Lalaska: Errand nonsense. Explaining why you broke the law

Serendipity:
Broke which law, there are doctrines of necessity. The law can be broken when necessary. That's why you can kill a person in self defence without running afoul of the law. In other words, if you can establish before the court that you actually did the killing to defend yourself against grievous bodily harm or death. Mind you, the defence should be commensurate with the attack as you would be indicted when otherwise is the case.

olivertwist: If this had happened in Lagos State, we'd have been talking of about 15-20 pages by now. Where are NL HYPOCRITES.

floriana:
It is grammar like this that make our rulers think we are all illiterates and as such treat us anyhow. The correct thing is 'arrant nonsense'.

Sirmee: I wish he was arrested by lastma

Serendipity:
Spare me the platitude- 'the sane climes.' Let's just be realistic and rationative .They shouldn't have accosted the man. I mean such people should be given concessions especially when the said law affects no one directly. You can't refute factually that the man was rushing for an important meeting. Also, I don't discount as a lie the possibility that he wasn't. Those bootlicking VIOs were just being impish and contumelious. And who said that the law respects no one? That's why the court can grant bail to a person on his recognisance as a celebrity or VIP.
Additionally, you don't sue a government agency without giving them notice, otherwise the court would lack competence to adjudicate over the matter. Isn't that respect?

ITbomb: Some are more equal than others

Serendipity:
Broke which law, there are doctrines of necessity. The law can be broken when necessary. That's why you can kill a person in self defence without running afoul of the law. In other words, if you can establish before the court that you actually did the killing to defend yourself against grievous bodily harm or death. Mind you, the defence should be commensurate with the attack as you would be indicted when otherwise is the case.

knotty: ``sheer bravado and braggadocio. He is just being highfalutin``
``impish and contumelious``
``are equal is chimeric and quixotic.``

Thanks so very much, Serendipity.
School has been very rewarding today

maclatunji: This report is awful! I write too so I know what I am talking about.

Serendipity:
Spare me the platitude- 'the sane climes.' Let's just be realistic and rationative .They shouldn't have accosted the man. I mean such people should be given concessions especially when the said law affects no one directly. You can't refute factually that the man was rushing for an important meeting. Also, I don't discount as a lie the possibility that he wasn't. Those bootlicking VIOs were just being impish and contumelious. And who said that the law respects no one? That's why the court can grant bail to a person on his recognisance as a celebrity or VIP.
Additionally, you don't sue a government agency without giving them notice, otherwise the court would lack competence to adjudicate over the matter. Isn't that respect?

Serendipity:
Broke which law, there are doctrines of necessity. The law can be broken when necessary. That's why you can kill a person in self defence without running afoul of the law. In other words, if you can establish before the court that you actually did the killing to defend yourself against grievous bodily harm or death. Mind you, the defence should be commensurate with the attack as you would be indicted when otherwise is the case.