Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

AS girl stabbed for being "too loud and bouncy".

Page 2 of 4 [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Ezio
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 10

24 Jan 2010, 9:39 pm

buryuntime wrote:
mechanicalgirl39 wrote:
This poor, poor girl.

I hope he gets beaten up in jail on a daily basis. That f***ing heartless piece of crap.

And she had beautiful metallic blue eyes, and I have no idea why and it shouldn't matter, but this makes me terribly sad.

The article did say she WAS intoxicated and that she would not be let back in because that was against the rules, correct? You can't pity her too much.


What! That's absolutely ridiculous; because she was drinking she deserved to get stabbed to death?



buryuntime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2008
Age: 86
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,662

24 Jan 2010, 10:14 pm

Ezio wrote:
buryuntime wrote:
mechanicalgirl39 wrote:
This poor, poor girl.

I hope he gets beaten up in jail on a daily basis. That f***ing heartless piece of crap.

And she had beautiful metallic blue eyes, and I have no idea why and it shouldn't matter, but this makes me terribly sad.

The article did say she WAS intoxicated and that she would not be let back in because that was against the rules, correct? You can't pity her too much.


What! That's absolutely ridiculous; because she was drinking she deserved to get stabbed to death?

She CHOSE to break the rule. That is why she wasn't safely in her building when she should have been. She would not be dead if she did not break the rule (well, more than likely anyway :))

And I never said she /deserved/ it, merely that you can not pity her too much. I also think the OP's choice of title is a bit ridiculous-- "AS girl stabbed for being "too loud and bouncy"-- the stabbing had nothing to do with her having Asperger's, and it's only mentioned once-- and is seemingly irrelevant to the article in the first place.

Point of the matter: They were intoxicated, breaking a rule and that is why they weren't allowed access to the building. Therefore, the subject can not be pitied too much because it was party their fault for being murdered.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

24 Jan 2010, 10:14 pm

buryuntime wrote:
mechanicalgirl39 wrote:
This poor, poor girl.

I hope he gets beaten up in jail on a daily basis. That f***ing heartless piece of crap.

And she had beautiful metallic blue eyes, and I have no idea why and it shouldn't matter, but this makes me terribly sad.

The article did say she WAS intoxicated and that she would not be let back in because that was against the rules, correct? You can't pity her too much.


Strikes me as irresponsible for a place to have such a rule.. by forcing drunks out onto the streets you only compound problems, not alleviate them. And being drunk is categorically NOT any sort of justification for gutting someone. Nor is "neing too loud" or "bouncy".


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


Ezio
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 10

24 Jan 2010, 10:39 pm

buryuntime wrote:
Ezio wrote:
buryuntime wrote:
mechanicalgirl39 wrote:
This poor, poor girl.

I hope he gets beaten up in jail on a daily basis. That f***ing heartless piece of crap.

And she had beautiful metallic blue eyes, and I have no idea why and it shouldn't matter, but this makes me terribly sad.

The article did say she WAS intoxicated and that she would not be let back in because that was against the rules, correct? You can't pity her too much.


What! That's absolutely ridiculous; because she was drinking she deserved to get stabbed to death?

She CHOSE to break the rule. That is why she wasn't safely in her building when she should have been. She would not be dead if she did not break the rule (well, more than likely anyway :))

And I never said she /deserved/ it, merely that you can not pity her too much. I also think the OP's choice of title is a bit ridiculous-- "AS girl stabbed for being "too loud and bouncy"-- the stabbing had nothing to do with her having Asperger's, and it's only mentioned once-- and is seemingly irrelevant to the article in the first place.

Point of the matter: They were intoxicated, breaking a rule and that is why they weren't allowed access to the building. Therefore, the subject can not be pitied too much because it was party their fault for being murdered.


You are a disgusting individual; she's at fault for her murder. What the f**k is that?



Ezio
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 10

24 Jan 2010, 10:42 pm

Tequila wrote:
Tory_canuck wrote:
Her kilers should get the death penalty, but sadly the UK doesnt have that.


Neither does Canada. What's your point?


Yes, unfortunately Canada does not have the death penalty. Murderers here in Canada usually are out within 10 years.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

24 Jan 2010, 11:28 pm

buryuntime wrote:
Ezio wrote:
buryuntime wrote:
mechanicalgirl39 wrote:
This poor, poor girl.

I hope he gets beaten up in jail on a daily basis. That f***ing heartless piece of crap.

And she had beautiful metallic blue eyes, and I have no idea why and it shouldn't matter, but this makes me terribly sad.

The article did say she WAS intoxicated and that she would not be let back in because that was against the rules, correct? You can't pity her too much.


What! That's absolutely ridiculous; because she was drinking she deserved to get stabbed to death?

She CHOSE to break the rule. That is why she wasn't safely in her building when she should have been. She would not be dead if she did not break the rule (well, more than likely anyway :))

And I never said she /deserved/ it, merely that you can not pity her too much. I also think the OP's choice of title is a bit ridiculous-- "AS girl stabbed for being "too loud and bouncy"-- the stabbing had nothing to do with her having Asperger's, and it's only mentioned once-- and is seemingly irrelevant to the article in the first place.

Point of the matter: They were intoxicated, breaking a rule and that is why they weren't allowed access to the building. Therefore, the subject can not be pitied too much because it was party their fault for being murdered.


Its very straightforward. She HAD AS. The reasons given for her being stabbed by her assailants were "she was too loud" and "bouncy". Thus the title. AS girl stabbed for being too loud and bouncy. Following?

Point of the matter STILL: her being inebriated and breaking a rule IS NOT even vaguely enough to make her demise her fault.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


buryuntime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2008
Age: 86
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,662

25 Jan 2010, 12:00 am

Quote:
You are a disgusting individual; she's at fault for her murder. What the f**k is that?

What do you mean, what the f**k is that? It's quite simple. Being out drunk in the middle of the night, not able to access your building is not a desirable situation. If she wasn't in this situation she probably would not have been murdered. So yes, she is partially at fault.

Quote:
Its very straightforward. She HAD AS. The reasons given for her being stabbed by her assailants were "she was too loud" and "bouncy". Thus the title. AS girl stabbed for being too loud and bouncy. Following?

Point of the matter STILL: her being inebriated and breaking a rule IS NOT even vaguely enough to make her demise her fault.

She was probably being too loud and bouncy because she was drunk. The title makes it sound like she was stabbed simply because she had Asperger's, when in reality she broke a rule and thus put herself in an undesirable situation resulting in her getting murdered.



Brittany2907
The ultimate storm is eternally on it's
The ultimate storm is eternally on it's

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jun 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,718
Location: New Zealand

25 Jan 2010, 12:15 am

buryuntime wrote:
Lene wrote:
Who cares what her diagnosis is? How does that make her murder any worse? :?

Because people here relate to people with autism. Something dying that you can relate to is worse, I think.


It might make some people feel worse but in reality, it's just another murder statistic. It's sad but the truth. People kill eachother for trivial reasons every single day & in the end, murder is murder, no matter for what reason.


_________________
I = Vegan!
Animals = Friends.


MotherKnowsBest
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,196

25 Jan 2010, 1:40 am

buryuntime wrote:
She was probably being too loud and bouncy because she was drunk. The title makes it sound like she was stabbed simply because she had Asperger's, when in reality she broke a rule and thus put herself in an undesirable situation resulting in her getting murdered.


The article gives the impression that the murderer had decided to kill this girl well before the actual event.



LiberalJustice
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,090

25 Jan 2010, 3:16 am

buryuntime wrote:
Quote:
You are a disgusting individual; she's at fault for her murder. What the f**k is that?

What do you mean, what the f**k is that? It's quite simple. Being out drunk in the middle of the night, not able to access your building is not a desirable situation. If she wasn't in this situation she probably would not have been murdered. So yes, she is partially at fault.

Quote:
Its very straightforward. She HAD AS. The reasons given for her being stabbed by her assailants were "she was too loud" and "bouncy". Thus the title. AS girl stabbed for being too loud and bouncy. Following?

Point of the matter STILL: her being inebriated and breaking a rule IS NOT even vaguely enough to make her demise her fault.

She was probably being too loud and bouncy because she was drunk. The title makes it sound like she was stabbed simply because she had Asperger's, when in reality she broke a rule and thus put herself in an undesirable situation resulting in her getting murdered.
You are appalling, being drunk and not being able to access your building does not justify someone killing you on purpose. Second, "No alcohol rules" in hotels/motels may do more harm than good, because you are pretty much dumping a person who is intoxicated out into the streets and denying them shelter, which could leave them more vulnerable to things like what happened here.


_________________
"I Would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson

Adopted mother to a cat named Charlotte, and grandmother to 3 kittens.


tweety_fan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Oct 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,555

25 Jan 2010, 3:52 am

a tragic circumstance this is. :(



Roman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,298

25 Jan 2010, 3:55 am

buryuntime wrote:
Quote:
You are a disgusting individual; she's at fault for her murder. What the f**k is that?

What do you mean, what the f**k is that? It's quite simple. Being out drunk in the middle of the night, not able to access your building is not a desirable situation. If she wasn't in this situation she probably would not have been murdered. So yes, she is partially at fault.

Quote:
Its very straightforward. She HAD AS. The reasons given for her being stabbed by her assailants were "she was too loud" and "bouncy". Thus the title. AS girl stabbed for being too loud and bouncy. Following?

Point of the matter STILL: her being inebriated and breaking a rule IS NOT even vaguely enough to make her demise her fault.

She was probably being too loud and bouncy because she was drunk. The title makes it sound like she was stabbed simply because she had Asperger's, when in reality she broke a rule and thus put herself in an undesirable situation resulting in her getting murdered.


If 100 dollars fell out of her packet because she was drunk then I would agree with you -- I won't feel sorry for her since she chose to be drunk. But being KILLED because of this is WAAAAAY overboard.

Secondly, even if she was allowed into the building, I am sure they would have found another apportunity to kill her within the next few days since they were obvioulsy planning it. Her not being allowed into a building only made a murder few days earlier.

Thirdly, the guys who decided to kill her for being "too loud and bouncy" were apparently out of their mind with their own serious mental issues. So even if everyone around them (including her) were completely sobber, who knows they might still come up with some excuse to kill someone.

Finally, MOST people get drunk during the college years so she didn't do anything that far out of line. And even if she did, like I said her punishment WAY exceeds her crime. Her mistake lasted few hours and she payed with her WHOLE LIFE for it. I don't see how can you say you don't feel sorry for her.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

25 Jan 2010, 9:25 am

buryuntime wrote:
Quote:
You are a disgusting individual; she's at fault for her murder. What the f**k is that?

What do you mean, what the f**k is that? It's quite simple. Being out drunk in the middle of the night, not able to access your building is not a desirable situation. If she wasn't in this situation she probably would not have been murdered. So yes, she is partially at fault.

Quote:
Its very straightforward. She HAD AS. The reasons given for her being stabbed by her assailants were "she was too loud" and "bouncy". Thus the title. AS girl stabbed for being too loud and bouncy. Following?

Point of the matter STILL: her being inebriated and breaking a rule IS NOT even vaguely enough to make her demise her fault.

She was probably being too loud and bouncy because she was drunk. The title makes it sound like she was stabbed simply because she had Asperger's, when in reality she broke a rule and thus put herself in an undesirable situation resulting in her getting murdered.


Hostel Rule 2: Do not come back drunk because you will be killed? The one is not the logical conclusion to the other. The article does state she was killed for the very reasons mentioned in the title quite clearly, and it also describes a degree of pre-meditation. If the title was supposed to suggest she was was killed for being AS it would have read "Loud and Bouncy girl stabbed for being AS."

The implication is that her "annoying" behaviour was not just a result of her drinking, but that the killer had developed an unreasonable desire to kill this girl regardless of drink.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


buryuntime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2008
Age: 86
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,662

25 Jan 2010, 2:21 pm

I still do not see how you deny that it is partially her fault because she was breaking the rules. If she was in the right state of mind and did not break the rules, she would have probably thwarted her murder for at least the time being. Simple as that.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

25 Jan 2010, 2:57 pm

buryuntime wrote:
I still do not see how you deny that it is partially her fault because she was breaking the rules. If she was in the right state of mind and did not break the rules, she would have probably thwarted her murder for at least the time being. Simple as that.


You assume that her "loud bounciness" was entirely down to drinking. You also imply a degree of drunkeness which is not suggested in the text of the article.. "were refused entry because they had broken the no-alcohol rule" could mean anything from raving drunk or simply carrying an alcopop. It does not describe a measure of alchohol intake, and in fact there is no legal definition of "drunk".

Further to the first post: http://www.blackburncitizen.co.uk/news/ ... _for_life/

So no, she was not "at fault" by any logic.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


mechanicalgirl39
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,340

25 Jan 2010, 6:35 pm

buryuntime wrote:
Quote:
You are a disgusting individual; she's at fault for her murder. What the f**k is that?

What do you mean, what the f**k is that? It's quite simple. Being out drunk in the middle of the night, not able to access your building is not a desirable situation. If she wasn't in this situation she probably would not have been murdered. So yes, she is partially at fault.

Quote:
Its very straightforward. She HAD AS. The reasons given for her being stabbed by her assailants were "she was too loud" and "bouncy". Thus the title. AS girl stabbed for being too loud and bouncy. Following?

Point of the matter STILL: her being inebriated and breaking a rule IS NOT even vaguely enough to make her demise her fault.

She was probably being too loud and bouncy because she was drunk. The title makes it sound like she was stabbed simply because she had Asperger's, when in reality she broke a rule and thus put herself in an undesirable situation resulting in her getting murdered.


Um...it's not remotely her fault. The fault is with the goddamn cold blooded bastard who chose to stick a knife into her.


_________________
'You're so cold, but you feel alive
Lay your hands on me, one last time' (Breaking Benjamin)