posted
Middle East News Saudi Arabia chops off hand of Egyptian for theft
Nov 5, 2007, 12:56 GMT
Riyadh - An Egyptian convicted of theft in Saudi Arabia had his right hand chopped off on Monday - the first hand amputation to be carried out in the kingdom in 2007.
The Egyptian national had his right hand cut off after he was convicted of pick-pocketing inside the Grand Mosque in Mecca, a Saudi ministry of interior statement said.
The ministry warned all those who toyed with the idea of committing a similar crime to beware of the punishment prescribed in the Islamic Sharia law.
Saudi Arabia implements a harsh, puritanical version of Islam, known as Wahhabism named after the founder of the rigid Islamic school of thought, Muhammad bin Abdel-Wahhab.
Under Saudi law, if a convicted thief offends again, his left hand will be cut off.
Isn't it possible that he's bleeding to death or does he receive straight away medical attention to ease the injured arm?
Posts: 30135 | From: The owner of this website killed ES....... | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
People should not harp on what the Saudi's do to criminals.
What about in the USA when people are put to death by:
1. Death by electric chair. 2. Death by gas chamber 4. Lethal injection.
Instead of housing thieves for years, feeding them, and providing medical treatments etc., Islam just cuts off the hand of the thief and so that everyone who see's them will know that they are thieves.
Anyway I hope you get the point.
-------------------- 'Abdullah bin 'Umar said, "Allah's Apostle (صلى الله عليه و سلم) took hold of my shoulder and said, "Be in this world as if you were a stranger or a traveller." Posts: 2342 | From: Its not where I'm from but where Im going | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: He receives medical treatment on the spot.
People should not harp on what the Saudi's do to criminals.
What about in the USA when people are put to death by:
1. Death by electric chair. 2. Death by gas chamber 4. Lethal injection.
Instead of housing thieves for years, feeding them, and providing medical treatments etc., Islam just cuts off the hand of the thief and so that everyone who see's them will know that they are thieves.
Anyway I hope you get the point.
"Saudi Arabia chops off hand of Egyptian for theft"
This is really a disproportional punishment for such crime.
Islam also provides death penalty for murder. However the murderer can negotiate with the family of the deceased victim to be forgiven by a payment of blood money. The victim's family can also forgive the murderer without payment of blood money if they so choose. Obviously the rich murderers are in a better position to negotiate than paupers.
Amputation is mandatory for theft. The thief is not allowed to negotiate compensation to the victim even if the victim wants to forgive the thief.
Does that make sense to you?- that the murderer can be forgiven by payment of blood money to avoid the death penalty, but the thief cannot be forgiven by paying compensation to escape amputation, not even if the victim forgives the thief. I cannot see what is so perfect by this disparity. Is it because Islam view stealing a more serious crime than killing another human being? Do you consider software piracy as stealing? If so will their hands (software pirates) be amputated or a lobotomy be performed on them since it is theft of intellectual property? Will you tell me that I cannot appreciate the beauty and logic of this disparity because I am not a Muslim? If I appear sarcastic, please forgive me because this disparity really baffles me and I hope you can help me understand Islam better by answering my questions.
Posts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: He receives medical treatment on the spot.
People should not harp on what the Saudi's do to criminals.
What about in the USA when people are put to death by:
1. Death by electric chair. 2. Death by gas chamber 4. Lethal injection.
Instead of housing thieves for years, feeding them, and providing medical treatments etc., Islam just cuts off the hand of the thief and so that everyone who see's them will know that they are thieves.
Anyway I hope you get the point.
"Saudi Arabia chops off hand of Egyptian for theft"
This is really a disproportional punishment for such crime.
Islam also provides death penalty for murder. However the murderer can negotiate with the family of the deceased victim to be forgiven by a payment of blood money. The victim's family can also forgive the murderer without payment of blood money if they so choose. Obviously the rich murderers are in a better position to negotiate than paupers.
Amputation is mandatory for theft. The thief is not allowed to negotiate compensation to the victim even if the victim wants to forgive the thief.
Does that make sense to you?- that the murderer can be forgiven by payment of blood money to avoid the death penalty, but the thief cannot be forgiven by paying compensation to escape amputation, not even if the victim forgives the thief. I cannot see what is so perfect by this disparity. Is it because Islam view stealing a more serious crime than killing another human being? Do you consider software piracy as stealing? If so will their hands (software pirates) be amputated or a lobotomy be performed on them since it is theft of intellectual property? Will you tell me that I cannot appreciate the beauty and logic of this disparity because I am not a Muslim? If I appear sarcastic, please forgive me because this disparity really baffles me and I hope you can help me understand Islam better by answering my questions.
You can't understand, because you don't want to understand. You only want to find vault in Islaam.
Here is a verse from the bible on thieft:
If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. ... If he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. -- Exodus 22:1-3
Now the poor thief who doesn't have money to repay for whta he/she stolen is to sold into slavery..
Do you think that is far?
We are waiting for your response. Which do you prefer cut happens to a thief? Cut the hand off or sell him into slavery for the rest of his/her life?
Posts: 2342 | From: Its not where I'm from but where Im going | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:First, Christians honor the Old Testament, but they also take this multifaceted document in its historical context. The Torah was part and parcel of its culture. It either reflects its culture (like some architectural features of the tabernacle), or it improves on its culture (ethical monotheism). Not all of the old law applies to today’s world.
Second, Christians look back at the Old Testament through the vision of Jesus. It is true that the Old Testament endorses the stoning of adulterers (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22), for example. However, for Christians, Jesus’ interpretation of these laws is final. He takes away their sharp sting with his death on the cross and by his sinless life and divine love.
Third, Jesus came to fulfill the law or Torah, not to abolish it (Matthew 5:17). He fulfills it in at least three ways, but the one we look at here takes away the law’s severe punishments.
Jesus fulfills the law by taking on himself the penalty for our sins. The Torah is filled with specific punishments for specific sins, but his death on the cross satisfies and propitiates divine wrath that is directed at our sins—this is the Christian doctrine of the atonement. It is for this reason that a Christian could never give up this doctrine and must totally reject Muhammad’s odd view that Christ never died on the cross, but a man took his place (Sura 4:157). Muhammad’s belief is completely misguided. Christ’s death is God’s gift to us. We are saved and on our way to heaven, not based on our own works, but on Christ’s good work on the cross. Therefore, those who trust in Christ do not have to pay the penalty for their sins. The effects of this doctrine benefit all of society, especially today.
For more information on how Jesus fulfills the Old Testament, click on this article.
One of the problems with the law of Muhammad is that he seeks to revive a diluted and distorted version of the old law of Moses. Muhammad haphazardly reinstitutes harsh punishments, for example, flogging fornicators (Sura 24:2) and stoning adulterers (Bukhari 8:6815, 6825; Muslim no. 4206). For Christians, the way of Muhammad is deficient and incomplete at best, and at worst it drags them backwards into legalistic bondage. The inspired Gospel of John says: "For the law was given to Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). Hence, Christians do not need a recycled and inferior old-new Moses in Muhammad. They have grace and truth through Jesus Christ.
Another problem with the law of Muhammad is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, who has been reduced to the archangel Gabriel in Islamic theology. According to this doctrine, Muslims do not enjoy the Holy Spirit living in them in the way described by Jesus Christ and the New Testament, so they have to fulfill the old-new law of Muhammad by their own efforts. For Christians, this too is inadequate and incomplete. They have been promised the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18; 3:11; Luke 11:13; John 20:22), and he lives in them to enable and empower them to walk in love, which fulfills the law (Matt. 23:37-40; Rom. 13:10).
But does the Bible, specifically the New Testament, contribute anything to the law in western societies?
One of the many charges that Muslims throw at Christianity is that it does not provide enough specific guidance in legal affairs. This criticism is right in one way, but wrong in another.
As noted here (scroll down to "How Christianity changes society"), the criticism is right because Jesus’ mission was to look beyond establishing a worldly government, but to provide the true path of salvation by his atoning death on the cross. He knew that wandering messiahs and prophets tried to establish their credentials by military and political means around the greater Middle East, before and during his time, so he avoided a military and political messiahship. Besides, he was destined to fulfill Old Testament passages that describe a spiritual Messiah, such as Isaiah 53. When he comes back a second time, he will fulfill the role of a Messiah that is both military (one word will eliminate all enemies) and political (he will rule on earth peacefully and without opposition).
The criticism is wrong because western legal scholars over the centuries have used the Bible to enact laws, but their application or ignorance of these laws has produced mixed results. As Siddiqi noted in the previous section, western law went to extremes by torturing a man as he was being put to death, disemboweling and drawing and quartering him. But the Bible does not command this, though stoning a man to death, which the Torah does command, is hard enough on the human body. Other times western law demanded stoning for adultery, following the old Torah. In the Medieval Age a peasant could be executed for defying a feudal lord or severely punished for not paying proper respect to him. This is wrong, for it does not honor the peasant who is loved by God equally. The western world is gradually learning a lesson by following the principles of mercy and dignity, found in the New Testament and the life of Jesus, when the West must punish a criminal.
For example, if states in the US insist on imposing the death penalty (and this is a debated topic), then the US Constitution forbids "cruel and unusual" punishment. It is true that various states over the past two hundred or more years have carried out the death penalty by less-than-ideal methods, for example, hanging, a firing squad, or an electric chair. But now lethal injection is being used, and that is a much more merciful and dignified way to die, and it is certainly more humane than how the murder victim died—assuming of course that the death penalty is a viable punishment for first degree murders with special circumstances. This shows that the US is learning from the past and is progressing.
Moreover, this much is certain: in no way does any state in the US (nor the entire European Union) endorse or carry out cutting off the hands and feet or searing the eyes of any highway robber who stole material goods along a trade route, as we find in the Quran and the example of Muhammad. To repeat, this is "cruel and unusual punishment," and this phrase was added to the Constitution precisely because Europe in the eighteenth century and before used cruel and unusual methods of punishing criminals. But the West has improved since then—and is still improving. It is following the principle of the dignity of humans, even when they have to be punished.
One of the major flaws in Islamic law or sharia is that it applies specific punishments that are brutal and excessive, such as cutting off a hand of a thief or flogging a sexual sinner or cutting off an alternate hand and foot of a highway robber, perhaps even crucifying him to make an example of him. These laws are simply wrong, ipso facto, by their very nature, six hundred years after Jesus showed us a better way. If Muslims were to rewrite these brutal laws, then this would be a limping step in the right direction. But they are embedded in the Quran, which allegedly expresses the universal and eternal truths of Allah. So how can legal scholars even rewrite classical fiqh or the science of applying sharia, which is based on their sacred book and on the example of Muhammad seen in the hadith?
What is the major difference between western law and Islamic law?
Islamic law is based on the Quran and the example of Muhammad in the hadith. Muslims assert that Allah inspired his book and guided his prophet in the clearest and most direct way possible. Logically, this means that Islam loathes change and innovation. If sharia followed common sense, reason, and the dignity of humans more fully, then this would not be a problem in human affairs (theologically, though, many problems emerge). However, this article and the linked articles demonstrate that Islamic law does not follow these three virtues. But how can they, when the Quran and hadith are harsh and excessive? Excess is never just. But Allah wills it nonetheless.
Western law, on the other hand, does not claim direct inspiration from God, even though Biblical principles lay at its foundation. Also, since the Enlightenment (c. 1600-1800), a strong dose of reason has been injected into the legal process, as well. (The Islamic world has not yet undergone this kind of Enlightenment, but it needs to.) If western law became harsh and oppressive, for example, in the Medieval Age, then it could be changed for the better. Reason and the Biblical principle of dignity, for example, allow for improvement more readily. This is why reform is much easier to enact here in the West than in societies that are drenched in religious law.
To conclude this section, the West is progressing in applying its punishments, absorbing the dignity and mercy that Jesus and the New Testament authors showed everyone, even criminals, in his words and life and in their writings. Hence, the Western world, with all of its flaws, does not impose the gruesome penalties that the Quran commands and that too many Islamic societies impose, such as the long, painful death of crucifixion or the mutilation of hands and feet. But when the West is excessive in its punishments, it can reform more easily, since its law is also based on reason and is not saturated with religious law.
On the other hand, Muslim scholars may talk about dignity and mercy in their books or on their websites, but Muhammad too often did not demonstrate these virtues to people. After all, he is the one who left the tribesmen in the hot sun, dying of thirst, but not before piercing their eyes and throwing them off high points on to rocks. It seems, then, that in order to reform, traditional Muslims must reject many verses in the Quran and many, many passages in the hadith. But this is blasphemous, especially rejecting the Quran, so onward the traditionalists go, blithely and matter-of-factly mutilating and stoning and flogging people.
Application to today
This article published by the journal al-Tawhid (Oneness or Unity) in Qum, Iran, the seat of learning for Shi’ites, uses Sura 5:33 and defines the crimes broadly, as follows:
* prostitution and the disintegration of family relationships; * narcotics and the disintegration of individual's rational personality; * colonialism and the undermining of peoples' dignity and plundering of their resources; * racism and the disintegration of human brotherhood; * violation of all recognized rights and the breaking of covenants: * bombardment of populated areas, use of chemical weapons. attacks on civil aviation, national railways, commercial and tourist vessels, and similar methods which are universally condemned in war.
This broad description of crimes opens the door to all manner of justifications of applying the punishments in Sura 5:33. Should such a criminal have his alternate hand and foot cut off for selling drugs or pimping or racism? Should he be crucified? Rather than questioning this verse, the author of the article and many in the Islamic world seem to accept it as coming from Allah and matter-of-factly interpret it for society today.
However, sharia is not a benefit to society, for it contains too many harsh rules and punishments. One of the most tragic and under-reported occurrences in the West in recent years is the existence of a sharia court in Canada. Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce court in Australia, as well. Having a court of arbitration if it is based on western law and legal theory is legitimate, but sharia does not hold to this standard. So Canada should promptly shut down any sharia court, and Australia should never allow one. Fortunately, the province of Quebec, Canada, rejected a sharia court. This is the right policy and direction. Such a court should never be permitted in the US, Europe, and elsewhere around the world. Sharia ultimately degrades society and diminishes freedom.
The violent radicals who are now slithering around the world would gladly impose their Quran’s and the hadith’s severe law on non-Muslim nations, if the radicals could ever conquer them by force or by gradual means. If the terrorists do not hesitate to cut off heads, why would they not mutilate the hands and feet of highway robbers in order to make society pure and holy before Allah, who gave this rule in the first place? The war on terror must continue, in order to preserve western civilization and an assortment of nonwestern nations struggling with Islam.
We on the outside of Islam are allowed to ask: Does the Quran offer better guidance for society than the New Testament does? Does Muhammad improve on the teaching and deeds of Jesus? Indeed, would God send Gabriel down to inspire Sura 5:33?
Given the hard evidence, Bible-educated Christians realize that the true God would not send down such an extreme verse in the new era of salvation which Jesus ushered in. They realize that the Quran is empirically and factually worse than the New Testament.
Jesus Christ came with good news and the love of God. As the eternal Son of God, he sent the Holy Spirit to transform people from the inside out. Being only a human messenger (Sura 3:144), Muhammad came with crucifixion and mutilation. Christianity advances society forward. Islam drags society backwards.
Jesus saves sinners and criminals by his own crucifixion. Muhammad killed sinners and criminals by his legalized, punitive crucifixion.
posted
The difference between grace and the law is like the difference between a city dog and a country dog.
The city dog is kept locked up in his yard. He has no option but to stay by his master house but if ever the gate is open and he gets out, he will run for his freedom. The master may call and run after him but the harder the master runs to get him the fast the dog runs away.
The country dog has wide open spaces. He can go where ever he wants. Yet, he sits at his masters door.
It's the grace of God that teaches us to say no to unrighteousness. Jesus showed this by condemning the scribes and Pharisees who were the "religious" zealots of their time. He basically told them that they look good on the outside but inside they are full of dead men's bones. He also showed how we all sin. He said that the law says thou shalt not commit adultery but I say unto you, if you look upon a woman to lust after her you have already committed adultery with her in your heart. He also said if any man says he has no sin, he is a liar and the truth is not in him.
What sets the teachings of Jesus on such a high level is that he taught that it is not of works, least any man should boast but it is what is in your heart. He taught love, compassion, and grace.
-------------------- "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." (Sign hanging in Einstein's office at Princeton) Leap and the Net will Appear. Posts: 3891 | From: No good deed goes unpunished. | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Undercover: blah blah blah
Thank you for confirming (one again) that you are not in the least bit concerned about learning about Islaam. You are only hear to mock and ridicule Islaam.
At least we know where you stand. Thank you and you too Of_Gold.
Posts: 2342 | From: Its not where I'm from but where Im going | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
But SITS, don't you think it would be more useful if this thief gets punished and has to do voluntary community work where other people benefit from? Why such a violence but chopping off someone's hand for such a minor crime? How can he support himself (and probably his family) with one hand only? Is disfiguring someone really gonna make a difference to other thieves so that they'll think twice before they pick-pocketing next time?
Posts: 30135 | From: The owner of this website killed ES....... | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tigerlily, that's not quite fair, I think you know that he doesn't think. Posts: 3891 | From: No good deed goes unpunished. | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tigerlily: But SITS, don't you think it would be more useful if this thief gets punished and has to do voluntary community work where other people benefit from? Why such a violence but chopping off someone's hand for such a minor crime? How can he support himself (and probably his family) with one hand only? Is disfiguring someone really gonna make a difference to other thieves so that they'll think twice before they pick-pocketing next time?
You're right I don't think that. I believe that a thief deserves to have his/her hand(s) and if necessary his/her feet(s) chopped of if they steal.
You would too if someone broke into you home and stole your hard earn money. What if they stole your life savings and now you and your family are broke, no money for food, medicine, clothing and essential needs. Would you want them to get off with community service? Naw I don't think so. You say that here on the forum but in reality..you would love to see justice done to them.
What if they stole your rent money and it caused you miss your mortage payments, car payments, utility payments and you lose everything. Would you want them to get off with some petty community service so that they can go back to their family and live off your money? And get this no-one will ever know he/she was a thief because they got off clear and clean.
In the USA child molester must register with the police deparment. They can't live within school districts etc. The government has set up laws to identify them and protect good decent members of society from their evilness.
Islam exposes thieves because their crime is again humanity. It is a crime against the community and the punish of the crimes tell how serious the nature of the crime is. Cutting off a hand is something very serious..so the action what facilitates it must have been grave.
No I don't feel sorry for a thief. He is punished and then let back into society and just like the scarlet letter he will be known as a thief so that you can watch your back around him/her.
Posts: 2342 | From: Its not where I'm from but where Im going | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The irony of it: Even though petty theft in Islamic countries may be lower because the penalty for small theft is huge, big theft, i.e. white collar theft by the government officials is much more prevalent in Islamic countries than in democracies. In Iran you can be severely punished for stealing a pair of shoes, but the Mullahs steal billions with total immunity. The same can be said of Saudi Arabia where people leave their shops and go to the mosque and no one dares to steal anything because the punishment is chopping the hands and yet theft of billions of dollars happen so easily. This is because Islam does not allow criticism of those in power.
Posts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by StickyHairspray: I was led to beleive that the first time your caught your warned carry it on then it is the hand chopped off or the finger ..
No first time offender get their hands chopped off because they know better. They knew that if they stole they would get their hands chopped off and they blantly disregarded the potential punishment anyway. Shame on them
If that wasn't the case then the firt time offender would steal 3 million and then he/she wouldn't have to steal thereafter..LOL
What is the big deal. If your are not a thief and you don't plan on stealing what is the big deal if someone who steals get their hand cut off?
If I never steal then I never have to worry about getting my hand chopped off, it's just that simple. Only the thieves should worry about this issue.
Posts: 2342 | From: Its not where I'm from but where Im going | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: If I never steal then I never have to worry about getting my hand chopped off, it's just that simple. Only the thieves should worry about this issue. [/QB]
Okay this statement irritates me tremendously.
Shouldn't you be saying that you are a right-doing person and stealing is not - under any kind of circumstances - an option for you rather than pointing out what kind of punishment you'll most likely to receive so that's why you are not a thief yourself?
Posts: 30135 | From: The owner of this website killed ES....... | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that God is all powerful and all knowing. I also believe that everything happens for a reason and that we create our own reality.
In my opinion if a person feels that he is responsible for taking vengeance then he also feels he is without sin. It would be a wise person who was able to work on the state of his own heart rather then constantly looking how he can punish others for their sins.
How can the love of God be in your heart if you want to do bodily harm to another? This is why Jesus teachings are so great because he taught to love your enemies. Much more difficult to do than taking vengeance.
God is merciful.
-------------------- "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." (Sign hanging in Einstein's office at Princeton) Leap and the Net will Appear. Posts: 3891 | From: No good deed goes unpunished. | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: If I never steal then I never have to worry about getting my hand chopped off, it's just that simple. Only the thieves should worry about this issue.
Okay this statement irritates me tremendously.
Shouldn't you be saying that you are a right-doing person and stealing is not - under any kind of circumstances - an option for you rather than pointing out what kind of punishment you'll most likely to receive so that's why you are not a thief yourself? [/QB]
Okay you're irritated, and?
No I don't agree with you. My position is very clear. I don't steal because I know that it wrong to wrong another human. However, those that do not ascribe to that philosophy face the risk of having their hands chopped off if living some Muslim Countries. Like I said for me it's a non-issue but for a thief he/she should beware for every action there is a reaction.
Posts: 2342 | From: Its not where I'm from but where Im going | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: If I never steal then I never have to worry about getting my hand chopped off, it's just that simple. Only the thieves should worry about this issue.
Okay this statement irritates me tremendously.
Shouldn't you be saying that you are a right-doing person and stealing is not - under any kind of circumstances - an option for you rather than pointing out what kind of punishment you'll most likely to receive so that's why you are not a thief yourself? [/QB]
No worries lily...just consider the source. Posts: 3891 | From: No good deed goes unpunished. | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: If I never steal then I never have to worry about getting my hand chopped off, it's just that simple. Only the thieves should worry about this issue.
Okay this statement irritates me tremendously.
Shouldn't you be saying that you are a right-doing person and stealing is not - under any kind of circumstances - an option for you rather than pointing out what kind of punishment you'll most likely to receive so that's why you are not a thief yourself?
No worries lily...just consider the source. [/QB]
Ha Ha and you have no room for talking..ROTFL Posts: 2342 | From: Its not where I'm from but where Im going | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you know that if a Roman was caught stealing he would be sent to work in the gladiator ring, picking up the remains of mutilated bodies AND the door of his house would be removed so that anyone could just walk right in.
In my country, if you are caught stealing you get:
a: told off b: a court appearance, probably for 6 months down the line c: a prison sentence, lets say 6 months reduced to 6 days or community service because the prisons are overcrowded. d: a prison sentance where you can improve your education, get your meals delivered to you and keep fit or visit the library daily.
we look after our criminals we do.
If you catch a theif in your own home, attacking you or your family and stealing, and you kick his arse -
YOU go to prison and get arrested
so ask me if this is harsh - I would rather harsh punishments for people intent on ruining other peoples lives than the joke that is the legal system in my country.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
agreed wanderer, Here in the states if someone steals first offence, they get arresteed for a few days, go to court, end up with a punishment of paying back the equal amount stolen through small payments usually for however long it may take, a few months on probation and a few hours community service. Perhaps there should be harsher punishments that will make people stop and think before they do wrong. And yes here too, if you touch the person they can take you to court for assault
Posts: 2410 | From: Indiana, USA | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic