Grace Millane.

[Katman]

When a car full of teenagers driven by a drunk driver wraps itself around a power pole killing everyone inside, do we not as a society try stressing the stupidity of getting into a car driven by a drunk driver?

(Well probably not here on KB. It seems we'd be more likely to sit around hugging each other crying "stop being so mean - people should be allowed to get in a car with whoever they want".)

[husaberg]

blather)

Answer the question or slink off steve.


And on the other hand, examining a tragic incident dispassionately and openly could help prevent further incidents like it.

But we all know KB doesn't do dispassionate examination.

Much better to bury our heads in the sand muttering "oh, the poor, poor thing" instead of recognising the poor, poor decision that she made.

Lets do the dispassionate examination where you point out how it is you can believe with any degree of credibility that you know more then the case then either the Judge or the jury did.



Asking a pissed stranger to choke her certainly 'contributed' to her death.


Except for the inconvenient fact that she was clearly into choking during sex and had asked others to do exactly that to her in the past.

That, coupled with the absence of any evidence to suggest she fought against her killer, is a fairly clear indicator that the action was consensual.

Odd that you thing you know more than the jury does. Not really odd for you to claim this, but rather telling that you claim to being as it is a fact you clearly can not know more about the case than they do.

Justice Moore said if the jury believed Millane consented to the accused applying force to her neck - they must acquit the accused on both murder and manslaughter.
"It is a defense if [the accused] honestly believed Miss Millane consented to him putting pressure on her neck … It does not matter if it was mistaken or unreasonable," he explained.
If they believe she did not consent - they must find him guilty of manslaughter



He said the jury had to be 100 per cent sure that the accused had murderous intent when he put his hands on Millane's neck.
"Are you sure that when he applied pressure to Miss Millane's neck … did he intend to cause injury?" he posed.
"If you answer is yes, then you would find [the accused] guilty of murder."


Also as it has been pointed out numerous times the last person the killer tried to asphyxiate also had no external injuries, but she fought back as was physically larger than Grace was.
She was also adamant she gave no consent to being asphyxiated.



So steve, how is it you know more than the judge and the jury do about the case?.................

[Katman]

Answer the question or slink off steve.

You should copy and paste that post another half a dozen times - just in case there's anyone here who hadn't noticed the previous ones.

[Katman]

What about a young drunk woman wandering the streets late at night in any one of New Zealand's crime ridden cesspits, wearing next to nothing, who gets raped?

Do you parents say to your daughters "don't listen to that meanie Katman - you should be allowed to walk wherever you like, dressed however you like, in any sort of state you like" or do you try to get across to them the stupidity of placing themselves in a situation like that?

[PrincessBandit]

Ideally they should be able to wear what they like. Ideally a man should be able to walk alone wherever he likes without being beaten up and robbed. As far as the culture of blaming women for what they were wearing, how much they were drinking etc is concerned, men (or whatever the gender of the perpetrator is) must be held accountable. Men who prey on vulnerable women - it happens even to those who have tried to take precautions - should practice self control rather than make excuses for their base behaviour.

[Katman]

Ideally they should be able to wear what they like.

Ideally, yes.

But we live in a far from ideal world.

[husaberg]

Ideally, yes.

But we live in a far from ideal world.

Ideally here is where you point out how it is you can believe with any degree of credibility that you know more then the case then either the Judge or the jury did.


Asking a pissed stranger to choke her certainly 'contributed' to her death.

Except for the inconvenient fact that she was clearly into choking during sex and had asked others to do exactly that to her in the past.
That, coupled with the absence of any evidence to suggest she fought against her killer, is a fairly clear indicator that the action was consensual.

Odd that you thing you know more than the jury does. Not really odd for you to claim this, but rather telling that you claim to being as it is a fact you clearly can not know more about the case than they do.

Justice Moore said if the jury believed Millane consented to the accused applying force to her neck - they must acquit the accused on both murder and manslaughter.
"It is a defense if [the accused] honestly believed Miss Millane consented to him putting pressure on her neck … It does not matter if it was mistaken or unreasonable," he explained.
If they believe she did not consent - they must find him guilty of manslaughter



He said the jury had to be 100 per cent sure that the accused had murderous intent when he put his hands on Millane's neck.
"Are you sure that when he applied pressure to Miss Millane's neck … did he intend to cause injury?" he posed.
"If you answer is yes, then you would find [the accused] guilty of murder."


Also as it has been pointed out numerous times the last person the killer tried to asphyxiate also had no external injuries, but she fought back as was physically larger than Grace was.
She was also adamant she gave no consent to being asphyxiated.

So steve, how is it you know more than the judge and the jury do about the case?.................

[Katman]

There's a good boy.

Only 5 more times to go.

Chop, chop.

[FJRider]

Ideally here is where you point out how it is you can believe with any degree of credibility that you know more then the case then either the Judge or the jury did.



The case hinges on one point ... "Justice Moore said if the jury believed Millane consented to the accused applying force to her neck - they must acquit the accused on both murder and manslaughter" ... The jury were not in the room at the time of her death. He was found guilty because of what (enough) members of the jury "Believed" ... :msn-wink:

How many members of the jury were female (or even male), with daughters ... ??? and do YOU "Believe" it would alter the mindset of any such jurors in this case. A previous accusation that he did it to another woman does not necessarily mean he did it without consent in this case.

Whatever the actual facts ... he will probably get a hard time in the cells. Probably hoping for solitary confinement.

[Katman]

The case hinges on one point ... "Justice Moore said if the jury believed Millane consented to the accused applying force to her neck - they must acquit the accused on both murder and manslaughter" ... The jury were not in the room at the time of her death. He was found guilty because of what (enough) members of the jury "Believed" ... :msn-wink:

How many members of the jury were female (or even male), with daughters ... ??? and do YOU "Believe" it would alter the mindset of any such jurors in this case. A previous accusation that he did it to another woman does not necessarily mean he did it without consent in this case.

Whatever the actual facts ... he will probably get a hard time in the cells. Probably hoping for solitary confinement.

And I suspect that regardless of whether the jury believed the choking was consensual or not, they were determined to pass the only verdict that was ever going to be acceptable to the New Zealand public.

[husaberg]

And I suspect that regardless of whether the jury believed the choking was consensual or not, they were determined to pass the only verdict that was ever going to be acceptable to the New Zealand public.

Really steve you are stating your own opinion again as if its a fact

Tell everyone how you know more about the case than the jury or the judge.
Because you clearly stated that the deceased had asked the man found guilty of her murder to choke her. How is it you know this Steve?


Asking a pissed stranger to choke her certainly 'contributed' to her death.

[Katman]

Really steve you are stating your own opinion again as if its a fact

Starting the sentence with "and I suspect" is certainly not stating anything as fact.

[husaberg]

Starting the sentence with "and I suspect" is certainly not stating anything as fact.

And I suspect that regardless of whether the jury believed the choking was consensual or not, they were determined to pass the only verdict that was ever going to be acceptable to the New Zealand public.

Justice Moore said if the jury believed Millane consented to the accused applying force to her neck - they must acquit the accused on both murder and manslaughter.
"It is a defense if [the accused] honestly believed Miss Millane consented to him putting pressure on her neck … It does not matter if it was mistaken or unreasonable," he explained.
If they believe she did not consent - they must find him guilty of manslaughter



He said the jury had to be 100 per cent sure that the accused had murderous intent when he put his hands on Millane's neck.
"Are you sure that when he applied pressure to Miss Millane's neck … did he intend to cause injury?" he posed.
"If you answer is yes, then you would find [the accused] guilty of murder."

So not only now, do you know more about the evidence and also what the judge and jury thought.
You now claim to know their motivation for finding the accused guilty despite of the overwhelming nature of the evidence against him.

[Katman]

So not only now do you know more about the evidence and also what the judge and jury thought you now claim to know their motivation for finding the accused guilty despite of the overwhelming nature of the evidence against him.

Comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?

[husaberg]

Comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?

A five year old could comprehend you have been caught in a series of lies steve
Hence why you ignore the questions.

I will give you a hint
You don't know more about the trial or the evidence presented to the jury, than either the jury or the judge.
You can't say the jury pre-decided the outcome of the court case, as you were not there or privy to any inside information.
You can't state that the victim asked the murder to choke her as you were not there. The jury certainly found this not to be the case.
The jury under instruction from a Judge considered all the evidence and found he murdered her beyond a reasonable doubt. They dd not find it was an accident during a sex act they did not find it to be manslaughter .They found him guilty of murder.
The fact you keep making up shit about this proves your motives in posting this crap are likely purely attention seeking and are nothing to do with the case.
Feel free to keep on jerking on that you know better, when its clearly obvious you dont know buggar all about the case.

[FJRider]

Really steve you are stating your own opinion again as if its a fact



If you actually NEED to ask ... you're a bigger fuckwit than steve believes you are ... ;)

[Katman]

And furthermore, anyone on here who still thinks it's me trying to silence another person's opinion is clearly reading a different thread to me.

[jasonu]

If you actually NEED to ask ... you're a bigger fuckwit than steve believes you are ... ;)

I'm not sure that's possible.

[FJRider]

A five year old could comprehend you have been caught in a series of lies steve
Hence why you ignore the questions.








Feel free to keep on jerking on that you know better, when its clearly obvious you dont know buggar all about the case.

You ignore my questions ... and you question him when YOU do the same to me.

There is a name for that ... (starts with H ... )

Jurors are human. They do their best. if they get it right or wrong ... that is how it is.

A verdict acceptable to the general public will seldom be questioned. As ANY jury verdict should be. Commented on yes, but the verdict stands.

To be judged by your peer's is the guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which "peer" means an "equal." This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender.

However ... there ARE downsides to the process. Are you smart enough to know what they are ... ??

[FJRider]

Starting the sentence with "and I suspect" is certainly not stating anything as fact.

Another way of saying "I don't actually know. but could be true, maybe" ... <_<

[Paul in NZ]

wht killed kiwibiker?? Read this thread and ones like it and draw your own conclusions

[caspernz]

wht killed kiwibiker?? Read this thread and ones like it and draw your own conclusions

Sad but true :facepalm:

[Katman]

wht killed kiwibiker?? Read this thread and ones like it and draw your own conclusions

The simple answer to that Paul is if this thread and ones like it are somehow distasteful to you, then don't read them.

There is plenty else going on in KB to captivate your interests I'm sure.

There's a thread going at the moment exploring people's favourite Xmas tastes. That might bring some season cheer back to you.

[BMWST?]

........woosh.....

[jasonu]

Ideally here is where you point out how it is you can believe with any degree of credibility that you know more then the case then either the Judge or the jury did.




Odd that you thing you know more than the jury does. Not really odd for you to claim this, but rather telling that you claim to being as it is a fact you clearly can not know more about the case than they do.




Also as it has been pointed out numerous times the last person the killer tried to asphyxiate also had no external injuries, but she fought back as was physically larger than Grace was.
She was also adamant she gave no consent to being asphyxiated.

So steve, how is it you know more than the judge and the jury do about the case?.................


Really steve you are stating your own opinion again as if its a fact

Tell everyone how you know more about the case than the jury or the judge.
Because you clearly stated that the deceased had asked the man found guilty of her murder to choke her. How is it you know this Steve?


So not only now, do you know more about the evidence and also what the judge and jury thought.
You now claim to know their motivation for finding the accused guilty despite of the overwhelming nature of the evidence against him.


A five year old could comprehend you have been caught in a series of lies steve
Hence why you ignore the questions.

I will give you a hint
You don't know more about the trial or the evidence presented to the jury, than either the jury or the judge.
You can't say the jury pre-decided the outcome of the court case, as you were not there or privy to any inside information.
You can't state that the victim asked the murder to choke her as you were not there. The jury certainly found this not to be the case.
The jury under instruction from a Judge considered all the evidence and found he murdered her beyond a reasonable doubt. They dd not find it was an accident during a sex act they did not find it to be manslaughter .They found him guilty of murder.
The fact you keep making up shit about this proves your motives in posting this crap are likely purely attention seeking and are nothing to do with the case.
Feel free to keep on jerking on that you know better, when its clearly obvious you dont know buggar all about the case.

You must sit there all day with your finger on the refresh button.

You should find a new hobby.

[Drew]

What about a young drunk woman wandering the streets late at night in any one of New Zealand's crime ridden cesspits, wearing next to nothing, who gets raped?

Do you parents say to your daughters "don't listen to that meanie Katman - you should be allowed to walk wherever you like, dressed however you like, in any sort of state you like" or do you try to get across to them the stupidity of placing themselves in a situation like that?

If my daughter was raped in that situation I wouldn't consider that ANY PART OF IT was her fault, or entertain that she could or should have avoided it. You are a fucking moron.

Anyone wilfully injuring any other person in any way, is the only person to blame. There is no argument of that.

[Katman]

If my daughter was raped in that situation I wouldn't consider that ANY PART OF IT was her fault, or entertain that she could or should have avoided it. You are a fucking moron.

Anyone wilfully injuring any other person in any way, is the only person to blame. There is no argument of that.

The difference being Drew that the second sentence of my post you've quoted infers that your daughter isn't the one raped in that situation.

The point is that by learning from other's piss-poor decision making, one can possibly prevent other incidents of the same misfortune from happening.

So would you advise your daughter that it's perfectly fine to walk through a crime ridden neighbourhood, late at night, by herself, pissed and wearing next to nothing or would you try to make her see the sense in not putting herself in that situation?

[husaberg]

The point is by learning from other's

Only you dont learn, as it has been point out heaps of times to you already what you post is not in anyway backed b the facts of the situation. Yet you go on doing it
trying to twist the facts to suit your pretty twisted troll narrative
Not only is it distasteful you are only intent of victim shaming and the whole thread is nothing more than a typical katman" look at me thread. "
https://media.makeameme.org/created/hey-everyone-look-iop31w.jpg

this thread should have been in PD the minute you started lying about what occurred.
I bet you i dont post here in the next year and if i win you will admit you are a scumbag and will quit KB and stick to grinder.
You are an egg Unsubscribe.

[Katman]

Unsubscribe.

I bet you won't.

[sidecar bob]

You must sit there all day with your finger on the refresh button.

You should find a new hobby.

Holidays, sunshine, family, so much else to do this time of year than argue on the Internet.:facepalm:

[Katman]

Holidays, sunshine, family, so much else to do this time of year than argue on the Internet.:facepalm:

And yet, here you are.

[mashman]

And you still manage to miss my point.

It's the placing of that ultimate trust in the hands (quite literally) of someone that she didn't know from a bar of soap that I'm questioning the sensibility of.

No, I didn't miss your point, I merely pointed out that from my perspective, and a few others, that some people see such behaviour as sensible. The point you don't like, is that someone gets pleasure by being choked by another. Given that most rapists and "beaters up" of women/men are known to the "victim", being choked looks to be safer when in the hands of a stranger who knows that it is a part of a consensual act and isn't actually there to kill you, and moreover is doing to to help you pop your cork in a more spectacular fashion than normal. Remember the "stories" of the politicians with oranges in their mouths and plastic bags over their heads to help the ecstasy of the whole thing? It's been around for some considerable time, it has an inherent risk, but the relative risk to the same things happening at the hands of people known sees the stranger as safer (perverse, heh, as that might sound).

Sensibility is in the eye of the beholder. There is no fixed limit for its definition unless society as a whole deems such worthy of putting onto law. Thou shalt not have rough sex is going to be a bastard to enforce, because at time it's hard enough to self-enforce it :killingme.

[jasonu]

Holidays, sunshine, family, so much else to do this time of year than argue on the Internet.:facepalm:

Middle of winter here and only xmas and Jan 1 off. Sucks!!!

[jasonu]

No, I didn't miss your point, I merely pointed out that from my perspective, and a few others, that some people see such behaviour as sensible. The point you don't like, is that someone gets pleasure by being choked by another. Given that most rapists and "beaters up" of women/men are known to the "victim", being choked looks to be safer when in the hands of a stranger who knows that it is a part of a consensual act and isn't actually there to kill you, and moreover is doing to to help you pop your cork in a more spectacular fashion than normal. Remember the "stories" of the politicians with oranges in their mouths and plastic bags over their heads to help the ecstasy of the whole thing? It's been around for some considerable time, it has an inherent risk, but the relative risk to the same things happening at the hands of people known sees the stranger as safer (perverse, heh, as that might sound).

Sensibility is in the eye of the beholder. There is no fixed limit for its definition unless society as a whole deems such worthy of putting onto law. Thou shalt not have rough sex is going to be a bastard to enforce, because at time it's hard enough to self-enforce it :killingme.

I don't think KM is saying the choking itself is the problem, more getting a complete stranger to do it is the issue and I totally agree if that is the point put forward.

[mashman]

I don't think KM is saying the choking itself is the problem, more getting a complete stranger to do it is the issue and I totally agree if that is the point put forward.

Context is everything... people you know are more deadly to you than strangers. If that doesn't offer some context, then I'll have a rummage and see if I can drag out a hurt feelings form? ;)

[MaxPenguin]

I don't think KM is saying the choking itself is the problem, more getting a complete stranger to do it is the issue and I totally agree if that is the point put forward.

Most of the rebuttals to katmans post is against katman and sweet fa to do with what he said. Sad fucks are as sad as they say katman is.

[BMWST?]

I don't think KM is saying the choking itself is the problem, more getting a complete stranger to do it is the issue and I totally agree if that is the point put forward.
but again I think you are looking at it after the fact.She has done this before and it has worked out.Why should this time be any different.Is it the same as us deciding to go over our favourite windy road anda speed many would consider insane?. I am saying it is.She did not consider it risky.And i think it is fair to say it isnt particularly risky unless you have hooked up with a socio path

[jasonu]

but again I think you are looking at it after the fact.She has done this before and it has worked out.Why should this time be any different.Is it the same as us deciding to go over our favourite windy road anda speed many would consider insane?. I am saying it is.She did not consider it risky.And i think it is fair to say it isnt particularly risky unless you have hooked up with a socio path

You'll have to fill me in. Did she do it before with a COMPLETE STRANGER she found on the internet?

[BMWST?]

You'll have to fill me in. Did she do it before with a COMPLETE STRANGER she found on the internet?
i cant answer that but people she knew knew liked it.Hooking up with complete strangers for sex is normal

[oldrider]

Most of the rebuttals to katmans post is against katman and sweet fa to do with what he said. Sad fucks are as sad as they say katman is.

True! - (You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MaxPenguin again.) Par for the course! :msn-wink:

[Murray]

Most of the rebuttals to katmans post is against katman and sweet fa to do with what he said. Sad fucks are as sad as they say katman is.

No most rebuttals are against what he says are facts without any knowledge whether they are or not!!!

[jasonu]

Hooking up with complete strangers for sex is normal

Yes I've done that. But is asking the same stranger to strangle you normal, smart or reckless?

[Katman]

The point you don't like, is that someone gets pleasure by being choked by another.

Dude, how about you fuck off with putting words in my mouth.

I have said repeatedly it is the fact that she abrogated any responsibility for her safety to a drunk stranger

It's got nothing to do with my concept of 'pleasure'.

[mashman]

Dude, how about you fuck off with putting words in my mouth.

I have said repeatedly it is the fact that she abrogated any responsibility for her safety to a drunk stranger

It's got nothing to do with my concept of 'pleasure'.

It has everything to do with the pleasure, because that's why she let someone choke her. Dickhead. Everything else is you being a fanny and playing with context. Berkboy and lardarse finally have a rival.

[Katman]

It has everything to do with the pleasure,

Only if you feel the need to put words in someone else's mouth.

Otherwise, fuck off, it's got nothing to do with 'pleasure'.

[eldog]

wht killed kiwibiker?? Read this thread and ones like it and draw your own conclusions

Agreed.
Twin Towers.
Ok if its argued. But can we filter out some threads ourselves? Similar to ignore function?

[Katman]

Similar to ignore function?

Similar to?

Why not just ignore?

[mashman]

Only if you feel the need to put words in someone else's mouth.

Otherwise, fuck off, it's got nothing to do with 'pleasure'.

Perhaps you should change the title of the thread then, coz, erm, context. Not putting any words in your mouth, just staying within the context of the thread. Oh. Fucko.

[sidecar bob]

Let's face it, Grace Millane made a fucking dumb decision that night.

Deep down, we all think it - but it appears I'm the only one with the balls to say it.

You managed to go one step further than putting words in our mouths.
You told us what we were thinking, while suggesting that was the the only ballsy option.

[Drew]

So would you advise your daughter that it's perfectly fine to walk through a crime ridden neighbourhood, late at night, by herself, pissed and wearing next to nothing or would you try to make her see the sense in not putting herself in that situation?

I wouldn't think that anything that happened to her was a product of her actions.

[MaxPenguin]

I wouldn't think that anything that happened to her was a product of her actions.

...........

[Jeff Sichoe]

I wouldn't think that anything that happened to her was a product of her actions.

If someone attempts to mug you all you need to say is 'that's illegal' and they have to stop! It's amazing more people don't know this.

[Katman]

I wouldn't think that anything that happened to her was a product of her actions.

Nice side-stepping of the question.

[Drew]

Nice side-stepping of the question.

Not at all. I would bot have any one knowingly go and hang out with criminals. So I would not suggest it was a safe thing to do.

But that isn't what the poor women this thread is about did.

She hooked up with a guy for a root. He turned out to be a killer, and she got killed. Whether she asked to be choked or not has nothing to do with it, you fucking moron.

Why cant you get this through your skull?

[Katman]

Not at all. I would bot have any one knowingly go and hang out with criminals. So I would not suggest it was a safe thing to do.


Are you trying to do a mashman on us?

Where did I say anything about 'knowingly go and hang out with criminals'?

But at least you're starting to think about the safe/sensible aspect of this case.

Well done you.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm going to add 2 things to this thread:

1: If you go to any BDSM/Fetish/Kink/Alernative/whatever group/site/forum/message board/whatever - I can virtually guarantee you that amongst the top (and oldest) pinned threads or messages or blog posts will be one about evaluating a potential play partner. Said communique will go into great detail with advice on how to vet a potential partner, what things to be wary of, common do's and don'ts etc. There will also typically be a large amount of discussion on this topic in general. Whilst between groups there will be some regional differences, there is most definitely a common set of themes. The actions that Grace took, would not appear in the 'recommended' section in any of them.

2: For all the disagreements we have, Katman has not once said that Grace either deserved what happened to her or that any actions that she carelessly took should mitigate the culpability of the Killer. Instead he has pointed to a number of actions that at best would be considered 'risky' and unfortunately turned out to be the worst. To discuss these actions and to understand the chain of events may help someone else in a similar situation that it would be more prudent to make a different decision. That may end up saving a life, that may just end up in Blue Balls for both parties.

We all take risk, some of us take more risk than others. Some take risks, but with mitigation strategies to try and offset that Risk - For example, a Sky Diver has a primary and a reserve Parachute.

If someone tomorrow fell off their Bike, was a Male, and was wearing the Mk1 Safety Sandal and No Helmet and died - we would feel sympathy for the family, we may even feel sympathy at the loss of a fellow human being - but would we refrain from stating that his decision not to wear a Helmet was stupid and causal to his death? The reason KB doesn't allow 'Rider Down' threads is testament to exactly what would happen. I see this as applying the same standard(s) of behavior (even if it is 'unkind') equally, without respect to any characteristic of the person being discussed.

Finally - on the Defensive wounds comment - If anyone here was to try and Strangle me (or vice versa) - I'm willing to bet that whoever was on the receiving end wouldn't be too happy about it, and would likely do something to try and stop it. Now, it's possible in the heat of the moment when you are getting to the point of oxygen deprivation euphoria (which would be consensual up to then - the whole point of erotic asphyxiation) that when someone goes too far - one doesn't have the strength or wherewithal to fight them off, especially since the now-attacker is already in position, doing the strangling.

If analyzing a tragedy is Victim Blaming, then so be it, I'd rather be called names than have murdered Girls. If it's a case that 'well people ought not to do XYZ' - then yes, they definitely shouldn't - but there are people out there that do, we cannot control other people, we can only control ourselves.

[BMWST?]

Are you trying to do a mashman on us?

Where did I say anything about 'knowingly go and hang out with criminals'?

But at least you're starting to think about the safe/sensible aspect of this case.

Well done you.

you did "
So would you advise your daughter that it's perfectly fine to walk through a crime ridden neighbourhood"

[FJRider]

I'm going to add 2 things to this thread:

Nothing not already posted ... <_<


1: If you go to any BDSM/Fetish/Kink/Alernative/whatever group/site/forum/message board/whatever - I can virtually guarantee you that amongst the top (and oldest) pinned threads or messages or blog posts will be one about evaluating a potential play partner. Said communique will go into great detail with advice on how to vet a potential partner, what things to be wary of, common do's and don'ts etc. There will also typically be a large amount of discussion on this topic in general. Whilst between groups there will be some regional differences, there is most definitely a common set of themes. The actions that Grace took, would not appear in the 'recommended' section in any of them.

Virtual guarantees aren't worth the paper they're printed on ... <_<

Are these comments based on your personal experiences ... or just what you "Read" on those sites ... <_<


2: For all the disagreements we have, Katman has not once said that Grace either deserved what happened to her or that any actions that she carelessly took should mitigate the culpability of the Killer. Instead he has pointed to a number of actions that at best would be considered 'risky' and unfortunately turned out to be the worst. To discuss these actions and to understand the chain of events may help someone else in a similar situation that it would be more prudent to make a different decision. That may end up saving a life, that may just end up in Blue Balls for both parties.

Motorcycling is dangerous ... yet we "Chuck a leg over" at any given opportunity. What makes HER any different than US as to the stupidity of the (either) practice .. ??? <_<


We all take risk, some of us take more risk than others. Some take risks, but with mitigation strategies to try and offset that Risk - For example, a Sky Diver has a primary and a reserve Parachute.

On the road with the unknown number of idiotic fuckwits that you/we share the road with ... there is no "mitigation". You either find the exception (ie:Fuckwit) or you don't. In either situation ... few consider a Fuckwit might actually kill YOU. It's ALWAYS somebody else ... <_<


If someone tomorrow fell off their Bike, was a Male, and was wearing the Mk1 Safety Sandal and No Helmet and died - we would feel sympathy for the family, we may even feel sympathy at the loss of a fellow human being - but would we refrain from stating that his decision not to wear a Helmet was stupid and causal to his death? The reason KB doesn't allow 'Rider Down' threads is testament to exactly what would happen. I see this as applying the same standard(s) of behavior (even if it is 'unkind') equally, without respect to any characteristic of the person being discussed.

Bullshit. The reason that policy is in place ... is because it sometimes causes anguish to family reading threads on KB, seeing photo's, and hearing (as then) unconfirmed reports on the rider involved's "health". Or the idea that the bike involved looked like their friend/family member was riding. Unneeded anguish for the sake of of a "News" post on KB. Is KB "Green" worth more than a "Faceberks" Like ... ??? ... <_<


Finally - on the Defensive wounds comment - If anyone here was to try and Strangle me (or vice versa) - I'm willing to bet that whoever was on the receiving end wouldn't be too happy about it, and would likely do something to try and stop it. Now, it's possible in the heat of the moment when you are getting to the point of oxygen deprivation euphoria (which would be consensual up to then - the whole point of erotic asphyxiation) that when someone goes too far - one doesn't have the strength or wherewithal to fight them off, especially since the now-attacker is already in position, doing the strangling.

Did you read the bit in the Autopsy report the signs of restraint was seen and noted. What sort of "restraint" that was used was not mentioned ... <_<


If analyzing a tragedy is Victim Blaming, then so be it, I'd rather be called names than have murdered Girls. If it's a case that 'well people ought not to do XYZ' - then yes, they definitely shouldn't - but there are people out there that do, we cannot control other people, we can only control ourselves.

Newsflash. HE was found guilty in "a Court of his Peers" ... of murder. A victim is still a victim ... regardless of what the Victim could (or should) have done. 20/20 hindsight eh ... <_<

Just as if a motorcyclist is killed in a crash on the road ... regardless of fault ... somebody died. Finding out cause is important ... but blame of the dead is usually pointless. It's only possible use ... is as a lesson to us all ... <_<

But ... the repetition of the deaths on the road with the same basic causes ... the lessons are (more often than not) not learned ... <_<

[FJRider]

I wouldn't think that anything that happened to her was a product of her actions.

Her "Actions" may well not be the intentional cause of the resulting product of conduct ... of another ... but that doesn't stop some getting some very funny ideas.

At the end of the day ... what you thought ... might be vastly different in the outcome ...

[Katman]

If someone tomorrow fell off their Bike, was a Male, and was wearing the Mk1 Safety Sandal and No Helmet and died - we would feel sympathy for the family, we may even feel sympathy at the loss of a fellow human being - but would we refrain from stating that his decision not to wear a Helmet was stupid and causal to his death?

Of course we would.

We are Kiwibiker.

[Katman]

What makes HER any different than US as to the stupidity of the (either) practice .. ???

I don't know about you, but at the end of the day, I don't ask pissed strangers to randomly swerve at me in their car just for me to feel alive.

[Katman]

Her "Actions" may well not be the intentional cause of the resulting product of conduct ... of another ... but that doesn't stop some getting some very funny ideas.

At the end of the day ... what you thought ... might be vastly different in the outcome ...

Dude....that's crazy talk...…

…..but add some dots...…

….I'm sure it will all make sense.

[TheDemonLord]

Virtual guarantees aren't worth the paper they're printed on ... <_<

Are these comments based on your personal experiences ... or just what you "Read" on those sites ... <_<

I'll leave that to your imagination, but I thought it was obvious...


Motorcycling is dangerous ... yet we "Chuck a leg over" at any given opportunity. What makes HER any different than US as to the stupidity of the (either) practice .. ??? <_<

Nothing, that's entirely the point. We take a risk, we are happy to take the risk and should something befall us, our peers will acknowledge the risks we took and critique accordingly


On the road with the unknown number of idiotic fuckwits that you/we share the road with ... there is no "mitigation". You either find the exception (ie:Fuckwit) or you don't. In either situation ... few consider a Fuckwit might actually kill YOU. It's ALWAYS somebody else ...

Except there is, the whole 'Road Craft' thing, safety gear, Bike technology - ALL Mitigation strategies. I think I've been clear that nothing is 100% foolproof, but to say there is no Mitigation (in any situation in life) is silly.


Bullshit. The reason that policy is in place ... is because it sometimes causes anguish to family reading threads on KB, seeing photo's, and hearing (as then) unconfirmed reports on the rider involved's "health". Or the idea that the bike involved looked like their friend/family member was riding. Unneeded anguish for the sake of of a "News" post on KB. Is KB "Green" worth more than a "Faceberks" Like ... ??? ...

And why the Anguish?

"Should have been wearing high viz"
"Was always riding like a Fuckwit"
"Had more ponies than they could handle"
"too busy trying to get the front wheel up"
"should have been concentrating on known danger zones"

etc.

just like what is happening here.


Did you read the bit in the Autopsy report the signs of restraint was seen and noted. What sort of "restraint" that was used was not mentioned ...

Unless the guy was an expert at using restraints, then there is usually enough movement available to 'leave a mark', but supposing this is correct - letting someone you've just met tie you up is a risk.


Newsflash. HE was found guilty in "a Court of his Peers" ... of murder. A victim is still a victim ... regardless of what the Victim could (or should) have done. 20/20 hindsight eh ... <_<

Just as if a motorcyclist is killed in a crash on the road ... regardless of fault ... somebody died. Finding out cause is important ... but blame of the dead is usually pointless. It's only possible use ... is as a lesson to us all ... <_<

But ... the repetition of the deaths on the road with the same basic causes ... the lessons are (more often than not) not learned ... <_<

So you prove my point then:

'It's only possible use is as a lesson to us all' - Correct!

You further reinforce the point even more clearly: The lessons AREN'T learned, thus meaning that discussions like this, no matter how painful or condescending or 'victim blaming' are clearly still needed.

[MaxPenguin]

I'm going to add 2 things to this thread:

1: If you go to any BDSM/Fetish/Kink/Alernative/whatever group/site/forum/message board/whatever - I can virtually guarantee you that amongst the top (and oldest) pinned threads or messages or blog posts will be one about evaluating a potential play partner. Said communique will go into great detail with advice on how to vet a potential partner, what things to be wary of, common do's and don'ts etc. There will also typically be a large amount of discussion on this topic in general. Whilst between groups there will be some regional differences, there is most definitely a common set of themes. The actions that Grace took, would not appear in the 'recommended' section in any of them.

2: For all the disagreements we have, Katman has not once said that Grace either deserved what happened to her or that any actions that she carelessly took should mitigate the culpability of the Killer. Instead he has pointed to a number of actions that at best would be considered 'risky' and unfortunately turned out to be the worst. To discuss these actions and to understand the chain of events may help someone else in a similar situation that it would be more prudent to make a different decision. That may end up saving a life, that may just end up in Blue Balls for both parties.

We all take risk, some of us take more risk than others. Some take risks, but with mitigation strategies to try and offset that Risk - For example, a Sky Diver has a primary and a reserve Parachute.

If someone tomorrow fell off their Bike, was a Male, and was wearing the Mk1 Safety Sandal and No Helmet and died - we would feel sympathy for the family, we may even feel sympathy at the loss of a fellow human being - but would we refrain from stating that his decision not to wear a Helmet was stupid and causal to his death? The reason KB doesn't allow 'Rider Down' threads is testament to exactly what would happen. I see this as applying the same standard(s) of behavior (even if it is 'unkind') equally, without respect to any characteristic of the person being discussed.

Finally - on the Defensive wounds comment - If anyone here was to try and Strangle me (or vice versa) - I'm willing to bet that whoever was on the receiving end wouldn't be too happy about it, and would likely do something to try and stop it. Now, it's possible in the heat of the moment when you are getting to the point of oxygen deprivation euphoria (which would be consensual up to then - the whole point of erotic asphyxiation) that when someone goes too far - one doesn't have the strength or wherewithal to fight them off, especially since the now-attacker is already in position, doing the strangling.

If analyzing a tragedy is Victim Blaming, then so be it, I'd rather be called names than have murdered Girls. If it's a case that 'well people ought not to do XYZ' - then yes, they definitely shouldn't - but there are people out there that do, we cannot control other people, we can only control ourselves.

True words, anyone who thinks different needs to assess their motivations for disagreeing with and or putting words in katmans mouth.

[mashman]

True words, anyone who thinks different needs to assess their motivations for disagreeing with and or putting words in katmans mouth.

The OP

"Why isn't the message also being pushed, that if you happen to enjoy engaging in 'rough sex' (as is an individuals right), it's probably not wise to do so with someone you only met that night.

Personal responsibility seems to be taking a back seat yet again."

Who put words in Katmans mouth? he simply denies that responsibility has already being taken by all of those engaging in such acts. Personal responsibility was right up front, consented to and off they went. He clearly, clearly clearly clearly clearly, chooses not to accept that. His own words. Who put words in Katmans mouth?

[Katman]

She could not have prevented what happened, because submissives abdicate responsibility (outwith safe words, tricky in this case) and switch into pleasure mode.


Personal responsibility was right up front, consented to and off they went.

So now you have me even more confused.

Was there personal responsibility or was it abdicated?

[FJRider]

Nothing, that's entirely the point. We take a risk, we are happy to take the risk and should something befall us, our peers will acknowledge the risks we took and critique accordingly

She was obviously happy to take the risk for a few thrills ... I guess the actual outcome was not as she expected ... but the actual outcome (on the road or in a hotel room) often isn't what we expected. Regardless of what Mitigation strategy we employ.


Except there is, the whole 'Road Craft' thing, safety gear, Bike technology - ALL Mitigation strategies. I think I've been clear that nothing is 100% foolproof, but to say there is no Mitigation (in any situation in life) is silly.

If you rely on "Mitigation Strategies", "Road-craft","Safety Gear, and "Bike Technology (?? do you mean ABS ??)" to save you skin (literally) ... you really are an idiot. And I'd put a 50% chance of surviving a motorcycle crash at Highway speeds, I have survived crashes at (much) higher speeds ... but I put that down to plain luck. People have died doing exactly as I did. And at the time of my big prangs ... my safety gear was open face helmet, ski gloves, Line 7 two piece wet gear, and running shoes. Bike technology was mid 70's era. Drum brake at the back and single disc on the front. My road-craft strategy was "Keep it under a 100 mph". And I failed that last bit lol.

Plain and simple ... Motorcycling is a lottery. We win if we survive. Nobody wants the second prize.


And why the Anguish?

I know of one woman who had a call from a person that knew her Husband rode a large capacity motorcycle. He had seen a photo of a motorcycle on a motorcycle forum (NOT KB) that was the same make model and colour as the one her husband rode. He asked her where he was, ... on a ride or at home. When told he WAS on a ride and heading to etc ... he told her about the photo he saw. She tried to call the guy(straight to voicemail). Called the place he was going to (never saw him). Called the cops (They couldn't give her any info over the phone, just told her they would be in contact with next of kin if they are known.

The short ending it was NOT him on the crashed bike, he didn't go where he told her he was going, and his phone battery was flat. He arrived home about 9pm.

And you ask ... "Why the anguish" ???


"Should have been wearing high viz"
"Was always riding like a Fuckwit"
"Had more ponies than they could handle"
"too busy trying to get the front wheel up"
"should have been concentrating on known danger zones"

etc.

just like what is happening here.

No point having a mitigation strategy, and safety gear ... if you don't bother to employ it. In such cases ... could it be said the result was self inflicted ??? or simply their (her ??) fault.



Unless the guy was an expert at using restraints, then there is usually enough movement available to 'leave a mark', but supposing this is correct - letting someone you've just met tie you up is a risk.

You think ??? if she WANTED to be tied up ... the restraints would not have been needed to be that tight.


So you prove my point then:

'It's only possible use is as a lesson to us all' - Correct!

You further reinforce the point even more clearly: The lessons AREN'T learned, thus meaning that discussions like this, no matter how painful or condescending or 'victim blaming' are clearly still needed.

Regardless of any point you believe I've proved, being found guilty of murder in a court of law ... is the legal requirement for him to be locked up. But ... what if the jury got it wrong ???

[FJRider]

I don't know about you, but at the end of the day, I don't ask pissed strangers to randomly swerve at me in their car just for me to feel alive.

I doubt that you would.

But ... perhaps ... they are not random strangers.

But they may know or ... have heard of you, and know what car you drive ...


Does it happen often ... ???

[TheDemonLord]

She was obviously happy to take the risk for a few thrills ... I guess the actual outcome was not as she expected ... but the actual outcome (on the road or in a hotel room) often isn't what we expected. Regardless of what Mitigation strategy we employ.

For sure, sometimes shit happens - I've stated this multiple times, so I'm not sure why re-stating what I've already acknowledged is doing here?


If you rely on "Mitigation Strategies", "Road-craft","Safety Gear, and "Bike Technology (?? do you mean ABS ??)" to save you skin (literally) ... you really are an idiot.

I'm not sure what your point is here? Is it an automatic naysaying of something I've posted? Is it a misinterpretation of what I've said? Because I'll be honest - that Sentence is Cassina levels of WTF. And certainly not one I expected from you.

Mitigation strategies are all anyone has to rely on. Literally the entirety of Life. You look both ways when crossing the road? That's a Mitigation strategy. You don't sit at home shooting H and smoking Meth - also a Mitigation strategy. I could go on.

As it pertains to Motorcycling, it's the same as Tank Combat: Don't be there, if you are there, Don't be seen - if you are seen, don't be targetted, if you are targetted, don't be fired upon, if fired upon, don't be hit, if hit, don't be penetrated, if penetrated, don't be killed.

Roadcraft attempts to stop the accident from happening in the first place. ABS/Suspension/Tires help you not impact if the accident happens and good gear (hopefully) helps you not suffer serious injury if the first 2 fail.

Of course, the ultimate mitigation strategy is not to ride - but as above, we all take risks and we also take the responsibility for engaging in those risks.


And I'd put a 50% chance of surviving a motorcycle crash at Highway speeds, I have survived crashes at (much) higher speeds ... but I put that down to plain luck. People have died doing exactly as I did. And at the time of my big prangs ... my safety gear was open face helmet, ski gloves, Line 7 two piece wet gear, and running shoes. Bike technology was mid 70's era. Drum brake at the back and single disc on the front. My road-craft strategy was "Keep it under a 100 mph". And I failed that last bit lol.

Plain and simple ... Motorcycling is a lottery. We win if we survive. Nobody wants the second prize.

Did you learn your lesson and now keep it under 100 Mph? If so, it would seem that your mitigation strategy for the most part is working. Long may it continue to work and you stay rubber side down, shiny side up.



I know of one woman who had a call from a person that knew her Husband rode a large capacity motorcycle. He had seen a photo of a motorcycle on a motorcycle forum (NOT KB) that was the same make model and colour as the one her husband rode. He asked her where he was, ... on a ride or at home. When told he WAS on a ride and heading to etc ... he told her about the photo he saw. She tried to call the guy(straight to voicemail). Called the place he was going to (never saw him). Called the cops (They couldn't give her any info over the phone, just told her they would be in contact with next of kin if they are known.

The short ending it was NOT him on the crashed bike, he didn't go where he told her he was going, and his phone battery was flat. He arrived home about 9pm.

And you ask ... "Why the anguish" ???

Site Rules specifically state that Speculation/discussion on a crash (and we all know what that means, unless you want to dishonestly deny to avoid conceding the point I'm making) should be kept out of Rider Down threads.

The point is that the exact same type of discussion is regularly had between and about members of one half of the Human species, especially when one of them has done something that was foolish and resulted in negative consequences.


No point having a mitigation strategy, and safety gear ... if you don't bother to employ it. In such cases ... could it be said the result was self inflicted ??? or simply their (her ??) fault.

Except I've never said that, this is the strawman that causes all the outrage. It's possible that she could have followed normal, prudent advice about how to go about certain BDSM acts and still end up dead. The point is that in this case there were several key decision points where a different decision could (and perhaps should) have been made which could have averted her death.


You think ??? if she WANTED to be tied up ... the restraints would not have been needed to be that tight.

heh heh heh....

You are so Cute.



Regardless of any point you believe I've proved, being found guilty of murder in a court of law ... is the legal requirement for him to be locked up. But ... what if the jury got it wrong ???

Neither a point I'm making nor something I've argued against.

[mashman]

So now you have me even more confused.

Was there personal responsibility or was it abdicated?

You have to have personal responsibility in order to be able to abdicate it.

[FJRider]

For sure, sometimes shit happens - I've stated this multiple times, so I'm not sure why re-stating what I've already acknowledged is doing here?

Sorry ... I seldom read all your posts. You usually just keep repeating yourself. As you did here.


I'm not sure what your point is here? Is it an automatic naysaying of something I've posted? Is it a misinterpretation of what I've said? Because I'll be honest - that Sentence is Cassina levels of WTF. And certainly not one I expected from you.

Put it this way ... if you look both ways before crossing the road... look out. You might get hit by a lime scooter on the footpath. Shit will happen on the road from directions you can never expect.


Mitigation strategies are all anyone has to rely on. Literally the entirety of Life. You look both ways when crossing the road? That's a Mitigation strategy. You don't sit at home shooting H and smoking Meth - also a Mitigation strategy. I could go on.

Take positive action on the road ... mitigation is a gamble on what might happen. Concentrate on what IS happening ... if you're smart enough to see it. I spend half my working life these days away from home. And I don't smoke. Your point is .. ??? My stratagem on road crossing is above ...


As it pertains to Motorcycling, it's the same as Tank Combat: Don't be there, if you are there, Don't be seen - if you are seen, don't be targetted, if you are targetted, don't be fired upon, if fired upon, don't be hit, if hit, don't be penetrated, if penetrated, don't be killed.

Obviously you have never driven a tank in a war like situation. I have. Talk about things you know about. (Probably difficult for you to do)


attempts to stop the accident from happening in the first place. ABS/Suspension/Tires help you not impact if the accident happens and good gear (hopefully) helps you not suffer serious injury if the first 2 fail.

Attempts mean failure. And seldom painless. You just have to stop having accidents.


Of course, the ultimate mitigation strategy is not to ride

The recommended strategy for idiots. Does it work for you ??


Did you learn your lesson and now keep it under 100 Mph? If so, it would seem that your mitigation strategy for the most part is working. Long may it continue to work and you stay rubber side down, shiny side up.

Short answer ... NO. But no major off's and the few minor ones at low speeds (which FJ1200's don't like).


Site Rules specifically state that Speculation/discussion on a crash (and we all know what that means, unless you want to dishonestly deny to avoid conceding the point I'm making) should be kept out of Rider Down threads.

No mention of phone calls to suspected widows either ... <_<


The point is that the exact same type of discussion is regularly had between and about members of one half of the Human species, especially when one of them has done something that was foolish and resulted in negative consequences.

The fact you have any point surprises me. Now I have to guess which half you belong in ... to help me ... how many accidents were you involved in in the last ten years ??


Except I've never said that, this is the strawman that causes all the outrage. It's possible that she could have followed normal, prudent advice about how to go about certain BDSM acts and still end up dead. The point is that in this case there were several key decision points where a different decision could (and perhaps should) have been made which could have averted her death.

Yep. She could have stayed in England.


heh heh....

You are so Cute.

Some like it tight though ... apparently.


Neither a point I'm making nor something I've argued against.

It was just an idle question. Just something to consider. Jury's don't always get it right.

[Bonez]

No amount of mitigation will stop a dufuss pulling out of an industrial driveway and being t-boned on your bike in a 50 kmph area on a rather nice day. A certainly terchnology wouldn't have stopped it. Or did I need to have a drone scanning the area first? As FJRider said shit happens and sometimes there's nothing you could have done about it. Luckily I was wearining my full leathers that day and they held my left leg tid and fib in place and never needed plates so healed up quite quickly. I've also had faster offs and come out with a few scratches wearing less protictive gear. Things like fresh cow shit right across the apex of a corner is quite hard to avoid.

[TheDemonLord]

Sorry ... I seldom read all your posts. You usually just keep repeating yourself. As you did here.

Perhaps if you read and understood, I wouldn't need to do so...


Put it this way ... if you look both ways before crossing the road... look out. You might get hit by a lime scooter on the footpath. Shit will happen on the road from directions you can never expect.

No one is arguing that shit doesn't happen.

It's the difference between being hit by lightning in a freak occurence and being hit by lightning whilst climbing a tree, holding a golfclub up to the sky, wearing your finest tinfoil hat in a thunderstorm.

One is bad luck, one is due to the result of a series of poor decisions


Take positive action on the road ... mitigation is a gamble on what might happen. Concentrate on what IS happening ... if you're smart enough to see it. I spend half my working life these days away from home. And I don't smoke. Your point is .. ??? My stratagem on road crossing is above ...

Taking Positive action is a Mitigation strategy...


Obviously you have never driven a tank in a war like situation. I have. Talk about things you know about. (Probably difficult for you to do)

I haven't - but the folks who came up with the concept of the Survivability Onion namely The US Army (I hear they've done a few things with tanks in War like situations over the years) would disagree.
Page 21, if you are interested. (https://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2004/ARL-TR-3186.pdf) - however to link the Tangent back - there are parallels between that, Motorcycling and other situations - namely you want to start with avoidance - working all the way down to the final step of 'don't die'. At each layer or level, there are things that can be done to stop a potential threat from proceeding any further.


Attempts mean failure. And seldom painless. You just have to stop having accidents.

Does it? Emergency braking and emergency avoidance once the incident has started are a thing. Granted we tend to refer to those as 'close calls' - but the point stands - something happened, our first layer of defence failed, but the second layer succeeded and all we had to do was ride home and wash our leathers.


The recommended strategy for idiots. Does it work for you ??

I'm still here, so whichever strategy I'm using, it's clearly working.


Short answer ... NO. But no major off's and the few minor ones at low speeds (which FJ1200's don't like).

Seems to me then, given your vintage, that it's not entirely luck, is it? That something you are doing (or not doing) is preventing major accidents, one might even go so far to say that these things collectively might be what have formed a sort of 'strategy' for 'mitigating' major offs...

Long may it continue for you.


The fact you have any point surprises me. Now I have to guess which half you belong in ... to help me ... how many accidents were you involved in in the last ten years ??

2 where I came off the bike.

Both of which, despite not being at fault (and here it comes): There were things I should have done with MY riding, that had I done so, would have prevented the accident, even though I was not at fault

The first accident is/was the only semi-major accident I had and was whilst I was still a learner - the key take away points were situational awareness, proper braking technique and anticipation of what other motorists would do.


Some like it tight though ... apparently.

Well, if something is worth doing...


It was just an idle question. Just something to consider. Jury's don't always get it right.

Agreed - but it's not something I'm contending or relevant to the line of discussion regarding personal responsibility. You may as well have posted that Water is indeed Wet.

[TheDemonLord]

No amount of mitigation will stop a dufuss pulling out of an industrial driveway and being t-boned on your bike in a 50 kmph area on a rather nice day. A certainly terchnology wouldn't have stopped it. Or did I need to have a drone scanning the area first? As FJRider said shit happens and sometimes there's nothing you could have done about it. Luckily I was wearining my full leathers that day and they held my left leg tid and fib in place and never needed plates so healed up quite quickly. I've also had faster offs and come out with a few scratches wearing less protictive gear. Things like fresh cow shit right across the apex of a corner is quite hard to avoid.

You prove my point:

"Luckily I was wearing my full leathers that day"

By wearing the proper gear, you lessened the damage you took.

Granted, the first 2 layers of protection (situational awareness and riding) failed (and in good faith, I'll take you at your word there was nothing you could do), but by taking all the proper precautions and wearing Gear, you didn't end up Dead, a fact we are all thrilled about as now you get to positively contribute in this discussion (and that's not sarcastic btw)

Consider an alternative outcome - you were wearing shorts and Jandals, suffering a compound fracture in the leg, severing your femoral artery and you bled out, and that this thread was about said accident. People would critique your personal choice not to wear gear as causal to your death, people may even speculate that had you been wearing gear it's possible your injuries would have been less severe and you may have survived. Furthermore, if someone was to point to this and say 'And this Kiddos, is why we dress for the slide and not the ride' with the hope that someone to whom such words of wisdom were imparted may take heed of them and don their gear for the next ride and survive an accident - all the better.

[TheDemonLord]

You have to have personal responsibility in order to be able to abdicate it.

Do women not have Personal Responsibility then?

[Katman]

You have to have personal responsibility in order to be able to abdicate it.

Sounds like you're even more confused than me.

[Katman]

you did "
"So would you advise your daughter that it's perfectly fine to walk through a crime ridden neighbourhood"

Well that's part of what I said.

What I actually said in full was...…



So would you advise your daughter that it's perfectly fine to walk through a crime ridden neighbourhood, late at night, by herself, pissed and wearing next to nothing

And what Drew said was.....


I would not have any one knowingly go and hang out with criminals.

Notice how they're different? :psst:I'll give you a clue - the sentences are made up of different words.


Now one might start to wonder why Drew chose to use different words.

My guess is that he's starting to realise that he actually agrees with me but can't bring himself to admit it.

[mashman]

Sounds like you're even more confused than me.

If that's how it sounds to you, then that is a shame... but hey, you won't be the first to try to land something at my doorstep that has no business being there. And from you of all people.

[Katman]

... but hey, you won't be the first to try to land something at my doorstep that has no business being there.

It ain't me putting anything on your doorstep.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Murray]

So now you have me even more confused.


You confused? Is this a first time because from history what you think or say is always right and you are never confused?

[FJRider]

Perhaps if you read and understood, I wouldn't need to do so...

I tried it a few times ... I kept falling asleep.


No one is arguing that shit doesn't happen.

It's the difference between being hit by lightning in a freak occurence and being hit by lightning whilst climbing a tree, holding a golfclub up to the sky, wearing your finest tinfoil hat in a thunderstorm.

One is bad luck, one is due to the result of a series of poor decisions

A freak occurrence is being hit by lightning. A normal occurrence is being hit by vehicles they didn't look for.


Taking Positive action is a Mitigation strategy...

Taking a shit is a Mitigation strategy. Your point is ... ??


I haven't - but the folks who came up with the concept of the Survivability Onion namely The US Army (I hear they've done a few things with tanks in War like situations over the years) would disagree.
Page 21, if you are interested. (https://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2004/ARL-TR-3186.pdf) - however to link the Tangent back - there are parallels between that, Motorcycling and other situations - namely you want to start with avoidance - working all the way down to the final step of 'don't die'. At each layer or level, there are things that can be done to stop a potential threat from proceeding any further.

The yanks didn't win all the wars they were involved in ... :killingme

Basic tank strategy is hit them before they hit you. And stay hidden (not always easy) until you strike. Then ... the fun starts.


Does it? Emergency braking and emergency avoidance once the incident has started are a thing. Granted we tend to refer to those as 'close calls' - but the point stands - something happened, our first layer of defence failed, but the second layer succeeded and all we had to do was ride home and wash our leathers.

Yep ... "Emergency Braking" is the last form of defense ... a last ditch effort to regain control before it really turns to shit. It means you didn't see it coming, otherwise you would have braked earlier.


I'm still here, so whichever strategy I'm using, it's clearly working.

You're alive. Probably a source of regret for some ;) ... but if you've never ended up on the tar seal and "leaking" ... you could be just lucky. Some people win Lotto more than once.


Seems to me then, given your vintage, that it's not entirely luck, is it? That something you are doing (or not doing) is preventing major accidents, one might even go so far to say that these things collectively might be what have formed a sort of 'strategy' for 'mitigating' major offs...

Long may it continue for you.

As a general rule ... I hold myself responsible for all or any incidents I have riding. I never say "Not My fault" ... as it partially is. It takes more than one factor to cause an accident ... I am only one factor.


2 where I came off the bike.

Both of which, despite not being at fault (and here it comes): There were things I should have done with MY riding, that had I done so, would have prevented the accident, even though I was not at fault

The first accident is/was the only semi-major accident I had and was whilst I was still a learner - the key take away points were situational awareness, proper braking technique and anticipation of what other motorists would do.

"NOT MY FAULT" ... possibly the real reason accidents happen. "If I'm not at fault it won't happen. If it does happen I'll be OK because I'm not at fault". Yeah right ... ;)


Well, if something is worth doing...

Do it right ... or it isn't ... ;)


Agreed - but it's not something I'm contending or relevant to the line of discussion regarding personal responsibility. You may as well have posted that Water is indeed Wet.

Personal responsibility is a funny thing ... it often taps you on the shoulder ... when you thought the door was closed ... and LOCKED.

[caspernz]

Reading thru this thread I can't help but divert my thinking to the old adage of "circle of concern vs circle of influence" and how it's completely lost on some folks...as you were :innocent:

[Katman]

Reading thru this thread I can't help but divert my thinking to the old adage of "circle of concern vs circle of influence" and how it's completely lost on some folks...as you were :innocent:

Do you not think that Grace Millane's actions fell within the circle of influence?

[mashman]

It ain't me putting anything on your doorstep.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

There is no opposite I assure you. You read the world as you are. Now fuck off.

[Katman]

There is no opposite I assure you. You read the world as you are. Now fuck off.

Really?

Because it sounds to me like you're trying to suggest that I disapprove of Grace Millane's actions because I see them as some sort of 'perversion'.

I have said repeatedly, that I disapprove of her actions simply due to the fact that to deliberately abrogate all level of responsibility for your safety into the hands of a drunken stranger is fucking stupid.

If you choose to misinterpret what I'm saying, that's your problem - not mine.

[mashman]

Really?

Because it sounds to me like you're trying to suggest that I disapprove of Grace Millane's actions because I see them as some sort of 'perversion'.

I have said repeatedly, that I disapprove of her actions simply due to the fact that to deliberately abrogate all level of responsibility for your safety into the hands of a drunken stranger is fucking stupid.

If you choose to misinterpret what I'm saying, that's your problem - not mine.

Le sigh. We cleared up the use of perversion. Continuing with it as some form of evidence that I put something in your mouth shows that you really are confused.

Yes, you have stated that repeatedly. Pretty sure that I stated that I got it somewhere along the lines. What you class as fuckin stupid, others call a normal saturday night. The End.

[Katman]

What you class as fuckin stupid, others call a normal saturday night.

If that's the case, then it would appeared that fucking stupidity is becoming the norm.

(Pretty much like I implied earlier in the thread).

[mashman]

If that's the case, then it would appeared that fucking stupidity is becoming the norm.

(Pretty much like I implied earlier in the thread).

ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa... I agree, but on different grounds, as well as a change of tense i.e. "has become". Pleasure with risk is as old as the hills and as flavoursome as consensual tastes allow. It's nothing new and is highly unlikely to become "dominant" sexual behaviour. I may be wrong and they'll teach it at school in Sex Ed in 10 years time to offer awareness to young adults that such is an option, and "how to do it safely" ;) (another point you made if I Am not mistaken).

[caspernz]

Do you not think that Grace Millane's actions fell within the circle of influence?

No, it doesn't fall in my circle of influence.

The concept of "circle of concern vs circle of influence" is fairly straightforward :brick:

[Katman]

The concept of "circle of concern vs circle of influence" is fairly straightforward :brick:

What a shame then that you don't seem to understand the circle of concern/circle of influence concept.

It's not a case of 'vs'.

It simply states that one's circle of influence is a smaller circle that fits within one's circle of concern.

I'm asking if Grace Millane gave any consideration to her circle of influence.

[Katman]

No, it doesn't fall in my circle of influence.

Grace Millane's circle of influence has nothing to do with your circle of influence.

Grace's actions were well within her circle of influence though.

In fact, they were well within her circle of control even.

[Katman]

No, it doesn't fall in my circle of influence.

Duplicate post deleted.