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

Post Reply New Topic

Lots of people do that in Britain and Ireland - it's considered almost a rite of passage for some and it's considered a good story to tell in years to come.]

No way on Earth did this woman did not deserve to be murdered.

How do they enforce that?

Just go and get a crateful of cans and sneak them in - that's what we do if there's no pub nearby when we're travelling.

There's no point in debating with this guy

Plenty of ppl are loud and bouncy at such parties -- that is what drinking is for. How come they didn't kill 100 of people just as loud before her? Also, if they trully disliked such loud parties, why did they go to that party anyway? As MacBeth pointed out, it is quite likely they simply didn't like her because of her Asperger, and wanted to kill her anyway. Being "loud and bouncy" was just an excuse. If she never drank they would have found another excuse.

Even if it was for real and they were very anal about people being so loud it is still their fault because killing someone and ruining their WHOLE LIFE becaues of ONE NIGHT of drunkedness is extremely unreasonable. I don't see how you not see it.

"Killing someone and ruining their whole life" is kind of an odd way of putting it. When someone tells me they're life is ruined, they still have a life. The person was killed. They do not have a life anymore, so why was that statement even included? The person's feelings on the matter do not really matter because they are dead-- so do not have any feelings of it. They can not say: "You ruined my life" because they do not have a life anymore.

Surely the person was not just for killing the other person. But from my understanding, again, you can not pity this person too much for being murdered. And besides that, is a murder any worse because of the motive? I am not of the personal belief that it is. I am not of the mentality that someone who goes out on the street in a dangerous neighborhood in skimpy clothes alone and is raped is entirely a victim and was not at fault whatsoever, I think that example can be applied to my understanding of the girl being murdered.

I might have used the wrong words but I still stand behind the point: she LOST her life over something silly.



If you really believe what you have just said, what would you do if someone placed a lethal poison on a table and they will tell you that if you drink it you will die a painless death. Would you actually drink it -- since your feelings don't matter once you are dead?



Okay look. She got drunk so it is 10 points wrong. They killed her, so that was 1000000000 poitns wrong. So fine, she is guilty for 0.0000001% of it, but the other 99.9999999% is the guilt of the guys who killed her. So your pity of her should be 99.9999999% instead of 100%. This is still VERY close to 100%.

To everyone else: I apologize for turning something so serious into a math debate. I just don't know how else to explain it to him.



Yes -- if a woman kills a man who was trying to rape her, this is not as bad.

What these guys did is unthinkable -- they essentially said that her life is sooo unimportant that she can be killed over something trivial.



In the example you just gave, that person was NOT doing anythign to hurt others, she was only putting herself in danger. Therefore, she did NOT deserve what she got and yes she should be pitied.



Even if I were to agree with your example (which I don't), it still doesn't apply. Dangerous neighborhood is known to be dangerous. On the other hand, it is not known that drunk people are getting killed.

The issue was NOT that she was drunk but rather a combination of these guys being crazy as well as them disliking her either for her Asperger or some other reason the paper doesn't say. Judging by what they did, they were disliking her at least for several months. If she wasn't drunk, they would have found some other excuse. They were clearly after her.

It gets tedious repeating points over and again: "drunk".. not neccesarily. She was turned away for breaking a "no alcohol rule", which is not the same as being drunk. Merely HAVING alchohol is enough to break such a rule. You do not have to be drunk, and i have not seen anything that says she was "drunk", merely that she had been drinking.

The premeditated nature of the attack, and the profiles of the two killers suggest that this girl was in danger regardless of being drunk or sober, or being in or out of the building at any given point. Her foster parents had already voiced concerns about her vulnerability living in the hostel, which suggests to me that she was not incredibly socially skilled or street-wise.

Placing someone who is legally considered "vulnerable", as people with autism generally are.. in such a situation to start with seems like a mistake on the part of the local authorities, Barring that person from their "home" and leaving her in the care of teenagers who have been drinking and getting high just compound the situation.

So, for whatever time it is: This girl was NOT at fault...

Of course not. Everyone knows such things are determined by whether or not the victim was perfectly well behaved at the time of the murder. If they were drunk against the rules the night before the murder but not the night of the murder, we should pity them, but if they were drunk against the rules on the night of the murder itself, we should not pity them. Surely this is obvious, The value of your life is determined entirely by what you were doing at the time you came to be deceased. Whether or not the person is both technically and mentally still a child and therefore cannot be reasoanbly expected to make life and death decisions for themselves is utterly irrelevant too, as is their ability to accurately determine whether or not a situation presents a danger to them. The only thing that matters is whether or not their behavior was without reproach at the time of their death.[/sarcasm]

Then you need to get with the programme. It's 2010 now, not the dark ages.

What are you sugguesting? That when a woman goes out alone in provocative clothing she has given a man implied consent to have sex with her?

What the hell are you on about? She could have got murdered at any time. If you knew anything about self defence you would know that. You are taking at face value, his testimony. There was premeditation over a long period of time. he didn't have to hang out with her, but he didn't. I doesn't add up.

You two are arguing with someone who doesn't even come here anymore.

I never have understood how people can be so cruel and cold. How you kill a person for annoying you? I just cant wrap my brain around that kind of thing.
And how could they be grinning after killing her! that's just nuts!

My hart goes out to that poor girl. i hope she finds peace on the other side. Blessed be Louise Evans

That's just mad thinking. By that logic i should be stabbed to death by my friends when i get drunk.

I get loud and bouncy! but My friends don't kill me for it! there is no excuse for murder. And it is certainly not her fault. let's let this poor girl rest in peace shall we.

Its not mad, She put herself in a vulnerable position if she was at home this guy probably wouldn't have stabbed her. Besides just because it was partly her fault doesn't excuse this guys actions in any way and i doubt Buryuntime is trying to say that.

He was planing to kill her anyways . So it had nothing to do with being out drinking.