Thread: TOO BAD HE MISSED

A shoe is OK but obviously you would have not condoned it if it had been a hand grenade, or would you. Now we have established that principle how far can you go? Be interested to hear your opinion.

Shoes OK
Knives OK
Guns OK
Bombs OK

Minor injury OK
Major Injury OK
Death OK

Make your choice by answering yes or no to the above.

In mine he was wrong although I understand his feelings but two wrongs do not make a right ,otherwise tit for tat killings are ok. Sorry Tin Tin I do not accept you are right here.

One of the most basic tenets of the law (whatever or wherever the jurisdiction) is that the punishment must fit the crime and therefore anybody that thinks 3 years loss of freedom is a fitting punishment for throwing a shoe at somebody then they probably live under Sharia Law where totally different motivational factors appear to rein.

Personally, Mr. al-Zaidi is my new hero and, if I could, I would offer to have his children 8) I also presume that once the furore has died down he will be quietly let out on some technicality because lets be honest he really deserves a Nobel prize.

I've also read that the post offices around the Bush ranch have been inundated with packages full of used shoes addressed to George since this happened. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hi tintin,
Well nil is abit to low,I have no clue about the Law in Irak. Only about the law in Netherlands I know a few things, well ...quite a lot actually. but once you are in the court and plead 'not-guilty' all the plea bargaining between the defence and prosecutor, for a shorter sentence is not anymore in play. In this shoe throwing-case , For the prosecutor it's an easy case since the proof he threw the shoe, is on videotape and went the world over thru media and youtube. No way he can say (like Shaggy) wasn't me.
Like you already said, it wasn't a premeditated crime, and therefor he could have claimed 'temporarily insane'. If premeditated and really wanted to cause some injuries, he would have bought himself a handgrenade and threw that. So three years for throwing a shoe
Like I said it could have been worse for the guy, but I think three years is a long time to spend i jail, let alone an Iraki jail. If he deserved this??....I think yes. If he wouldn't have been punished, it would create a whole new standard, and shoes would be flying left and right at politicians in many countries.

Jimbo, I would have to answer NO on all the examples you gave. I believe that violence is a sign of weakness... When I was younger I often resolved problems with violence, and now thinking back...I couldnt resolve those problems using words...so I was weak. However I still believe, every action taken - deserves a reaction in the same manner.

Hinakos, I agree completely with your post.

Friendly greetings, Gilbert.

Hinakos,

location location location..........depends where you are doesnt it?

Absolutely correct. And under Saddam, he and his family wouldn't still be walking this earth. However, in my court, al-Zaidi would have received a medal. :lol:

Jimbo,

A grenade would have been a better idea. :lol:

Gilbert,

Like I wrote, my expertise in law in nil. However, in the US, once an accused has entered a "non-guilty" plea, one is still allowed to change one's plea during the trial and admit to a lesser charge, especially if one is being charged on several counts. I'll stop here, because it's now way above my head. :roll:

sentence reduced to one year for the shoe-throwing incident. No big media attention given to it, I just heard it on CNN when switching channels.
Seems fair enough, but in comparison with Piratebay (also 1 year, now under appeal), 'funny' to say the least :roll: