Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As I have already explained in this thread the UK has strict self defense laws, this is a good thing.

Not if your daughter is attacked by a paedo.

CT GAMER wrote:

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:As they say in the great country of Texas "he TOTALLY needed a killing."

Fixed that for you.

Why are texans speaking like Valley Girls?

Totally dude...

Because of the "Hollywoodefection" of the media. The real quote should be more like this.

"Yup.. I reckon he needed a bit of Ol' Killin" [spitting of tabacco at this point is optional]

Hordini wrote:There's this really weird idea in our society where people, particularly women, are afraid of an imaginary rapist hiding in the bushes or down a dark alley, when the reality is that the perpetrator is most likely someone known to the victim. .

Yep.

Mr Hyena wrote:

As I have already explained in this thread the UK has strict self defense laws, this is a good thing.

Not if your daughter is attacked by a paedo.

Why single out a particular crime, or rather a type of criminal? It is not for individuals to dispense justice, that way lies anarchy.

I find it hard to believe that the father of a 4-year-old could not tell the difference between a "someone is raping me" scream and a " ouch I pricked my finger" scream. I would venture that someone's clothes were in disarray.

PhantomViper wrote:Trust the leftist PCs on Dakka to try and defend a paedophile...

Now now.

Those might almost be considered "trolling words".

SlaveToDorkness wrote:I find it hard to believe that the father of a 4-year-old could not tell the difference between a "someone is raping me" scream and a " ouch I pricked my finger" scream. I would venture that someone's clothes were in disarray.

4 year olds have a specific "someone is raping me scream"?

I would say that it's a damn sight more adrenaline-inducing than a scream the father has heard many times over the course of four years.

I'd say more context is needed (oh god I'm sounding like Orlanth), I'd doubt a "someone is raping me" scream is especially different to a variety of other screams said four year old would make if they were really scared...

Kilkrazy wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:Trust the leftist PCs on Dakka to try and defend a paedophile...

Now now.

Those might almost be considered "trolling words".

Why?

When every post made by those individuals in this thread are mere conjectures without a single shred of evidence to support them, designed to make a father that was defending is daughter, look like a cold blooded killer that should go to jail? And designed to make a would be rapist and paedophile look like an innocent victim? (as if any person would just misinterpret the reason why his child his crying and kill a man he knew over that misunderstanding!)

This type of thing is a growing trend in Europe's left wing factions, the criminal is never responsible for his actions, it is always societies fault, or the victims! And heaven forbid a would be victim actually protects himself and kills or injures a criminal, those people should just be thrown in jail!

SlaveToDorkness wrote:I would say that it's a damn sight more adrenaline-inducing than a scream the father has heard many times over the course of four years.

Or, you know, he could have heard the scream, went to find his daughter, and found a man touching her private parts.

But that would make too much sense.

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I think if Dad runs in, after hearing girl screaming and sees paedo on top of girl, that we've established why she was screaming.

Prove he was a paedo.
.

He was ing a 4 year old. Get real.

PhantomViper wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:Trust the leftist PCs on Dakka to try and defend a paedophile...

Now now.

Those might almost be considered "trolling words".

Why?

When every post made by those individuals in this thread are mere conjectures without a single shred of evidence to support them, designed to make a father that was defending is daughter, look like a cold blooded killer that should go to jail? And designed to make a would be rapist and paedophile look like an innocent victim? (as if any person would just misinterpret the reason why his child his crying and kill a man he knew over that misunderstanding!)

This type of thing is a growing trend in Europe's left wing factions, the criminal is never responsible for his actions, it is always societies fault, or the victims! And heaven forbid a would be victim actually protects himself and kills or injures a criminal, those people should just be thrown in jail!

Except Orlanth (god I'm almost defending him again) isn't left wing IIRC.

Corpsesarefun wrote:I'd say more context is needed (oh god I'm sounding like Orlanth), I'd doubt a "someone is raping me" scream is especially different to a variety of other screams said four year old would make if they were really scared...

As a father of a 4 year old: yes, there are several different types of screams and a "I'm in imminent danger" scream is very different from an "I'm scared" scream...

dogma wrote:

Hordini wrote:There's this really weird idea in our society where people, particularly women, are afraid of an imaginary rapist hiding in the bushes or down a dark alley, when the reality is that the perpetrator is most likely someone known to the victim. .

Yep.

Yep.

Corpsesarefun wrote:
Except Orlanth (god I'm almost defending him again) isn't left wing IIRC.

I never saw him vote so I wouldn't know.

But that type of view is typical of left wing people.

PhantomViper wrote:
When every post made by those individuals in this thread are mere conjectures without a single shred of evidence to support them

Essentially that is the position of the 'otherside' as well. So far the fathers story hasn't been disproven but that doesn't mean that its definately true.

Chowderhead wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:I would say that it's a damn sight more adrenaline-inducing than a scream the father has heard many times over the course of four years.

Or, you know, he could have heard the scream, went to find his daughter, and found a man touching her private parts.

But that would make too much sense.

Exactly. Note the article stated that. I'm not sure what the issue is. And I quote: "After reaching the barn, he found a man sexually assaulting his daughter." Quit the"well it could have been she stubbed her toe" crap arguments already.

Corpsesarefun wrote:
4 year olds have a specific "someone is raping me scream"?

As an uncle, yes.

Thank you, Viper. I only see my 2-year old neice once a week and can easily discern the different levels of her distress.

Frazzled wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I think if Dad runs in, after hearing girl screaming and sees paedo on top of girl, that we've established why she was screaming.

Prove he was a paedo.

Ok!

He sexually molested a four-year-old. That's the goddamn definition.

And if you mean he was a formerly convicted pedophile, no-one prove that until the coroner's office releases the name. So you're right if you meant it that way.

Frazzled wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I think if Dad runs in, after hearing girl screaming and sees paedo on top of girl, that we've established why she was screaming.

Prove he was a paedo.
.

He was ing a 4 year old. Get real.

Was he, I thought that he was supposed to have been "assaulting" a 4 year old, that could mean a lot of things.

Palindrome wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
When every post made by those individuals in this thread are mere conjectures without a single shred of evidence to support them

Essentially that is the position of the 'otherside' as well. So far the fathers story hasn't been disproven but that doesn't mean that its definately true.

No that doesn't mean that its 100% true, but we do have the sheriffs statement, based on investigators findings and the doctors analysis of the little girl, that says that what has been found so far corroborates the father's story.

Chowderhead wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I think if Dad runs in, after hearing girl screaming and sees paedo on top of girl, that we've established why she was screaming.

Prove he was a paedo.

Ok!

He sexually molested a four-year-old. That's the goddamn definition.

And if you mean he was a formerly convicted pedophile, no-one prove that until the coroner's office releases the name. So you're right if you meant it that way.

I'm pretty sure the point was there is no proof at this point in time that he WAS molesting said four year old.

And it is wrong that I'd have been more accepting of this case if the father had simply shot the man and killed him in one rather than slowly beat him to death?

Since it was blows to the head it probably wasn't that slow. Contrary to Hollywood, the human brain can't take a lot of trauma.

Being beaten over the head with nothing but a man's fists is unlikely to be a quick death...

Neither is being shot in the wrong place. Both can be slow or fast depending on the precise location of the trauma.

In this day and age, dad may have very well covered the "good touch/bad touch" speech and she knows to scream as loud as she can if bad touch happens. So he may very well have recognized that/

I am genuinelyl suprised by the responses on here from so many usually sensible people.

Frazzled, doesnt suprise me at all however.

I'm not "leftist" I'm pretty right wing, and I'm all up for hanging the worst offenders in society, I've long been a supporter of capital punishment.

If a bloke is found guilty and the evidence is extremely damning, then I am up for slotting people, no questions. Ive always said we banned capital punishment because back in the day we fethed up all the time. But with modern techniques and such, if we have like, 100% damning evidence such as goo all over a corpse or something caught on camera or something we should just put a bullet in the mother fethers.

That said, this guy wasn't tried! And It genuinely sounds dodgy to me. Why would you rape a four year old if the Dad was nearby? Don't most paedos get away with it for ages because they are smart and do it pretty circumspect? They don't attack kids like they do grown women do they? So that they scream really loudly? When the family is nearby?!

Something sounds off.... And everyone knows people pick risqué subjects so nobody will question them. There is a scumbag I work with who never turns up for work, and when he gets a bollocking he always says it was due to stress and depression because his missus had a miscarriage. I think she is up to twenty miscarriages by now.. but nobody will say anything to him.

Something sounds off to me, and you shouldn't just be allowed to beat people to death because you fancy it. We have courts and this fether should have ended up in one.

Think about it, say you get your wallet stolen, chase a guy a few hundred yards and then beat him to death in an alley, what's to stop you saying "Oh I wasn't chasing him because he stole my wallet.. no..er.. before he did that he fingered my daughter in the restroom at Macdonalds" and attempting to beat the charges?

Having a really good reason to beat someone to death doesn't give you the right to do it. And I hope this case gets scrutinized aggressively, because it sounds fishy to me.

Not that 90% of people have the brains to be objective when the nonces turn up.. at the end of the fething day we have the rule of law in our nations, so we shouldn't turn into gorillas just because we feel really strongly about something.

If you want to go kick untried, uncharged people to death because you have decided they deserve it, you should go live in Afghanistan, cos that's the kinda gak the uneducated, illiterate tribesmen out there get up to.

Palindrome wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I think if Dad runs in, after hearing girl screaming and sees paedo on top of girl, that we've established why she was screaming.

Prove he was a paedo.
.

He was ing a 4 year old. Get real.

Was he, I thought that he was supposed to have been "assaulting" a 4 year old, that could mean a lot of things.

No it doesn't actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Corpsesarefun wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I think if Dad runs in, after hearing girl screaming and sees paedo on top of girl, that we've established why she was screaming.

Prove he was a paedo.

Ok!

He sexually molested a four-year-old. That's the goddamn definition.

And if you mean he was a formerly convicted pedophile, no-one prove that until the coroner's office releases the name. So you're right if you meant it that way.

I'm pretty sure the point was there is no proof at this point in time that he WAS molesting said four year old.

And it is wrong that I'd have been more accepting of this case if the father had simply shot the man and killed him in one rather than slowly beat him to death?

Wow you are reaching at straws aren't you. What proof do you need?