CeterisXVII:

It seems you know them well, sir....

CeterisXVII:


Unproven claims of his farm being damaged? Were you at the hearing, during the court case? The cattle was detained, due to the damage caused to his farm by the said cattle. The damage to his farm was estimated at 15 million. But the owner refused to come and pay compensation to cover the damage. It was explained that was why the naval man detained the cattle, because he wanted to be paid for the damage to his crops. Or are you saying the cows did not damage his farm or crops, or that his farm was not burnt by the herdsmen?

CeterisXVII:

Unfortunately, I am not in the mood to engage childish trolls today. When you are tired, you will keep quiet....

mindtricks:


No surprises. People in government know exactly what to do to fish out the serial killer herdsmen, put an end to the bloodshed being carried out by them. They just don't want to do the needful for obvious reasons of bias and nepotism. Imagine the herdsmen being OPC or IPOB and then you will see government act and prevent such heinous crime much before it happens.

Sprumbabafather:


Afonjas are fond of denying their brothers in times of trouble (Yoruba elders did it to MKO)

EternalTruths:
Has anyone noticed that the Yorubas elites whose farms have been overran are mainly Christian Yorubas

Falae: Christian

Samuel: Christian.


Very soon, they will overrun Obasanjo's farm.

NOETHNICITY:
Not true.
I know a number of muslims whose farms ve been overrun by herdsmen. One of them even had a serious clash with the herdsmen which almost resulted in attacks.

Must u dullards give everytin in Nigeria a religious colouration
Herdsmen don't ask u ur religion b4 dry strike.

Herdsmen killed my friend's mum who was an Alhaja in Edo.

CeterisXVII:


No kidding??!! I am shocked.

ItsMeAboki:
My friend stop behaving like a dunce.

This matter was reviewed by a competent court where evidences presented by both parties were carefully considered by the presiding judge who subsequently ruled in favour of the Fulani man because he found the retired Naval Officer guilty of the offence.

Note (by simple deduction) the naval man couldn't have just detained the cows but evidently consumed/used or deposed them (effectively stole them) otherwise the court would have simply ordered him to return the cows instead of payment to the Fulani man - it clearly showed how the naval man took the law into his hands and could also explain why the Fulani are often provoked into taking reprisals, when they cannot get justice.
I am, however, pleased and relieved at how this matter ended peacefully in a more civilised manner without loss of life.

CeterisXVII:

Sir, kindly take a look in the mirror. If there is anyone behaving like a dunce, it certainly would be you, don't you think? Unless you were present and you saw the retired naval man consuming or using or deposing the cows like you claimed, then surely, you cannot accuse him of having done so.

The cattle owner might have been lying that there were 60 cows. Has that thought occurred to you? Or the herdsmen may have lost a few along the way, before getting to the Admiral's farm. That again is possible.

Now, why are you trying to justify the reprisal attacks of the Fulani herdsmen, which always exceed the scope of the initial action targeted against their cows? The Fulani herdsmen simply have murderous tendencies, or how do you explain them burning a whole village while killing innocent men, women and children, simply because a few cows went missing? Did the children steal the cows, too?

As for the Admiral's farm & crops which were destroyed by the cattle, there was pictorial evidence placed before the court, showing the scope of the damage caused by the cattle. But the judge (for reasons best known to him) chose to ignore the damage done to the farm, and award costs in favour of the cattle owner. If this case ever goes to an appeal court, the outcome would be interesting. It would be nice to see how the verdict gets upturned. After all, this isn't the first time a judge of the lower court would pass a judgement so lacking in merit, that the Appeal court would be forced to call his judgement into question.....

ItsMeAboki:
You continue to expose your poor comprehension/obvious intellectual deficiency.

I suggest you go back and read my post carefully, this time more slowly and refer to where I used the phrase, "by simple deduction" subsequently then ask someone more educated to explain that to you.
Perhaps you may then understand why I said that naval officer may have consumed/used or disposed the cattle otherwise the court would have directed him to return the cattle instead of making him to pay the Fulani man for them - shey you understand?

Secondly, I never disputed whether or not the Fulani may have lied about the number of cattle involved; however, I did pointed out the fact that all the evidences were before the judge; who subsequently ruled against the officer having already himself admitted to illegally withholding/stealing 42 herds of the Fulani man's cattle.

Lastly, I did not in anyway condoned or justified the alleged Fulani killings; I was quite conscious of the implications of my words and chose them very carefully when I said, "could also explain why the Fulani are often provoked into taking reprisals, when they cannot get justice" - key relevant words here being COULD and EXPLAIN respectively.

Furthermore, my closing remarks, which expressed relief and pleasure that matter was resolved peacefully without loss of life, completely debunks your assertion that I condoned the killings - it is a pity that a person who indirectly professes superior intelligence should continue to fail woefully at simple comprehension. SMH.

CeterisXVII:


Your sly innuendo and condescension, does not hide the intent of your words. You used the words 'simple deduction.' Does the court rely on 'simple deduction,' to reach a verdict or incontrovertible proof? You used the phrase 'simple deduction,' to make it look as if the naval officer had stolen or used the cattle. What informed this deduction of yours'? Conjecture?

And you rely a lot on hypothetical instances in trying to drive home your points. Using words such as 'could...explain' does not hide your intent, or the fact that you are heavily biased in favour of the cattle owner, and totally opposed to the admiral/farmer who lost his crops and part of his farm, to the cattle, after spending time, effort and money to cultivate those crops. I suggest, you upgrade your level of comprehension, if you can.

Lastly, the cattle owner asked for damages of 10 million naira to be paid, to cover the period his cows were in the custody of the naval officer. The judge agreed to award costs of 9 million. The sum awarded was not said to cover any cows that were consumed, used or deposed. Hope you would be able to deduce that, from the court proceedings.

ItsMeAboki:
You are quite incorrigible, you yet again misconstrue my deductive reasoning in the context used; though I do now concede that the the naval officer did not after all consume or otherwise disposed of the cattle as I erroneously did but was made to pay compensation for the duration of the time he illegally withheld the cattle - that much I wholeheartedly accept.

However, this does not mean I said or in anyway implied that the court relied on deduction to arrived at its decision (though this process is quite legitimate and quite often relied on by the courts; there is such thing as circumstantial evidence) after having repeatedly drawn your attention to the fact that the judge weighed all the evidence before him and arrived at a judgement in favour of the Fulani.

If anyone relied on innuendos and conjectures it was you, who was clearly using the words might, may etc to make his points - evidently trying to guess at the Fulani man's presumed motives in line with your preconceived biased conclusion, without the full facts.

Presenting a pictorial evidence of the damage isn't enough, it only proves damage was inflicted to the property and therefore represents a mere allegation without proof; however, for any judge to convict a person, the prosecution must tie the accused to the evidence i.e. prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was indeed the one responsible for the damage - something which your naval officer evidently couldn't do; hence his conviction for illegal possession of someone's cattle.

Lastly if anyone was hypocritical, it would have you who was not happy with my usage of deduction but would conveniently forget his earlier proscription and subsequent later prescription of same to me (see your closing remarks) - what a hypocrite, in a typical example of approbating and reprobating all at the same time.

AbuEzeFemi:

"if you speak the truth you die

if you lie die

if you are quiet you die

if you talk you die

if you hide you die

if you come out you die


so I choose to speak and die " - Sen. Dino Melaye

CeterisXVII:


Oh dear, you have fallen into the same trap as most people do on NL. Just because you can't find valid points to buttress your case, you decided to take refuge in the realm of demeaning language. Let us see, you now feel it is time to use words like "incorrigible, hypocritical...?" I fi nd it hilarious.

You really need to go back and read through your opening remarks on this thread. You did accuse the naval officer of stealing, and when your error was pointed out, you recanted. You also used the words "simple deduction," in your earlier post, when you drew your conclusions about the naval officer's action, concerning the cows. Do you remember?

So why are you angry, that the same words you had earlier used, were quoted back at you? It appears you are trying to do some extensive damage control here. But that is your call. Like Shakespeare said in Hamlet: "Methinks the lady doth protest too much," or should I say the gentleman doth protest too much, since it appears that you are a man, and not a lady.

Finally, pictorial evidence of the damage to the farm was not only produced, the confessional statements of the herdsmen caught on the farm, who were in custody, was also tendered. It was an arrested herdsmen named Mohammed Buba, who told the police the name of their master, that owned the cows. His name is Alhaji Shehu Nasarawa, who resides in Zamfara.

Anyway, there really was no need for you to respond with such a long treatise, laced with sly insults. It wasn't such a big deal.