I think your assertion that I'm uneducated, ignorant and arrogant is a bit rich coming from a tired old hack like yourself, (You obviously haven't read my profile). Journalism is not exactly the most noble of professions is it.
Arrogance? - "People with higher IQs oppose the death penalty" (hypocrite!)
How dare you state that the people in this country who want to protect them and theirs are 'right-wing' and 'terminally-stupid' for even attempting to do so. You probably have never been touched by crime so have no idea what I'm talking about. Vigilanteeism is the only option left when the police don't bother turning up to help these days.
Do you work for a red-top per chance? How can the comparison between the two cases be nonsensical? Not the same in all respects I grant you, but both were imprisoned for excessive use of force once the 'victim' had passed by, supposedly posed no further threat, and was heading away.
In my view, lethal force was justified because of the threat posed if in either case, the criminal had turned around, produced a weapon/rammed the VCP and injured/killed the defending party.
You like to dwell on the presumption that because he was 16 he was a child; I think you are out of touch with reality. Legally, he could live away from home, get married, smoke and ride a moped. Physically, he posed no less of a threat to a householder than someone older.
You don't seem to understand the political motives that the Crown had, to impose jail sentences on the two. In Ulster; making a symbolic gesture to the provos that we are willing to atone for Army shootings. (Conspiracy theory?)
And over here; sending a message to householders everywhere: "The police don't give a toss that you're being burgled right now. We may not have the manpower or time to come out to your farmhouse for another hour or so, so just sit tight and don't take the law into your own hands. But if you choose to defend yourself and the criminal's Human Rights happen to be infringed, we'll throw the book at you."....
... that's the kind of world you would like eh?
And what have these ravings got to do with the Millionaire trial?
I think the judgement says: "Rob old ladies/houses/cars: fair enough, have a fine, some community service and some counselling for having a bad childhood...."
".... Cheat a large company out of a bit of cash: jail for you (suspended in this case), and public humiliation on a scale never seen before in this absurd, reality-TV obssessed culture.
Incidentally, doesn't the documentary prejudice their right to a fair unbiased appeal? A legal right?
PS: Shouldn't this thread be in the Question Time forum???