Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

Just as a by-the-by, Trump's brainfart on immigration is causing considerable trouble here in the UK. The invitation of a full state visit is being protested - 1.7 million signature asking for it to be stopped in little over 24 hours. It now has to be debated in Parliament.Old Queeny has had to hold her nose whilst greeting some appalling people so she'll deal with it professionally but it's all very embarrassing. It seems likely that it will be delayed a few months for the smell to fade a little - I suspect Donald will stamp his little feet.Continentally Europe is equally appalled.

Self-defense is more usually a legal defence - ie. if you can demonstrate that you had good reason to feel in danger of physical harm and used reasonable force to defend against it, you are not guilty of a crime.If you used unreasonable force, the fact that you we're attacked may be a mitigating factor, but if you chased after a burglar and stabbed him 20 times in the back, you can't hope for much sympathy - in the UK at least.

.....it decides something I don't like.

Well there's quite a few here:Self-defence: What's acceptable under Canadian law? | CBC NewsBut I don't know why you're still pursuing this; the self-defence defence is fairly standard in most jusidictions. If you can show that you acted to protect yourself you either won't be charged or you'll be found not guilty at trial. But you must be acting reasonably and not excessively.If you do act beyond what is reasonable you may be able to mitigate your sentence by demonstrating that 'he started it' or 'I lost my temper and couldn't control myself' etc But you're still guilty of assault or worse.

It is you know :-) it's about establishing guilt or otherwise according to the principles of the law. It's a binary choice. Guilty or not guilty.Reasonable self-defence is a statutary defence in law. To succeed at trial for a not-guilty verdict the defence has to show that reasonable force was used. That's it. If they can do that, the verdict is not guilty. Nothing to do with mitigation. No, this is just wrong. You are charged with an offense of say, assault, tried for the offence of assault and found either guilty or not guilty of assault.Sometimes you can be charged and tried for say, murder or manslaughter. The successful statutory defence of self defence would find you not guilty of both. The charge would not drop from murder to manslaughter. The lessor charge of manslauter would normally be chosen by the jury only if the prosecution failed to prove a different element of the offence, usually intent - he killed him, but he didn't mean to. I think you're confusing being charged and found guilty or not guilty at trial, with what happens after you've been found guilty and are being sentenced. The first involves the statutory defence of self-defence which can get you off 'scot-free' the second is mitigation which is used by your brilliant lawyer to reduce the sentence because the jury didn't believe that tying your attacker to a chair and attaching an arc welder to his testicles was reasonable self-defence.. That's life here I guess :-)Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Yes it is. The way it works is that the prosecution service put a charge to trial if they believe that it has a more than 50% chance of succeeding with a jury AND they believe it is in the public interest to do so. In the example they dropped the kidnapping charge because - we assume - it didn't pass that test. There's no reason to suppose there was any thought of a lessor charge at this stage because of some kind of mitigation. That's simply not part of the decision to prosecute. If, after being found guilty, there are reasons why the offender shouldn't feel the full weight of the punishment, they are raised at sentencing.(Another reason for dropping a higher tariff charge to a lessor one is a plea bargain - this obviously didn't happen here as it was a not guilty plea.) Sorry, that's the word. There is no word for what you're trying to say because the law doesn't work the way you think it does.

That's correct and I gave you their decision making principles. They don't include mitigation. Yup, that's why you're getting it wrong.

Well I've given you the bare bones of how it's done in the UK. Canada adopts most of our legal processes but if you think you know better.....Here's the full gen. No doubt you can find your equivalent.The Code for Crown Prosecutors | The Crown Prosecution Service

Looks like a great argument for gun control to me.

Religions are what leaders tell their followers they are. Throughout all time religions have killed and persecuted, raised armies and taxes, been persecuted, been obliterated, been invented etc etcThere's nothing very special about Islam. It's yet another daft belief being exploited.

Yeh, yeh, your belief is different, we know.I was reminded yesterday that the English Protestant church is the second largest landowner in the UK. It's fairly quiescent now being reformed but back in the day land ownership was power. The meek, apparently, do not inherit the earth.

I mean the Church of England. 'Inherited' is an interesting word. Stolen with violence is more accurate. Yes, but it always has been used like that and it's being used like that now. I was in the US last week I listened to an Evangelical praising the Lord and demanding money. Same old snake oil, slightly newer pot.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

I think you missed my edit

There are 38,000 flavours of Christians. You do not personally get to say who's a Christian and who isn't. There's no point keeping on doing it because you'll be reminded of it every time you attempt it.

Because yours is a definition created by the sect you prefer. I prefer historic definitions that are supported by the majority of historians and people. Why would I have any interest in that? I consider your entire belief system utterly bonkers. It's not what I believe or don't believe - remember I'm a atheist, I have no regard for any of them being the 'true' one. I accept the standard definition. The definition of Christianity is pretty easy to get to, they all have a belief that Christ in the son of god. Daft though that is, it's what defines them all - including you.And saying that the largest Christian sect - 1.2bn people - who define themselves as Christians are not Christians even though they follow the teaching of Christ and read the same mythology as you is quite frankly rediculous.