• Spooky: Woman Found Stabbed to Death Left Terrifying Warning Post on Facebook
    73 replies, posted
[QUOTE=J!NX;43064989]I don't want to sound like a dick but, she really should have called the cops or ran instead of texting I mean, god damn, really, she could still be alive. I mean there was probably no way to run but, what the fuck? I'm not trying to blame her or say she's dumb for not defending herself, but come on...[/QUOTE] Exactly.
[QUOTE=Burque-IL;43064990]I totally expected the backlash, dude. Don't let my join date fool you into thinking I don't know how facepunch works. .[/QUOTE] I think you might get along better with the forums of GunFreedomFightersExposeMuslimObamaNow.net.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;43065000]the fact that you called the police the "middle man" is pretty skeevish[/QUOTE] Lol, you don't understand. They literally are the middle man. It is not their job to be anywhere in a city within 2 minutes to protect people. It is part of their job, but in no way their job as a whole. In a situation like this, they've GOT about 2 minutes to respond or shit is going south...just like it did in this case.
[quote]They say he threatened to kill Rowling while behind bars. When he was released from jail November 25th they say he carried out the threat.[/quote] How did the authorities miss this and how didn't they ensure he stays fucking CONTAINED at least until he stops being an open, self declared threat, or until they can ensure the woman is safe by helping her move, change identity, etc? I am strongly for rehabilitation of prisoners over vengeance and don't think that it's good to let anybody "rot", but in this case, the law completely failed to deliver the protective reasons for punishment by jail.
It's not like the person who wants you dead getting out of jail would invoke a mistrust in authority or anything...
[QUOTE=Aphtonites;43065013]I think you might get along better with the forums of GunFreedomFightersExposeMuslimObamaNow.net.[/QUOTE] That sort of site totally isn't my style. I enjoy long, Acid induced walks on the beach, not tea party rallies.
[QUOTE=Burque-IL;43065027]That sort of site totally isn't my style. I enjoy long, Acid induced walks on the beach, not tea party rallies.[/QUOTE] You could have fooled me.
[QUOTE=Burque-IL;43065020]Lol, you don't understand. They literally are the middle man. It is not their job to be anywhere in a city within 2 minutes to protect people. It is part of their job, but in no way their job as a whole. In a situation like this, they've GOT about 2 minutes to respond or shit is going south...just like it did in this case.[/QUOTE] just that wording makes me think of those people who want someone to break into their house so they can legally shoot and kill them, not saying you are but that is what it makes me think of
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;43065023] but in this case, the law completely failed to deliver the protective reasons for punishment by jail.[/QUOTE] They tend to do that. That's why you stay a step ahead of the game.
[QUOTE=Burque-IL;43064946]There are many things she could have done to prevent this. Calling the Cops for one might've worked provided they were willing to place an unmarked cruiser or something of the sort a few houses down.[/QUOTE] The reality is much more grim, you can't men streets for suspicions alone. You need hard evidence that you're in danger.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;43065037]just that wording makes me think of those people who want someone to break into their house so they can legally shoot and kill them, not saying you are but that is what it makes me think of[/QUOTE] Thinking realistically doesn't automatically make someone a psychotic veteran tea party nut. I'm also not saying you think that, but that's what your wording makes me think of.
[QUOTE=J!NX;43064989]I don't want to sound like a dick but, she really should have called the cops or ran instead of texting I mean, god damn, really, she could still be alive. I mean there was probably no way to run but, what the fuck? I'm not trying to blame her or say she's dumb for not defending herself, but come on... unless she was forced to say goodbye I can't even imagine anything to have lead to this, except if she was hiding under a bed?[/QUOTE] I have the suspicion she texted as she laid dying. assault takes place > she gets stabbed > she posts on facebook as she lays dying > calls the cops > is brought to the hospital > she's declared dead
[QUOTE=Burque-IL;43064887]We need more gun control![/QUOTE] If she had a pepper spray and/or tazer and the proper training for using them, she would be just as safe, if not safer, than if she used a gun. Fuck off. (And I am not saying it's her fault that she wasn't ready to defend her life from a despicable human being, I am just saying the pro-gun argument entirely fails).
That is spooky. I wonder why she didn't get any help. Or maybe she couldn't get help.
[QUOTE=lapsus_;43065040]The reality is much more grim, you can't men streets for suspicions alone. You need hard evidence that you're in danger.[/QUOTE] Right. So obviously there isn't much a Law Enforcement Agency can do in a case like this. This certainly isn't the first case of Law Enforcement failing to protect people. So with that I say again, why not eliminate the middle man?
[QUOTE=Burque-IL;43065055]Right. So obviously there isn't much a Law Enforcement Agency can do in a case like this. This certainly isn't the first case of Law Enforcement failing to protect people. So with that I say again, why not eliminate the middle man?[/QUOTE] Because it's the job of LAW ENFORCEMENT to ENFORCE THE LAW. You're advocating vigilantism, which has a far worse record.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;43065049]If she had a pepper spray and/or tazer and the proper training for using them, she would be just as safe, if not safer, than if she used a gun.[/QUOTE] I completely agree, Sir. Guns aren't for everyone. But pepper spray/tazers don't always work. Look at police videos where a suspect is repeatedly tazed/sprayed and still continues to fight. Luckily Officers usually have backup by then, but what would this woman have done in that case? I'm not saying everyone should go out and buy a gun. But a single 9mm Hollowpoint would have made a huge difference in this case.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;43065026]It's not like the person who wants you dead getting out of jail would invoke a mistrust in authority or anything...[/QUOTE] I would give them benefit of doubt and guess they sorta MISSED that he's murderous towards me and ask what the fuck are they going to do about that. I mean, I do understand why she didn't, and my original question was how did THEY let this happen, how did the guy get unmonitored threats out of the jail and if they were monitored, how the fuck did they not react to them.
[QUOTE=Burque-IL;43065069]I completely agree, Sir. Guns aren't for everyone. But pepper spray/tazers don't always work. Look at police videos where a suspect is repeatedly tazed/sprayed and still continues to fight. Luckily Officers usually have backup by then, but what would this woman have done in that case? I'm not saying everyone should go out and buy a gun. But a single 9mm Hollowpoint would have made a huge difference in this case.[/QUOTE] Guns don't always work either. You're assuming that she wouldn't have been able to take him down with a tazer, and yet would have managed to shoot him dead?
[QUOTE=Burque-IL;43065069]I completely agree, Sir. Guns aren't for everyone. But pepper spray/tazers don't always work. Look at police videos where a suspect is repeatedly tazed/sprayed and still continues to fight. Luckily Officers usually have backup by then, but what would this woman have done in that case? I'm not saying everyone should go out and buy a gun. But a single 9mm Hollowpoint would have made a huge difference in this case.[/QUOTE] Pepper spray and tazer works 90% of time and when it doesn't, it's usually because the person is severely drugged, and I doubt he coked himself up before the deed, even tho it's possible. Even then, the possibilities for personal defence are wide and many and it's not the problem at hand, problem is that they let a murderous monster loose, nobody should HAVE TO fight for their bare life.
[QUOTE=Burque-IL;43065055]Right. So obviously there isn't much a Law Enforcement Agency can do in a case like this. This certainly isn't the first case of Law Enforcement failing to protect people. So with that I say again, why not eliminate the middle man?[/QUOTE] What's with you and calling the police 'middle man'
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;43065064]Because it's the job of LAW ENFORCEMENT to ENFORCE THE LAW. You're advocating vigilantism, which has a far worse record.[/QUOTE] Taking steps to prevent a violent attacker with a knife from stabbing you to death in your own home is not vigilantism. It's called split-second logical thinking. [editline]4th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;43065078]Guns don't always work either. You're assuming that she wouldn't have been able to take him down with a tazer, and yet would have managed to shoot him dead?[/QUOTE] Either way would have worked just as well. With a tazer, you always have the risk of an attacker continuing their shit. You have the same risk with a handgun as well. This is where proper gun control and shot placement come into affect.
[QUOTE=Burque-IL;43065099]Taking steps to prevent a violent attacker with a knife from stabbing you to death in your own home is not vigilantism. It's called split-second logical thinking.[/QUOTE] No, that's called paranoia. It becomes logical when you know you're in danger; until then you're assuming and therefore paranoid.
[QUOTE=lapsus_;43065084]What's with you and calling the police 'middle man'[/QUOTE] The last time I called the police, they showed up to my location with a good friend already shot and killed right in front of me. I try not to make the same mistake twice.
[QUOTE=Burque-IL;43065099] Either way would have worked just as well. With a tazer, you always have the risk of an attacker continuing their shit. You have the same risk with a handgun as well. This is where proper gun control and shot placement come into affect.[/QUOTE] If a tazer and a handgun are equal, then why give her the one that's deadly? I'd advocate the use of a gun exclusively when there's no other alternative.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;43065108]No, that's called paranoia. It becomes logical when you know you're in danger; until then you're assuming and therefore paranoid.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure if someone is in your house and has a knife drawn, you damn well KNOW you're in danger. [editline]4th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;43065112]If a tazer and a handgun are equal, then why give her the one that's deadly? I'd advocate the use of a gun exclusively when there's no other alternative.[/QUOTE] If someone owns a handgun and doesn't own a tazer like myself as well as millions of other Americans, I'd say there's no other alternative. Oh and btw. Tazers have killed people: [url]http://electronicvillage.blogspot.com/2009/05/taser-related-deaths-in-united-states.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Burque-IL;43065113]I'm pretty sure if someone is in your house and has a knife drawn, you damn well KNOW you're in danger.[/QUOTE] The use of a gun in that event is logical. The acquisition of a gun specifically for the event is paranoid. Besides, anyone who's sane would, in that situation, avoid a fight. In most cases, they're just after your stuff, which is replaceable. [editline]4th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Burque-IL;43065113]If someone owns a handgun and doesn't own a tazer like myself as well as millions of other Americans, I'd say there's no other alternative. Oh and btw. Tazers have killed people.[/QUOTE] I know. They haven't killed as many people as guns have, though, because they don't kill a healthy person in normal conditions.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;43065124]The use of a gun in that event is logical. The acquisition of a gun specifically for the event is paranoid. [/QUOTE] It is NOT paranoid when again, you've experienced a violent home invasion which results in the loss of someone close. If it happened once it can happen again. But I guess I'm just paranoid for thinking realistically. Pleas excuse me for trying to deal with PTSD on a daily basis. [editline]4th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;43065124]The use of a gun in that event is logical. The acquisition of a gun specifically for the event is paranoid. Besides, anyone who's sane would, in that situation, avoid a fight. In most cases, they're just after your stuff, which is replaceable. [editline]4th December 2013[/editline] I know. They haven't killed as many people as guns have, though, because they don't kill a healthy person in normal conditions.[/QUOTE] It doesn't really matter. It is a fallacy to say tazers can't be a deadly weapon. [url]http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/04/20330077-are-tasers-too-deadly-to-be-called-non-lethal[/url] [editline]4th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;43065064]Because it's the job of LAW ENFORCEMENT to ENFORCE THE LAW. [/QUOTE] Precisely. They enforce the law, not provide personal security 24/7.
[QUOTE=Burque-IL;43065132]It is NOT paranoid when again, you've experienced a violent home invasion which results in the loss of someone close. If it happened once it can happen again. But I guess I'm just paranoid for thinking realistically. Excuse me for trying to deal with PTSD on a daily basis.[/QUOTE] There was another thread, with another poster who had a very similar experience to you. The problem is, that neither of you are representative of the majority. Your PTSD inhibits your ability to think objectively about this stuff, because you've been so heavily affected by it. You're not thinking realistically. You're thinking irrationally. You should recognise that overall, a tiny number of people experience a home invasion and a tiny fraction of those people experience a VIOLENT home invasion. I'd liken it to building a nuclear bomb shelter. It could happen, and in that event, you'd be happy to have it, but you're probably never going to need it.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;43065155]There was another thread, with another poster who had a very similar experience to you. The problem is, that neither of you are representative of the majority. Your PTSD inhibits your ability to think objectively about this stuff, because you've been so heavily affected by it. You're not thinking realistically. You're thinking irrationally. You should recognise that overall, a tiny number of people experience a home invasion and a tiny fraction of those people experience a VIOLENT home invasion. I'd liken it to building a nuclear bomb shelter. It could happen, and in that event, you'd be happy to have it, but you're probably never going to need it.[/QUOTE] But when you DO need it, you'd damn well better hope you have it. Think of it as life insurance. Home invasions are a realistic event. They happen everyday. Preparing for them is just as realistic as the event itself. I'm just curious, because me and the other poster's anecdotes are so 'rare' (you can't really call it rare when it is literally an everyday occurrence on this planet), do you believe that we should be disarmed of any and all firearms despite the fact that we've never committed a crime with said firearms?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.