will now have a criminal record. So he lashed out in a moment of anger and got arrested. So it does apply to him?
Deep down he knew he was angry and yet he came to you, which he knew could have ended in an argument, which it did. So it wouldn't affect him. If you lashed out, out of fear and you just did enough to scare him off. Should you be in trouble is my point?
He wasn't angry when he got here, he thought I'd let him in, d*unk, to see his son at 6 in the morning when he was still asleep. He only got angry when he didn't get his own way. . . so now you've cooled down a bit are you goin to be a pure bitch and get him banned from comin within a mile of your home or just make him sweat a bit?
"pure bitch"
To want to protect herself and her son from a man who has numerous times proven he is violent and unpredictable?
i was really just wantin to suss if she was a soft touch or no because she could make life hard for him depending what way she felt inclined. i was just bein nosey but mean no harm. x x X.
"
I think she's more interested in keeping herself and her child safe than wanting to be "a bitch" and make life difficult for him.
Any difficulties he now faces, he has brought squarely on himself and they've been imposed by necessity, not punishment.
I can't blame her for wanting him kept away. It must be terrifying having a child to protect and not knowing where or when he'll show up next and what he might do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *r-Unique OP Man
over a year ago
Carmarthenshire |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked.
It's pretty clear to me that most of the comments say no it's not ok to lose control and break laws and you should expect to be punished for it.
"It's not my fault. I'm only human and have limits" is not a good defence!
It's not down to people to decide where the line is drawn. That's what the rules/law is for. Stick to them or suffer the consequences.
This has been echoed numerous times throughout the thread.
The law is made/changed/amended by people at the end of the day. So should a law be changed for impulsive reactions if the outcome of the reaction wasn't that bad?
So when my d*unken ex turned up here at 6am 3 weeks ago demanding to be let in and when I told him to go away he lost it and smashed all my front door in for example (true story) no one was physically hurt and it's only some broken glass which he has to pay for.. So is that acceptable?? As he's only human and it was an impulse?
Not on his part as he planned to come to your place. My point would come in if you hit him or something out of fear.
But he's getting done for criminal damage for the door, it's gonna cost him a fair bit as it's a security door with special glass and he will now have a criminal record. So he lashed out in a moment of anger and got arrested. So it does apply to him?
Deep down he knew he was angry and yet he came to you, which he knew could have ended in an argument, which it did. So it wouldn't affect him. If you lashed out, out of fear and you just did enough to scare him off. Should you be in trouble is my point?
He wasn't angry when he got here, he thought I'd let him in, d*unk, to see his son at 6 in the morning when he was still asleep. He only got angry when he didn't get his own way. . . so now you've cooled down a bit are you goin to be a pure bitch and get him banned from comin within a mile of your home or just make him sweat a bit?
"pure bitch"
To want to protect herself and her son from a man who has numerous times proven he is violent and unpredictable?
i was really just wantin to suss if she was a soft touch or no because she could make life hard for him depending what way she felt inclined. i was just bein nosey but mean no harm. x x X.
I can't blame her for wanting him kept away. It must be terrifying having a child to protect and not knowing where or when he'll show up next and what he might do."
This is the point I was making too. Fear can make anyone do anything. Also nothing is stronger than a mother and child's bond. So mixing the two can make the unthinkable happen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"well i didni know it wasn't his first time and if i was her i wouldv got him banned the first time..do you no get what im meaning?"
I don't understand why you'd consider her wanting to protect herself and her child as her being a "bitch", no. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked.
It's pretty clear to me that most of the comments say no it's not ok to lose control and break laws and you should expect to be punished for it.
"It's not my fault. I'm only human and have limits" is not a good defence!
It's not down to people to decide where the line is drawn. That's what the rules/law is for. Stick to them or suffer the consequences.
This has been echoed numerous times throughout the thread.
The law is made/changed/amended by people at the end of the day. So should a law be changed for impulsive reactions if the outcome of the reaction wasn't that bad?
So when my d*unken ex turned up here at 6am 3 weeks ago demanding to be let in and when I told him to go away he lost it and smashed all my front door in for example (true story) no one was physically hurt and it's only some broken glass which he has to pay for.. So is that acceptable?? As he's only human and it was an impulse?
Not on his part as he planned to come to your place. My point would come in if you hit him or something out of fear.
But he's getting done for criminal damage for the door, it's gonna cost him a fair bit as it's a security door with special glass and he will now have a criminal record. So he lashed out in a moment of anger and got arrested. So it does apply to him?
Deep down he knew he was angry and yet he came to you, which he knew could have ended in an argument, which it did. So it wouldn't affect him. If you lashed out, out of fear and you just did enough to scare him off. Should you be in trouble is my point?
He wasn't angry when he got here, he thought I'd let him in, d*unk, to see his son at 6 in the morning when he was still asleep. He only got angry when he didn't get his own way. . . so now you've cooled down a bit are you goin to be a pure bitch and get him banned from comin within a mile of your home or just make him sweat a bit?
"pure bitch"
To want to protect herself and her son from a man who has numerous times proven he is violent and unpredictable?
i was really just wantin to suss if she was a soft touch or no because she could make life hard for him depending what way she felt inclined. i was just bein nosey but mean no harm. x x X.
I can't blame her for wanting him kept away. It must be terrifying having a child to protect and not knowing where or when he'll show up next and what he might do.
This is the point I was making too. Fear can make anyone do anything. Also nothing is stronger than a mother and child's bond. So mixing the two can make the unthinkable happen."
*sigh*
She called the police and is using the proper methods of keeping him away, as she should.
There is NO JUSTIFICATION for her, or anyone else to get violent, even when faced with violence, (excluding using reasonable force in self defence).
How many more times? No justification. No excuse. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *r-Unique OP Man
over a year ago
Carmarthenshire |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked.
It's pretty clear to me that most of the comments say no it's not ok to lose control and break laws and you should expect to be punished for it.
"It's not my fault. I'm only human and have limits" is not a good defence!
It's not down to people to decide where the line is drawn. That's what the rules/law is for. Stick to them or suffer the consequences.
This has been echoed numerous times throughout the thread.
The law is made/changed/amended by people at the end of the day. So should a law be changed for impulsive reactions if the outcome of the reaction wasn't that bad?
So when my d*unken ex turned up here at 6am 3 weeks ago demanding to be let in and when I told him to go away he lost it and smashed all my front door in for example (true story) no one was physically hurt and it's only some broken glass which he has to pay for.. So is that acceptable?? As he's only human and it was an impulse?
Not on his part as he planned to come to your place. My point would come in if you hit him or something out of fear.
But he's getting done for criminal damage for the door, it's gonna cost him a fair bit as it's a security door with special glass and he will now have a criminal record. So he lashed out in a moment of anger and got arrested. So it does apply to him?
Deep down he knew he was angry and yet he came to you, which he knew could have ended in an argument, which it did. So it wouldn't affect him. If you lashed out, out of fear and you just did enough to scare him off. Should you be in trouble is my point?
He wasn't angry when he got here, he thought I'd let him in, d*unk, to see his son at 6 in the morning when he was still asleep. He only got angry when he didn't get his own way. . . so now you've cooled down a bit are you goin to be a pure bitch and get him banned from comin within a mile of your home or just make him sweat a bit?
"pure bitch"
To want to protect herself and her son from a man who has numerous times proven he is violent and unpredictable?
i was really just wantin to suss if she was a soft touch or no because she could make life hard for him depending what way she felt inclined. i was just bein nosey but mean no harm. x x X.
I can't blame her for wanting him kept away. It must be terrifying having a child to protect and not knowing where or when he'll show up next and what he might do.
This is the point I was making too. Fear can make anyone do anything. Also nothing is stronger than a mother and child's bond. So mixing the two can make the unthinkable happen.
*sigh*
She called the police and is using the proper methods of keeping him away, as she should.
There is NO JUSTIFICATION for her, or anyone else to get violent, even when faced with violence, (excluding using reasonable force in self defence).
How many more times? No justification. No excuse."
Quick question. You know what repression is? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"I really find it in bad taste people discussing another forum member when she is not around to put her point across to be fair...."
I agree. SHE has posted about this before but now it's speculating about what she has done in the past and what she should do in the future.
Leave her out of the storyline of this very strange thread.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"I really find it in bad taste people discussing another forum member when she is not around to put her point across to be fair...."
Fair point.
I can empathise with someone feeling frightened for themself and their child because of a violent partner/ex and hearing anyone described as a "pure bitch" for wanting that person kept away really bothered me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked.
It's pretty clear to me that most of the comments say no it's not ok to lose control and break laws and you should expect to be punished for it.
"It's not my fault. I'm only human and have limits" is not a good defence!
It's not down to people to decide where the line is drawn. That's what the rules/law is for. Stick to them or suffer the consequences.
This has been echoed numerous times throughout the thread.
The law is made/changed/amended by people at the end of the day. So should a law be changed for impulsive reactions if the outcome of the reaction wasn't that bad?
So when my d*unken ex turned up here at 6am 3 weeks ago demanding to be let in and when I told him to go away he lost it and smashed all my front door in for example (true story) no one was physically hurt and it's only some broken glass which he has to pay for.. So is that acceptable?? As he's only human and it was an impulse?
Not on his part as he planned to come to your place. My point would come in if you hit him or something out of fear.
But he's getting done for criminal damage for the door, it's gonna cost him a fair bit as it's a security door with special glass and he will now have a criminal record. So he lashed out in a moment of anger and got arrested. So it does apply to him?
Deep down he knew he was angry and yet he came to you, which he knew could have ended in an argument, which it did. So it wouldn't affect him. If you lashed out, out of fear and you just did enough to scare him off. Should you be in trouble is my point?
He wasn't angry when he got here, he thought I'd let him in, d*unk, to see his son at 6 in the morning when he was still asleep. He only got angry when he didn't get his own way. . . so now you've cooled down a bit are you goin to be a pure bitch and get him banned from comin within a mile of your home or just make him sweat a bit?
"pure bitch"
To want to protect herself and her son from a man who has numerous times proven he is violent and unpredictable?
i was really just wantin to suss if she was a soft touch or no because she could make life hard for him depending what way she felt inclined. i was just bein nosey but mean no harm. x x X.
I can't blame her for wanting him kept away. It must be terrifying having a child to protect and not knowing where or when he'll show up next and what he might do.
This is the point I was making too. Fear can make anyone do anything. Also nothing is stronger than a mother and child's bond. So mixing the two can make the unthinkable happen.
*sigh*
She called the police and is using the proper methods of keeping him away, as she should.
There is NO JUSTIFICATION for her, or anyone else to get violent, even when faced with violence, (excluding using reasonable force in self defence).
How many more times? No justification. No excuse.
Quick question. You know what repression is? "
I know of several types of repression.
Genetic? Psychological? Of memories?
What's your point now?
It's STILL not acceptable to take the law into your own hands.
This "it's not my fault because I'm only human and I shouldn't be held accountable or punished" is bollocks.
If you have a psychological or medical condition or an addiction or anything else that means you can't control your own violent impulses, you need to get treatment. It's NOT an excuse or a justification.
Just man up, accept you did wrong and take the punishment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Just man up, accept you did wrong and take the punishment."
bottom line if you want to go against the rules get them re-written first, or don't get caught, then complain and make excuses. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hence why I asked when are we allowed to act on things on the spot
Answer, NEVER! If your on the spot actions break any law or rule in the case of employment, then you may need to face the consequences.
If it is a matter of self defence then you are still liable to be be taken to court and it is a question for the court if your actions were proportional to the risk.
Question originally was should we be allowed as we are humans at the end of the day and we all have out limits?
No. Where would you draw the line? And who would decide what was ok and what wasn't??
This was the point I was trying to make. The debate would be yes/no and to answer the questions you have just asked.
It's pretty clear to me that most of the comments say no it's not ok to lose control and break laws and you should expect to be punished for it.
"It's not my fault. I'm only human and have limits" is not a good defence!
It's not down to people to decide where the line is drawn. That's what the rules/law is for. Stick to them or suffer the consequences.
This has been echoed numerous times throughout the thread.
The law is made/changed/amended by people at the end of the day. So should a law be changed for impulsive reactions if the outcome of the reaction wasn't that bad?
So when my d*unken ex turned up here at 6am 3 weeks ago demanding to be let in and when I told him to go away he lost it and smashed all my front door in for example (true story) no one was physically hurt and it's only some broken glass which he has to pay for.. So is that acceptable?? As he's only human and it was an impulse?
Not on his part as he planned to come to your place. My point would come in if you hit him or something out of fear.
But he's getting done for criminal damage for the door, it's gonna cost him a fair bit as it's a security door with special glass and he will now have a criminal record. So he lashed out in a moment of anger and got arrested. So it does apply to him?
Deep down he knew he was angry and yet he came to you, which he knew could have ended in an argument, which it did. So it wouldn't affect him. If you lashed out, out of fear and you just did enough to scare him off. Should you be in trouble is my point?
He wasn't angry when he got here, he thought I'd let him in, d*unk, to see his son at 6 in the morning when he was still asleep. He only got angry when he didn't get his own way. . . so now you've cooled down a bit are you goin to be a pure bitch and get him banned from comin within a mile of your home or just make him sweat a bit?"
To answer your comment.. I haven't got him banned from being near my home, but the police set his bail conditions that he isn't to come to my house unless he gets permission from me first. Which he won't get. My 3 year old is my priority, not some jumped up little prick who loses his rag every time he doesn't get his own way. I don't really consider that being a pure bitch? And if you do then maybe you think his behaviour(waking up a child who is now scared to be in his own house, has been quite affected by it all and is being kept a close eye on by health visitiors etc) is acceptable. Which I think says more about you then me! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
okay i see where i went wrong.what i was trying to say was when the dust settles are you goin to ACT like a bitch or are you the kind of lass that will calm down .i also know that i shouldn't have asked that type of question as close to the when the incident happened. .fuck knows why i even asked but i have a habit of saying shit so i know im in the wrong wi this one just ignore me im no used to socializing in a normal manner and sorry for making light of what obviously isn't to you,understandably. x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
