Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However,
he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and
begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for
self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
2025-05-29 1:43 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However,
he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and
begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for
self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
That was truly obscene. Both sets of lawyers agreed that it was >unquestionably self-defence yet she got 17 years in the slammer.
The
contrast with the sentences for the people convicted in the rape gang
scandal were extremely disproportionate by comparison.
Maybe Reform can preside over a major rewrite of the laws in the UK so
that they make sense again. (Reform is substantially ahead of both the >Conservatives and Reform in polling on a national basis but the next
election is still a few years away so anything could happen between now
and then.)
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However,
he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and
begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for
self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
2025-05-29 1:43 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However,
he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and
begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for
self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
That was truly obscene. Both sets of lawyers agreed that it was
unquestionably self-defence yet she got 17 years in the slammer.
I don't even think this is recent law. She committed a crime by using
the knife she had brought with her anticipating she might need to defend herself. She'd been sexually assaulted previously.
With UK's prohibition of being able to act in self defense using a
weapon, suppose you use your own body to defeat your attacker. In the ultimate illogic, did you violate the law as you used what you brought
with you as a weapon?
The
contrast with the sentences for the people convicted in the rape gang
scandal were extremely disproportionate by comparison.
Maybe Reform can preside over a major rewrite of the laws in the UK so
that they make sense again. (Reform is substantially ahead of both the
Conservatives and Reform in polling on a national basis but the next
election is still a few years away so anything could happen between now
and then.)
I have no idea as UK voters do not seem to be inclined to punish their politicians for illiberal laws.
On May 28, 2025 at 10:43:15 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]> wrote:
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However,
he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and
begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for
self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
What a fucked-up country. It's shameful what they've done to a once-great nation.
On 2025-05-29 3:00 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2025 at 10:43:15 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]>Many MANY Brits are well aware of the disaster their country is these
wrote:
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However,
he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and
begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for
self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
What a fucked-up country. It's shameful what they've done to a once-great >> nation.
days. Nigel Farage's Reform Party is building the Reform party on that realization and doing better in the polls than the traditional parties
(all of them!) as a result. He's particularly strong on immigration
although he isn't advocating mass deportations, at least so far. (I'm
not sure if he's worried about scaring more moderate voters away or if
he really believes it would be a bad idea.)
Left-leaning observers are horrified, much as they were in America with Trump. Time will tell whether they are more persuasive than Farage in
forming voting choices.
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
2025-05-29 1:43 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However,
he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and >>>begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for >>>self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
That was truly obscene. Both sets of lawyers agreed that it was >>unquestionably self-defence yet she got 17 years in the slammer.
I don't even think this is recent law. She committed a crime by using
the knife she had brought with her anticipating she might need to defend >herself. She'd been sexually assaulted previously.
. . .
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
2025-05-29 1:43 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However,
he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and
begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for
self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
That was truly obscene. Both sets of lawyers agreed that it was
unquestionably self-defence yet she got 17 years in the slammer.
I don't even think this is recent law. She committed a crime by using
the knife she had brought with her anticipating she might need to defend
herself. She'd been sexually assaulted previously.
I found it. It's not new law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#United_Kingdom
Since 1953, it has been a criminal offence in the United Kingdom
to carry a knife (except for non-locking folding knives with a
cutting edge of 3 inches (7.62 centimetres) or less) or any
"offensive weapon" in a public place without lawful authority
(e.g. police or security forces) or reasonable excuse (e.g.,
tools that are needed for work, or bows and arrows used for
sporting purposes). The cutting edge of a knife is separate from
the blade length. The only manner in which an individual may
carry arms is on private property or any property to which the
public does not have a lawful right of access (e.g., a person's
own home, private land, the area in a shop where the public have
no access, etc.), as the law only creates the offence when it
occurs in public.[41][42] Furthermore, Criminal Justice Act 1988
Section 141 specifically lists all offensive weapons that cannot
technically be owned, even on private property, by way of making
it illegal to sell, trade, hire, etc. an offensive weapon to
another person.
Furthermore, the law does not allow an offensive weapon or an
ordinary item intended to be used or adapted for use as an
offensive weapon to be carried in public before the threat of
violence arises. This would only be acceptable in the eyes of
the law if the person armed themselves immediately preceding or
during an attack (in a public place). This is known as a "weapon
of opportunity" or "instantaneous arming".
On May 29, 2025 at 2:00:57 PM PDT, "Rhino" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-05-29 3:00 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2025 at 10:43:15 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]> >>> wrote:Many MANY Brits are well aware of the disaster their country is these
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However, >>>> he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and >>>> begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for >>>> self defense and kills him with one thrust.
K
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next? >>>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
What a fucked-up country. It's shameful what they've done to a once-great >>> nation.
days. Nigel Farage's Reform Party is building the Reform party on that
realization and doing better in the polls than the traditional parties
(all of them!) as a result. He's particularly strong on immigration
although he isn't advocating mass deportations, at least so far. (I'm
not sure if he's worried about scaring more moderate voters away or if
he really believes it would be a bad idea.)
Left-leaning observers are horrified, much as they were in America with
Trump. Time will tell whether they are more persuasive than Farage in
forming voting choices.
Even Piers Morgan is regularly remarking on his show that his country has become an absolute shit-show.
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
2025-05-29 1:43 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However,
he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and
begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for
self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
That was truly obscene. Both sets of lawyers agreed that it was
unquestionably self-defence yet she got 17 years in the slammer.
I don't even think this is recent law. She committed a crime by using
the knife she had brought with her anticipating she might need to defend
herself. She'd been sexually assaulted previously.
I found it. It's not new law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#United_Kingdom
Since 1953, it has been a criminal offence in the United Kingdom
to carry a knife (except for non-locking folding knives with a
cutting edge of 3 inches (7.62 centimetres) or less) or any
"offensive weapon" in a public place without lawful authority
(e.g. police or security forces) or reasonable excuse (e.g.,
tools that are needed for work, or bows and arrows used for
sporting purposes). The cutting edge of a knife is separate from
the blade length. The only manner in which an individual may
carry arms is on private property or any property to which the
public does not have a lawful right of access (e.g., a person's
own home, private land, the area in a shop where the public have
no access, etc.), as the law only creates the offence when it
occurs in public.[41][42] Furthermore, Criminal Justice Act 1988
Section 141 specifically lists all offensive weapons that cannot
technically be owned, even on private property, by way of making
it illegal to sell, trade, hire, etc. an offensive weapon to
another person.
Furthermore, the law does not allow an offensive weapon or an
ordinary item intended to be used or adapted for use as an
offensive weapon to be carried in public before the threat of
violence arises. This would only be acceptable in the eyes of
the law if the person armed themselves immediately preceding or
during an attack (in a public place). This is known as a "weapon
of opportunity" or "instantaneous arming".
On May 28, 2025 at 10:43:15 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]> >wrote:
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However,
he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and
begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for
self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
What a fucked-up country. It's shameful what they've done to a once-great >nation.
On 2025-05-29 1:43 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However,
he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and
begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for
self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
That was truly obscene. Both sets of lawyers agreed that it was unquestionably self-defence yet she got 17 years in the slammer. The
contrast with the sentences for the people convicted in the rape gang
scandal were extremely disproportionate by comparison.
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However,
he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and
begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for
self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
On May 28, 2025 at 10:43:15 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]> wrote:
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However,
he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and
begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for
self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
Compare that story to this one:
Coast Guard Veteran Lures Her Rapist to Woods and Executes Him, Then Goes and Gets a Tattoo
A Coast Guard veteran turned OnlyFans model has pled guilty on Tuesday to murdering a man who she alleged raped her four years before she executed him off an isolated hiking trail in an Ohio national park.
Chelsea Perkins, 35, traveled more than 300 miles from Virginia to Ohio in an arranged meet-up with Matthew Dunmire at the Cuyahoga Valley National Park on March 6, 2021, according to the US Attorney’s Office.
While in the park, they began hiking off-trail into a wooded area where Perkins took out a handgun she had been concealing and fatally shot Dunmire, 31, in the back of the head, prosecutors said.
According to a criminal complaint, Dunmire went out drinking with a co-worker four days before he was murdered and told them he was meeting up with a girl who was staying in the area for the weekend. Dunmire's co-worker saw a woman with brown hair pick him up in a white smart car, which investigators later discovered was registered in Virginia and belonged to Perkins' husband.
Prosecutors said FBI investigators used GPS data, DNA, social media, phone records, and ballistics analysis at the crime scene to link Perkins to the murder.
Witnesses also later told investigators they saw a woman matching Perkins' description on the park trail on the day of the murder. Hikers in the park also reported hearing a gunshot between 11:30 a.m. and 11:50 a.m., according to documents. It took the FBI nearly nine months from when she killed Dunmire to arrest her.
Authorities discovered three 9mm pistols, one of which had bullets with "similar characteristics" found inside Dunmire's head, while searching Perkins' Alexandria, Va, home, documents show.
Dunmire was an aspiring musician who grew up in Virginia before he moved to Cleveland. Court documents show that Perkins and Dunmire knew each other before the killing and were in high school together from 2005 to 2009.
In 2017, Perkins filed a report with Virginia Beach police alleging that Dunmire had raped her but didn't have enough evidence to file charges against him. Perkins then had a brief stint in the Coast Guard, where she met her husband, according to court documents. She left the service and went on to become an OnlyFans model under the name Sabrina Savage, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported.
In November 2021, Dunmire's mother, Tommie Lynn Dunmire, and father, John Nelson McQuillen, drove to Washington, DC, intending to kill Perkins, according to the US Attorney’s Office.
Dunmire's mother, dressed as a UPS driver, knocked on an apartment door and shot a woman she mistakenly thought was Perkins twice in the abdomen. The mother and father fled the scene, changing the license plates on their vehicle
to avoid being caught, but were tracked down by police.
Tommie Lynn Dunmire shot and killed herself after being pulled over in Florida. The woman she shot by mistake survived her injuries. Federal agents arrested McQuillen, who later pleaded guilty to accessory after the fact to assault with intent to kill and was sentenced to three years in prison.
Perkins pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence on federal property-- a week before she was
set to stand trial. Following her plea deal Tuesday, Perkins faces between 20 and 25 years in prison. She is set to face sentencing on Sept. 9.
https://nypost.com/2025/05/28/us-news/coast-guard-vet-turned-onlyfans-model-chelsea-perkins-pleads-guilty-to-killing-accused-rapist-in-national-park/
On May 29, 2025 at 6:11:36 AM PDT, "Rhino" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-05-29 1:43 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However,
he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and
begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for
self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
That was truly obscene. Both sets of lawyers agreed that it was
unquestionably self-defence yet she got 17 years in the slammer. The
contrast with the sentences for the people convicted in the rape gang
scandal were extremely disproportionate by comparison.
https://ibb.co/M0Gwpp4
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
2025-05-29 1:43 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However, >>>>> he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and >>>>> begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for >>>>> self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
That was truly obscene. Both sets of lawyers agreed that it was
unquestionably self-defence yet she got 17 years in the slammer.
I don't even think this is recent law. She committed a crime by using
the knife she had brought with her anticipating she might need to defend >>> herself. She'd been sexually assaulted previously.
I found it. It's not new law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#United_Kingdom
Since 1953, it has been a criminal offence in the United Kingdom
to carry a knife (except for non-locking folding knives with a
cutting edge of 3 inches (7.62 centimetres) or less) or any
"offensive weapon" in a public place without lawful authority
(e.g. police or security forces) or reasonable excuse (e.g.,
tools that are needed for work, or bows and arrows used for
sporting purposes). The cutting edge of a knife is separate from
the blade length. The only manner in which an individual may
carry arms is on private property or any property to which the
public does not have a lawful right of access (e.g., a person's
own home, private land, the area in a shop where the public have
no access, etc.), as the law only creates the offence when it
occurs in public.[41][42] Furthermore, Criminal Justice Act 1988
Section 141 specifically lists all offensive weapons that cannot
technically be owned, even on private property, by way of making
it illegal to sell, trade, hire, etc. an offensive weapon to
another person.
Furthermore, the law does not allow an offensive weapon or an
ordinary item intended to be used or adapted for use as an
offensive weapon to be carried in public before the threat of
violence arises. This would only be acceptable in the eyes of
the law if the person armed themselves immediately preceding or
during an attack (in a public place). This is known as a "weapon
of opportunity" or "instantaneous arming".
Since she was in the guy's car, she should have just told the police the knife was in the center console or somewhere else in the car and she
grabbed it when he initiated the attack. He's certainly in no position to contradict her. Let them convict his dead body for bringing the weapon in
his car.
I also note from the news coverage that she was sentenced to life in prison for this 'crime', which in Britain apparently equates to 17 years for an 18-year-old. Is the life expectancy for the average British woman only 35 years or am I missing something? I'm not arguing she should have gotten
more time--quite the opposite-- but if you sentence someone to life in
prison for what you consider to be a heinous crime, why does that sentence let them out in their mid-30s?
On May 28, 2025 at 10:43:15 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]> wrote:
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However,
he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and
begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for
self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
Compare that story to this one:
Coast Guard Veteran Lures Her Rapist to Woods and Executes Him, Then Goes and Gets a Tattoo
A Coast Guard veteran turned OnlyFans model has pled guilty on Tuesday to murdering a man who she alleged raped her four years before she executed him off an isolated hiking trail in an Ohio national park.
Chelsea Perkins, 35, traveled more than 300 miles from Virginia to Ohio in an arranged meet-up with Matthew Dunmire at the Cuyahoga Valley National Park on March 6, 2021, according to the US Attorney’s Office.
While in the park, they began hiking off-trail into a wooded area where Perkins took out a handgun she had been concealing and fatally shot Dunmire, 31, in the back of the head, prosecutors said.
According to a criminal complaint, Dunmire went out drinking with a co-worker four days before he was murdered and told them he was meeting up with a girl who was staying in the area for the weekend. Dunmire's co-worker saw a woman with brown hair pick him up in a white smart car, which investigators later discovered was registered in Virginia and belonged to Perkins' husband.
Prosecutors said FBI investigators used GPS data, DNA, social media, phone records, and ballistics analysis at the crime scene to link Perkins to the murder.
Witnesses also later told investigators they saw a woman matching Perkins' description on the park trail on the day of the murder. Hikers in the park also reported hearing a gunshot between 11:30 a.m. and 11:50 a.m., according to documents. It took the FBI nearly nine months from when she killed Dunmire to arrest her.
Authorities discovered three 9mm pistols, one of which had bullets with "similar characteristics" found inside Dunmire's head, while searching Perkins' Alexandria, Va, home, documents show.
Dunmire was an aspiring musician who grew up in Virginia before he moved to Cleveland. Court documents show that Perkins and Dunmire knew each other before the killing and were in high school together from 2005 to 2009.
In 2017, Perkins filed a report with Virginia Beach police alleging that Dunmire had raped her but didn't have enough evidence to file charges against him. Perkins then had a brief stint in the Coast Guard, where she met her husband, according to court documents. She left the service and went on to become an OnlyFans model under the name Sabrina Savage, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported.
In November 2021, Dunmire's mother, Tommie Lynn Dunmire, and father, John Nelson McQuillen, drove to Washington, DC, intending to kill Perkins, according to the US Attorney’s Office.
Dunmire's mother, dressed as a UPS driver, knocked on an apartment door and shot a woman she mistakenly thought was Perkins twice in the abdomen. The mother and father fled the scene, changing the license plates on their vehicle
to avoid being caught, but were tracked down by police.
Tommie Lynn Dunmire shot and killed herself after being pulled over in Florida. The woman she shot by mistake survived her injuries. Federal agents arrested McQuillen, who later pleaded guilty to accessory after the fact to assault with intent to kill and was sentenced to three years in prison.
Perkins pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence on federal property-- a week before she was
set to stand trial. Following her plea deal Tuesday, Perkins faces between 20 and 25 years in prison. She is set to face sentencing on Sept. 9.
https://nypost.com/2025/05/28/us-news/coast-guard-vet-turned-onlyfans-model-chelsea-perkins-pleads-guilty-to-killing-accused-rapist-in-national-park/
Compare that story to this one:
https://nypost.com/2025/05/28/us-news/coast-guard-vet-turned-onlyfans-model-chelsea-perkins-pleads-guilty-to-killing-accused-rapist-in-national-park/
On 2025-05-30 10:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2025 at 10:43:15 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]>Hmm. That's a rather different case. I'd call it a revenge murder, not self-defence. It would be self-defence if she killed him when he
wrote:
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However,
he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and
begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for
self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
Compare that story to this one:
Coast Guard Veteran Lures Her Rapist to Woods and Executes Him, Then Goes >> and
Gets a Tattoo
A Coast Guard veteran turned OnlyFans model has pled guilty on Tuesday to >> murdering a man who she alleged raped her four years before she executed him
off an isolated hiking trail in an Ohio national park.
Chelsea Perkins, 35, traveled more than 300 miles from Virginia to Ohio in >> an
arranged meet-up with Matthew Dunmire at the Cuyahoga Valley National Park >> on
March 6, 2021, according to the US Attorney’s Office.
While in the park, they began hiking off-trail into a wooded area where
Perkins took out a handgun she had been concealing and fatally shot Dunmire,
31, in the back of the head, prosecutors said.
According to a criminal complaint, Dunmire went out drinking with a
co-worker
four days before he was murdered and told them he was meeting up with a girl
who was staying in the area for the weekend. Dunmire's co-worker saw a woman
with brown hair pick him up in a white smart car, which investigators later >> discovered was registered in Virginia and belonged to Perkins' husband.
Prosecutors said FBI investigators used GPS data, DNA, social media, phone >> records, and ballistics analysis at the crime scene to link Perkins to the >> murder.
Witnesses also later told investigators they saw a woman matching Perkins' >> description on the park trail on the day of the murder. Hikers in the park >> also reported hearing a gunshot between 11:30 a.m. and 11:50 a.m., according
to documents. It took the FBI nearly nine months from when she killed
Dunmire
to arrest her.
Authorities discovered three 9mm pistols, one of which had bullets with
"similar characteristics" found inside Dunmire's head, while searching
Perkins' Alexandria, Va, home, documents show.
Dunmire was an aspiring musician who grew up in Virginia before he moved to >> Cleveland. Court documents show that Perkins and Dunmire knew each other
before the killing and were in high school together from 2005 to 2009.
In 2017, Perkins filed a report with Virginia Beach police alleging that
Dunmire had raped her but didn't have enough evidence to file charges
against
him. Perkins then had a brief stint in the Coast Guard, where she met her >> husband, according to court documents. She left the service and went on to >> become an OnlyFans model under the name Sabrina Savage, the Cleveland Plain >> Dealer reported.
In November 2021, Dunmire's mother, Tommie Lynn Dunmire, and father, John >> Nelson McQuillen, drove to Washington, DC, intending to kill Perkins,
according to the US Attorney’s Office.
Dunmire's mother, dressed as a UPS driver, knocked on an apartment door and >> shot a woman she mistakenly thought was Perkins twice in the abdomen. The >> mother and father fled the scene, changing the license plates on their
vehicle
to avoid being caught, but were tracked down by police.
Tommie Lynn Dunmire shot and killed herself after being pulled over in
Florida. The woman she shot by mistake survived her injuries. Federal agents
arrested McQuillen, who later pleaded guilty to accessory after the fact to >> assault with intent to kill and was sentenced to three years in prison.
Perkins pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and using a firearm during >> and
in relation to a crime of violence on federal property-- a week before she >> was
set to stand trial. Following her plea deal Tuesday, Perkins faces between >> 20
and 25 years in prison. She is set to face sentencing on Sept. 9.
https://nypost.com/2025/05/28/us-news/coast-guard-vet-turned-onlyfans-model-chelsea-perkins-pleads-guilty-to-killing-accused-rapist-in-national-park/
attempted to rape her but 4 years after the fact - and after her parents
had tried to exact revenge on her behalf - just doesn't feel like self-defence.
On May 31, 2025 at 7:12:46 AM PDT, "Rhino" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-05-30 10:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2025 at 10:43:15 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]>Hmm. That's a rather different case. I'd call it a revenge murder, not
wrote:
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However,
he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and
begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for
self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
Compare that story to this one:
Coast Guard Veteran Lures Her Rapist to Woods and Executes Him, Then Goes >>> and
Gets a Tattoo
A Coast Guard veteran turned OnlyFans model has pled guilty on Tuesday to >>> murdering a man who she alleged raped her four years before she executed him
off an isolated hiking trail in an Ohio national park.
Chelsea Perkins, 35, traveled more than 300 miles from Virginia to Ohio in >>> an
arranged meet-up with Matthew Dunmire at the Cuyahoga Valley National Park >>> on
March 6, 2021, according to the US Attorney’s Office.
While in the park, they began hiking off-trail into a wooded area where
Perkins took out a handgun she had been concealing and fatally shot Dunmire,
31, in the back of the head, prosecutors said.
According to a criminal complaint, Dunmire went out drinking with a
co-worker
four days before he was murdered and told them he was meeting up with a girl
who was staying in the area for the weekend. Dunmire's co-worker saw a woman
with brown hair pick him up in a white smart car, which investigators later >>> discovered was registered in Virginia and belonged to Perkins' husband.
Prosecutors said FBI investigators used GPS data, DNA, social media, phone >>> records, and ballistics analysis at the crime scene to link Perkins to the >>> murder.
Witnesses also later told investigators they saw a woman matching Perkins' >>> description on the park trail on the day of the murder. Hikers in the park >>> also reported hearing a gunshot between 11:30 a.m. and 11:50 a.m., according
to documents. It took the FBI nearly nine months from when she killed
Dunmire
to arrest her.
Authorities discovered three 9mm pistols, one of which had bullets with
"similar characteristics" found inside Dunmire's head, while searching
Perkins' Alexandria, Va, home, documents show.
Dunmire was an aspiring musician who grew up in Virginia before he moved to >>> Cleveland. Court documents show that Perkins and Dunmire knew each other >>> before the killing and were in high school together from 2005 to 2009.
In 2017, Perkins filed a report with Virginia Beach police alleging that >>> Dunmire had raped her but didn't have enough evidence to file charges
against
him. Perkins then had a brief stint in the Coast Guard, where she met her >>> husband, according to court documents. She left the service and went on to >>> become an OnlyFans model under the name Sabrina Savage, the Cleveland Plain >>> Dealer reported.
In November 2021, Dunmire's mother, Tommie Lynn Dunmire, and father, John >>> Nelson McQuillen, drove to Washington, DC, intending to kill Perkins,
according to the US Attorney’s Office.
Dunmire's mother, dressed as a UPS driver, knocked on an apartment door and >>> shot a woman she mistakenly thought was Perkins twice in the abdomen. The >>> mother and father fled the scene, changing the license plates on their
vehicle
to avoid being caught, but were tracked down by police.
Tommie Lynn Dunmire shot and killed herself after being pulled over in
Florida. The woman she shot by mistake survived her injuries. Federal agents
arrested McQuillen, who later pleaded guilty to accessory after the fact to >>> assault with intent to kill and was sentenced to three years in prison.
Perkins pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and using a firearm during >>> and
in relation to a crime of violence on federal property-- a week before she >>> was
set to stand trial. Following her plea deal Tuesday, Perkins faces between >>> 20
and 25 years in prison. She is set to face sentencing on Sept. 9.
https://nypost.com/2025/05/28/us-news/coast-guard-vet-turned-onlyfans-model-chelsea-perkins-pleads-guilty-to-killing-accused-rapist-in-national-park/
self-defence. It would be self-defence if she killed him when he
attempted to rape her but 4 years after the fact - and after her parents
had tried to exact revenge on her behalf - just doesn't feel like
self-defence.
It wasn't her parents, it was the parents of her victim that were trying to get revenge on *his* behalf.
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
On May 31, 2025 at 7:12:46 AM PDT, "Rhino" <[email protected]> >> wrote:
On 2025-05-30 10:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2025 at 10:43:15 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]> >>>> wrote:Hmm. That's a rather different case. I'd call it a revenge murder, not
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However, >>>>> he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and >>>>> begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for >>>>> self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next? >>>>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
Compare that story to this one:
Coast Guard Veteran Lures Her Rapist to Woods and Executes Him, Then Goes >>>> and
Gets a Tattoo
A Coast Guard veteran turned OnlyFans model has pled guilty on Tuesday to >>>> murdering a man who she alleged raped her four years before she executed him
off an isolated hiking trail in an Ohio national park.
Chelsea Perkins, 35, traveled more than 300 miles from Virginia to Ohio in
an
arranged meet-up with Matthew Dunmire at the Cuyahoga Valley National Park
on
March 6, 2021, according to the US Attorney’s Office.
While in the park, they began hiking off-trail into a wooded area where >>>> Perkins took out a handgun she had been concealing and fatally shot Dunmire,
31, in the back of the head, prosecutors said.
According to a criminal complaint, Dunmire went out drinking with a
co-worker
four days before he was murdered and told them he was meeting up with a girl
who was staying in the area for the weekend. Dunmire's co-worker saw a woman
with brown hair pick him up in a white smart car, which investigators later
discovered was registered in Virginia and belonged to Perkins' husband. >>>>
Prosecutors said FBI investigators used GPS data, DNA, social media, phone
records, and ballistics analysis at the crime scene to link Perkins to the
murder.
Witnesses also later told investigators they saw a woman matching Perkins'
description on the park trail on the day of the murder. Hikers in the park
also reported hearing a gunshot between 11:30 a.m. and 11:50 a.m., according
to documents. It took the FBI nearly nine months from when she killed >>>> Dunmire
to arrest her.
Authorities discovered three 9mm pistols, one of which had bullets with >>>> "similar characteristics" found inside Dunmire's head, while searching >>>> Perkins' Alexandria, Va, home, documents show.
Dunmire was an aspiring musician who grew up in Virginia before he moved to
Cleveland. Court documents show that Perkins and Dunmire knew each other >>>> before the killing and were in high school together from 2005 to 2009. >>>>
In 2017, Perkins filed a report with Virginia Beach police alleging that >>>> Dunmire had raped her but didn't have enough evidence to file charges >>>> against
him. Perkins then had a brief stint in the Coast Guard, where she met her >>>> husband, according to court documents. She left the service and went on to
become an OnlyFans model under the name Sabrina Savage, the Cleveland Plain
Dealer reported.
In November 2021, Dunmire's mother, Tommie Lynn Dunmire, and father, John >>>> Nelson McQuillen, drove to Washington, DC, intending to kill Perkins, >>>> according to the US Attorney’s Office.
Dunmire's mother, dressed as a UPS driver, knocked on an apartment door and
shot a woman she mistakenly thought was Perkins twice in the abdomen. The >>>> mother and father fled the scene, changing the license plates on their >>>> vehicle
to avoid being caught, but were tracked down by police.
Tommie Lynn Dunmire shot and killed herself after being pulled over in >>>> Florida. The woman she shot by mistake survived her injuries. Federal agents
arrested McQuillen, who later pleaded guilty to accessory after the fact to
assault with intent to kill and was sentenced to three years in prison. >>>>
Perkins pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and using a firearm during >>>> and
in relation to a crime of violence on federal property-- a week before she
was
set to stand trial. Following her plea deal Tuesday, Perkins faces between
20
and 25 years in prison. She is set to face sentencing on Sept. 9.
https://nypost.com/2025/05/28/us-news/coast-guard-vet-turned-onlyfans-model-chelsea-perkins-pleads-guilty-to-killing-accused-rapist-in-national-park/
self-defence. It would be self-defence if she killed him when he
attempted to rape her but 4 years after the fact - and after her parents >>> had tried to exact revenge on her behalf - just doesn't feel like
self-defence.
It wasn't her parents, it was the parents of her victim that were trying to >> get revenge on *his* behalf.
Thanks for that clarification. I had it backwards as well.
I like how fully she embraced the identity of a UPS driver, even going to
the wrong address.
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
Compare that story to this one:
https://nypost.com/2025/05/28/us-news/coast-guard-vet-turned-onlyfans-model-chelsea-perkins-pleads-guilty-to-killing-accused-rapist-in-national-park/
I just want to comment on this bit concerning the parents of the
perpetrator of the initial crime:
In November 2021, Dunmire's mother, Tommie Lynn Dunmire, and
father, John Nelson McQuillen, drove to Washington, DC,
intending to kill Perkins, according to the US Attorney's
Office.
Dunmire's mother, dressed as a UPS driver, knocked on an
apartment door and shot a woman she mistakenly thought was
Perkins twice in the abdomen. The mother and father fled the
scene, changing the license plates on their vehicle to avoid
being caught, but were tracked down by police.
Tommie Lynn Dunmire shot and killed herself after being pulled
over in Florida. The woman she shot by mistake survived her
injuries. Federal agents arrested McQuillen, who later pleaded
guilty to accessory after the fact to assault with intent to
kill and was sentenced to three years in prison.
Did his parents clean up after previous crime he committed? Have they >murdered complaining witnesses in the past?
Also, can I just point out that McQuillen was an accessory before,
during, and after the fact? He could have been charged with additional >crimes.
On Thu, 29 May 2025 19:00:51 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:
On May 28, 2025 at 10:43:15 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However,
he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and
begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for
self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
What a fucked-up country. It's shameful what they've done to a once-great
nation.
It's the result of allowing liberalism to get a foothold. We would do
well to learn from the disaster that is happening there.
On 2025-05-29 1:43 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However,
he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and
begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for
self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
That was truly obscene. Both sets of lawyers agreed that it was unquestionably self-defence yet she got 17 years in the slammer. The
contrast with the sentences for the people convicted in the rape gang
scandal were extremely disproportionate by comparison.
Maybe Reform can preside over a major rewrite of the laws in the UK so
that they make sense again. (Reform is substantially ahead of both the Conservatives and Reform in polling on a national basis but the next
election is still a few years away so anything could happen between now
and then.)
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
2025-05-29 1:43 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However,
he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and
begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for
self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
That was truly obscene. Both sets of lawyers agreed that it was
unquestionably self-defence yet she got 17 years in the slammer.
I don't even think this is recent law. She committed a crime by using
the knife she had brought with her anticipating she might need to defend
herself. She'd been sexually assaulted previously.
I found it. It's not new law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#United_Kingdom
Since 1953, it has been a criminal offence in the United Kingdom
to carry a knife (except for non-locking folding knives with a
cutting edge of 3 inches (7.62 centimetres) or less) or any
"offensive weapon" in a public place without lawful authority
(e.g. police or security forces) or reasonable excuse (e.g.,
tools that are needed for work, or bows and arrows used for
sporting purposes). The cutting edge of a knife is separate from
the blade length. The only manner in which an individual may
carry arms is on private property or any property to which the
public does not have a lawful right of access (e.g., a person's
own home, private land, the area in a shop where the public have
no access, etc.), as the law only creates the offence when it
occurs in public.[41][42] Furthermore, Criminal Justice Act 1988
Section 141 specifically lists all offensive weapons that cannot
technically be owned, even on private property, by way of making
it illegal to sell, trade, hire, etc. an offensive weapon to
another person.
Furthermore, the law does not allow an offensive weapon or an
ordinary item intended to be used or adapted for use as an
offensive weapon to be carried in public before the threat of
violence arises. This would only be acceptable in the eyes of
the law if the person armed themselves immediately preceding or
during an attack (in a public place). This is known as a "weapon
of opportunity" or "instantaneous arming".
On 5/29/2025 10:30 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
2025-05-29 1:43 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However, >>>>> he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and >>>>> begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for >>>>> self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
That was truly obscene. Both sets of lawyers agreed that it was
unquestionably self-defence yet she got 17 years in the slammer.
I don't even think this is recent law. She committed a crime by using
the knife she had brought with her anticipating she might need to defend >>> herself. She'd been sexually assaulted previously.
I found it. It's not new law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#United_Kingdom
Since 1953, it has been a criminal offence in the United Kingdom
to carry a knife (except for non-locking folding knives with a
cutting edge of 3 inches (7.62 centimetres) or less) or any
"offensive weapon" in a public place without lawful authority
(e.g. police or security forces) or reasonable excuse (e.g.,
tools that are needed for work, or bows and arrows used for
sporting purposes). The cutting edge of a knife is separate from
the blade length. The only manner in which an individual may
carry arms is on private property or any property to which the
public does not have a lawful right of access (e.g., a person's
own home, private land, the area in a shop where the public have
no access, etc.), as the law only creates the offence when it
occurs in public.[41][42] Furthermore, Criminal Justice Act 1988
Section 141 specifically lists all offensive weapons that cannot
technically be owned, even on private property, by way of making
it illegal to sell, trade, hire, etc. an offensive weapon to
another person.
Furthermore, the law does not allow an offensive weapon or an
ordinary item intended to be used or adapted for use as an
offensive weapon to be carried in public before the threat of
violence arises. This would only be acceptable in the eyes of
the law if the person armed themselves immediately preceding or
during an attack (in a public place). This is known as a "weapon
of opportunity" or "instantaneous arming".
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then her knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that
rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal.
May 31, 2025 at 7:48:37 PM PDT, moviePig <[email protected]> wrote: >>5/29/2025 10:30 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
2025-05-29 1:43 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However, >>>>>>he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and >>>>>>begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for >>>>>>self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
That was truly obscene. Both sets of lawyers agreed that it was >>>>>unquestionably self-defence yet she got 17 years in the slammer.
I don't even think this is recent law. She committed a crime by using >>>>the knife she had brought with her anticipating she might need to defend >>>>herself. She'd been sexually assaulted previously.
I found it. It's not new law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#United_Kingdom
Since 1953, it has been a criminal offence in the United Kingdom
to carry a knife (except for non-locking folding knives with a
cutting edge of 3 inches (7.62 centimetres) or less) or any
"offensive weapon" in a public place without lawful authority
(e.g. police or security forces) or reasonable excuse (e.g.,
tools that are needed for work, or bows and arrows used for
sporting purposes). The cutting edge of a knife is separate from
the blade length. The only manner in which an individual may
carry arms is on private property or any property to which the
public does not have a lawful right of access (e.g., a person's
own home, private land, the area in a shop where the public have
no access, etc.), as the law only creates the offence when it
occurs in public.[41][42] Furthermore, Criminal Justice Act 1988
Section 141 specifically lists all offensive weapons that cannot
technically be owned, even on private property, by way of making
it illegal to sell, trade, hire, etc. an offensive weapon to
another person.
Furthermore, the law does not allow an offensive weapon or an
ordinary item intended to be used or adapted for use as an
offensive weapon to be carried in public before the threat of
violence arises. This would only be acceptable in the eyes of
the law if the person armed themselves immediately preceding or
during an attack (in a public place). This is known as a "weapon
of opportunity" or "instantaneous arming".
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then her >>knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that
rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal.
No, it's the fact that she carried a weapon as insurance against *any* attack >that violated the law. Apparently in the UK, the only weapons you're allowed >to use to defend yourself are whatever happens to coincidentally be at hand >the moment you're attacked. If he was choking her and her flailing hand >happened to fall on a rock and she smashed his skull in with it, that would be >legal, but anything possessed or carried to be used as a weapon *in case of >attack* is illegal.
It's also a crime in the UK to keep any implement-- like a cricket bat-- as a >weapon. You can legally have the bat, but if you use it on an intruder, you >better be able to show that it was merely a weapon of opportunity, and not >kept as a weapon of self-defense, like next to your bed, for example. The cops >will actually question why you keep a cricket bat in your bedroom and not in >the garage with all your other sporting equipment. Same goes for knives. >Knives kept in the kitchen = legal. Knives kept in the bedroom = criminal >offense.
People in the UK are actually advised by victims' advocacy groups to keep >other sporting equipment-- soccer balls, cricket pads, baseball gloves, etc.-- >in their bedrooms along with the bat to avoid this kind of trap. There have >even been cases where people have been threatened with charges merely for >having large dogs as pets since they can be seen as "keeping weapons" in one's >home.
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
May 31, 2025 at 7:48:37 PM PDT, moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:
5/29/2025 10:30 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
2025-05-29 1:43 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However, >>>>>>> he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and >>>>>>> begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for >>>>>>> self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
That was truly obscene. Both sets of lawyers agreed that it was
unquestionably self-defence yet she got 17 years in the slammer.
I don't even think this is recent law. She committed a crime by using >>>>> the knife she had brought with her anticipating she might need to defend >>>>> herself. She'd been sexually assaulted previously.
I found it. It's not new law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#United_Kingdom
Since 1953, it has been a criminal offence in the United Kingdom
to carry a knife (except for non-locking folding knives with a
cutting edge of 3 inches (7.62 centimetres) or less) or any
"offensive weapon" in a public place without lawful authority
(e.g. police or security forces) or reasonable excuse (e.g.,
tools that are needed for work, or bows and arrows used for
sporting purposes). The cutting edge of a knife is separate from
the blade length. The only manner in which an individual may
carry arms is on private property or any property to which the
public does not have a lawful right of access (e.g., a person's
own home, private land, the area in a shop where the public have
no access, etc.), as the law only creates the offence when it
occurs in public.[41][42] Furthermore, Criminal Justice Act 1988
Section 141 specifically lists all offensive weapons that cannot
technically be owned, even on private property, by way of making
it illegal to sell, trade, hire, etc. an offensive weapon to
another person.
Furthermore, the law does not allow an offensive weapon or an
ordinary item intended to be used or adapted for use as an
offensive weapon to be carried in public before the threat of
violence arises. This would only be acceptable in the eyes of
the law if the person armed themselves immediately preceding or
during an attack (in a public place). This is known as a "weapon
of opportunity" or "instantaneous arming".
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then her >>> knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that
rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal.
No, it's the fact that she carried a weapon as insurance against *any* attack
that violated the law. Apparently in the UK, the only weapons you're allowed >> to use to defend yourself are whatever happens to coincidentally be at hand >> the moment you're attacked. If he was choking her and her flailing hand
happened to fall on a rock and she smashed his skull in with it, that would be
legal, but anything possessed or carried to be used as a weapon *in case of >> attack* is illegal.
I honestly don't understand why moviePig isn't standing on his feet, applauding the perfect illogic of UK criminal law.
...
On May 31, 2025 at 7:48:37 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/29/2025 10:30 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
2025-05-29 1:43 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However, >>>>>> he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and >>>>>> begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for >>>>>> self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next? >>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
That was truly obscene. Both sets of lawyers agreed that it was
unquestionably self-defence yet she got 17 years in the slammer.
I don't even think this is recent law. She committed a crime by using >>>> the knife she had brought with her anticipating she might need to defend >>>> herself. She'd been sexually assaulted previously.
I found it. It's not new law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#United_Kingdom >>>
Since 1953, it has been a criminal offence in the United Kingdom
to carry a knife (except for non-locking folding knives with a
cutting edge of 3 inches (7.62 centimetres) or less) or any
"offensive weapon" in a public place without lawful authority
(e.g. police or security forces) or reasonable excuse (e.g.,
tools that are needed for work, or bows and arrows used for
sporting purposes). The cutting edge of a knife is separate from
the blade length. The only manner in which an individual may
carry arms is on private property or any property to which the
public does not have a lawful right of access (e.g., a person's
own home, private land, the area in a shop where the public have
no access, etc.), as the law only creates the offence when it
occurs in public.[41][42] Furthermore, Criminal Justice Act 1988
Section 141 specifically lists all offensive weapons that cannot
technically be owned, even on private property, by way of making
it illegal to sell, trade, hire, etc. an offensive weapon to
another person.
Furthermore, the law does not allow an offensive weapon or an
ordinary item intended to be used or adapted for use as an
offensive weapon to be carried in public before the threat of
violence arises. This would only be acceptable in the eyes of
the law if the person armed themselves immediately preceding or
during an attack (in a public place). This is known as a "weapon
of opportunity" or "instantaneous arming".
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then her
knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that
rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal.
No, it's the fact that she carried a weapon as insurance against *any* attack that violated the law. Apparently in the UK, the only weapons you're allowed to use to defend yourself are whatever happens to coincidentally be at hand the moment you're attacked. If he was choking her and her flailing hand happened to fall on a rock and she smashed his skull in with it, that would be
legal, but anything possessed or carried to be used as a weapon *in case of attack* is illegal.
It's also a crime in the UK to keep any implement-- like a cricket bat-- as a weapon. You can legally have the bat, but if you use it on an intruder, you better be able to show that it was merely a weapon of opportunity, and not kept as a weapon of self-defense, like next to your bed, for example. The cops
will actually question why you keep a cricket bat in your bedroom and not in the garage with all your other sporting equipment. Same goes for knives. Knives kept in the kitchen = legal. Knives kept in the bedroom = criminal offense.
People in the UK are actually advised by victims' advocacy groups to keep other sporting equipment-- soccer balls, cricket pads, baseball gloves, etc.--
in their bedrooms along with the bat to avoid this kind of trap. There have even been cases where people have been threatened with charges merely for having large dogs as pets since they can be seen as "keeping weapons" in one's
home.
On 5/31/2025 11:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 31, 2025 at 7:48:37 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>
On 5/29/2025 10:30 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
2025-05-29 1:43 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However, >>>>>>> he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and >>>>>>> begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for
self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next? >>>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
That was truly obscene. Both sets of lawyers agreed that it was >>>>>> unquestionably self-defence yet she got 17 years in the slammer.
I don't even think this is recent law. She committed a crime by using >>>>> the knife she had brought with her anticipating she might need to defend
herself. She'd been sexually assaulted previously.
I found it. It's not new law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#United_Kingdom
Since 1953, it has been a criminal offence in the United Kingdom
to carry a knife (except for non-locking folding knives with a >>>> cutting edge of 3 inches (7.62 centimetres) or less) or any >>>> "offensive weapon" in a public place without lawful authority >>>> (e.g. police or security forces) or reasonable excuse (e.g., >>>> tools that are needed for work, or bows and arrows used for >>>> sporting purposes). The cutting edge of a knife is separate from
the blade length. The only manner in which an individual may >>>> carry arms is on private property or any property to which the >>>> public does not have a lawful right of access (e.g., a person's >>>> own home, private land, the area in a shop where the public have
no access, etc.), as the law only creates the offence when it >>>> occurs in public.[41][42] Furthermore, Criminal Justice Act 1988
Section 141 specifically lists all offensive weapons that cannot
technically be owned, even on private property, by way of making
it illegal to sell, trade, hire, etc. an offensive weapon to >>>> another person.
Furthermore, the law does not allow an offensive weapon or an >>>> ordinary item intended to be used or adapted for use as an
offensive weapon to be carried in public before the threat of >>>> violence arises. This would only be acceptable in the eyes of >>>> the law if the person armed themselves immediately preceding or >>>> during an attack (in a public place). This is known as a "weapon
of opportunity" or "instantaneous arming".
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then her >>> knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that
rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal.
No, it's the fact that she carried a weapon as insurance against *any*
attack
that violated the law. Apparently in the UK, the only weapons you're allowed
to use to defend yourself are whatever happens to coincidentally be at hand >> the moment you're attacked. If he was choking her and her flailing hand
happened to fall on a rock and she smashed his skull in with it, that would >> be
legal, but anything possessed or carried to be used as a weapon *in case of >> attack* is illegal.
It's also a crime in the UK to keep any implement-- like a cricket bat-- as >> a
weapon. You can legally have the bat, but if you use it on an intruder, you >> better be able to show that it was merely a weapon of opportunity, and not >> kept as a weapon of self-defense, like next to your bed, for example. The >> cops
will actually question why you keep a cricket bat in your bedroom and not in
the garage with all your other sporting equipment. Same goes for knives.
Knives kept in the kitchen = legal. Knives kept in the bedroom = criminal >> offense.
People in the UK are actually advised by victims' advocacy groups to keep >> other sporting equipment-- soccer balls, cricket pads, baseball gloves,
etc.--
in their bedrooms along with the bat to avoid this kind of trap. There have >> even been cases where people have been threatened with charges merely for >> having large dogs as pets since they can be seen as "keeping weapons" in
one's
home.
I do get that (...including its rationale, but that's a different discussion). But what I'm theorizing is that if, say, he'd first
attacked her with his own knife, the sentence she'd have gotten for
defending herself with hers wouldn't have been much more than one would
get merely for carrying.
On Jun 1, 2025 at 8:15:55 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/31/2025 11:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 31, 2025 at 7:48:37 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>
On 5/29/2025 10:30 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
2025-05-29 1:43 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Woman accepts ride home from man she recently began dating. However,
he's drunk, drives in the opposite direction, stops the vehicle, and
begins sexually assaulting her. She pulls out a knife she carries for
self defense and kills him with one thrust.
She turns herself into police.
This is the UK. Do I even have to tell you what happens to her next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYoStIDRJE
That was truly obscene. Both sets of lawyers agreed that it was >>>>>>> unquestionably self-defence yet she got 17 years in the slammer. >>>>>I don't even think this is recent law. She committed a crime by using
the knife she had brought with her anticipating she might need to defend
herself. She'd been sexually assaulted previously.
I found it. It's not new law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#United_Kingdom
Since 1953, it has been a criminal offence in the United Kingdom
to carry a knife (except for non-locking folding knives with a >>>>> cutting edge of 3 inches (7.62 centimetres) or less) or any >>>>> "offensive weapon" in a public place without lawful authority >>>>> (e.g. police or security forces) or reasonable excuse (e.g., >>>>> tools that are needed for work, or bows and arrows used for >>>>> sporting purposes). The cutting edge of a knife is separate from
the blade length. The only manner in which an individual may >>>>> carry arms is on private property or any property to which the >>>>> public does not have a lawful right of access (e.g., a person's >>>>> own home, private land, the area in a shop where the public have
no access, etc.), as the law only creates the offence when it >>>>> occurs in public.[41][42] Furthermore, Criminal Justice Act 1988
Section 141 specifically lists all offensive weapons that cannot
technically be owned, even on private property, by way of making
it illegal to sell, trade, hire, etc. an offensive weapon to >>>>> another person.
Furthermore, the law does not allow an offensive weapon or an >>>>> ordinary item intended to be used or adapted for use as an >>>>> offensive weapon to be carried in public before the threat of >>>>> violence arises. This would only be acceptable in the eyes of >>>>> the law if the person armed themselves immediately preceding or >>>>> during an attack (in a public place). This is known as a "weapon
of opportunity" or "instantaneous arming".
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then her >>>> knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that >>>> rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal.
No, it's the fact that she carried a weapon as insurance against *any* >>> attack
that violated the law. Apparently in the UK, the only weapons you're allowed
to use to defend yourself are whatever happens to coincidentally be at hand
the moment you're attacked. If he was choking her and her flailing hand >>> happened to fall on a rock and she smashed his skull in with it, that would
be
legal, but anything possessed or carried to be used as a weapon *in case of
attack* is illegal.
It's also a crime in the UK to keep any implement-- like a cricket bat-- as
a
weapon. You can legally have the bat, but if you use it on an intruder, you
better be able to show that it was merely a weapon of opportunity, and not
kept as a weapon of self-defense, like next to your bed, for example. The >>> cops
will actually question why you keep a cricket bat in your bedroom and not in
the garage with all your other sporting equipment. Same goes for knives. >>> Knives kept in the kitchen = legal. Knives kept in the bedroom = criminal >>> offense.
People in the UK are actually advised by victims' advocacy groups to keep >>> other sporting equipment-- soccer balls, cricket pads, baseball gloves, >>> etc.--
in their bedrooms along with the bat to avoid this kind of trap. There have
even been cases where people have been threatened with charges merely for >>> having large dogs as pets since they can be seen as "keeping weapons" in >>> one's
home.
I do get that (...including its rationale, but that's a different
discussion). But what I'm theorizing is that if, say, he'd first
attacked her with his own knife, the sentence she'd have gotten for
defending herself with hers wouldn't have been much more than one would
get merely for carrying.
I've never seen any commentary or quoted law from the UK that says the sentence for carrying a weapon and using it self-defense is mitigated if the attacker is similarly armed.
Maybe Reform can preside over a major rewrite of the laws in the UK so
that they make sense again. (Reform is substantially ahead of both the >Conservatives and Reform in polling on a national basis but the next
election is still a few years away so anything could happen between now
and then.)
I've seen plenty of commentators remark on their frustration with how
crime is handled in their country and the meagre sentences most people
get for serious crimes. Meanwhile, people who do mean tweets get longer
jail terms than serious criminals. Many of these comments are probably
by people who just repeat the same gossip they hear from others.
Here, the longest sentence you can get is also called "life" but it's >actually 25 years before you're eligible for parole. This sentence is >reserved for 1st degree murder and High Treason. By the way, if you kill >multiple people, it's still just 25 years before you can apply for your >parole because sentences are always served concurrently. (The last time
the Conservatives were in power, they changed the law so that judges
could make the sentences consecutive with the offender only eligible for >parole after the last of the sentences is complete. After that change to
the law, a guy who killed three cops and injured two, Justin Bourque,
got a sentence of 75 years consecutive before he was eligible for
parole. A few years later, Alexandre Bissonette killed 6 people in a
mosque (and injured 5 more) and was sentenced to six consecutive 25 year
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then her >knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that
rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal.
It's also a crime in the UK to keep any implement-- like a cricket bat-- as a >weapon. You can legally have the bat, but if you use it on an intruder, you >better be able to show that it was merely a weapon of opportunity, and not >kept as a weapon of self-defense, like next to your bed, for example. The cops >will actually question why you keep a cricket bat in your bedroom and not in >the garage with all your other sporting equipment. Same goes for knives. >Knives kept in the kitchen = legal. Knives kept in the bedroom = criminal >offense.
People in the UK are actually advised by victims' advocacy groups to keep >>other sporting equipment-- soccer balls, cricket pads, baseball gloves, etc.--
in their bedrooms along with the bat to avoid this kind of trap. There have >>even been cases where people have been threatened with charges merely for >>having large dogs as pets since they can be seen as "keeping weapons" in one's
home.
Good heavens
I do get that (...including its rationale, but that's a different >discussion). But what I'm theorizing is that if, say, he'd first
attacked her with his own knife, the sentence she'd have gotten for
defending herself with hers wouldn't have been much more than one would
get merely for carrying.
That was truly obscene. Both sets of lawyers agreed that it was
unquestionably self-defence yet she got 17 years in the slammer. The
contrast with the sentences for the people convicted in the rape gang
scandal were extremely disproportionate by comparison.
https://ibb.co/M0Gwpp4
Voting Conservatives was our one solid chance of changing course at the >recent election but not enough of us did it. My only hope is that Carney
will do something so egregiously stupid that the opposition has to
defeat the government and force a new election. But that isn't going to >happen really soon; I think all the parties need time to rebuild their
war chests: elections are expensive for political parties.
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 11:15:55 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
I do get that (...including its rationale, but that's a different
discussion). But what I'm theorizing is that if, say, he'd first
attacked her with his own knife, the sentence she'd have gotten for
defending herself with hers wouldn't have been much more than one would
get merely for carrying.
Surely she'd have a self defence plea in that case.
On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then herI'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in
knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that
rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal.
self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and
think of the Empire"!
On Thu, 29 May 2025 16:55:45 -0400, Rhino
<[email protected]> wrote:
I've seen plenty of commentators remark on their frustration with howThere was a recent case in the UK where a woman who wrote a "mean
crime is handled in their country and the meagre sentences most people
get for serious crimes. Meanwhile, people who do mean tweets get longer
jail terms than serious criminals. Many of these comments are probably
by people who just repeat the same gossip they hear from others.
tweet", then deleted it 2 hours later (after someone had taken a
screen shot and e-mailed it to the Crown Prosecutor) got 3 1/2 years.
It seems she got bad advise from the public defender and took a guilty
plea while others who did likewise with her but pled not guilty were
either acquitted or token sentences like probation.
That is of course the risk one takes when you 'take a plea' but this
one seems especially high even though she is likely to get parole in 9 months.
Meanwhile the "groomers" are being found guilty and getting suspended sentences.
I personally think it's appalling that suspended sentences are an
available sentencing option for rape of a minor but then I'm not in
the UK.
Bottom line is the current British government is in fear of Pakistani migrants be they legal or illegal and think they can't win the next
election without Muslim ballots.
On Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then her >>> knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting thatI'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in
rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal.
self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and
think of the Empire"!
I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag if I have anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of the doors and windows.
On Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then her >>> knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting thatI'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in
rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal.
self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and
think of the Empire"!
I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag if I have anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of the doors and windows.
On 6/5/2025 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <[email protected]> wrote: >>
On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then her >>>> knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting thatI'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in
rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal.
self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and
think of the Empire"!
I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag if I have >> anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of the doors and
windows.
Well, that does kinda elevate simple burglary into a capital crime.
On 6/5/2025 1:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 8:26:42 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <[email protected]> >>>> wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then herI'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in
knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that >>>>>> rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal. >>>>>>
self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and >>>>> think of the Empire"!
I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag if I have
anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of the
doors and
windows.
Well, that does kinda elevate simple burglary into a capital crime.
If you don't want to be shot to death while breaking into someone's home to >> steal from them, there's a 100% effective way of guaranteeing that never
happens to you: don't break into people's homes and steal from them.
That has a smidgen of resonance with "let them eat cake".
On Jun 5, 2025 at 8:26:42 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then herI'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in
knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that >>>>> rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal.
self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and >>>> think of the Empire"!
I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag if I have >>> anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of the doors and
windows.
Well, that does kinda elevate simple burglary into a capital crime.
If you don't want to be shot to death while breaking into someone's home to steal from them, there's a 100% effective
way of guaranteeing that never happens to you: don't break into people's homes
and steal from them.
Jun 5, 2025 at 8:26:42 AM PDT, moviePig <[email protected]>:
6/5/2025 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, The Horny Goat <[email protected]>:
Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then her >>>>>knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that >>>>>rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal.
I'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in
self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and >>>>think of the Empire"!
I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag if I
have anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of
the doors and windows.
Well, that does kinda elevate simple burglary into a capital crime.
If you don't want to be shot to death while breaking into someone's home
to steal from them, there's a 100% effective way of guaranteeing that
never happens to you: don't break into people's homes and steal from them.
On Jun 5, 2025 at 11:32:30 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 1:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:death, then her
On Jun 5, 2025 at 8:26:42 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>
On 6/5/2025 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to
if I haveknifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that >>>>>>> rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal. >>>>>>>I'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in
self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and >>>>>> think of the Empire"!
I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag
anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of the >>>>> doors and
windows.
Well, that does kinda elevate simple burglary into a capital crime.
If you don't want to be shot to death while breaking into someone's home to >>> steal from them, there's a 100% effective way of guaranteeing that never >>> happens to you: don't break into people's homes and steal from them.
That has a smidgen of resonance with "let them eat cake".
No one has a right to my property and they certainly don't have a right to put >me and my family in danger when trying to take it.
Fuck around and find out.
On Jun 5, 2025 at 11:32:30 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 1:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 8:26:42 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>
On 6/5/2025 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then herI'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in
knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that
rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal. >>>>>>>
self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and
think of the Empire"!
I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag if I have
anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of the >>>>> doors and
windows.
Well, that does kinda elevate simple burglary into a capital crime.
If you don't want to be shot to death while breaking into someone's home to >>> steal from them, there's a 100% effective way of guaranteeing that never >>> happens to you: don't break into people's homes and steal from them.
That has a smidgen of resonance with "let them eat cake".
No one has a right to my property and they certainly don't have a right to put
me and my family in danger when trying to take it.
Fuck around and find out.
On 6/5/2025 2:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 11:32:30 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>
On 6/5/2025 1:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 8:26:42 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:If you don't want to be shot to death while breaking into someone's home to
On Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then herI'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in
knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that
rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal. >>>>>>>>
self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and
think of the Empire"!
I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag if >>>>>> I have
anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of the >>>>>> doors and
windows.
Well, that does kinda elevate simple burglary into a capital crime. >>>>
steal from them, there's a 100% effective way of guaranteeing that never >>>> happens to you: don't break into people's homes and steal from them.
That has a smidgen of resonance with "let them eat cake".
No one has a right to my property and they certainly don't have a right to >> put
me and my family in danger when trying to take it.
Fuck around and find out.
Chest-thumping aside... your proposed law, as I extrapolate it, awards a homeowner cancellation rights over the life of any intruder.
A parallel
that comes to mind is the Old West's summary lynching of horse thieves
...but the rationale there (I'm told) was that a horse back then was essential to survival, making the theft of one a "capital" crime.
On Jun 5, 2025 at 1:22:00 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 2:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 11:32:30 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>
On 6/5/2025 1:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 8:26:42 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:That has a smidgen of resonance with "let them eat cake".
On 6/5/2025 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:If you don't want to be shot to death while breaking into someone's home to
On Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then herI'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in >>>>>>>> self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and
knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that
rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal. >>>>>>>>>
think of the Empire"!
I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag if >>>>>>> I have
anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of the >>>>>>> doors and
windows.
Well, that does kinda elevate simple burglary into a capital crime. >>>>>
steal from them, there's a 100% effective way of guaranteeing that never >>>>> happens to you: don't break into people's homes and steal from them. >>>>
No one has a right to my property and they certainly don't have a right to >>> put
me and my family in danger when trying to take it.
Fuck around and find out.
Chest-thumping aside... your proposed law, as I extrapolate it, awards a
homeowner cancellation rights over the life of any intruder.
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you to be a >danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless, even if >they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're kicking in >my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon my home to >thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why >should I do any different?
A parallel
that comes to mind is the Old West's summary lynching of horse thieves
...but the rationale there (I'm told) was that a horse back then was
essential to survival, making the theft of one a "capital" crime.
We have plenty of men that need killin' but we don't have any horses that need >theivin'.
On Jun 5, 2025 at 1:22:00 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 2:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 11:32:30 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>
On 6/5/2025 1:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 8:26:42 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:That has a smidgen of resonance with "let them eat cake".
On 6/5/2025 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:If you don't want to be shot to death while breaking into someone's home to
On Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then herI'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in >>>>>>>> self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and
knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that
rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal. >>>>>>>>>
think of the Empire"!
I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag if
I have
anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of the
doors and
windows.
Well, that does kinda elevate simple burglary into a capital crime. >>>>>
steal from them, there's a 100% effective way of guaranteeing that never
happens to you: don't break into people's homes and steal from them. >>>>
No one has a right to my property and they certainly don't have a right to
put
me and my family in danger when trying to take it.
Fuck around and find out.
Chest-thumping aside... your proposed law, as I extrapolate it, awards a
homeowner cancellation rights over the life of any intruder.
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you to be a danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless, even if they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're kicking in my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon my home to thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why should I do any different?
...
On 6/5/2025 5:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 1:22:00 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 2:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 11:32:30 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 1:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 8:26:42 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:That has a smidgen of resonance with "let them eat cake".
On 6/5/2025 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to >>>>>>>>>> death, then herI'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in >>>>>>>>> self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and
knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that
rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal.
think of the Empire"!
I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag if
I have
anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of the
doors and
windows.
Well, that does kinda elevate simple burglary into a capital crime.
If you don't want to be shot to death while breaking into someone's >>>>>> home to
steal from them, there's a 100% effective way of guaranteeing that never
happens to you: don't break into people's homes and steal from them. >>>>>
No one has a right to my property and they certainly don't have a right to
put
me and my family in danger when trying to take it.
Fuck around and find out.
Chest-thumping aside... your proposed law, as I extrapolate it, awards a >>> homeowner cancellation rights over the life of any intruder.
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you to be a >> danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless, even if >> they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're kicking >> in
my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon my home >> to
thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why
should I do any different?
...
But "I" thought you were gone for the evening ...so my *intent* was
larcenous but not physically threatening.
E.g., do you think we should shoot shoplifters, who afaics have the same lack of principle?
On Jun 5, 2025 at 3:13:08 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 5:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 1:22:00 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>
On 6/5/2025 2:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 11:32:30 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 1:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 8:26:42 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to >>>>>>>>>>> death, then herI'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in >>>>>>>>>> self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and
knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that
rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal.
think of the Empire"!
I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag if
I have
anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of the
doors and
windows.
Well, that does kinda elevate simple burglary into a capital crime.
If you don't want to be shot to death while breaking into someone's >>>>>>> home to
steal from them, there's a 100% effective way of guaranteeing that never
happens to you: don't break into people's homes and steal from them.
That has a smidgen of resonance with "let them eat cake".
No one has a right to my property and they certainly don't have a right to
put
me and my family in danger when trying to take it.
Fuck around and find out.
Chest-thumping aside... your proposed law, as I extrapolate it, awards a >>>> homeowner cancellation rights over the life of any intruder.
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you to be a >>> danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless, even if
they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're kicking
in
my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon my home
to
thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why >>> should I do any different?
...
But "I" thought you were gone for the evening ...so my *intent* was
larcenous but not physically threatening.
As you're kicking in my door I don't know that and I'm not required to wait to
find out whether you're going to shoot me or not as you invade my home.
moviePig, is this you?
https://ibb.co/M0Gwpp4
E.g., do you think we should shoot shoplifters, who afaics have the same >> lack of principle?
Let's just start with arresting them-- something California Democrats won't do-- and go from there.
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you to be a >danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless, even if >they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're kicking in >my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon my home to >thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why >should I do any different?
If moviePig, living in the UK, obeyed the law of self defense and
wasn't carrying any weapon that was contraband even if used in self
defense or in defense of another, were killed by the home invader, is
that what he means by simple burglary?
I think I've translated correctly from moviePig English into English.
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:51:49 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you to be a
danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless, even if >> they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're kicking in
my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon my home to
thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why
should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt
when it comes to your own abode.
On 6/12/2025 4:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:51:49 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you to be a >>> danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless, even if
they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're kicking >>> in
my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon my home >>> to
thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why >>> should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt
when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life.
On Jun 13, 2025 at 8:31:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:51:49 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you to be a
danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless, even if
they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're kicking
in
my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon my home
to
thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property. >>>>
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why >>>> should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt
when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life.
Once again, if the skell breaking into my house doesn't value his own life more than my property, why should I?
On 6/13/2025 12:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 8:31:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>
On 6/12/2025 4:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:51:49 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you to be a
danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless, >>>>> even if
they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're kicking
in
my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon my home
to
thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property. >>>>>
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why
should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt >>>> when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life.
Once again, if the skell breaking into my house doesn't value his own life >> more than my property, why should I?
Umm, in most households anyway, theft isn't considered suicidal.
Jun 13, 2025 at 10:08:54 AM PDT, moviePig <[email protected]> wrote: >>6/13/2025 12:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Jun 13, 2025 at 8:31:04 AM PDT, moviePig <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>6/12/2025 4:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:51:49 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>:
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you >>>>>>to be a danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And >>>>>>regardless, even if they're only there to steal and I can somehow >>>>>>know this as they're kicking in my front door, I'm neither legally >>>>>>nor morally required to abandon my home to thieves or stand aside >>>>>>and let them have their way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, >>>>>>why should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt >>>>>when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life.
Once again, if the skell breaking into my house doesn't value his own >>>life more than my property, why should I?
Umm, in most households anyway, theft isn't considered suicidal.
It is if you're in a place where gun ownership isn't restricted.
If you're in Texas and considering home invasion as a vocation, the >probability that you'll be shot sooner rather than later is something
you need to seriously consider.
On Jun 13, 2025 at 10:08:54 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 12:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 8:31:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>
On 6/12/2025 4:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:51:49 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote:
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you to be a
danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless, >>>>>> even if
they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're kicking
in
my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon my home
to
thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property. >>>>>>
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why
should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt >>>>> when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life.
Once again, if the skell breaking into my house doesn't value his own life
more than my property, why should I?
Umm, in most households anyway, theft isn't considered suicidal.
It is if you're in a place where gun ownership isn't restricted.
If you're in Texas and considering home invasion as a vocation, the probability that you'll be shot sooner rather than later is something you need
to seriously consider.
On 6/13/2025 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 10:08:54 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>
On 6/13/2025 12:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 8:31:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:51:49 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote:
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you >>>>>>> to be a
danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless,
even if
they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're >>>>>>> kicking
in
my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon >>>>>>> my home
to
thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why
should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt
when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life.
Once again, if the skell breaking into my house doesn't value his own life
more than my property, why should I?
Umm, in most households anyway, theft isn't considered suicidal.
It is if you're in a place where gun ownership isn't restricted.
And a place where property is valued more than life.
If you're in Texas and considering home invasion as a vocation, the
probability that you'll be shot sooner rather than later is something you >> need
to seriously consider.
Or you find someone desperate enough they'll do the invasions for you.
On Jun 13, 2025 at 4:02:20 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 10:08:54 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 12:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 8:31:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:51:49 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you
to be a
danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless,
even if
they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're
kicking
in
my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon
my home
to
thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why
should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt
when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life.
Once again, if the skell breaking into my house doesn't value his own life
more than my property, why should I?
Umm, in most households anyway, theft isn't considered suicidal.
It is if you're in a place where gun ownership isn't restricted.
And a place where property is valued more than life.
If I'm at home when you come to take my property, my life is in danger, too. So on one side you have a life. On the other, you have one or more lives, plus
property.
The math does itself.
If you're in Texas and considering home invasion as a vocation, the
probability that you'll be shot sooner rather than later is something you >>> need
to seriously consider.
Or you find someone desperate enough they'll do the invasions for you.
The[y] chose... poorly.
On 6/13/2025 7:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 4:02:20 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>
On 6/13/2025 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 10:08:54 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 12:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 8:31:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:Once again, if the skell breaking into my house doesn't value his >>>>>> own life
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:51:49 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you >>>>>>>>> to be a danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless,
even if they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're
kicking in my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to
abandon my home to thieves or stand aside and let them have their >>>>>>>>> way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why
should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt
when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life. >>>>>>
more than my property, why should I?
Umm, in most households anyway, theft isn't considered suicidal.
It is if you're in a place where gun ownership isn't restricted.
And a place where property is valued more than life.
If I'm at home when you come to take my property, my life is in danger, too.
So on one side you have a life. On the other, you have one or more lives, >> plus
property.
The math does itself.
They come to take your property, you come to take their life.
If you're in Texas and considering home invasion as a vocation, the >>>> probability that you'll be shot sooner rather than later is something you
need to seriously consider.
Or you find someone desperate enough they'll do the invasions for you.
The[y] chose... poorly.
And if it's the free choice you're envisioning, rather than a desperate
one, then they must be suicidal.
On Jun 14, 2025 at 9:20:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 7:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 4:02:20 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>
On 6/13/2025 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 10:08:54 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 12:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:It is if you're in a place where gun ownership isn't restricted.
On Jun 13, 2025 at 8:31:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:Once again, if the skell breaking into my house doesn't value his >>>>>>> own life
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:51:49 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you >>>>>>>>>> to be a danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless,
even if they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're
kicking in my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to
abandon my home to thieves or stand aside and let them have their >>>>>>>>>> way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why
should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt
when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life. >>>>>>>
more than my property, why should I?
Umm, in most households anyway, theft isn't considered suicidal. >>>>>
And a place where property is valued more than life.
If I'm at home when you come to take my property, my life is in danger, too.
So on one side you have a life. On the other, you have one or more lives, >>> plus
property.
The math does itself.
They come to take your property, you come to take their life.
But I don't know that. It's not like they announce themselves as mere non-murderous thieves with every kick on the door. And even if they did, I'm supposed to risk my life and the lives of my family banking on the honesty of the criminals who are kicking in my door?
The[y] chose... poorly.If you're in Texas and considering home invasion as a vocation, the >>>>> probability that you'll be shot sooner rather than later is something you
need to seriously consider.
Or you find someone desperate enough they'll do the invasions for you. >>>
And if it's the free choice you're envisioning, rather than a desperate
one, then they must be suicidal.
Yes, they desperately need my TV to feed their kids. Riiighhht...
On 6/14/2025 5:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 14, 2025 at 9:20:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>
On 6/13/2025 7:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 4:02:20 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 10:08:54 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote:And a place where property is valued more than life.
On 6/13/2025 12:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:It is if you're in a place where gun ownership isn't restricted. >>>>>
On Jun 13, 2025 at 8:31:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:Once again, if the skell breaking into my house doesn't value his
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:51:49 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you
to be a danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And >>>>>>>>>>> regardless,
even if they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're
kicking in my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to
abandon my home to thieves or stand aside and let them have their
way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why
should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt
when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life. >>>>>>>>
own life
more than my property, why should I?
Umm, in most households anyway, theft isn't considered suicidal. >>>>>>
If I'm at home when you come to take my property, my life is in danger, >>>> too.
So on one side you have a life. On the other, you have one or more lives,
plus
property.
The math does itself.
They come to take your property, you come to take their life.
But I don't know that. It's not like they announce themselves as mere
non-murderous thieves with every kick on the door. And even if they did, I'm
supposed to risk my life and the lives of my family banking on the honesty >> of
the criminals who are kicking in my door?
Who knows what you're "supposed" to do?
But some rational humanitarians might take into account how unlikely a burglar is to be also homicidal.
The[y] chose... poorly.If you're in Texas and considering home invasion as a vocation, the >>>>>> probability that you'll be shot sooner rather than later is
something you
need to seriously consider.
Or you find someone desperate enough they'll do the invasions for you. >>>>
And if it's the free choice you're envisioning, rather than a desperate >>> one, then they must be suicidal.
Yes, they desperately need my TV to feed their kids. Riiighhht...
Yeah, he'll probably put it towards a new Corvette...
On Jun 4, 2025 at 4:55:25 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2025 16:55:45 -0400, Rhino
<[email protected]> wrote:
I've seen plenty of commentators remark on their frustration with howThere was a recent case in the UK where a woman who wrote a "mean
crime is handled in their country and the meagre sentences most people
get for serious crimes. Meanwhile, people who do mean tweets get longer
jail terms than serious criminals. Many of these comments are probably
by people who just repeat the same gossip they hear from others.
tweet", then deleted it 2 hours later (after someone had taken a
screen shot and e-mailed it to the Crown Prosecutor) got 3 1/2 years.
It seems she got bad advise from the public defender and took a guilty
plea while others who did likewise with her but pled not guilty were
either acquitted or token sentences like probation.
That is of course the risk one takes when you 'take a plea' but this
one seems especially high even though she is likely to get parole in 9
months.
Meanwhile the "groomers" are being found guilty and getting suspended
sentences.
I personally think it's appalling that suspended sentences are an
available sentencing option for rape of a minor but then I'm not in
the UK.
Bottom line is the current British government is in fear of Pakistani
migrants be they legal or illegal and think they can't win the next
election without Muslim ballots.
If they're so scared of them, why do they keep importing thousands of them at a time?
On 2025-06-05 12:53 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 4, 2025 at 4:55:25 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <[email protected]> wrote: >>They're not just importing them in droves, the Labour government is
On Thu, 29 May 2025 16:55:45 -0400, Rhino
<[email protected]> wrote:
I've seen plenty of commentators remark on their frustration with how >>>> crime is handled in their country and the meagre sentences most people >>>> get for serious crimes. Meanwhile, people who do mean tweets get longer >>>> jail terms than serious criminals. Many of these comments are probably >>>> by people who just repeat the same gossip they hear from others.There was a recent case in the UK where a woman who wrote a "mean
tweet", then deleted it 2 hours later (after someone had taken a
screen shot and e-mailed it to the Crown Prosecutor) got 3 1/2 years.
It seems she got bad advise from the public defender and took a guilty
plea while others who did likewise with her but pled not guilty were
either acquitted or token sentences like probation.
That is of course the risk one takes when you 'take a plea' but this
one seems especially high even though she is likely to get parole in 9
months.
Meanwhile the "groomers" are being found guilty and getting suspended
sentences.
I personally think it's appalling that suspended sentences are an
available sentencing option for rape of a minor but then I'm not in
the UK.
Bottom line is the current British government is in fear of Pakistani
migrants be they legal or illegal and think they can't win the next
election without Muslim ballots.
If they're so scared of them, why do they keep importing thousands of them >> at
a time?
actually planning to spend billions of pounds for a new airport IN
PAKISTAN! Apparently, most Pakistanis in Britain come for a specific
area in Pakistan that is fairly distant from the nearest airport so
Labour wants to build them an airport, presumably so it will be easier
for them to get back and forth when they go back to their home country.
Among other things, Pakistanis often take their pubescent daughters back
to Pakistan, supposedly for a holiday, but actually to be married to a
first cousin they've often never met and who may be a decade older. The
girls are frequently horrified when they get to Pakistan and learn their parents' plan; their father or older brothers will literally kill them
to prevent shame to the family if the girl objects. Some girls simply
kill themselves to avoid the forced marriage. Apparently, Labour wants
to make this process easier for British Pakistanis with a shiny new airport....
If you hit him upside the head with a blunt instrument, you are being
ever so kind as to remind him that breaking and entering is not proper >etiquette for calling upon you. You are pounding the clue into his
head, hopefully hard enough that the clue will penetrate. I'm sure you
will encounter high SRF but do the very best you can.
It is kind of you to take the time to do this.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why >>> should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt
when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life.
Fri, 13 Jun 2025 19:44:02 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]>:
If you hit him upside the head with a blunt instrument, you are being
ever so kind as to remind him that breaking and entering is not proper >>etiquette for calling upon you. You are pounding the clue into his
head, hopefully hard enough that the clue will penetrate. I'm sure you
will encounter high SRF but do the very best you can.
It is kind of you to take the time to do this.
Alt.sysadmin.recovery which used to be one of my favorite newsgroups
(having earlier in my life been involved in this occupation) used to
refer to such equipment as "LARTS" - "Loser Attitude Readjustment
Tools" such a baseball bat other than on the playing field or more
lethal devices...
They're not just importing them in droves, the Labour government is
actually planning to spend billions of pounds for a new airport IN
PAKISTAN! Apparently, most Pakistanis in Britain come for a specific
area in Pakistan that is fairly distant from the nearest airport so
Labour wants to build them an airport, presumably so it will be easier
for them to get back and forth when they go back to their home country.
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 11:31:04 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why >>>> should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt
when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life.
Fair enough but if you've forced your way inside my home don't expect
me to think of the worth of your life versus the safety of me and
mine. Somebody who lives their life in terms of the Sermon on the
Mount has nothing whatever to fear from me.
On Jun 14, 2025 at 7:32:39 PM PDT, "Rhino" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-05 12:53 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 4, 2025 at 4:55:25 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <[email protected]> wrote:They're not just importing them in droves, the Labour government is
On Thu, 29 May 2025 16:55:45 -0400, Rhino
<[email protected]> wrote:
I've seen plenty of commentators remark on their frustration with how >>>>> crime is handled in their country and the meagre sentences most people >>>>> get for serious crimes. Meanwhile, people who do mean tweets get longer >>>>> jail terms than serious criminals. Many of these comments are probably >>>>> by people who just repeat the same gossip they hear from others.There was a recent case in the UK where a woman who wrote a "mean
tweet", then deleted it 2 hours later (after someone had taken a
screen shot and e-mailed it to the Crown Prosecutor) got 3 1/2 years. >>>> It seems she got bad advise from the public defender and took a guilty >>>> plea while others who did likewise with her but pled not guilty were >>>> either acquitted or token sentences like probation.
That is of course the risk one takes when you 'take a plea' but this >>>> one seems especially high even though she is likely to get parole in 9 >>>> months.
Meanwhile the "groomers" are being found guilty and getting suspended >>>> sentences.
I personally think it's appalling that suspended sentences are an
available sentencing option for rape of a minor but then I'm not in
the UK.
Bottom line is the current British government is in fear of Pakistani >>>> migrants be they legal or illegal and think they can't win the next
election without Muslim ballots.
If they're so scared of them, why do they keep importing thousands of them
at
a time?
actually planning to spend billions of pounds for a new airport IN
PAKISTAN! Apparently, most Pakistanis in Britain come for a specific
area in Pakistan that is fairly distant from the nearest airport so
Labour wants to build them an airport, presumably so it will be easier
for them to get back and forth when they go back to their home country.
Among other things, Pakistanis often take their pubescent daughters back
to Pakistan, supposedly for a holiday, but actually to be married to a
first cousin they've often never met and who may be a decade older. The
girls are frequently horrified when they get to Pakistan and learn their
parents' plan; their father or older brothers will literally kill them
to prevent shame to the family if the girl objects. Some girls simply
kill themselves to avoid the forced marriage. Apparently, Labour wants
to make this process easier for British Pakistanis with a shiny new
airport....
Yep, the number of young girls who kill themselves over this 'tradition' far exceeds the number of troons who kill themselves for not being 'affirmed'. We're told we have to remake our entire society and actively participate in the delusions of the mentally ill or they might kill themselves, but strangely
there's no concern for the far more frequent suicides of young girls who face a lifetime of abuse and rape by men 30 years older than they are.
On 6/14/2025 11:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 14, 2025 at 7:32:39 PM PDT, "Rhino" <[email protected]> >> wrote:
On 2025-06-05 12:53 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 4, 2025 at 4:55:25 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <[email protected]> >>>> wrote:They're not just importing them in droves, the Labour government is
On Thu, 29 May 2025 16:55:45 -0400, Rhino
<[email protected]> wrote:
I've seen plenty of commentators remark on their frustration with how >>>>>> crime is handled in their country and the meagre sentences most peopleThere was a recent case in the UK where a woman who wrote a "mean >>>>> tweet", then deleted it 2 hours later (after someone had taken a
get for serious crimes. Meanwhile, people who do mean tweets get longer
jail terms than serious criminals. Many of these comments are probably
by people who just repeat the same gossip they hear from others. >>>>>>
screen shot and e-mailed it to the Crown Prosecutor) got 3 1/2 years. >>>>> It seems she got bad advise from the public defender and took a guilty >>>>> plea while others who did likewise with her but pled not guilty were >>>>> either acquitted or token sentences like probation.
That is of course the risk one takes when you 'take a plea' but this >>>>> one seems especially high even though she is likely to get parole in 9 >>>>> months.
Meanwhile the "groomers" are being found guilty and getting suspended >>>>> sentences.
I personally think it's appalling that suspended sentences are an >>>>> available sentencing option for rape of a minor but then I'm not in >>>>> the UK.
Bottom line is the current British government is in fear of Pakistani >>>>> migrants be they legal or illegal and think they can't win the next >>>>> election without Muslim ballots.
If they're so scared of them, why do they keep importing thousands of them
at
a time?
actually planning to spend billions of pounds for a new airport IN
PAKISTAN! Apparently, most Pakistanis in Britain come for a specific
area in Pakistan that is fairly distant from the nearest airport so
Labour wants to build them an airport, presumably so it will be easier
for them to get back and forth when they go back to their home country. >>>
Among other things, Pakistanis often take their pubescent daughters back >>> to Pakistan, supposedly for a holiday, but actually to be married to a
first cousin they've often never met and who may be a decade older. The >>> girls are frequently horrified when they get to Pakistan and learn their >>> parents' plan; their father or older brothers will literally kill them
to prevent shame to the family if the girl objects. Some girls simply
kill themselves to avoid the forced marriage. Apparently, Labour wants
to make this process easier for British Pakistanis with a shiny new
airport....
Yep, the number of young girls who kill themselves over this 'tradition' far
exceeds the number of troons who kill themselves for not being 'affirmed'. >> We're told we have to remake our entire society and actively participate in >> the delusions of the mentally ill or they might kill themselves, but
strangely
there's no concern for the far more frequent suicides of young girls who
face
a lifetime of abuse and rape by men 30 years older than they are.
When should one society inflict its social mores on another?
On Jun 14, 2025 at 3:08:06 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/14/2025 5:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 14, 2025 at 9:20:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>
On 6/13/2025 7:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 4:02:20 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 10:08:54 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]>And a place where property is valued more than life.
wrote:
On 6/13/2025 12:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:It is if you're in a place where gun ownership isn't restricted. >>>>>>
On Jun 13, 2025 at 8:31:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:Once again, if the skell breaking into my house doesn't value his
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:51:49 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you
to be a danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And
regardless,
even if they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're
kicking in my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to
abandon my home to thieves or stand aside and let them have their
way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why
should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt
when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life. >>>>>>>>>
own life
more than my property, why should I?
Umm, in most households anyway, theft isn't considered suicidal. >>>>>>>
If I'm at home when you come to take my property, my life is in danger,
too.
So on one side you have a life. On the other, you have one or more lives,
plus
property.
The math does itself.
They come to take your property, you come to take their life.
But I don't know that. It's not like they announce themselves as mere
non-murderous thieves with every kick on the door. And even if they did, I'm
supposed to risk my life and the lives of my family banking on the honesty
of
the criminals who are kicking in my door?
Who knows what you're "supposed" to do?
I do.
And I forgot to address last time around, where you said that "They come to take your property, you come to take their life". Only half of that is true. In that scenario, they came to me. I didn't come to them. I was quietly minding my own business in my own home when violence and terror arrived on my doorstep. I didn't start the fight, I just ended it.
But some rational humanitarians might take into account how unlikely a
burglar is to be also homicidal.
All one needs to do is spend a day reading the FBI crime stats to see how many
home invasions end up deadly for the residents, even when the thieves could easily have just taken the property and left. A lot of criminals don't like to
leave witnesses to their crimes.
If you're in Texas and considering home invasion as a vocation, the
probability that you'll be shot sooner rather than later is >>>>>>> something you
need to seriously consider.
Or you find someone desperate enough they'll do the invasions for you.
The[y] chose... poorly.
And if it's the free choice you're envisioning, rather than a desperate >>>> one, then they must be suicidal.
Yes, they desperately need my TV to feed their kids. Riiighhht...
Yeah, he'll probably put it towards a new Corvette...
Ironically, you don't realize how right you are.
I was always appalled and amazed when we'd run a search warrant in a home in the ghettos in Houston and L.A., where we'd find babies sitting in their own filth, malnourished, cockroaches everywhere, but darned if there wasn't the latest PlayStation or Nintendo sitting under a giant TV on the wall.
On Jun 15, 2025 at 9:56:25 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/14/2025 11:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 14, 2025 at 7:32:39 PM PDT, "Rhino" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 2025-06-05 12:53 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 4, 2025 at 4:55:25 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote:They're not just importing them in droves, the Labour government is
On Thu, 29 May 2025 16:55:45 -0400, Rhino
<[email protected]> wrote:
I've seen plenty of commentators remark on their frustration with howThere was a recent case in the UK where a woman who wrote a "mean >>>>>> tweet", then deleted it 2 hours later (after someone had taken a >>>>>> screen shot and e-mailed it to the Crown Prosecutor) got 3 1/2 years.
crime is handled in their country and the meagre sentences most people
get for serious crimes. Meanwhile, people who do mean tweets get longer
jail terms than serious criminals. Many of these comments are probably
by people who just repeat the same gossip they hear from others. >>>>>>>
It seems she got bad advise from the public defender and took a guilty
plea while others who did likewise with her but pled not guilty were >>>>>> either acquitted or token sentences like probation.
That is of course the risk one takes when you 'take a plea' but this >>>>>> one seems especially high even though she is likely to get parole in 9
months.
Meanwhile the "groomers" are being found guilty and getting suspended
sentences.
I personally think it's appalling that suspended sentences are an >>>>>> available sentencing option for rape of a minor but then I'm not in >>>>>> the UK.
Bottom line is the current British government is in fear of Pakistani
migrants be they legal or illegal and think they can't win the next >>>>>> election without Muslim ballots.
If they're so scared of them, why do they keep importing thousands of them
at
a time?
actually planning to spend billions of pounds for a new airport IN
PAKISTAN! Apparently, most Pakistanis in Britain come for a specific >>>> area in Pakistan that is fairly distant from the nearest airport so
Labour wants to build them an airport, presumably so it will be easier >>>> for them to get back and forth when they go back to their home country. >>>>
Among other things, Pakistanis often take their pubescent daughters back >>>> to Pakistan, supposedly for a holiday, but actually to be married to a >>>> first cousin they've often never met and who may be a decade older. The >>>> girls are frequently horrified when they get to Pakistan and learn their >>>> parents' plan; their father or older brothers will literally kill them >>>> to prevent shame to the family if the girl objects. Some girls simply >>>> kill themselves to avoid the forced marriage. Apparently, Labour wants >>>> to make this process easier for British Pakistanis with a shiny new
airport....
Yep, the number of young girls who kill themselves over this 'tradition' far
exceeds the number of troons who kill themselves for not being 'affirmed'.
We're told we have to remake our entire society and actively participate in
the delusions of the mentally ill or they might kill themselves, but
strangely
there's no concern for the far more frequent suicides of young girls who >>> face
a lifetime of abuse and rape by men 30 years older than they are.
When should one society inflict its social mores on another?
People are free to inflict all they like. The government can't require.
Yep, the number of young girls who kill themselves over this 'tradition' far
exceeds the number of troons who kill themselves for not being 'affirmed'.
We're told we have to remake our entire society and actively participate in
the delusions of the mentally ill or they might kill themselves, but >>>> strangely
there's no concern for the far more frequent suicides of young girls who >>>> face
a lifetime of abuse and rape by men 30 years older than they are.
When should one society inflict its social mores on another?
People are free to inflict all they like. The government can't require.
You say that like our government doesn't enforce our mores here.
Maybe Reform can preside over a major rewrite of the laws in the UK so
that they make sense again. (Reform is substantially ahead of both the >Conservatives and Reform in polling on a national basis but the next
election is still a few years away so anything could happen between now
and then.)
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 15:48:13 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
Britain has a serious problem right now with Muslim immigration - muchYep, the number of young girls who kill themselves over this 'tradition' far
exceeds the number of troons who kill themselves for not being 'affirmed'.
We're told we have to remake our entire society and actively participate in
the delusions of the mentally ill or they might kill themselves, but >>>>> strangely
there's no concern for the far more frequent suicides of young girls who
face
a lifetime of abuse and rape by men 30 years older than they are.
When should one society inflict its social mores on another?
People are free to inflict all they like. The government can't require.
You say that like our government doesn't enforce our mores here.
of which is illegal. And is isn't helped by King Charles sending
greetings on Muslim religious holidays but saying nothing for
Christian holidays which is nothing but bizarre given he is legally
head of the Church of England.
I wouldn't complain if he had either acknowledged both or neither but
what he actually did is unconscionable.
On 7/6/2025 12:43 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 15:48:13 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
Britain has a serious problem right now with Muslim immigration - muchYou say that like our government doesn't enforce our mores here.Yep, the number of young girls who kill themselves over thisWhen should one society inflict its social mores on another?
'tradition' far
exceeds the number of troons who kill themselves for not being >>>>>> 'affirmed'.
We're told we have to remake our entire society and actively
participate in
the delusions of the mentally ill or they might kill themselves, but >>>>>> strangely
there's no concern for the far more frequent suicides of young girls who
face
a lifetime of abuse and rape by men 30 years older than they are. >>>>>
People are free to inflict all they like. The government can't require. >>>
of which is illegal. And is isn't helped by King Charles sending
greetings on Muslim religious holidays but saying nothing for
Christian holidays which is nothing but bizarre given he is legally
head of the Church of England.
I wouldn't complain if he had either acknowledged both or neither but
what he actually did is unconscionable.
I don't think there *is* a winning move...
I wouldn't complain if he had either acknowledged both or neither but
what he actually did is unconscionable.
I don't think there *is* a winning move...
Britain has a serious problem right now with Muslim immigration - much
of which is illegal. And is isn't helped by King Charles sending
greetings on Muslim religious holidays but saying nothing for
Christian holidays which is nothing but bizarre given he is legally
head of the Church of England.
I wouldn't complain if he had either acknowledged both or neither but
what he actually did is unconscionable.
I don't think there *is* a winning move...
They could start by closing their borders.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 20:33:28 |
| Calls: | 12,104 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,004 |
| Messages: | 6,518,101 |