Sarah Sands jailed for three and a half years for killing paedophile Michael Pleasted - Polidicks

news article commentators must be cheering all over the world

[QUOTE=J$ Psychotic;48787696]I'm conflicted. On one hand, I want to congratulate this woman for ridding the world of a monster. On the other hand, she killed a human.[/QUOTE] Why? She killed someone. So what? He was a terrible human being who was sexually abusing children for 30 years, had 24 convictions against him, and was living next door to her (she's a parent, no less) free on bail. It doesn't matter that he was a human; the world is now a slightly better place without him, and there's no reason to feel any remorse for him at all in this situation unless you're an incredibly overemotional person who doesn't understand that the real world consists of some very disturbingly brutal people which we'd be better off without-- so us ordinary individuals could go about our daily lives without having to deal with their bullshit and trouble. Anytime people bring up the "but they were a person too" argument, I immediately think back to 2011 when we successfully liquidated bin Laden: it was a powerful victory, it was something worth celebrating that brought the majority of people across the country together for a while, but meanwhile we had a handful of people out there saying "it's wrong to celebrate the death of another person". No, it's not wrong if they're a terrible person. You'd have to be confusingly naive not to be happy and feel some satisfaction in the knowledge the world is free of that person's existence and that recidivism will not be an issue to worry about ever again. [editline]29 September 2015[/editline] It's hard for me to understand how people could be that incapable of measuring the actions of other people and their character and determining what to classify as abhorrent and what to classify as justifiable, when to feel sorry and when not to feel sorry, happy, indifferent, etc. About the only thing worth feeling conflicted over here is the fact that this was a vigilante act, and vigilantism has a tendency to get out of hand and get innocent people killed; that makes it dangerous to tolerate. However, it's worth remembering at the same time that this man wasn't innocent, and this woman's fears not unjustified given his background as a serial sex offender against children spanning 30 years.

[QUOTE=Incoming.;48788130]its like you people expect robotic, perfectly conformed reactions to every conceivable crime or wrongdoing and then call a the mother "'single mother privileged" you don't realize how badly this can screw a kid up, do you? its not as simple as "oh he should get therapy" , this shit would permanently warp someones behavior. Judging from how it all went down, she did not go there with the knife at first to kill him, but it escalated. [read the friggin article] The judge nailed it: She then states to the jury: There were also allegations of another kid just very recently, hes a creep and the Mother, while the entire thing is regrettable, is not a bloodthirsty vigilante hellbent on shortcutting every trial nor should she be treated as one. There's one thing that is showed time and time again that people forget because its mostly demonstrated in the wild: Mothers get extremely angry, whether its for the better or not. The entire thing is horrible, but it doesn't break my heart to see the bastard gone.[/QUOTE] Given the circumstances, I can agree with the ruling. [QUOTE=Govna;48788524]Anytime people bring up the "but they were a person too" argument, I immediately think back to 2011 when we successfully liquidated bin Laden: it was a powerful victory, it was something worth celebrating that brought the majority of people across the country together for a while, but meanwhile we had a handful of people out there saying "it's wrong to celebrate the death of another person". No, it's not wrong if they're a terrible person. You'd have to be confusingly naive not to be happy and feel some satisfaction in the knowledge the world is free of that person's existence and that recidivism will not be an issue to worry about ever again.[/QUOTE] I felt very uncomfortable about people celebrating his death.

[QUOTE=Govna;48788524]Why? She killed someone. So what? He was a terrible human being who was sexually abusing children for 30 years, had 24 convictions against him, and was living next door to her (she's a parent, no less) free on bail. It doesn't matter that he was a human; the world is now a slightly better place without him, and there's no reason to feel any remorse for him at all in this situation unless you're an incredibly overemotional person who doesn't understand that the real world consists of some very disturbingly brutal people which we'd be better off without-- so us ordinary individuals could go about our daily lives without having to deal with their bullshit and trouble. Anytime people bring up the "but they were a person too" argument, I immediately think back to 2011 when we successfully liquidated bin Laden: it was a powerful victory, it was something worth celebrating that brought the majority of people across the country together for a while, but meanwhile we had a handful of people out there saying "it's wrong to celebrate the death of another person". No, it's not wrong if they're a terrible person. You'd have to be confusingly naive not to be happy and feel some satisfaction in the knowledge the world is free of that person's existence and that recidivism will not be an issue to worry about ever again.[/QUOTE] Okay Edgelord Emperor XTreme, we get it, you fucking hate it when criminals aren't instantly killed for their crimes no matter how small, and feel physical pain whenever an empathic response is shared. If you hate humanity as much as you clearly do, why are you still around? Why do you even come to this forum?

Even when the justice system fails vigilante style killings are wrong. I can understand emotions overcoming common sense though, especially when it's your kids involved.

[QUOTE=Govna;48788524]Why? She killed someone. So what? He was a terrible human being who was sexually abusing children for 30 years, had 24 convictions against him, and was living next door to her (she's a parent, no less) free on bail. It doesn't matter that he was a human; the world is now a slightly better place without him, and there's no reason to feel any remorse for him at all in this situation unless you're an incredibly overemotional person who doesn't understand that the real world consists of some very disturbingly brutal people which we'd be better off without-- so us ordinary individuals could go about our daily lives without having to deal with their bullshit and trouble. Anytime people bring up the "but they were a person too" argument, I immediately think back to 2011 when we successfully liquidated bin Laden: it was a powerful victory, it was something worth celebrating that brought the majority of people across the country together for a while, but meanwhile we had a handful of people out there saying "it's wrong to celebrate the death of another person". No, it's not wrong if they're a terrible person. You'd have to be confusingly naive not to be happy and feel some satisfaction in the knowledge the world is free of that person's existence and that recidivism will not be an issue to worry about ever again.[/QUOTE] This is not remorse for the guy and I hope your weird morale will always keep you secluded enough from society to never contemplateif you need to murder someone "for justice" or for whatever bullshit reason you're making up.

[QUOTE=Govna;48788524]Why? She killed someone. So what? He was a terrible human being who was sexually abusing children for 30 years, had 24 convictions against him, and was living next door to her (she's a parent, no less) free on bail. It doesn't matter that he was a human; the world is now a slightly better place without him, and there's no reason to feel any remorse for him at all in this situation unless you're an incredibly overemotional person who doesn't understand that the real world consists of some very disturbingly brutal people which we'd be better off without-- so us ordinary individuals could go about our daily lives without having to deal with their bullshit and trouble. Anytime people bring up the "but they were a person too" argument, I immediately think back to 2011 when we successfully liquidated bin Laden: it was a powerful victory, it was something worth celebrating that brought the majority of people across the country together for a while, but meanwhile we had a handful of people out there saying "it's wrong to celebrate the death of another person". No, it's not wrong if they're a terrible person. You'd have to be confusingly naive not to be happy and feel some satisfaction in the knowledge the world is free of that person's existence and that recidivism will not be an issue to worry about ever again.[/QUOTE] She's a murderer now. Shouldn't you be wishing that someone would off her as well?

She shouldn't have put herself in a position to speak with him at all. "He was only meant to listen to me" is a ridiculous excuse, synonymous to "It wasn't supposed to go down like this: no one was supposed to get hurt."

[QUOTE=hexpunK;48788589]Okay Edgelord Emperor XTreme, we get it, you fucking hate it when criminals aren't instantly killed for their crimes no matter how small, and feel physical pain whenever an empathic response is shared. If you hate humanity as much as you clearly do, why are you still around? Why do you even come to this forum?[/QUOTE] That's fucking ridiculous. I'm entirely capable of making the distinction between this man who spent 30 years sexually abusing children, and some dumbass who just decides to steal a pack of gum from a convenience store or somebody's wallet/purse on the street. Yeah they're all criminals, but they're not committing proportional acts of severity; the guy who sexually abuses children for decades and inflicts serious mental wounds on them is significantly worse than the two thieves are, just as this woman will never be as abhorrent as this guy she killed was. Different crimes with different affects on their victims and different motivations. [QUOTE=Killuah;48788607]This is not remorse for the guy and I hope your weird morale will always keep you secluded enough from society to never contemplateif you need to murder someone "for justice" or for whatever bullshit reason you're making up.[/QUOTE] What is it then? "Empathy"? Okay then, why would you feel empathy for this guy? Do you relate to him in some personal way beyond "we're both human beings" (the most general way imaginable)? [QUOTE=Ragekipz;48788657]She's a murderer now. Shouldn't you be wishing that someone would off her as well?[/QUOTE] No. See "proportionality" above.

[QUOTE=J$ Psychotic;48787696]I'm conflicted. On one hand, I want to congratulate this woman for ridding the world of a monster. On the other hand, she killed a human.[/QUOTE] "She killed a monster" "She killed a human" So which one is it? Monster and human aren't the same thing. Pedophiles deserve to be hanged in public.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;48788657]She's a murderer now. Shouldn't you be wishing that someone would off her as well?[/QUOTE] how is this even a counterargument. I really don't get it. [QUOTE=G3rman;48788771]She shouldn't have put herself in a position to speak with him at all. "He was only meant to listen to me" is a ridiculous excuse, synonymous to "It wasn't supposed to go down like this: no one was supposed to get hurt."[/QUOTE] This I agree with. It was a dumb action, but I feel bad that the Mother is in prison. At the same time she had a choice: Do I preform vigilante action, or settle with what the future beholds? Obviously she went there and threatened him with a knife, to which he egged her on. It resulted in his death and her imprisonment. Vigilantism leads to a lot of bad decisions if tolerated and the Judge emphasized this. For every action there is a reaction, but I think the situation was handled well by the Judge who [I]has[/I] to uphold the law. The bastard is dead and that's really what I think she wanted, along with a lot of other people he ruined the lives of. Frankly, its shocking his life is even being argued about and dare I say [I]defended[/I]. That's what really makes me surprised. He served no purpose other than to terrorize and his loss is actually more valuable than he himself ever was. Govna has basically said exactly where I stand. Context is needed, not ignored.

[QUOTE=0x0000000C;48788944]"She killed a monster" "She killed a human" So which one is it? Monster and human aren't the same thing. Pedophiles deserve to be hanged in public.[/QUOTE] Is that what you do in Panama?

[QUOTE=Incoming.;48788957]how is this even a counterargument. I really don't get it. This I agree with. It was a dumb action, but I feel bad that the Mother is in prison. At the same time she had a choice: Do I preform vigilante action, or settle with what the future beholds? Obviously she went there and threatened him with a knife, to which he egged her on. It resulted in his death and her imprisonment. Vigilantism leads to a lot of bad decisions if tolerated and the Judge emphasized this. For every action there is a reaction, but I think the situation was handled well by the Judge who [I]has[/I] to uphold the law. Govna has basically said exactly where I stand. Context is needed, not ignored.[/QUOTE] Murder is worse than sexual molestation. The judge was way too easy on her. If people think this guy should've hanged for his crime, so should she.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;48789041]Murder is worse than sexual molestation.[/QUOTE] thats it. :thisthread: im done, my time here has been spent and i've said all I need to say.

[QUOTE=0x0000000C;48788944]Pedophiles deserve to be hanged in public.[/QUOTE] That's a very radical approach. Or at least to me it is. The main reason I'm glad this particular guy is dead is just because he was doing it continuously for so long. Sexually abusing kids over 30 years... think about that. Most of us haven't even been alive that long. He's not going to do it again now; comfort and restitution can be found in that thought. [QUOTE=Ragekipz;48789041]Murder is worse than sexual molestation. The judge was way too easy on her. If people think this guy should've hanged for his crime, so should she.[/QUOTE] ...except the guy she killed wasn't an innocent human being; the kids that he sexually abused were innocent. I don't think you could get much more innocent than a child, except for maybe a senile elderly person. So no, it's still not worse given the character of the person who was killed (a serial sex offender who preyed on children for decades). It's actually understandable, which is why I'm so confused as to why people actually feel empathy here for this guy... especially over a reason as general and vague as "well he was a human being too". Yes, he was, and he was also a terrible human being because of what he did in the course of his life to other people (and because he ruined other people's lives in the process; sexual abuse is horribly traumatic). And the judge agreed, hence why she received a reduced sentence. He's dead now, he's no longer a threat to anyone, and this is a comforting thought. What's there to feel conflicted about exactly, apart from the woman's vigilantism?

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;48789041]Murder is worse than sexual molestation.[/QUOTE] With all due respect, I think that's a [I]pretty[/I] subjective statement.

[QUOTE=Govna;48789080]That's a very radical approach. Or at least to me it is. The main reason I'm glad this particular guy is dead is just because he was doing it continuously for so long. Sexually abusing kids over 30 years... think about that. Most of us haven't even been alive that long. He's not going to do it again now; comfort and restitution can be found in that thought. ...except the guy she killed wasn't an innocent human being; the kids that he sexually abused were innocent. I don't think you could get much more innocent than a child, except for maybe a senile elderly person. So no, it's still not worse given the character of the person who was killed (a serial sex offender who preyed on children for decades). It's actually understandable, which is why I'm so confused as to why people actually feel empathy here for this guy... especially over a reason as general and vague as "well he was a human being too". Yes, he was, and he was also a terrible human being because of what he did in the course of his life to other people (and because he ruined other people's lives in the process; sexual abuse is horribly traumatic). And the judge agreed, hence why she received a reduced sentence. He's dead now, he's no longer a threat to anyone, and this is a comforting thought. What's there to feel conflicted about exactly, apart from the woman's vigilantism?[/QUOTE] She went to confront the guy with intention to harm. There's no gray area here, that's fucking murder. And there's a reason for this kind of crime being life with no parole. [QUOTE=hippowombat;48789245]With all due respect, I think that's a [I]pretty[/I] subjective statement.[/QUOTE] It is in the eyes of the law.

holy shit guys I'm all for vigilante justice whenever the system fails but that doesn't make it any less fucking murder [editline]29th September 2015[/editline] you kill somebody for whatever reason/purpose - you take responsibility for it

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;48789283]It is in the eyes of the law.[/QUOTE] I'm sure the victims who have to live with what happened to them for the rest of their lives appreciate how the law categorizes offenses and deals with them.

[QUOTE=0x0000000C;48788944]"She killed a monster" "She killed a human" So which one is it? Monster and human aren't the same thing. Pedophiles deserve to be hanged in public.[/QUOTE] Wow I'm glad I don't go to your high school

[QUOTE=hippowombat;48789562]I'm sure the victims who have to live with what happened to them for the rest of their lives appreciate how the law categorizes offenses and deals with them.[/QUOTE] I don't see how that's an issue. The point of the law is not to cater to them. Justice doesn't consist in exacting vengeance for victims, that's what a lynch mob does. Planning to kill someone in advance is premeditated murder. The motive shouldn't matter unless it was to prevent further harm or in self-defense, which is not the case here.

[QUOTE=_Axel;48789611]I don't see how that's an issue. The point of the law is not to cater to them.[/QUOTE] Whats the point of law, then? Isn't it meant to give closure to a wrongdoing? A wrongdoing defined by laws set to cater those who are victims? I'm not saying their demands are to be met 100%, but they're usually taken into account and evaluated. what is the point you're making here i don't understand it.

[QUOTE=Incoming.;48789674]Whats the point of law, then? Isn't it meant to give closure to a wrongdoing? A wrongdoing defined by laws set to cater those who are victims? I'm not saying their demands are to be met 100%, but they're usually taken into account and evaluated. what is the point you're making here i don't understand it.[/QUOTE] The point of the law is to ensure a fair and unbiased punishment for a crime. Nothing more. It's not to make victims feel better, it's to punish or rehabilitate offenders.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;48788959]Is that what you do in Panama?[/QUOTE] That's cute bringing my nation into this but no.

[QUOTE=Govna;48788881]That's fucking ridiculous. I'm entirely capable of making the distinction between this man who spent 30 years sexually abusing children, and some dumbass who just decides to steal a pack of gum from a convenience store or somebody's wallet/purse on the street. Yeah they're all criminals, but they're not committing proportional acts of severity; the guy who sexually abuses children for decades and inflicts serious mental wounds on them is significantly worse than the two thieves are, just as this woman will never be as abhorrent as this guy she killed was. Different crimes with different affects on their victims and different motivations. What is it then? "Empathy"? Okay then, why would you feel empathy for this guy? Do you relate to him in some personal way beyond "we're both human beings" (the most general way imaginable)? No. See "proportionality" above.[/QUOTE] The fact that you're interpreting posts saying that it's not ok to kill someone as empathy for the victim and using this "wrong empathy" or whatever you're trying to say to kinda justify murder is worrying.

[QUOTE=_Axel;48789611]I don't see how that's an issue. The point of the law is not to cater to them. Justice doesn't consist in exacting vengeance for victims, that's what a lynch mob does. Planning to kill someone in advance is premeditated murder. The motive shouldn't matter unless it was to prevent further harm or in self-defense, which is not the case here.[/QUOTE] I absolutely agree that what she did is premeditated murder, that's not what I'm arguing, I'm arguing that the punishments for existing offenders, this offender in particular especially, are too light. I don't know if I agree that killing them is the answer, but the fact that this dude had numerous repeat offenses and was back out yet again where he could pull the same shit would make me extremely upset if I were a past victim of his. That's where I question why the suffering of the victim doesn't matter in the eyes of the law when it comes to labeling or prioritizing how severe offenses are. [editline]29th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Killuah;48789918]The fact that you're interpreting posts saying that it's not ok to kill someone as empathy for the victim and using this "wrong empathy" or whatever you're trying to say to kinda justify murder is worrying.[/QUOTE] And can we stop with these kinds of replies? If you don't agree then that's fine, but anyone arguing an opposing view like this shouldn't be met with sarcastic snarky ooo look at this dipshit psycho replies. I don't agree either but we don't have to be shitty in our opposing views.

[QUOTE=NotMeh;48789468]holy shit guys I'm all for vigilante justice whenever the system fails but that doesn't make it any less fucking murder [editline]29th September 2015[/editline] you kill somebody for whatever reason/purpose - you take responsibility for it[/QUOTE] Except she did take responsibility for it? Even going so far as to immediately turn herself into the police after the fact? Its like you guys have literally no concept of human emotion nor any concept of the term "Crime of Passion" [editline]29th September 2015[/editline] I'm glad none of you have anything to do with the law

Human emotion is an explanation, not an excuse. It shouldn't be a reason to reduce the sentence. It was premeditated anyway so you can't say it was a "heat of the moment" thing.

Pretty fucked up how a premeditated murder drops to a manslaughter because of bullshit reasons.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;48790327]Its like you guys have literally no concept of human emotion nor any concept of the term "Crime of Passion" [/QUOTE] She went to see the guy with a knife. The intention to harm was already present.