It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Boy, 8, Killed Defending Sister From Rapist

page: 8
72
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: nenothtu

It's hard to read your posts...it's like the only thing you know about fighting you learned from "3 little ninjas".


Don't read them then. Just skip 'em.

Damned shame we can't all be the authorities on fighting that you are, though.




posted on May, 4 2014 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

Taken sarcastically and given the verity of this

Society as a whole would be so much better if we just learned to turn the other cheek to the psychos in our midst,

How would you label a person who would write sentiments like this?

I would prefer it be done with a rusty sardine can lid, and to first get the guy doing it drunk, so that his hand shakes a lot. Meat slicers have very sharp blades, and don't produce nearly enough pain for this case.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Grouchy and fed up.

I would label them grouchy and fed up.

Grouchy and fed up with all the nonsense about how "fixing society" is suddenly going to make all men all sweetness and light, and make psychopaths not psychotic any more.

Any other questions?


edit on 2014/5/5 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu


Kinda sucks some times, too, since I missed out on a lot of what you would consider "normal", and that makes me weird, even today.

But good in a fight. Maybe I'll call you. That reply makes you not so weird, by the way.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu




You, on the other hand, defend him with "he didn't know what he was doing because he was a child".


Defend him?

And you use quotation marks after you say I said so, well why not actually quote me properly instead making stuff up.

I said in my first post that what Buster showed in the second article they linked later on was in the first article in the OP, that it was teenage suspect having medical treatment awaiting arrest.

I gave my opinion that I found it rather sad that so many were so quick to judge with things like 'I wish the lethal injection would take 50min to painfully kill the monster' and other similar lovely things and that I will reserve any judgement.


My second post was a reply to you saying you assume as much as judge.

So would please quote me using ATSs quote system to actually show I posted or said this





You, on the other hand, defend him with "he didn't know what he was doing because he was a child".


otherwise stop making stuff up, its childish and has no place in such a discussion.




Defense is defense. Whether he was misunderstood because he couldn't help himself, or whether he was misunderstood because he was "only a child" is immaterial to the fact of a rape and murder. 16 is plenty old enough to know that rape and murder are wrong, and being unable to control himself is, buy itself, grounds for elimination from society when his proclivities are violent and uncontrollable.


Yes vengeance is a great defense or so you think but cant admit to it.




Already been answered, here: It's not about vengeance or deterrence. It's about protecting society, our women and children, from dangerous predators.



Its vengeance packaged any way you wish to call it, protecting society, protecting the women and children.

Sorry but the torture and condemnation that has been suggested in this thread isn't protection.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Reading the replies... its seems pretty typical.

Too much emotion is flying around here to have a decent logical discussion.

On what the kid did...

Politically Correct Answer: He is very brave for protecting his sister.

Logically Correct Answer: Since it was around his backyard, he should have ran screaming and get someone.

The kid, 8yrs old, probably did what his primal instinct told him to do, which was to protect his family. Was it the smartest thing to do looking from an adult perspective? i don't think so.

Separating emotion and looking logically is what would give the better solution for future event.

for those few who looked at it thru logical perspective than the emotional bandwagon most members decided to go with.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

An 8 year old that has been training in a martial art since they were 5 is not "an average 8 year old", now are they? No, they are an athlete in training. Go to a decent dojo, let a bunch of kids nail you in the nuts and see how fun it is.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: nenothtu




You, on the other hand, defend him with "he didn't know what he was doing because he was a child".


Defend him?


Yes. Defend him. I didn't stutter when I said it. You heard me correctly.




And you use quotation marks after you say I said so, well why not actually quote me properly instead making stuff up.

I said in my first post that what Buster showed in the second article they linked later on was in the first article in the OP, that it was teenage suspect having medical treatment awaiting arrest.

I gave my opinion that I found it rather sad that so many were so quick to judge with things like 'I wish the lethal injection would take 50min to painfully kill the monster' and other similar lovely things and that I will reserve any judgement.


My second post was a reply to you saying you assume as much as judge.

So would please quote me using ATSs quote system to actually show I posted or said this



You, on the other hand, defend him with "he didn't know what he was doing because he was a child".


otherwise stop making stuff up, its childish and has no place in such a discussion.



Fair enough. Here you go:




I am not ready to judge another child to hell or death like almost all poster have for the first 3 pages,



and:




I pity the world when so many are so quick to judge another child to a slow and painful death and eternity in hell before trying to gain any understanding.



Again, he was not a "child". He was sixteen years old, and that's plenty old enough to know right from wrong when it comes to rape and killing. Yes, he was a monster. Rattlesnakes which have not yet attained the age of majority are still rattlesnakes.







Defense is defense. Whether he was misunderstood because he couldn't help himself, or whether he was misunderstood because he was "only a child" is immaterial to the fact of a rape and murder. 16 is plenty old enough to know that rape and murder are wrong, and being unable to control himself is, buy itself, grounds for elimination from society when his proclivities are violent and uncontrollable.



Yes vengeance is a great defense or so you think but cant admit to it.



Already been answered, here: It's not about vengeance or deterrence. It's about protecting society, our women and children, from dangerous predators.



Its vengeance packaged any way you wish to call it, protecting society, protecting the women and children.

Sorry but the torture and condemnation that has been suggested in this thread isn't protection.



That is your opinion, your viewpoint, and I respect it - but I do not share it, nor will I ever. I am well aware of the difference between "vengeance" and "justice". That may be the way they do it in Australia, but this didn't happen in Australia. it happened in my back yard, or actually what is to soon become my back yard.

Looks like a bit of cleanup will be in order when I get there.

Parts of Richmond, VA, are a pretty rough joint. It's not very far from where I was raised, and yet it's an entire world away from it. I used to occasionally run Broad Street in Richmond just for grins and giggles. Perhaps you should one day try that, and then get back to me about "vengeance", and any other notions of how the other half lives you may now harbor.

There are "children" there who will definitely ruin your day if given the chance, just as there are here at my current location. I'd be particularly interested to know how you handle the first on that reaches for your car door when you're stopped at a red light. Maybe you can tell him all about how you're going to fix his society, and it'll all be good then. You probably don't want to know how I handled it the first time that happened to me, but I can tell you there was no actual bloodshed involved, everyone lived to fight another day, and so all was well that ended well... but I had no intention of fixing his society. That was his to fix, not mine. I had other intentions altogether if he couldn't take the hint.





edit on 2014/5/5 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

Thanks for showing readers you lied about me defending anything brought up in this thread.




Its not justice what is being suggested, its torture, if think torture is an OK form of protection then I really worry when you post this




Looks like a bit of cleanup will be in order when I get there.


Go dirty Harry



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: nenothtu

Thanks for showing readers you lied about me defending anything brought up in this thread.




No lies involved. They can read it and figure it out for themselves - it's all there, and ATS readership is generally pretty bright.




Its not justice what is being suggested, its torture, if think torture is an OK form of protection then I really worry when you post this




Looks like a bit of cleanup will be in order when I get there.


Go dirty Harry


You betcha. I will. I always have. I can't figure out any reason for you to worry about it, though - you're not there, and you probably have no intention of harming anyone, even if you were there, so I can't see any danger from it coming to your doorstep, therefore no reason for you to worry.

Some few of your pet criminal types may have an occasional bad day, though.






edit on 2014/5/5 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu




No lies involved.


Sure. untruths , incorrect assumptions. But quoting me saying something I didn't is dishonest.


This is what you posted in your own quotation marks saying I said this




You, on the other hand, defend him with "he didn't know what he was doing because he was a child".



Can you see what you posted and quoted as me saying such?

these are your words,

I replied with asking you quote me saying this, defending the suspect saying he didn't know ......because he was a child.

You quote me saying other things.




They can read it and figure it out for themselves - it's all there, and ATS readership is generally pretty bright.


Yes its all there.


You quoted that I pity the world and that I wont judge as quick as harshly as others have.

You are suggesting I am insinuating a defense for the suspect simply because I pointed out my disgust for the harsh judgments more than I did my disgust for the suspect.

I know ATS readership is generally pretty bright, hopefully bright enough to take words and sentences for what they mean not what they want them to mean.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: InhaleExhale

I rest my case then.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: luciddream
-- snip --
On what the kid did...

Politically Correct Answer: He is very brave for protecting his sister.

Logically Correct Answer: Since it was around his backyard, he should have ran screaming and get someone.

The kid, 8yrs old, probably did what his primal instinct told him to do, which was to protect his family. Was it the smartest thing to do looking from an adult perspective? i don't think so.

Separating emotion and looking logically is what would give the better solution for future event.
-- snip --


I have a feeling that you and I'd agree on a lot things, ordinarily. In this case, though, something that nobody has considered is a lifetime of guilt (hopefully some therapy) and "what ifs..." had he run for help and they'd found his sister's body violated and cast aside like a used up toy. (Please don't anyone start in on me about hyperbole. I'm a poet at heart and disagree with the trend of criticizing language that makes a point...)

Another of my "Donisms" is, "Sometimes all you can do is ALL you can do."

I won't call him a boy, that young man went to his grave with the sure knowledge he'd done everything he could have for his sister. I'd take that over a long life of shame and guilt anytime.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Any one who says they are good I a fight on the internet probably isn't good in a fight. I've got a collegiate record I could use if I wanted to destroy my anonymity and I'm what most people would call normal. I would also never espouse being a BA on an internet forum. However that guy thinks an 8 year old can go on the offensive against an adult which means he has a Hollywood misconception about how much brute strength and body mass means in a fight.

Once the kid was struck the attacker broke off his assault. One can safely assume a loud commotion would have done the same.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TKDRL

Yes. They are an average 8 year old. The only difference is they think they stand a chance against an adult.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Regardless of the kid's chances of winning, he stepped up and fought.
unlike 99% of the world he didn't hang around to work out the odds of winning, he acted.
He's never going to be one of the petty cowards who only fight when they know they'll win. Never going to be stuck with a situation cos he lacked the moral courage to do the right thing.
Never going to be belittled or bullied by people cos even if you run from trouble more always finds you.

His sis is alive and he got some licks in. I'd say he won that battle.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I dont disagree with that. I'm saying children should never ever ever ever ever be trained to go on the offensive against an adult. There is absolutely NOTHING an 8 year old, 1.3 meter tall, 60 pound child can do against an adult. To think otherwise and to train children otherwise is gross stupidity.

Sure, once flight or fight kicks in you never know. But you should always train them in whatever method gives them the best chance of survival.

a reply to: SprocketUK


edit on 5-5-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko
Fair point.
Though to me this is a story about what humans are capable of. Not about proficiency.

I think being taught to fight may have helped. It may also have hindered him.

I'm just happy to have read about a kid who did something awesome. It makes a great change from the usual stories.

PS as for the rapist kid. Put him down like a rabid dog.
There's no redemption for someone like that, whether they're 16 or 60.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Grouchy and fed up.

I would label them grouchy and fed up.

Grouchy and fed up with all the nonsense about how "fixing society" is suddenly going to make all men all sweetness and light, and make psychopaths not psychotic any more.

Any other questions?

More questions? No I think not.
This conversation, like the thread itself seems to have run it's course.




posted on May, 5 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko

However that guy thinks an 8 year old can go on the offensive against an adult which means he has a Hollywood misconception about how much brute strength and body mass means in a fight.



"That guy" thinks that it sounds like you got everything you know about fighting from re-runs of "The Incredible Hulk".

Now, in all fairness, we do seem to be talking about two different things. I'm talking about fighting, and it appears, from your insistence that "brute strength" and "body mass" mean anything in a fight, together with the reference to your "collegiate record", that you are talking about the sort of thing that high school and college boys try to pass off as "fighting" to impress the girls - i.e. sports, such as wrestling and boxing.

I'm talking about fighting, not playing as in sports. Sports have rules which tend to favor one attribute or another, meant to showcase that attribute. Fighting has only one rule - don't lose, because very bad things may happen if you do. To that end, you do whatever is necessary to win.

Another misapprehension you seem to be entertaining, perhaps because of your experience of sports as opposed to fighting, is that I meant for the fight to be a toe to toe, schmitty-throwing, punch trading duke out slug fest. I didn't. Kids should be taught to incapacitate their attackers - and they can - before running like hell to get away. The reason for that is that it's very difficult for an attacker to pursue when they cannot breathe, or cannot see. It doesn't have to be permanent (extra points if it is, though), just enough to prevent immediate pursuit. That can be done, sixty pounds vs 200 pounds or not.

It doesn't take nearly as much as you seem to think.




Once the kid was struck the attacker broke off his assault. One can safely assume a loud commotion would have done the same.



I don't have any reference that the attack was broken off after the boy was killed. I'd be obliged if you could provide that. From what I'm reading, the assault appears to have been completed, and the attacker lingered long enough afterward to threaten the girl's remaining family if she gave a true description, so she described a white male with scraggly facial hair initially to the police.

ETA: I never quit grasped the rationale behind "fighting" for sport, anyhow. It's not fun to me, and I can't fathom the mind that thinks it is. To each his own, I suppose. I do, however, see the humor in fighting fellas who think brute strength and body mass are the answer. I don't enjoy it, either, mind you, but I see the humor in it. You see, even now I am 6' 2", and top out at a whopping 155 pounds or so, depending on how much I ate on any given day. That makes me pretty thin, and apparently rather easily broken. They think they can use their brute strength and body mass to snap me like a twig.

Because that's what they rely on, they never see it coming. They seem perplexed when they can't get hold of me to snap me, and even more so when they encounter mobility problems and whatnot that create difficulties with their plans.

I do OK as an old guy, because I remember what worked as a kid. The two demographics have a few things in common.





edit on 2014/5/5 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
72
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join