Man Says He'll Kill Son's Murderer

Off Topic
142

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
also, for anyone saying that they would kidnap their sons murderer and kill them… It would be REALLY hard to get away with. Especially the guys saying they’d keep him alive in the woods for days cause you would be one of the first people contacted by the police once the guy went missing (which would be pretty quickly since he would have to be checking in with a parole officer pretty regularly)

Just sayin[/quote]

Yes, that is why Random Joe Citizen will (hopefully) step up and save the father the trouble.[/quote]

Where is Dexter when we need him? LOL[/quote]

No need for a serial killer. Just an enterprising guy (or gal) with a cheap hunting rifle (that does not eject its shell), perhaps an unrifled shotgun, or a revolver close up.

Change your plates for another car of similar make & model. Drive normal. Make sure the registration is good.

Dispose of everything in various locations, weapon first, shower.

Don’t tell anyone.[/quote]

you forgot the part about not ejaculating on the corpse.

143

This is an absolutely horrible story. I am 100% with the father on this one. I would have no problems killing someone in circumstances like this, no problems whatsoever!

It is such a simplistic argument to say that you are lowering yourself to their level, which in turn makes you the same as them! I have never bought that argument and I never will.

Some sick fucks dont have the right to breath in my opinion.

Base level instincts rule in situations like this. Family is sacred and people who mess with that leave themselves open to those innate primordial traits that dwell down deep inside all of us. An eye for a fucking eye!

Anyone seen this film?

144

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]NeelyDan wrote:
neelydan would play quarters at a bar with irish or pushharder and thus is hesitant to weigh in on such a painful discussion…

“Justice” is the result of a covenant. Justice is when the consequences are expected and agreed-upon actions resultant to one breaking a covenant. Justice has little to do with morality. It is related instead to ethics.

Prison time for bank robbery is “justice.” A week on the county chain-gang or the electric chair for bank robbery would not be “justice.” We codify these things into law, and judicial precedent along with statute determines the consequence. “Justice” is a social contract wherein prohibited actions are met with predetermined consequences.

Vigilanteism is abhorrent, and the breaking of a covenant more significant, usually, than the “justice” the morons are trying to mete out. Are human beings capable of rising above vigilanteism? Of course not. Punch neelydan’s wife and see if he calls a cop. Nevertheless, it is paramount for an organized society to prohibit vigilanteism as best it can. It is one of the fundamental underpinnings of governance.

Any other form of “justice” is individual paradigm, and, basically, “fuck you.” Since neelydan thinks he is right and you think you are right, we can either kill each other or create a covenant.
[/quote]

Good post. Very little problem with it whatsoever.

I might argue with you regarding, “Vigilantism is abhorrent,” and we might have an interesting, stimulating discussion.

However, were you (and I know you wouldn’t - this is rhetorical) packing an “It’s not my kid. It’s not my town… it’s not really any of my goddamn business” mindset and presenting it as part of your argument you too would be banished to The Land of Irrelevancy.
[/quote]

Yea I agree.

I’m not even saying it would be “for justice.” I’d do as retribution. And that would be all. Call me an animal, whatever you want. He’d be dead, that’d be the end of it as far as I was concerned.

And I think, as long as we didn’t talk religion or politics, me and Push might be able to be at the same bar together, and maybe even play quarters.

145

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
If I could get him anywhere secluded I would. The woods is not a requirement. A fucking basement will do just fine. Period. But that is assuming I let him get out of prison. It’s very unlikely that I would wait even 10 years to get you. You’d likely die in prison and I could arrange that with little more difficulty than ordering a fucking pizza. What you are possibly sadly mistaken about is me acting on such a thing.

The problem is some of you motherfuckers (maybe not you Greg, I don’t know) do not have the proper constitution of a fucking man. Someone murders someone in your family? If you have the means and opportunity, you kill that motherfucker. Fuck jail and fuck the “law” too. End of story. I LOL at suggestions that some of us are “jerking off” on the internet fantisizing about what we’d do. Maybe some are, I don’t know and I don’t care.

I’m staring out the window right now at at least 3 people across the street that have guns tucked in their coats and I’ll be walking across the street shortly to get a drink. Did you ever stop to think that maybe some of us are acquainted with violence and the possiblity of life and death violence as part of our everday ordinary experience? Last week someone got shot two blocks away. A week later, one of his shooters was found dead in a burning building around the corner.

You kill one of mine, I WILL take you or one of yours. [/quote]

I agree with what you’re saying here… and you are 100% rigt about “some of us are acquainted with violence and the possibility of life and death violence” and some of us arent.

Some people have never dealt with that and have never had to deal with that sort of thing. I would be willing to bet a lot of money that there are VERY FEW (if any) people in this thread who have been in a kill or be killed situation and the thought is completely foreign to them.

if someone in my family was murdered I, I know for a fact that I would exact revenge… but everyone is different

146

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
increased his attacks at an accelerated pace, guaranteed.[/quote]

Orly? 40+ recent (last 50 years) serial killers in Washington alone:

As for your argument, doubtful. He waited 9 years before striking again and picked someone too large to kill. He tried to kill a guy who was already passed out through strangulation. My guess is, he wanted a body to play with.

Serial killers generally have a nice string of animals, children, and women that they take sadistic control over. While information about that may not have been released in this case, papers generally push for all of the juicy details, as you can see in one of these other threads.

The killer is deranged and not acceptable for society- sure. Am I as worried about him coming after a child as some of the others listed above? No. Should the Dad murder the killer? I have no problem with that, and in fact wish we could do away with all of the others as well.

147

God damn… listening to the arguments of people like Oleena and SSC makes me sad for humanity. I’ve seen more intelligent crap come out of my ass then some of the retarded shit they are spewing. And the worst part is they legitimately believe what they are saying. Not a parent, but if something like this happened to my younger sister or bro I would absolutely end the life of the murderer. Yea, this story obviously does not affect us personally, but are we wrong to feel sympathy for the father’s cause? You’d be heartless not to…

148

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
increased his attacks at an accelerated pace, guaranteed.[/quote]

Orly? 40+ recent (last 50 years) serial killers in Washington alone:

As for your argument, doubtful. He waited 9 years before striking again and picked someone too large to kill. He tried to kill a guy who was already passed out through strangulation. My guess is, he wanted a body to play with.

Serial killers generally have a nice string of animals, children, and women that they take sadistic control over. While information about that may not have been released in this case, papers generally push for all of the juicy details, as you can see in one of these other threads.

The killer is deranged and not acceptable for society- sure. Am I as worried about him coming after a child as some of the others listed above? No. Should the Dad murder the killer? I have no problem with that, and in fact wish we could do away with all of the others as well. [/quote]

You have no idea of what the fuck you’re talking about. Dahmer waited exactly 9 years between his first 2 victims. Then it was 2 in a year. Then 5 or 6 the next. By the time he was caught he went on a 4+ week “bender” where he was killing exactly 1 person a week. That is typical serial killer behavior, and one who kills a person just to watch him die and then keeps their bones as ornaments is 100% going to do it again, and again, and… So, until you can do a little research and educate yourself, please be quiet. There are adults talking.

149

^^^ Also, that article STARTS OFF wrong. The definition a serial killer as one who kills at least THREE people in non-consecutive order. That thing was so full of bad info You should just go ahead and take it down so you don’t look quite so stupid. Then again, it might not matter at this point.

150

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
increased his attacks at an accelerated pace, guaranteed.[/quote]

Orly? 40+ recent (last 50 years) serial killers in Washington alone:

As for your argument, doubtful. He waited 9 years before striking again and picked someone too large to kill. He tried to kill a guy who was already passed out through strangulation. My guess is, he wanted a body to play with.

Serial killers generally have a nice string of animals, children, and women that they take sadistic control over. While information about that may not have been released in this case, papers generally push for all of the juicy details, as you can see in one of these other threads.

The killer is deranged and not acceptable for society- sure. Am I as worried about him coming after a child as some of the others listed above? No. Should the Dad murder the killer? I have no problem with that, and in fact wish we could do away with all of the others as well. [/quote]

Oleena, you are just fucked.

you are stupid. YOU will protest with false links, but you are stupid.

stupid.

151

[quote]socrplyr09 wrote:
God damn… listening to the arguments of people like Oleena and SSC makes me sad for humanity. I’ve seen more intelligent crap come out of my ass then some of the retarded shit they are spewing. And the worst part is they legitimately believe what they are saying. Not a parent, but if something like this happened to my younger sister or bro I would absolutely end the life of the murderer. Yea, this story obviously does not affect us personally, but are we wrong to feel sympathy for the father’s cause? You’d be heartless not to…[/quote]

It’s nice of you to pay attention to the things I say which put the case in a wider perspective, but not what I personally think about the father, his loss, and his right to kill. Obviously I feel sympathy and expect others to. Is it really a crime on this board to also be torn between feelings about this, feelings about the other 40 something serial killers and their murders I just read about, feelings for a case I made a thread about, children I’ve known who were ass-raped by their fathers as babies, burned with hot irons by their mothers, locked in closets for a weekend without food and water, held down and raped at parties by 10+ people, prostituted under the age of 10 by their parents for drugs, a pony beaten blind with a baseball bat by a jealous husband who thought his wife was cheating, and too many other stories to post/recall here?

152

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
increased his attacks at an accelerated pace, guaranteed.[/quote]

Orly? 40+ recent (last 50 years) serial killers in Washington alone:

As for your argument, doubtful. He waited 9 years before striking again and picked someone too large to kill. He tried to kill a guy who was already passed out through strangulation. My guess is, he wanted a body to play with.

Serial killers generally have a nice string of animals, children, and women that they take sadistic control over. While information about that may not have been released in this case, papers generally push for all of the juicy details, as you can see in one of these other threads.

The killer is deranged and not acceptable for society- sure. Am I as worried about him coming after a child as some of the others listed above? No. Should the Dad murder the killer? I have no problem with that, and in fact wish we could do away with all of the others as well. [/quote]

Oleena, you are just fucked.

you are stupid. YOU will protest with false links, but you are stupid.

stupid.

[/quote]

You got me! The Seattle Post Intelligencer is such a false link.

155

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
^^^ Also, that article STARTS OFF wrong. The definition a serial killer as one who kills at least THREE people in non-consecutive order. That thing was so full of bad info You should just go ahead and take it down so you don’t look quite so stupid. Then again, it might not matter at this point.[/quote]

No, your information is old. They actually cover that information and redefine it here:

"The different discussion groups at the Symposium agreed on a number of similar factors to be included in a definition. These included:

â?¢ one or more offenders
â?¢ two or more murdered victims
â?¢ incidents should be occurring in separate events, at different times
â?¢ the time period between murders separates serial murder from mass murder

In combining the various ideas put forth at the Symposium, the following definition was crafted:

Serial Murder: The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events"

Thanks for including me in the conversation of seniors who don’t understand the search function and haven’t updated their information. You might want to read the rest of that article, while you’re at it, just so you’re up to date. (and yes, if you squint you can see the letters fbi.gov in that addy).

Push- Why not include my whole first post while you’re at it?

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
One of the definitions of “serial killer” is one who kills at least 3 people in no-consecutive order. Dahmer waited 9 years between his first and second victims. This guy, if not put away, would have slowly escelated his monsterish behavior and more children would’ve gone missing.

What’s wrong with this guy can’t be fixed by time, or abuse, or rape, or whatever. He needs to be put down like a rabid dog, 'cause for all intents and purposes that’s what he is. And, I agree that the father shouldn’t be telling the media [or anyone] that he intends to kill Woodmanese whether he intends to actually do it or not.

But, I hope that revenge is exacted and Woodmanese dies a death 10x more gruesome than the child he murdered, and the local police somehow turn a blind eye to the situation and let it fade away.[/quote]

Oleena[quote]
I agree with you, but honestly I don’t think people like this killer feel things the way you and I do, and thus I don’t think theres any real gain in torturing them before you off them.[/quote]

156

The FBI link won’t work for me, but even if they have changed the definition of serial killer doesn’t change the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about and are posting nonsense in this thread. Also, I’ve just moved to the Pacific Noth West. Talking about 1 isolated incidint as if it proves that you live in a land of horrible occurences is really misleading 'cause the crime rate here is absurdly low.

157

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
increased his attacks at an accelerated pace, guaranteed.[/quote]

Orly? 40+ recent (last 50 years) serial killers in Washington alone:

As for your argument, doubtful. He waited 9 years before striking again and picked someone too large to kill. He tried to kill a guy who was already passed out through strangulation. My guess is, he wanted a body to play with.

Serial killers generally have a nice string of animals, children, and women that they take sadistic control over. While information about that may not have been released in this case, papers generally push for all of the juicy details, as you can see in one of these other threads.

The killer is deranged and not acceptable for society- sure. Am I as worried about him coming after a child as some of the others listed above? No. Should the Dad murder the killer? I have no problem with that, and in fact wish we could do away with all of the others as well. [/quote]

Oleena, you are just fucked.

you are stupid. YOU will protest with false links, but you are stupid.

stupid.

[/quote]

You got me! The Seattle Post Intelligencer is such a false link.

[/quote]

158

I don’t go for all this torture and mete out the same justice for the killer stuff. He deserves to be shot in the head with a 22 and thrown out like trash. Like a rabid racoon. I’m not one for humanizing such detritus by putting so much effort into a punishment .

159

Btw , 22 lr rounds are app 3 cents a piece . He doesn’t deserve duct tape money . Follow the James bond rule : just shoot them in the head. Diabolical plans always go awry. If Bond was just shot in the head instead of being blah blahed to death by the villian while he explains his plan and warms up the world’s slowest laser they’d be a lot more successful .

160

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Obviously I feel sympathy and expect others to. Is it really a crime on this board to also be torn between feelings about this, feelings about the other 40 something serial killers and brouhaha[/quote]

Not jumping on the Oleena hatewagon or anything. I don’t know you and there’s far more to a person than how they portray themselves on an internet board, but, you’ve somewhat belittled this kid’s death in this discussion by needlessly comparing it to other similar crimes. Exactly what is there to be torn about; they’re all horrendous crimes and people who commit such acts as this should be removed from the gene pool. Again, what is there to be torn about?

You don’t have to quantify sympathy on a case by case basis when we’re talking about the murder of an innocent child (that is no relation to you). You should just feel it, end of.

Saying on one hand that you agree this perp should be removed from society while on the other hand proclaiming you don’t know what the fuss is all about because worse stuff than this happens all the time, all over the world, is kinda…retarted. How do you determine how BAD the murder of a child is? Is it based on how much torture they endure before their death? Do you have a personal rating system? Would you stand and tell this kid’s father “it isn’t THAT bad…worse could’ve happened.”

This isn’t like a 90 year old man dying peacefully in his sleep where you would say “…well, you know, at least he wasn’t in pain. He had a great life and it could’ve been much worse!”

It’s an entirely different thing altogether and I can’t fathom your motive for even suggesting this story isn’t “that bad…”.

On topic. Hell fucking yes, if someone purposefully took someone close to me like this I’m certain I would have serious issues restraining myself. Hell mend the consequences. I would like to hope that I would be lucid enough to do it without getting caught and further affecting the lives of the people around me adversely, but given the emotions something like this must raise, I’m really not sure that would be possible.