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.
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".
Society as a whole would be so much better if we just learned to turn the other cheek to the psychos in our midst,
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.
You, on the other hand, defend him with "he didn't know what he was doing because he was a child".
You, on the other hand, defend him with "he didn't know what he was doing because he was a child".
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.
Already been answered, here: It's not about vengeance or deterrence. It's about protecting society, our women and children, from dangerous predators.
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?
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.
I am not ready to judge another child to hell or death like almost all poster have for the first 3 pages,
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.
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.
Looks like a bit of cleanup will be in order when I get there.
originally posted by: InhaleExhale
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
No lies involved.
You, on the other hand, defend him with "he didn't know what he was doing because he was a child".
They can read it and figure it out for themselves - it's all there, and ATS readership is generally pretty bright.
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 --
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.
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.
Once the kid was struck the attacker broke off his assault. One can safely assume a loud commotion would have done the same.