Grace Millane. [Archive] - Kiwi Biker forums

25th November 2019, 17:02

So Grace Millane's killer has been found guilty - and rightly so. (Anyone who goes out looking for sex the next night, after they've just disposed of last night's body, deserves nothing but a guilty verdict).

But now we're also getting bombarded with the fact that 'violence against women must stop' (which, of itself, is a perfectly valid statement).

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.
Well said.
I was deeply saddened by Grace Millane's murder. Yes we should all live in a safe crime free world. Able to leave our homes and cars unlocked with the keys in, never to be stolen. Woman should be able to hitch hike alone in any country totally secure in the knowledge that no harm will come to them. Men should be able to disagree with someone about something in a bar without fear of his mates kicking the shit out of them later on. Reality is another thing and a degree of caution to ones own safety is unfortunately a necessity of staying alive. I hitched hiked a bit on my OE in Europe when I was 21-22, but I was acutely aware of my vulnerability and kept my wits about me when alone.

onearmedbandit

25th November 2019, 17:19

I have pruned a lot of posts from this thread that were in my opinion off topic or leading towards off topic. I chose this action rather than consigning the entire thread to PD. If anyone posts the killers name or provides links to it on this site while the suppression order is still in place I will be pushing for a ban. I will be watching this thread and will send it to PD if I see it going to sh#t again.

(BTW, do not quote this post, my decision is final. Quoting this post will be seen as off topic and will receive an infraction.)

Katman

25th November 2019, 18:18

Reality is another thing and a degree of caution to ones own safety is unfortunately a necessity of staying alive. I hitched hiked a bit on my OE in Europe when I was 21-22, but I was acutely aware of my vulnerability and kept my wits about when alone.

Whereas these days the exact opposite seems to be encouraged.

It seems like we're being led down a path of accepting that one should be allowed do anything they like without having to be held at all responsible for their actions.

Swoop

25th November 2019, 19:58

Remember that the case started with the first day being discussions of a legal nature...
No jury required to attend.

Quite frankly that would have been one trial I would not have wanted to be on. Reading through the judge's summing up indicated multiple layers of legalese to work through.
Also, a jury being sent off for deliberation on a Friday, is always bad news for the defence.

Katman

26th November 2019, 07:14

And furthermore, another thing that I find equally disturbing is that it seems to have become fashionable these days to view any suggestion that a victim could have taken steps to avoid (or mitigate the extent of) an incident, as 'victim bashing' - instead of as an opportunity to learn something from others mistakes.

TheDemonLord

26th November 2019, 07:31

Katman

26th November 2019, 07:59

That is where a knowledge of the Psychology of the people you face helps.

And there's another example of one of your posts which is simply designed to try and make you sound clever - but actually says nothing at all.

TheDemonLord

26th November 2019, 08:29

And there's another example of one of your posts which is simply designed to try and make you sound clever - but actually says nothing at all.

Simply put: If there are actions that can be taken to prevent an issue, then they aren't a purely passive victim, they have agency.

If one has agency, one can be held accountable and furthermore if one has agency then they have the capacity to instigate change within themselves.

Whereas if one is a passive victim, the burden of responsibility always lies elsewhere.

What you are seeing is the Social Justice/Feminist/Post-Modern extension of the Marxist idea of the Proletariat and Bourgeois, only it's Oppressor and Oppressed. Or more Specifically, Victim and Victimiser.

I've had this discussion with many people - I'm for sexual Equality as much as the next guy - I love Slut walks - plenty of Nubile 20 something ladies walking around practically naked as some form of Protest, declaring their right to be promiscuous - I'm 100% for that - however, when pointing out that some people who have horrible things done to them (that we all agree should not be done) made a number of decisions that significantly increased their risk and may even have been causal to their assault (that again, we agree should never happen) - they get defensive and readily say that this never happens when it is a Men.

I frequently point them to places like this and any Accident thread, pointing out that actually, it's the opposite, Men are far more harsh with each other - you yourself have been a frequent proponent (that I happen to agree with) that almost all Accidents are the result of not taking preventative measures in ones riding.

There is also a flipside - which my initial comment in this thread got Culled - which is that Women have demanded that the Social taboos around Sex be removed and whilst I on the whole thing this is a good thing - This case along with others (both Legal and philosophical) seem to suggest that Women have paid a heavy price for these removals - and as the old Adage goes: Be Careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Katman

26th November 2019, 08:38

What you are seeing is the Social Justice/Feminist/Post-Modern extension of the Marxist idea of the Proletariat and Bourgeois, only it's Oppressor and Oppressed. Or more Specifically, Victim and Victimiser.

If you say so.

Or it could just be that the idea of taking some personal responsibility for one's own safety is being bred out of us.

TheDemonLord

26th November 2019, 08:46

If you say so.

Or it could just be that the idea of taking some personal responsibility for one's own safety is being bred out of us.

It's not my Say-So, the people that advocate for it aren't shy about talking about their real intentions.

pritch

26th November 2019, 11:44

The young lady’s behaviour can be regarded as “normal” she was away from home and keen to let her hair down. A tragic ending. I felt sorry for her parents having to sit through that trial.

We had a blip in the abortion stats a while back, the Asian students out from under parental supervision for the first time in their life and unaware of the risks or precautions were getting caught out.

Katman

26th November 2019, 11:48

The young lady’s behaviour can be regarded as “normal” she was away from home and keen to let her hair down.

I'm not so sure that asking a complete stranger to strangle you while you're having sex could be considered normal - let alone sensible.

TheDemonLord

26th November 2019, 12:02

I'm not so sure that asking a complete stranger to strangle you while you're having sex could be considered normal - let alone sensible.

You've not lived ;)

Katman

26th November 2019, 12:06

You've not lived ;)

Probably rather poor taste considering the subject matter.

TheDemonLord

26th November 2019, 12:25

Probably rather poor taste considering the subject matter.

Are you accusing me of having good Taste?

I thought we'd been over it.

jasonu

26th November 2019, 13:42

The young lady’s behaviour can be regarded as “normal” she was away from home and keen to let her hair down. .

If you regard strangulation during sex with a nearly complete stranger normal they you are one sick fucker.

TheDemonLord

26th November 2019, 13:45

If you regard strangulation during sex with a nearly complete stranger normal they you are one sick fucker.

I regard it as Awesome.

I'm surprised at the amount of Prudes here.

johcar

26th November 2019, 13:48

If you regard strangulation during sex with a nearly complete stranger normal they you are one sick fucker.Isn't everything done between consenting adults "normal"?

Any other opinion is surely a purely subjective viewpoint, based on the morals/upbringing of the opinion holder...

Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk

Paul in NZ

26th November 2019, 13:51

Believe it or not I totally see Katmans point of view here. Just because a technology enables us to do things faster (meet new people etc) it does not mean the usual precautions shouldn't be taken. We often hear how teenagers brains are not fully formed etc etc but really is this true? Or maybe its just the way we live now has removed risk from our everyday lives that youth does not recognise trouble when they see it… Its a bit like a defensive driving course isn't it - looking at situations and thinking hmmm what could possibly go wrong here...

Having said that – his step brother described him as a sociopath and as a species they are not only very dangerous but initially charming. I wonder how many CEO’s have been hired at the first interview much to the employees regret later??

As for the ‘rough sex’ argument.. Only two people ever knew what was discussed and agreed to that night and one of them is not saying much. I would suggest that the defence team, had they chosen to, could have taken the low road and bought up his history in similar depth but I suppose they were confident enough in his conviction they didn’t need to. I also suspect that it would be almost impossible to accidentally kill someone via sex to the point where they were leaking blood and again they didn’t belabour the point.

I agree that agreeing to sex on the first date was unwise BUT we will never know what was said between them. Maybe she just wanted plain old sex first and work up to the other stuff later. Ie assuming she asked him for it is a big assumption. (by asking I mean in their discussions beforehand)

Either way – I hope the prick rots in jail.

ps - I didn't think much of the sensationalist reporting either...

Katman

26th November 2019, 14:22

I agree that agreeing to sex on the first date was unwise BUT we will never know what was said between them. Maybe she just wanted plain old sex first and work up to the other stuff later. Ie assuming she asked him for it is a big assumption. (by asking I mean in their discussions beforehand)

The thing that makes the strangulation aspect appear to be consensual, is the fact that evidence was submitted that Grace had no injuries that would suggest she was fighting the guy off.

Paul in NZ

26th November 2019, 14:34

The thing that makes the strangulation aspect appear to be consensual, is the fact that evidence was submitted that Grace had no injuries that would suggest she was fighting the guy off.

That could have happened in a variety of ways...

Katman

26th November 2019, 14:39

That could have happened in a variety of ways...

Combined with the fact that one of Grace's friends gave evidence that she was interested in strangulation during sex only adds to the probability that it was consensual.

Paul in NZ

26th November 2019, 14:52

Combined with the fact that one of Grace's friends gave evidence that she was interested in strangulation during sex only adds to the probability that it was consensual.

Pretty sure that the fatal bit wasn't consensual….

'Rough' is a sliding scale as is strangulation. Like I said, no one knows what was agreed to BUT it sure went way over the reasonable limit. Its like you offer to take me on your katana for a quick spin down to a local café and we have a wee spill. Oops... Sorry - however you decide to go the long way and open it up and we fall off at 250kph... (actually its not like that at all but you get my drift)

Its not really worth worrying about now of course other than a legal precedent has been set...

Katman

26th November 2019, 15:00

Pretty sure that the fatal bit wasn't consensual….

Really Paul? I thought you were capable of a somewhat more rational discussion than that. Clearly I was wrong.

FJRider

26th November 2019, 15:10

Pretty sure that the fatal bit wasn't consensual….

'Rough' is a sliding scale as is strangulation. Like I said, no one knows what was agreed to BUT it sure went way over the reasonable limit. Its like you offer to take me on your katana for a quick spin down to a local café and we have a wee spill. Oops... Sorry - however you decide to go the long way and open it up and we fall off at 250kph... (actually its not like that at all but you get my drift)

I too doubt if the fatal bit was consensual ... but like in your comparison with the katana ... he had ample time and opportunity to slow down (even if you were enjoying it), but chose not to. HE was in control ... hence he was found guilty of murder ... not manslaughter.

250 km/hr ... now you're just being silly ... <_<

FJRider

26th November 2019, 15:15

... Clearly I was wrong.

An admission of guilt ?? are you unwell .. ??? :eek:

Better delete your post before Husa uses it in his signature ...

Paul in NZ

26th November 2019, 19:27

Really Paul? I thought you were capable of a somewhat more rational discussion than that. Clearly I was wrong.

Oh golly are you still trotting out the old I thought you were better than that bollocks??? Good grief - thats actually a little sad and leads me to think others posting here are correct..

Yes - its actually an important point... If she was as reported interested in aspects of BDSM the foundation is safe sane and consentual. She would have consented to some actions and it went way further than that hence the murder conviction

Katman

26th November 2019, 20:18

She would have consented to some actions and it went way further than that hence the murder conviction

Don't be ridiculous Paul. I'm not questioning the murder conviction.

I'm questioning whether there is legitimate reason to believe that the death could have been avoided with better attention to something called personal responsibility.

Perhaps you could try addressing that issue rationally?

Murray

26th November 2019, 20:28

I'm not so sure that asking a complete stranger to strangle you while you're having sex could be considered normal - let alone sensible.

where did it come out she asked him to strangle her?

Katman

26th November 2019, 21:38

where did it come out she asked him to strangle her?

Probably around the same time it was submitted in evidence that she had asked her ex to do the same thing to her.

TheDemonLord

27th November 2019, 07:54

Paul in NZ

27th November 2019, 08:27

Don't be ridiculous Paul. I'm not questioning the murder conviction.

I'm questioning whether there is legitimate reason to believe that the death could have been avoided with better attention to something called personal responsibility.

Perhaps you could try addressing that issue rationally?

Nope - your argument is flawed. With hindsight there is always a point on the timeline when every murder or accidental death could have been avoided if someone had made a different decision or taken personal responsibility. Say a dead prostitute is found floating in a river. Obviously she wasn't expecting that to happen and has met up with a murderer instead of a usual business transaction. Had she made a better decision earlier or made the rational decision that being a prostitute is hazardous then the murder might not have happened. That's not a defence for murder much like provocation isn't because we don't have 'degrees of murder' in NZ its a pretty binary decision.

If you are driving a truck and someone does a you turn (or something equally mental) in front of you at a distance where you could easily stop in time or avoid them but instead you decide to teach them a lesson and speed up and run them down and kill them they you have effectively murdered that person. Yes they did something silly but you took advantage of that. The same applies for say a scam - the scammer cannot use 'oh they should have known better so its the victims fault' as a defence.

Yes she placed herself in a dangerous situation. But she had reasonable hope that it would be safe if the other party acted in a reasonable fashion. My belief is that he took advantage of the situation and went way too far. His subsequent actions show a staggering lack of empathy and its 100% reasonable to consider that as a factor leading to her death.

Hes taken advantage of a lapse in her part to commit this crime albeit he might not have a preformed intention to commit murder. I 100% believe he knew what he was doing and he would do it again in a flash if given the same chance.

Katman

27th November 2019, 08:30

That's not a defence for murder much like provocation isn't because we don't have 'degrees of murder' in NZ its a pretty binary decision.

On one hand you say you totally see my point of view and then in the next breath you make it perfectly clear that you don't have a clue what my point is.

I'm not defending Grace Millane's murderer.

jasonu

27th November 2019, 11:03

Nope - your argument is flawed. With hindsight there is always a point on the timeline when every murder or accidental death could have been avoided if someone had made a different decision or taken personal responsibility. Say a dead prostitute is found floating in a river. Obviously she wasn't expecting that to happen and has met up with a murderer instead of a usual business transaction. Had she made a better decision earlier or made the rational decision that being a prostitute is hazardous then the murder might not have happened. That's not a defence for murder much like provocation isn't because we don't have 'degrees of murder' in NZ its a pretty binary decision.

If you are driving a truck and someone does a you turn (or something equally mental) in front of you at a distance where you could easily stop in time or avoid them but instead you decide to teach them a lesson and speed up and run them down and kill them they you have effectively murdered that person. Yes they did something silly but you took advantage of that. The same applies for say a scam - the scammer cannot use 'oh they should have known better so its the victims fault' as a defence.

Yes she placed herself in a dangerous situation. But she had reasonable hope that it would be safe if the other party acted in a reasonable fashion. My belief is that he took advantage of the situation and went way too far. His subsequent actions show a staggering lack of empathy and its 100% reasonable to consider that as a factor leading to her death.

Hes taken advantage of a lapse in her part to commit this crime albeit he might not have a preformed intention to commit murder. I 100% believe he knew what he was doing and he would do it again in a flash if given the same chance.

Most of your post is agreeing with the op.

Paul in NZ

27th November 2019, 11:46

Most of your post is agreeing with the op.

Yes …………………

FJRider

27th November 2019, 14:16

I'm questioning whether there is legitimate reason to believe that the death could have been avoided with better attention to something called personal responsibility.

I wonder how many times that thought goes through the mind of any Judge, that is dealing with a case involving one (or more) death(s). Regardless of the manner of activity involved.

Many motorcyclists have died because of that very thing.

If "Lack of personal responsibility" is the basis of a guilty verdict in a murder case in a Court of Law ... could a "Murder" verdict be applied in a case of death on the roads ... if "Lack of personal responsibility" was found to be involved ... ???

Banditbandit

27th November 2019, 14:38

TheDemonLord

27th November 2019, 14:45

What no-one here has said - or noticed - was that the killer took photographs of her dead body while it was lying in the bed .

That is not the actions of someone who is normal - nor of someone who is upset adn in shock because his (consenting) sexual partner has just died during the act .

Not Normal?

Hunters have been taking pictures of them and their Prey since they could.

I suggest it's more normal than we perhaps care to admit.

Banditbandit

27th November 2019, 14:46

Not Normal?

Hunters have been taking pictures of them and their Prey since they could.

I suggest it's more normal than we perhaps care to admit.

Maybe normal for psychotic serial killers ....

Oh - maybe that is why he's got name suppression - he's about to be tried for other killings ...

Banditbandit

27th November 2019, 14:48

Not Normal?

Hunters have been taking pictures of them and their Prey since they could.

I suggest it's more normal than we perhaps care to admit.

And I'm not impressed by your labeling Grace Millane as "prey" ..

Katman

27th November 2019, 14:58

What no-one here has said - or noticed - was that the killer took photographs of her dead body while it was lying in the bed .

Some of us here are well aware of the details of the case.

As I've already pointed out, the guy went out on another date the next night after disposing of Grace's body.

That's not 'normal' either.

TheDemonLord

27th November 2019, 15:09

And I'm not impressed by your labeling Grace Millane as "prey" ..

Why? It is not a slight on her or her misfortune in meeting the scumbag and her untimely death.

We are happy to talk about people like that as 'Predators' - so why the sudden aversion to pointing out the Obvious?

He did what he did and felt no remorse, his actions after that (accepting those per-requisites) are entirely normal.

He took a picture with the end result of an action he was proud of in the same way that a Mechanic might take a picture of a repair that went well or a builder might take a picture of a House they built or an IT Tech take a screenshot of some elegant Code they have written.

Going off to find the next 'project' is again, entirely rational given those conditions. This is not condoning them (as if I should have to state that) but to portray his actions after the crime as not normal when in fact they are very normal (if you accept he's likely a psychopath and feels no more connection to the victim than you or I feel to an inanimate object).

Murray

27th November 2019, 19:41

Probably around the same time it was submitted in evidence that she had asked her ex to do the same thing to her.

"probably" so you have made the comment that she asked to be strangled and when questioned when did she do this you state "probably". Why state something when you dont know!!!
You dont know, Again what a tosser

merv

27th November 2019, 21:53

Some of us here are well aware of the details of the case.

As I've already pointed out, the guy went out on another date the next night after disposing of Grace's body.

That's not 'normal' either.

Didn't he actually go out on the next date the very day she was still lying dead in his room before he managed to dispose of her and then told the wacky story to the date about someone he had heard of that was going to prison for manslaughter?

trustme

29th November 2019, 18:16

He was sacked from a previous job foe sexual harassment. None of the females would be alone with him, they did not feel safe, even the guys were creeped out .

Paul in NZ

29th November 2019, 18:18

He was sacked from a previous job foe sexual harassment. None of the females would be alone with him, they did not feel safe, even the guys were creeped out .

never met the guy and im creeped out

Katman

1st December 2019, 07:36

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/117672156/breach-of-suppression-orders-in-nz-will-be-punished--little

I wonder if anyone was astute enough to take a screenshot? :whistle:

oldrider

1st December 2019, 08:08

"If somebody in New Zealand goes on social media and publishes details that are suppressed, that's a matter of contempt of court in New Zealand. We've already got the power to deal with that and I understand authorities will be looking at situations where that has happened in the last couple of days."

Anyone who breaks the law in New Zealand could face a fine of up to $25,000 or six months in jail. - - Knock knock who's there? :Police: - Not home he's in the sin bin. :msn-wink:

Mr. Peanut

1st December 2019, 10:14

..................................

jasonu

1st December 2019, 11:02

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/117672156/breach-of-suppression-orders-in-nz-will-be-punished--little

I wonder if anyone was astute enough to take a screenshot? :whistle:

Shame they didn't see berks little link.

Katman

20th December 2019, 16:37

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/grace-millane-murder-man-charged-with-breaching-killer-suppression-order/ar-BBYb5iB?ocid=spartandhp

Drew

20th December 2019, 17:23

Few posts in here border on victim blaming. But I doubt anyone here understands that.

jasonu

20th December 2019, 18:11

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/grace-millane-murder-man-charged-with-breaching-killer-suppression-order/ar-BBYb5iB?ocid=spartandhp

KB is lucky the fuzz didn't spot Husabergs link to the blokes name.
I still can't figure why he wasn't booted for doing that.

HenryDorsetCase

20th December 2019, 19:24

Few posts in here border on victim blaming. But I doubt anyone here understands that.

"Border or" my arse. It is overt, and disgusting.

Katman

20th December 2019, 19:42

"Border or" my arse. It is overt, and disgusting.

So at what point does it become acceptable for a person to be absolved of any responsibility for their own safety?

TheDemonLord

20th December 2019, 20:21

So at what point does it become acceptable for a person to be absolved of any responsibility for their own safety?

When they are Wahmenses, who are Simultaneously strong and independent yet also the victim.

Katman

20th December 2019, 20:24

When they are Wahmenses, who are Simultaneously strong and independent yet also the victim.

Brutal - but very to the point.

Katman

20th December 2019, 20:42

And that raises another question.....

How different has the response been to Grace Millane's case to that of Peter Plumley-Walker's?

I distinctly remember there being far more snide jokes about his sexuality than any real expressions of sympathy.

pritch

20th December 2019, 20:44

Some people who would deny victim blaming might claim that they were instead discussing situational awareness. Who knows but that there may be some simple minded soul actually believed that?

As for the name of the accused "leaking". It would seem that some New Zealand judges rather overestimate their importance. The rest of the world don't give a shit what some judge at the other end of the earth orders. None of which is to say I disagree with the court orders, it's just that the orders are "locals only" but the judges don't quite seem to have grasped that as yet.

It's high time the whole name suppression thing was reviewed and used much more sparingly anyway. If it's pointless why persist?

Katman

20th December 2019, 20:48

Some people who would deny victim blaming might claim that they were instead discussing situational awareness.

Well spotted.

husaberg

20th December 2019, 21:34

I reminder distinctly there being more snide jokes

Do you.................:whistle:
343966
"guzza klue dudde, rimimders distinketly whut u rembers":psst:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23SVHUPrUJ4

There were a great number of differences with the cases.
One was murder
One was not.
One had three trials one being a mistrial, one a hung jury and the third an acquittal.
One did not.
One was where a young female with her life ahead of her died by murder.
One was not.
One was a young tourist here from another country to travel the world.
One was not.
One was the center of an intensive week long highly published search of NZ.
One was not.

FJRider

21st December 2019, 19:07

So at what point does it become acceptable for a person to be absolved of any responsibility for their own safety?

So at what point does it become acceptable for a person to be absolved from others safety ??

TheDemonLord

22nd December 2019, 11:44

So at what point does it become acceptable for a person to be absolved from others safety ??

Unless that person has explicitly agreed to be responsible for someone elses safety...

Because you are the only person that you have direct control over.

FJRider

22nd December 2019, 18:11

Unless that person has explicitly agreed to be responsible for someone elses safety...

Because you are the only person that you have direct control over.

So ... if you can see someone is having a life threatening issue, and you can take measures to prevent loss of life (or injury) ... THEY have to agree to it before you are allowed to do anything .. ??

Responsibility is a double edged sword. A sort of "It's not my problem ... or is it" situation. If it was YOU really needing URGENT help ... would you remember to give "Explicit" permission ... ???

It is not about "Control" over anybody ... but your actions have influence on events you did not initiate ... positively OR negatively.

Simple actions can save a life. For example ... relaxing a grip on your throat ... might save a life ... :shifty:

BMWST?

22nd December 2019, 19:42

i would think that it would be unreasonable to expect that you re going to be killed in a "normal" social situation.Injured maybe or robbed or maybe beaten up but killed?
we are perhaps a kinda litmus test here...is it reasonable that we DONT ride our motorbikes anymore ?

Katman

23rd December 2019, 04:59

i would think that it would be unreasonable to expect that you re going to be killed in a "normal" social situation.Injured maybe or robbed or maybe beaten up but killed?

Surely you're not suggesting that asking someone you only met that day to choke you while having sex is a "normal" social situation.

FJRider

23rd December 2019, 06:21

Surely you're not suggesting that asking someone you only met that day to choke you while having sex is a "normal" social situation.

There has been males (on this site) that ask other males to suck his cock.

Is that a "normal" social situation/expectation ... ??

Actually ... for some ... it is/was.

In BOTH cases ... :shifty:

Katman

23rd December 2019, 07:10

There has been males (on this site) that ask other males to suck his cock.

Is that a "normal" social situation/expectation ... ??

That's quite some fixation you've got going there.

husaberg

23rd December 2019, 08:09

That's quite some fixation you've got going there.

Really he said it once, I "reminder distinctly" you did it likely over a hundred times to many different people, methinks its you that has the fixation dude.
Nor was it the first time you mentioned a apparent fixation of yourself engaged in an homosexual activity. Nor was it the first or even 5th dude you claimed was fixated on you.
Which brings us to what does it have to do with the thread subject why dont you answer the premse he presented to you. Or is it he just got you good and you are a little embarrassed about it?

pritch

23rd December 2019, 08:30

Surely you're not suggesting that asking someone you only met that day to choke you while having sex is a "normal" social situation.

When it comes to sex who defines what's normal? Other than US politicians of course, they seem unaturally fixated on what everybody else is doing in their bedroom.

Katman

23rd December 2019, 08:56

When it comes to sex who defines what's normal?

Well I would suggest that asking someone who you only met that day to choke you while having sex is foolhardy in the extreme - even if you're prepared to consider it 'normal'.

Drew

23rd December 2019, 10:28

Well I would suggest that asking someone who you only met that day to choke you while having sex is foolhardy in the extreme - even if you're prepared to consider it 'normal'.

It's not uncommon. And how is it foolhardy? I trust that anyone choking me were I to ask, would have the self control to stop when I stopped responding.

I think it is 100% acceptable to expect everyone to stop choking a person in time for them to not die. Strangling someone is not as easy as it looks in the movies, it takes a fucking long time and a massive commitment.

Katman

23rd December 2019, 10:30

It's not uncommon. And how is it foolhardy? I trust that anyone choking me were I to ask, would have the self control to stop when I stopped responding.

What part of "someone who you only met that day" don't you understand Drew?

oldrider

23rd December 2019, 11:01

It's not uncommon. And how is it foolhardy? I trust that anyone choking me were I to ask, would have the self control to stop when I stopped responding.

I think it is 100% acceptable to expect everyone to stop choking a person in time for them to not die. Strangling someone is not as easy as it looks in the movies, it takes a fucking long time and a massive commitment.

Hmmm - how do you know that? - :shit:

Drew

23rd December 2019, 12:03

What part of "someone who you only met that day" don't you understand Drew?
I fully understand, and it's perfectly reasonable to expect someone to take part in risque sex play without them killing you.

Hmmm - how do you know that? - :shit:
I know some people who like it, and had a girlfriend that liked it. I wasn't very good at doing the choking though, felt a bit 'rapey' to me.

Katman

23rd December 2019, 13:11

I fully understand

I don't think you do Drew.

If you really think it's wise to ask (what amounts to) a total stranger to choke you, then please, do so more often.

We might get lucky one day.

oldrider

23rd December 2019, 13:22

I know some people who like it, and had a girlfriend that liked it. I wasn't very good at doing the choking though, felt a bit 'rapey' to me.

Fair nuff Drew - :lol: - I bow to greater life experience - I prefer live and lively chicks (old chook these days) than something half dead - :laugh:

Drew

23rd December 2019, 13:32

I don't think you do Drew.

If you really think it's wise to ask (what amounts to) a total stranger to choke you, then please, do so more often.

We might get lucky one day.

No, you just dont understand that there is no difference in trust between asking someone to choke you and someone just doing it anyway.

Katman

23rd December 2019, 13:34

No, you just dont understand that there is no difference in trust between asking someone to choke you and someone just doing it anyway.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

It is the sheer stupidity of asking a total stranger to choke you that I am questioning.

Drew

23rd December 2019, 15:18

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

It is the sheer stupidity of asking a total stranger to choke you that I am questioning.
If someone is hooking up with someone they dont know, there is no difference in trust.

Furthermore. Someone with that goal in mind is likely interested in actually enjoying themselves. At least, I hope so.

Katman

23rd December 2019, 15:24

If someone is hooking up with someone they dont know, there is no difference in trust.

I'll say this slowly so you can understand it Drew.

It..is..not..wise..to..ask..a..total..stranger..to ..choke..you.

If you can't understand that, then you're beyond help.

pritch

23rd December 2019, 15:29

It is not wise to ask a total stranger to choke you.

You might think that, and I might think that. Obviously though, some people see it differently.

sidecar bob

23rd December 2019, 15:39

I'll say this slowly so you can understand it Drew.

It..is..not..wise..to..ask..a..total..stranger..to ..choke..you.

If you can't understand that, then you're beyond help.

Some people seek dangerous, or perceived dangerous activities in order to stimulate their senses, in short, thrill seek.
Is it wise to hang on to the side of a 200hp machine operated by another & race around city streets surrounded by 20 other similar machines, some being operated by complete fuckwits?
I'd say clearly not, but in order to live, some need to look their own mortality in the eye.
I know more people that have been killed street racing sidecars, than strangled to death in the throes of passion.

Katman

23rd December 2019, 15:49

You might think that, and I might think that.

And furthermore, I'd say it's even less wise for a woman to ask a male, who is a total stranger to her, to choke her.

But yes, clearly there are fucking idiots out there who think differently.

austingtir

23rd December 2019, 15:53

And furthermore, I'd say it's even less wise for a woman to ask a male, who is a total stranger to her, to choke her.

But yes, clearly there are fucking idiots out there who think differently.

I agree. At some point people need to wake up to reality.

BMWST?

23rd December 2019, 17:12

Surely you're not suggesting that asking someone you only met that day to choke you while having sex is a "normal" social situation.
Just because you dont think its normal doesnt mean to say it isnt normal for another group.My premise is that just because you are expecting some rough sex doesnt necessarily equate to life tthreatening scenarios

Katman

23rd December 2019, 17:16

My premise is that just because you are expecting some rough sex doesnt necessarily equate to life tthreatening scenarios

You sound as clueless as Drew.

I'm pointing out that it can hardly be considered wise for a woman to willfully engage in 'rough sex' (that includes choking) with a male she doesn't know from a bar of soap.

If you can't understand that, go sit in the corner with Drew.

TheDemonLord

23rd December 2019, 18:35

So ... if you can see someone is having a life threatening issue, and you can take measures to prevent loss of life (or injury) ... THEY have to agree to it before you are allowed to do anything .. ??

Responsibility is a double edged sword. A sort of "It's not my problem ... or is it" situation. If it was YOU really needing URGENT help ... would you remember to give "Explicit" permission ... ???

It is not about "Control" over anybody ... but your actions have influence on events you did not initiate ... positively OR negatively.

Simple actions can save a life. For example ... relaxing a grip on your throat ... might save a life ... :shifty:

So your example isn't correct, given what I said.

If I can see someone having a life threatening issue and I can fix it, there is no obligation that I have to them unless I've explicitly agreed to it.

To that end, my libertarian point of view says that I'd be entirely within my rights to put my feet up, crack open a cold one and watch.

However, to get into the nuance - would I do that? Hell no! I've certainly raced to help people in need previously and I don't forsee that is likely to change - however that is a choice I make for myself, free of any external obligation.

From that point, I would hope that a degree of reciprocation would occur if it was the other way round and I was the one up shit creek, but again - I'm the only one I have direct control over and I have no right to demand someone else do anything.

Circling this back to the issue at hand, Since you are the only person that you can control - putting yourself in a position where you are being choked by someone you don't know and you have no way of getting out of the situation once it starts is not wise. Making someone else responsible for your safety, unless they have explicitly stated so and you've got a reasonable degree of certainty that they will, is also not wise.

Now, this standard of behaviour applies equally, to everyone - As I've stated in this thread, I'm very okay with mutually consenting adults engaging in all sorts of Slap and Tickle, right up to whatever Fetish or deviance takes their fancy - And generally those that partake invest a large amount of time in assessing risk and safety. In this instance, it is an objective statement that certain precautions weren't taken.

This does not mean that this absolves the Killer of anything, nor does it mean that even if the victim had taken all precautions, that they same outcome wouldn't have occurred.

It is simply to say that there were actions that the Victim took which seem to in part have contributed to her fate, and that whilst the world should be in such a way that we don't have to take precautions against the nefarious actions of others, it is reality that we do.

Whether that be a Locked Door, Full Leathers, backing down from a physical confrontation, not taking a shortcut, or forgoing an evening tryst.

Katman

23rd December 2019, 18:38

To that end, my libertarian point of view says that I'd be entirely within my rights to put my feet up, crack open a cold one and watch.

And that's why we'll never see eye to eye.

Show me a libertarian that has ever given that slightest suggestion.

TheDemonLord

23rd December 2019, 18:57

And that's why we'll never see eye to eye.

Show me a libertarian that has ever given that slightest suggestion.

It's the logical conclusion of there being no obligation to intervene - If there is an obligation, then in order for it to mean something, it must be enforced - whether that be by the State, Social Stigma etc. etc. The Libertarian position is fundamentally to have the smallest number of obligations and impositions on oneself as possible or reasonable.

I feel I was quite clear to state that whilst I don't believe in any obligation and I definitely wouldn't want the State to intervene for inaction (or conscious non-action) - in all the situations I've come across where someone was in need - I've jumped in, almost instinctively.

Edit:

To perhaps make it clearer: It's not that I wouldn't help, It's that I don't want to be forced to help.

Katman

23rd December 2019, 19:07

Edit:

To perhaps make it clearer: It's not that I wouldn't help, It's that I don't want to be forced to help.

That doesn't change the fact that your view of Libertarianism is grossly skewed.

FJRider

23rd December 2019, 20:09

That's quite some fixation you've got going there.

You seemed to have quite a fixation going at the time ... :shifty:

FJRider

23rd December 2019, 20:30

So your example isn't correct, given what I said.

Just because you said it (and possibly even believe it) does not make it true.

Obligations exist outside the legal framework.

TheDemonLord

23rd December 2019, 20:43

Just because you said it (and possibly even believe it) does not make it true.

Obligations exist outside the legal framework.

Do they?

That's a rather bold claim.

Who is the Arbiter of these Obligations to which you speak of, what is the penalty for failure to adhere? What are the circumstances around when they are applicable?

But to head this off at the pass - you are talking about Society expectations, however - those are neither universal nor enforced.

And you'll note a key difference in wording - Obligation vs Expectation.

TheDemonLord

23rd December 2019, 20:49

That doesn't change the fact that your view of Libertarianism is grossly skewed.

That depends on which strain of Libertarianism you view it from - most however place an emphasis on personal autonomy and the right for the individual to choose as opposed to the State or other institution to choose for you.

Thus my summation of 'It's not that I wouldn't help, It's that I don't want to be forced to help.' is entirely in line with Libertarian thought, since it is based upon my right to choose to help or not.

Of course, I should point out that I'm not an absolute Libertarian - in case you want to bring up other positions that I hold.

tigertim20

23rd December 2019, 21:27

FJRider

23rd December 2019, 21:27

Do they?

That's a rather bold claim.

Who is the Arbiter of these Obligations to which you speak of, what is the penalty for failure to adhere? What are the circumstances around when they are applicable?

But to head this off at the pass - you are talking about Society expectations, however - those are neither universal nor enforced.

And you'll note a key difference in wording - Obligation vs Expectation.

Nope, just a simple moral obligation.

Probably not something you'd be aware of in it's basic form. Helping those that need and WANT help ... ;)

Not about control, simply just helping. And usually, not even life threatening to the helper.

Laava

23rd December 2019, 22:18

Are you being deliberately obtuse?.

Holy fuck! Irony overload! Someone call a smelter!

Katman

24th December 2019, 06:12

I cant see that letting a stranger choke you poses any more inherent danger than inviting a 'stranger' to have sex with you in the first place.

Then go and sit in the corner with Drew.

Drew

24th December 2019, 08:01

I cant see that letting a stranger choke you poses any more inherent danger than inviting a 'stranger' to have sex with you in the first place.

Then go and sit in the corner with Drew.
Is this corner the place where logical thinking happens?

husaberg

24th December 2019, 08:33

Is this corner the place where logical thinking happens?

Hey Drew you will notice that stevo never used an example of man "trolling for good times George Michael style" at the taupo public toilets or randomly begging dudes for blowjobs as a example of risky behaviour iniviting dealth;)
Like hes trying to do with this thread, hes not interested in the facts only his normal baiting for troll. What katman is tying to do is recreate the persona cassina. Someone he deeply admired and shared so many attributes with.

MaxPenguin

24th December 2019, 09:01

Hey Drew you will notice that stevo never used an example of man "trolling for good times George Michael style" at the taupo public toilets or randomly begging dudes for blowjobs as a example of risky behaviour iniviting dealth;)
Like hes trying to do with this thread, hes not interested in the facts only his normal baiting for troll. What katman is tying to do is recreate the persona cassina. Someone he deeply admired and shared so many attributes with.

No he isn't. He is just stating that it isn't a very sensible thing to do asking a total stranger to choke you. He isn't saying that she deserved to be murdered. You are coming up with that part all by yourself.

sidecar bob

24th December 2019, 09:21

No he isn't. He is just stating that it isn't a very sensible thing to do asking a total stranger to choke you. He isn't saying that she deserved to be murdered. You are coming up with that part all by yourself.

Yes, and he made his position on that quite clear many many posts ago, and I'm sure most aren't denying him the right to that opinion.
Yet he continues to push his views on others, expecting them to bow to his superior opinion.
Very much the same as the anti vax thread.
No wisdom has ever entered a brain through an open mouth.

MaxPenguin

24th December 2019, 09:23

Yes, and he made his position on that quite clear many many posts ago, and I'm sure most aren't denying him the right to that opinion.
Yet he continues to push his views on others, expecting them to bow to his superior opinion.
Very much the same as the anti vax thread.
No wisdom has ever entered a brain through an open mouth.
Pretty sure he stated his view once, then subsequent posts were correcting the assumptions made by the others.

Katman

24th December 2019, 09:36

Pretty sure he stated his view once, then subsequent posts were correcting the assumptions made by the others.

See how easy it is to understand what someone is saying when one doesn't let personal animosity cloud ones judgement.

sidecar bob

24th December 2019, 09:53

Pretty sure he stated his view once, then subsequent posts were correcting the assumptions made by the others.

Correcting assumptions, or refusing to accept their is an acceptable view other than his own?

sidecar bob

24th December 2019, 09:57

See how easy it is to understand what someone is saying when one doesn't let personal animosity cloud ones judgement.

I have no personal animosity towards yourself, however it does frustrate me that you have no interest in considering the viewpoint of another in the slightest.
Fortunately I'm not in a position of spending my life posting on here to validate my existence, so not particularly concerned what goes down really.

MaxPenguin

24th December 2019, 09:57

Correcting assumptions, or refusing to accept their is an acceptable view other than his own?

Not what has been happening from what I can see.

Katman

24th December 2019, 10:06

Correcting assumptions, or refusing to accept their is an acceptable view other than his own?

So which view do you take?

Is it wise for a woman to ask a male who she has only known for a few hours of drinking time to choke her while they're having sex?

husaberg

24th December 2019, 10:17

No he isn't. He is just stating that it isn't a very sensible thing to do asking a total stranger to choke you. He isn't saying that she deserved to be murdered. You are coming up with that part all by yourself.

Is asking random blokes to suck you cock is that sensible?
In your opinion a sensible thing to do to get a stranger to ram their penis up your rectum., Because neither seem that sensible to me, but Steve has no issues with either.
What about walking at night in a city, is that sensible?
Or killing someone you just met on tinder and there is video and electronic evidence of you being the last to see her alive is that sensible?
What about googling ways to dispose of bodies just prior to disposing of a body.
I do find it great you have been here for a couple of weeks and instantly are Katmans "best friend" its kind of sweet.
Its kind of odd though you show up at the exact same time as bonez and live in the same place.
i wonder how long it is before the site administrator to check yours URLs againd current other users.

sidecar bob

24th December 2019, 10:18

So which view do you take?

Is it wise for a woman to ask a male who she has only known for a few hours of drinking time to choke her while they're having sex?

Is it wise to walk on an active volcano with someone you met that day, is it wise to parachute jump? Is it wise to swim with sharks? Is it wise to do backflips off a ramp on a dirt bike?
As I said earlier, humans are wired for thrill seeking. None of that stuff is particularly smart & has potential to end in disaster.
Having someone choke you in the sack isint smart either, but as best I can grasp, this is not an isolated incident & by all accounts can be very exciting until it all goes pear shaped, much like the other activities I listed as basic comparisons.

MaxPenguin

24th December 2019, 10:30

Is asking random blokes to suck you cock is that sensible?
In your opinion a sensible thing to do to get a stranger to ram their penis up your rectum., Because neither seem that sensible to me, but Steve has no issues with either.
What about walking at night in a city, is that sensible?
Or killing someone you just met on tinder and there is video and electronic evidence of you being the last to see her alive is that sensible?
What about googling ways to dispose of bodies just prior to disposing of a body.
I do find it great you have been here for a couple of weeks and instantly are Katmans "best friend" its kind of sweet.
Its kind of odd though you show up at the exact same time as bonez and live in the same place.
i wonder how long it is before the site administrator to check yours URLs againd current other users.

Sorry, don't know of his cocksucking requests, but they probably aren't sensible. but he can do what he likes, just like Grace Milane. He wasn't saying she shouldn't do it, just asking the question if it was sensible or not. How can you not get that?

Katman

24th December 2019, 10:52

Sorry, don't know of his cocksucking requests, but they probably aren't sensible.

Except that telling someone to suck my cock, as a means of expressing my contempt for them, isn't really quite the same thing.

pritch

24th December 2019, 10:57

Is this corner the place where logical thinking happens?

Shot! :innocent:

husaberg

24th December 2019, 11:10

Except that telling someone to suck my cock, as a means of expressing my contempt for them, isn't really quite the same thing.

you seem to have "Contempt" for an extraordinary amount of heterosexual dudes
expressing contempt in the form of homosexual sexual begging indicated as you do indicates a deep seated repressed homosexual desires.
it also indicates you have no argument worth offering and have lost your ability to control your emotions.
You clearly have no interest in the facts of the milane case only your normal trolling for attention.

onearmedbandit

24th December 2019, 11:44

Katman

24th December 2019, 13:39

husaberg

24th December 2019, 13:48

For two guys who have obvious contempt and borderline hatred for each other, you both sure seem equally fixated on each other. Endless quoted posts, screenshots, signature references and reported posts. It's almost like a love affair.

You had a couple of pages with him the other day was that just foreplay?
I dont hate the guy, i feel sorry for him. He is not equipped to deal with his emotions

BMWST?

24th December 2019, 15:25

No he isn't. He is just stating that it isn't a very sensible thing to do asking a total stranger to choke you. He isn't saying that she deserved to be murdered. You are coming up with that part all by yourself.
not quite ,he is saying that she was (partly)responsible for her own death .Regardless of her sexual preferences i still maintain that death was not an expected outcome.I bet she didnt say choke me to death please

Katman

24th December 2019, 15:30

not quite ,he is saying that she was (partly)responsible for her own death .Regardless of her sexual preferences i still maintain that death was not an expected outcome.

I'm saying she didn't do much to try ensuring her safety.

I bet she didnt say choke me to death please

So where exactly is that cut off point?

BMWST?

24th December 2019, 16:10

I'm saying she didn't do much to try ensuring her safety.

So where exactly is that cut off point?

the cut of point is when you die.But she shouldnt have died.She died not because of her choice she died because the other party couldnt control himself,or actually murdered her.As i have said several times i reckon that is something NOT expected.
I consider this discussion over.You have your view,i have mine.

Katman

24th December 2019, 16:16

the cut of point is when you die.But she shouldnt have died.She died not because of her choice she died because the other party couldnt control himself,or actually murdered her.As i have said several times i reckon that is something NOT expected.
I consider this discussion over.You have your view,i have mine.

Do you think that maybe a skin full of piss may have muddied the cut off waters?

jasonu

24th December 2019, 17:04

a skin full of piss

I haven't heard that one since forever!!!

pritch

24th December 2019, 17:17

Do you think that maybe a skin full of piss may have muddied the cut off waters?

Possibly not. Last I saw he still had name suppression. The main reason that springs to mind as to why that might be is that he has another case in the pipeline. If true, and all eventually becomes clear, that might reduce the random nature of Ms Millane's demise.

With AIDS, herpes, and antibiotic resistant STDs, young ladies using Tinder and such are already playing Russian roulette to an extent. Her situation was already somewhat fraught, the choke thing a matter of degree rather than an on/off situation.

oldrider

24th December 2019, 17:26

Meanwhile she is still dead. - Nothing posted on KB is going to change that! - :mellow:

husaberg

24th December 2019, 17:27

Possibly not. Last I saw he still had name suppression. The main reason that springs to mind as to why that might be is that he has another case in the pipeline. If true, and all eventually becomes clear, that might reduce the random nature of Ms Millane's demise.

With AIDS, herpes, and antibiotic resistant STDs, young ladies using Tinder and such are already playing Russian roulette to an extent. Her situation was already somewhat fraught, the choke thing a matter of degree rather than an on/off situation.

Its also a mater of conjecture, just because its something she had done before there is not actual evidence to suggest its something she willingly asked for on this occasion, its solely reliant of the accused testimony, that it was willingly engaged with on her behalf on this occasion. Not only that the convicted murder was caught in a number of other lies.
For all we know he only choked her after she critiqued his small Willie
Also with the diseases men are just as likely to catch them of women as woman are to catch them off men.

Katman

24th December 2019, 19:31

Its also a mater of conjecture, just because its something she had done before there is not actual evidence to suggest its something she willingly asked for on this occasion, its solely reliant of the accused testimony, that it was willingly engaged with on her behalf on this occasion.

Except for the fact that no evidence was given to suggest that she put up any sort of struggle.

MaxPenguin

24th December 2019, 19:40

So all you guys on here with daughters would give them advice that it is perfectly fine in every way to ask a complete stranger to choke them for kicks?

Katman

24th December 2019, 19:41

So all you guys on here with daughters would give them advice that it is perfectly fine in every way to ask a complete stranger to choke them for kicks?

That's precisely the question I've been meaning to ask.

I'm not entirely sure but I think Drew has daughters.

I'll be keen to hear his answer.

pritch

24th December 2019, 20:04

Also with the diseases men are just as likely to catch them of women as woman are to catch them off men.

Apparently you have some reading to do. That is not always the case, especially with AIDS.

husaberg

24th December 2019, 20:08

Apparently you have some reading to do. That is not always the case, especially with AIDS.

i wasn't meaning the prevalence or likelihood only the fact the virus dont differentiate based on gender.

Katman

24th December 2019, 20:12

i wasn't meaning the prevalence or likelihood

Really? :scratch:

Also with the diseases men are just as likely to catch them of women as woman are to catch them off men.

FJRider

24th December 2019, 20:15

Except for the fact that no evidence was given to suggest that she put up any sort of struggle.

One might assume ... the ending of the event ... was not the one she anticipated ... ;)

As far as evidence goes ... or statements made ... only one person alive knows what actually happened.

Katman

24th December 2019, 20:18

One might assume ... the ending of the event ... was not the one she anticipated ...

I'm not questioning that at all.

I'm pointing out that the fact that she appears to have put up no struggle suggests that the choking was indeed consensual.

husaberg

24th December 2019, 20:23

Really? :scratch:

Maybe you need to have a look at what was posted. The fact you needed to edit what i posted proves your opinion has ZERO MERIT.

Katman

24th December 2019, 20:24

maybe you need to have a look at what was posted.

I did.

And I quoted it.

Drew

25th December 2019, 08:59

That's precisely the question I've been meaning to ask.

I'm not entirely sure but I think Drew has daughters.

I'll be keen to hear his answer.
I do have a daughter, and though I'd rather not think about her sex life I respect her right to enjoy it however she likes.

If either of my children are into that kind of thing, they can have at it.

As I've said, I was with a woman who liked it. We had sex the first night we went out. She had spoken about the stuff she liked, and yet I didnt kill her. Even though I had no experience in it.

Katman

25th December 2019, 10:03

I do have a daughter, and though I'd rather not think about her sex life I respect her right to enjoy it however she likes.

If either of my children are into that kind of thing, they can have at it.

As I've said, I was with a woman who liked it. We had sex the first night we went out. She had spoken about the stuff she liked, and yet I didnt kill her. Even though I had no experience in it.

And it shouldn't come as any surprise to you Drew that I don't see you as any sort of shining beacon of common sense.

husaberg

25th December 2019, 10:29

And it shouldn't come as any surprise to you Drew that I don't see you as any sort of shining beacon of common sense.

Your vast experience in parenthood consists of what Steve?
The same as your medical training? to which you previously claim to know more than medical professionals?
The same as your legal skills? to which you claim to have more knowledge of the law than a judge?
But now, you are expanding into parenthood and sex education of children, when you have no children nor educational training
I would suggest you stick to engines, but you couldn't even figure out the Geet engine was a fake that's hardy your forte either, maybe you should start a blog about narcissism.
So from now on how about you stick to the topic of the tread rather than just use it for a trolling platform.

TheDemonLord

25th December 2019, 18:32

Nope, just a simple moral obligation.

Probably not something you'd be aware of in it's basic form. Helping those that need and WANT help ... ;)

Not about control, simply just helping. And usually, not even life threatening to the helper.

You've merely restated that it's an obligation - with nothing to support it other than your say so. It may be YOUR moral obligation but it does not mean it is MY moral obligation - unless you can provide proof of a universal set of morals (and good luck with that...)

I'm not saying it's wrong to help people in need, nor am I saying I would refuse to help someone in need, nor am I saying that helping someone in need must not come at any risk to myself. In fact, I clearly stated that not only have I risked my safety to help people in need, but that it is also likely I would do so again.

What I am saying is that I do so of my own free will, as opposed to being compelled to do so by an external force, entity, organization or 3rd party.

Where this becomes relevant is that because I don't think people have an obligation for my safety, I take precautions to account for other people's stupidity and/or malice.

Perhaps the linchpin in this whole discussion is how many people here ride without any form of protection? Afterall, we've all passed our BST or similar, we are all competent enough to ride without dropping a bike in normal conditions right? So why spend $$$ on expensive safety gear, Other motorists should just look out for Bikes, right?

And whilst we may all agree that other Drivers OUGHT to look out for Motorcycles, we spend lots on safety gear because we know that we can't control other people and so we stack the deck as much as possible in our favor, not only with gear, but situational awareness, positioning etc.

Should someone die, completely, 100% in the legal right and the other party 100% at fault, if they weren't wearing gear, didn't demonstrate situational awareness or good road craft, we would say that these things were a causal factor (over which they had 100% control) in their demise and maybe had they been properly accounted for, the person may still be alive.

So too it is with Grace.

As an addendum - for those leaping, with shrieks of 'Victim Blaming' - consider this: it's the same standard I hold for myself and for others, regardless of Gender - isn't that true equality?

BMWST?

25th December 2019, 19:31

MaxPenguin

25th December 2019, 19:53

yet with all the care and gear in the world you could still be the victim of someones elses actions.despite all you care,positiong vihi viz,whatever you could wiped by a completley irattional illogical idotic manouvere .Is it your fault,no,did you take reasonable precations yes...this is ibeleive the equivlent of this argument.She was not to know she had hooked up with a nut job

Riding a motorcycle is not taking the best precautions whether you have good gear or not.

Grace should not have died, many factors contributed to her death.

FJRider

25th December 2019, 20:09

You've merely restated that it's an obligation - with nothing to support it other than your say so. It may be YOUR moral obligation but it does not mean it is MY moral obligation - unless you can provide proof of a universal set of morals (and good luck with that...)

I'm not saying it's wrong to help people in need, nor am I saying I would refuse to help someone in need, nor am I saying that helping someone in need must not come at any risk to myself. In fact, I clearly stated that not only have I risked my safety to help people in need, but that it is also likely I would do so again.

What I am saying is that I do so of my own free will, as opposed to being compelled to do so by an external force, entity, organization or 3rd party.

Where this becomes relevant is that because I don't think people have an obligation for my safety, I take precautions to account for other people's stupidity and/or malice.

Perhaps the linchpin in this whole discussion is how many people here ride without any form of protection? Afterall, we've all passed our BST or similar, we are all competent enough to ride without dropping a bike in normal conditions right? So why spend $$$ on expensive safety gear, Other motorists should just look out for Bikes, right?

And whilst we may all agree that other Drivers OUGHT to look out for Motorcycles, we spend lots on safety gear because we know that we can't control other people and so we stack the deck as much as possible in our favor, not only with gear, but situational awareness, positioning etc.

Should someone die, completely, 100% in the legal right and the other party 100% at fault, if they weren't wearing gear, didn't demonstrate situational awareness or good road craft, we would say that these things were a causal factor (over which they had 100% control) in their demise and maybe had they been properly accounted for, the person may still be alive.

So too it is with Grace.

As an addendum - for those leaping, with shrieks of 'Victim Blaming' - consider this: it's the same standard I hold for myself and for others, regardless of Gender - isn't that true equality?

The simple moral obligation to help can be in one of two ways ... give help where you are or GET help. No rule of law requires you to put your life at risk of death. Getting help is doing something. And better than doing nothing. Either choice is yours to make ...at the time.

As for safety gear, I've fallen off my bike in my own driveway. I've also fallen off in roadworks gravel on the way to the local Dairy for milk. Both with no other vehicle involved. If I was wearing shorts, t-shirt and jandals (as I have seen some do) I would have lost a bit of skin. The only damage was to my pride. I can live (excuse the pun) with that.

Saving lives does not always about putting YOUR life in danger ... knowing how to help is the key. What caused the event (blame is for others to figure out and apportion) is totally irrelevant and at the time not in the least bit important. I don't know why people are so quick to claim innocence ... it's always somebody else's fault. I've pulled a (still running)motorcycle off a guy after he crashed (single vehicle accident) and found he had two broken arms and the exhaust pipe was on his bare leg. A lot of blood leaking to ... but first things first. The only thing I risked was a hernia.

The term "victim" is over used ... everybody nowadays is somehow "The victim" ... :shifty:

Doing the right thing at the right time can save a life. I've done it in full riding gear and still with my helmet on ... with my bike leaning against a power pole ... And one guy much happier (but still in pain).

You have standards ... when did that happen .. :blink:

FJRider

25th December 2019, 20:17

Riding a motorcycle is not taking the best precautions whether you have good gear or not.

Grace should not have died, many factors contributed to her death.

According to the Jury ... one "factor" caused her death. He was found guilty. Next you'll be telling us it was suicide ... :shifty:

MaxPenguin

25th December 2019, 20:20

Your vast experience in parenthood consists of what Steve?
The same as your medical training? to which you previously claim to know more than medical professionals?
The same as your legal skills? to which you claim to have more knowledge of the law than a judge?
But now, you are expanding into parenthood and sex education of children, when you have no children nor educational training
I would suggest you stick to engines, but you couldn't even figure out the Geet engine was a fake that's hardy your forte either, maybe you should start a blog about narcissism.
So from now on how about you stick to the topic of the tread rather than just use it for a trolling platform.

Awkward............

MaxPenguin

25th December 2019, 20:22

According to the Jury ... one "factor" caused her death. He was found guilty. Next you'll be telling us it was suicide ... :shifty:

Get where your coming from but nah.

FJRider

25th December 2019, 20:34

Get where your coming from but nah.

The "Factors" you're thinking of wouldn't have helped her ... but they didn't contribute to her death.

She went into the room alone with him. She didn't walk out.

MaxPenguin

25th December 2019, 20:50

The "Factors" you're thinking of wouldn't have helped her ... but they didn't contribute to her death.

She went into the room alone with him. She didn't walk out.

Agreed.......

tigertim20

25th December 2019, 20:58

Then go and sit in the corner with Drew.
ORLY?

explain the difference?

inviting a stranger to take you into a private room, in a private residence, where both participants disrobe, and engage in behavior that poses a variety of risks (possibly for transmission of STI's, aids, not to mention the revocation of consent possibly being ignored, or having invitee subsequently bash or rob you)

VS

choking - which on it's own is not a major. tens of thousands of people go into gyms in this country every day and have strangers choke them during martial arts classes.

Both are the same - the expectation that participation continues on the basis of continued consent, which is freely given, by agreed participation, and instantly revoked by basic agreed behaviors - tapping, choking, struggling.

indeed, it differs no more from sex in the first place - e.g. consent exists only to degrees - agreeing to sex doesnt mean agreeing to anal, our agreeing to general 'roughness' during said otherwise consented fornication.

Is this corner the place where logical thinking happens?

It must be. Clearly Katman can only see as far as his own opinions.
:wacko:

BMWST?

25th December 2019, 22:01

Riding a motorcycle is not taking the best precautions whether you have good gear or not.

Grace should not have died, many factors contributed to her death.
thats my point, just as we know riding a motorcycle is risky yet we still do it.

FJRider

26th December 2019, 05:23

... just as we know riding a motorcycle is risky yet we still do it.

Probably ... that's why we (well most of us) do it ... :laugh:

I've known of a few that stopped riding after a serious crash. Maybe they then deemed the risk wasn't worth fun.

Katman

26th December 2019, 06:13

explain the difference?

The difference being when someone willingly allows another person to choke them.

A person they only met a few hours earlier.

Your martial arts example is hardly in the same category.

Katman

26th December 2019, 06:40

The "Factors" you're thinking of wouldn't have helped her ... but they didn't contribute to her death.

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

Katman

26th December 2019, 07:13

thats my point, just as we know riding a motorcycle is risky yet we still do it.

But we usually take steps to mitigate those risks.

And those of us who ride in a manner that fails to mitigate those risks are making the same sort of bad life choices that Grace Millane made.

mashman

26th December 2019, 07:14

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

That's the nature of the beast. She could not have prevented what happened, because submissives abdicate responsibility (outwith safe words, tricky in this case) and switch into pleasure mode. Where she had done such before, why would she think that she was being irresponsible and not just in for another fun evening.

jasonu

26th December 2019, 07:31

She could not have prevented what happened, .

Sure she could have. If she didn't ask a more or less internet stranger to strangle her she would likely still be alive today. I'm not saying it was her fault but some of her questionable decisions definitely contributed to her death.

mashman

26th December 2019, 07:52

Sure she could have. If she didn't ask a more or less internet stranger to strangle her she would likely still be alive today. I'm not saying it was her fault but some of her questionable decisions definitely contributed to her death.

Why is it a questionable decision? Kids, literally, fuck around. This may sound a little crude, but it isn't meant to be, but those who like being rag dolled are generally submissive. They never (safe word etc...) say no, and they always walk away from each and every encounter one way or another. Sometimes they regret it, but hey, it ain't just submissives that have forgettable experiences is it.

Where your experience, irrespective of how you get it, is predominantly positive, then why should you stop it just because society deems such behaviour "weird". Because that's all I've really read so far. "It's weird to me, so she must take some blame.". I see no reason for her to take any blame in anyway whatsoever.

Katman

26th December 2019, 08:24

"It's weird to me, so she must take some blame."

Regardless of whether one thinks it's 'weird' or not, my question is "is it sensible to allow a pissed stranger to choke you?"

Not only do I think it's not sensible, I think it's downright fucking stupid (excuse the pun).

oldrider

26th December 2019, 08:34

Sure she could have. If she didn't ask a more or less internet stranger to strangle her she would likely still be alive today. I'm not saying it was her fault but some of her questionable decisions definitely contributed to her death.

There are those of us who advocate "If you are not standing on the edge - you are taking up too much room". :ride:

Did youthful drive naivety and inexperience simply mask the crumbly edge? :Oops: - R.I.P. Grace.

TheDemonLord

26th December 2019, 08:50

yet with all the care and gear in the world you could still be the victim of someones elses actions.despite all you care,positiong vihi viz,whatever you could wiped by a completley irattional illogical idotic manouvere .Is it your fault,no,did you take reasonable precations yes...this is ibeleive the equivlent of this argument.She was not to know she had hooked up with a nut job

Agree with the first part - it is entirely possible to take all reasonable precautions and still end up dead.

The last part, she was not to know she had hooked up with a sane person either.

Katman

26th December 2019, 08:55

Agree with the first part - it is entirely possible to take all reasonable precautions and still end up dead.

And at the risk of repeating myself, is asking a complete stranger to choke you, after only spending a few hours on the piss with them, taking any (let alone 'all') reasonable precautions?

husaberg

26th December 2019, 09:02

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

Regardless of whether one thinks it's 'weird' or not, my question is "is it sensible to allow a pissed stranger to choke you?"
Not only do I think it's not sensible, I think it's downright fucking stupid (excuse the pun).

And at the risk of repeating myself, is asking a complete stranger to choke you, after only spending a few hours on the piss with them, taking any (let alone 'all') reasonable precautions?

The only problem with that statement is you have zero evidence that she did do this other than the killers testimony and she had enjoyed doing it with others.
None of that is proof that she asked him to choke her. you are making that assumption which is conjecture and considering how much else you have got wrong like claiming it must have been consensual as there was not marks is just palin stupid.
But you keep repeating it as if it was a fact.
Note he had choked women in the past without being asked.

"We'd been talking about, like, how much he loved me and wanted to be with me and he walked over and kissed me.
"And then he tried to lead me over to the bed," she said, adding the accused grabbed his arm.
She told the young man: "We're not having sex."
"Oh why not?" she said the accused replied.
However, after the pair sat on the bed together the accused removed his pants, she said.
'He was trying to kiss me and then he removed his pants."
The young woman then began giving him oral sex.
The accused, she told the court, later climbed onto the bed.
"He just sat down on my face," she said through tears. "I couldn't breathe."
Her forearms were also held down, the court heard.
"I couldn't move my arms, I couldn't breathe, so I started kicking - trying to indicate I couldn't breathe," she said.
"I couldn't move my arms because he had too much weight on them."
She attempted to struggle free with "all my might".
"I couldn't breathe … I was terrified.
"He just sat there, he didn't move at all."
The then-university student told the court she managed to "turn my head slightly to the left so I could get a slither of breath".
She then feigned unconsciousness.
"'Cause then maybe he'd realise something was wrong.
"He still didn't get off.
"There were so many thoughts running through my mind ... This can't be the way I die ... I started thinking about my family and my friends. They can't read about this."

He had a history of not telling the truth

After he was contacted by police, the killer wove an elaborate web of lies, at first claiming he and Grace had parted as friends and had planned to meet the next day.
When trapped by CCTV footage showing him buying the suitcase, however, the killer changed his story, claiming Grace had told him she had learned BDSM sex games with a former boyfriend and had asked him to choke her during intercourse.
The jury also heard of the killer's history exaggerated stories and lies – such as having cancer and being a professional athlete.
He was a hot-shot manager earning $150,000 a year. He had a law degree. His cousin was an All Black. His parents were dead. He was adopted by rich people. His mates were mostly cops, He had gang connections.
Crown prosecutor Brian Dickey had told the jury the killer had “eroticised her death.”
The prosecution also described how the man had taken "intimate" pictures of Grace's dead body, viewed porn while she lay dead in the room, and searched terms like "rigor mortis."

Lawyers for the defendant argued the Brit had died during "rough" sex after consensual choking went wrong.
But a trial found Grace's death was intentional and prolonged.
It was found she would have recovered if the pressure on her neck had been released in the five to 10 minutes it had taken her to die.

the killer is a good foot taller and at least 40kg bigger than her. He could have easily over powered her.

Katman

26th December 2019, 09:04

Drew

26th December 2019, 09:06

And at the risk of repeating myself, is asking a complete stranger to choke you, after only spending a few hours on the piss with them, taking any (let alone 'all') reasonable precautions?

It probably is, I'm not privy to the conversation they had. Neither are you, so you are victim blaming for fuck knows what reason.

You are also an idiot.

MarkH

26th December 2019, 09:06

Not only do I think it's not sensible, I think it's downright fucking stupid (excuse the pun).

Not only do I think that you are not sensible, I think that you are downright fucking stupid!

my question is "is it sensible to allow a pissed stranger to choke you?"

Well, I guess it depends on how likely it would be that they would accidentally kill you. My understanding is that it is very unlikely.
If the risk is that they would deliberately kill you, then the risk probably isn't much higher than if you had sex with a stranger or even just allowed yourself to be alone with a stranger.
I think that Grace Millane was only at any significant risk if she was alone with a homicidal person, unfortunately that turned out to be the case.

I wonder how many woman have done exactly the same thing without any negative consequences?

I seriously doubt that Katman has any idea of what the risk of death is from Grace's behaviour relative to something else like riding a motorcycle on NZ roads. Katman is one of the most wilfully ignorant people around, so I would always assume that he has no fucking clue. Obviously this doesn't stop Katman posting his uninformed opinion like he is some kind of expert, there is very definitely a strong Dunning Krueger effect in force here.

Katman

26th December 2019, 09:09

I seriously doubt that Katman has any idea of what the risk of death is from Grace's behaviour relative to something else like riding a motorcycle on NZ roads.

Except I've already covered that.

mashman

26th December 2019, 09:40

Regardless of whether one thinks it's 'weird' or not, my question is "is it sensible to allow a pissed stranger to choke you?"

Weird has everything to do with it. If it's normal, then it is sensible given that that experience has shown those encounters to be ok as everyone is supposed to know the rules i.e. it's for pleasure, not "insert perversion of choice". That you do not consider it sensible does not make it not so, especially as it was consensual. A thing is normal is usually also sensible... unless it not being sensible is something that floats your boat to make the point further.

Katman

26th December 2019, 09:58

Weird has everything to do with it. If it's normal, then it is sensible given that that experience has shown those encounters to be ok as everyone is supposed to know the rules i.e. it's for pleasure, not "insert perversion of choice". That you do not consider it sensible does not make it not so, especially as it was consensual. A thing is normal is usually also sensible... unless it not being sensible is something that floats your boat to make the point further.

If you think allowing a pissed stranger to choke you is 'sensible', then you're perfectly at liberty to hold that opinion.

Just as I'm at liberty to hold an opposing opinion.

I shouldn't be having to explain that to you, of all people.

(And btw, you're the only one who has used the word 'perversion').

MarkH

26th December 2019, 12:02

Except I've already covered that.

Except that you haven't. I have re-read every post you have made in this thread and in not one single one have you covered that.

You keep on like a broken record about how it isn't sensible, but not once have you provided any details about how likely it is that a person would die doing it. People do dangerous stuff all the time without anyone questioning the wisdom of doing whatever - crossing the road, riding motorcycles, driving a car, going into a bar full of drunk strangers, swimming, etc.

Riding a motorcycle is much more dangerous than not riding a motorcycle, maybe riding a motorcycle is not sensible or normal. Why would you travel on a road with people that you have NEVER met while on a vehicle that offers close to zero protection from collisions. Maybe everyone of us that rides motorcycles should be vilified for not switching to vehicles with much more protection.

In Grace Millane's case she DID take some sensible steps to mitigate the risks. She met the person in a public place, there were people that knew she was meeting him, her encounter was well documented by a large number of security cameras. All would have been fine except for the homicidal nature of the guilty party. No one is going to continue to choke someone after they have gone limp (clearly lost consciousness) unless they have murderous tendencies. Drunk strangers are safe enough, murderers are a whole different kettle of fish.

I stand by my statement that you are a fucking idiot.

Katman

26th December 2019, 12:11

Except that you haven't. I have re-read every post you have made in this thread and in not one single one have you covered that.

Try reading post #175 again.

mashman

26th December 2019, 12:35

If you think allowing a pissed stranger to choke you is 'sensible', then you're perfectly at liberty to hold that opinion.

Just as I'm at liberty to hold an opposing opinion.

And that was how the question was answered.

I shouldn't be having to explain that to you, of all people.

(And btw, you're the only one who has used the word 'perversion').

Yet you felt the need to point it out as if I had somehow told you otherwise. Aha.

(I used "perversion", because some enjoy some thing as a perversion and some enjoy it as a matter of course... thought that much might have been obvious. Sober up dude ;) )

Katman

26th December 2019, 12:39

(I used "perversion", because some enjoy some thing as a perversion and some enjoy it as a matter of course... thought that much might have been obvious. Sober up dude ;) )

And I haven't used the word perversion because I'm not making any judgement based on the sexual nature of the case.

I'm commenting solely on the common sense aspect (or lack thereof) of it.

MarkH

26th December 2019, 12:46

Try reading post #175 again.

OK, I've done that. It still doesn't address the question. Maybe it is just that you are too fucking stupid to understand what I'm saying (and what many others on this thread are saying). Maybe you just don't have any interest in opinions other than your own. Maybe it's both.

Katman

26th December 2019, 12:50

OK, I've done that. It still doesn't address the question.

Yes it does. It addresses the issue you raised perfectly consisely and to the point.

Maybe you just don't have any interest in opinions other than your own.

But you do?

tigertim20

26th December 2019, 13:26

The difference being when someone willingly allows another person to choke them.

A person they only met a few hours earlier.

Your martial arts example is hardly in the same category.

How is it not? at the Gym I frequently choke people I have literally known only for minutes.

You seem to think the act of choking someone is inherently dangerous - it really isnt.
what is dangerous is a homicidal person.

whether she asked him to choke her or not, chances are this guy was going to kill her, or someone else sooner or later.

Its no different than if she asked to be spanked, and he went too far and bashed her violently to death.

choking and killing are very different as are spanking and bashing.

Katman

26th December 2019, 13:32

How is it not? at the Gym I frequently choke people I have literally known only for minutes.

You seem to think the act of choking someone is inherently dangerous - it really isnt.
what is dangerous is a homicidal person.

whether she asked him to choke her or not, chances are this guy was going to kill her, or someone else sooner or later.

Its no different than if she asked to be spanked, and he went too far and bashed her violently to death.

choking and killing are very different as are spanking and bashing.

Really?

How often in your gym would a male and female, who are virtual strangers to each other, be alone and engaging in choking procedures after having been on the piss for a few hours?

If your instructor would happily encourage that sort of scenario, you should name him. There would probably be a few governing bodies that would want to take a closer look at his suitability to act as a martial arts instructor.

Katman

26th December 2019, 13:35

You seem to think the act of choking someone is inherently dangerous - it really isnt.

It does carry inherent risk though and people need to know what might be required if someone is struggling to regain consciousness.

It isn't just a matter of letting them 'sleep it off'.

mashman

26th December 2019, 13:44

And I haven't used the word perversion because I'm not making any judgement based on the sexual nature of the case.

Which is why I said that I said it. You get why the post was split in two yet? If not:

I'm commenting solely on the common sense aspect (or lack thereof) of it.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it or how you phrase it, I get what you're saying.

If that isn't clear enough, then by all means state so exceptionally clearly so that I can add you onto the list of wilfully ignorant morons. And just to be clear again and to show that I Am aware of "who you are", I fully realise that you don't give a shit whether you're on that list or not.

husaberg

26th December 2019, 15:20

Fiona Mackenzie, an actuary, set up We Can’t Consent to This following the outcry over the so-called “rough sex killing” of Natalie Connolly, 26, by her millionaire partner John Broadhurst, 40. Despite the victim having 40 separate injuries, including serious internal trauma, a fractured eye socket and bleach on her face, Broadhurst received a sentence of three years, eight months for manslaughter.
Mackenzie hasn’t found a single case of a man killed by a woman in an alleged “sex game gone wrong”.
https://wecantconsenttothis.uk/
It is believed only 20 UK women have died in the sex game gone wrong in the past 10 years. Judge Hyman
in the UK nearly 200 woment die from domestic violence each year.
So a woman is at least 100 times more likely to be murdered by their partner than "accidentally killed" by their partner.
or more telling the same number of people get killed by lightning strikes as die during erotic asphyxiation each year in the UK

MarkH

26th December 2019, 15:37

Yes it does. It addresses the issue you raised perfectly consisely and to the point.

It in no way addresses the issue and the fact that you think it does suggests that you don't understand the issue. Really this is my point - you don't have a clue about how risky the behaviour is, but because it is something you wouldn't do, you think it is automatically an unwise thing to do. You can't understand how similar it is to a person suggesting that anyone riding a motorcycle is similarly doing an unwise thing. When you ride a motorcycle on a public road you not only are sharing a road with someone you only met that day, but many people that you have never met. You are possibly sharing the road with drunk strangers while riding a motorcycle - how is that not more foolish than what Grace did?

In fact, riding a motorcycle is much more foolish. You are not only at risk of being killed by murderous motorists, but you are at risk of being killed by simple accidents. You SHOULD mitigate the risks by only ever driving on public roads in a car that has a 5-star ancap rating, anything less is reckless.

Now, let's say that Grace's behaviour is LESS dangerous than riding on a public road on a motorcycle, and you have provided no evidence that this isn't true. Then surely it is rather hypocritical for us to say that she was foolish for her actions.

Katman

26th December 2019, 16:33

Then surely it is rather hypocritical for us to say that she was foolish for her actions.

Not at all.

As I have repeatedly said, as a motorcyclist I try to mitigate the risks that I might be likely to face.

I don't see any reflection of that in Grace Millane's actions whatsoever.

Katman

26th December 2019, 16:35

Which is why I said that I said it. You get why the post was split in two yet? If not:

Well then I still don't understand why you felt the need to use the word perversion.

'Perversion' has absolutely nothing to do with the point of this thread.

Katman

26th December 2019, 16:47

It in no way addresses the issue and the fact that you think it does suggests that you don't understand the issue.

Read it again.

This time get someone who can actually understand English to help you.

MarkH

26th December 2019, 17:15

Not at all.

As I have repeatedly said, as a motorcyclist I try to mitigate the risks that I might be likely to face.

I don't see any reflection of that in Grace Millane's actions whatsoever.

No you don't. You could drive a 5-star ancap rated car instead of riding a motorcycle, but you don't. You deliberately face risks to do something you enjoy and you do not have to do that. There is absolutely no reason to risk your life to ride a motorcycle, except that you want to do it because you enjoy it. We all take risks everyday, many of those risks are not necessary, but our lives would be hard to live if we insisted on avoiding all risks.

Did Grace Millane meet a stranger for the first time somewhere private - or did she meet him in a public place? Clearly she DID mitigate some of the risks, it isn't her fault that the guy she met turned out to be a murderer. Just like you don't know that the motorists you share a road are not murderers.

You have provided NOTHING to backup any idea that having rough sex with a stranger actually carries a high risk of death. 1 in how many encounters like this would end up with the woman dead? You have nothing to back up your ignorant opinion!

Katman

26th December 2019, 17:18

No you don't. You could drive a 5-star ancap rated car instead of riding a motorcycle, but you don't. You deliberately face risks to do something you enjoy and you do not have to do that. There is absolutely no reason to risk your life to ride a motorcycle, except that you want to do it because you enjoy it. We all take risks everyday, many of those risks are not necessary, but our lives would be hard to live if we insisted on avoiding all risks.

Did Grace Millane meet a stranger for the first time somewhere private - or did she meet him in a public place? Clearly she DID mitigate some of the risks, it isn't her fault that the guy she met turned out to be a murderer. Just like you don't know that the motorists you share a road are not murderers.

You have provided NOTHING to backup any idea that having rough sex with a stranger actually carries a high risk of death. 1 in how many encounters like this would end up with the woman dead? You have nothing to back up your ignorant opinion!

Do you actually understand the concept of 'mitigating' risk?

husaberg

26th December 2019, 17:19

No you don't. You could drive a 5-star ancap rated car instead of riding a motorcycle, but you don't. You deliberately face risks to do something you enjoy and you do not have to do that. There is absolutely no reason to risk your life to ride a motorcycle, except that you want to do it because you enjoy it. We all take risks everyday, many of those risks are not necessary, but our lives would be hard to live if we insisted on avoiding all risks.

Did Grace Millane meet a stranger for the first time somewhere private - or did she meet him in a public place? Clearly she DID mitigate some of the risks, it isn't her fault that the guy she met turned out to be a murderer. Just like you don't know that the motorists you share a road are not murderers.

You have provided NOTHING to backup any idea that having rough sex with a stranger actually carries a high risk of death. 1 in how many encounters like this would end up with the woman dead? You have nothing to back up your ignorant opinion!

Nor does he have any proof at all that Grace decided or consented to engage in that kind of sex with him or indeed any sex at all.
The only reason Stevo has even posted this thread is to draw attention to himself he has no empathy or compassion, hes just trolling for attention Same as normal with him.

Katman

26th December 2019, 17:22

Nor does he have any proof at all that Grace decided or consented to engage in that kind of sex with him or indeed any sex at all.

The total absence of any evidence of her fighting off her killer is pretty damning evidence though.

MarkH

26th December 2019, 17:22

Read it again.

This time get someone who can actually understand English to help you.

Your post was of a very flawed analogy, it doesn't explain anything.
Making a stupid statement that explains nothing relevant and then repeatedly pointing to it and screaming "look, that explains it" isn't really a good way of making a point.

Why would you think a rider that gets drunk and then gets you to hop in his sidecar while he rides around a circuit, would lead to that rider murdering you? I would think that it would be much more likely to end in your accidental death, which is NOT what we are talking about with Grace Millane.

A closer analogy would be to spend some time at a pub drinking with a guy who then invites you around to his place to enjoy some more drinks, when you get there he murders you. Then some stupid cunt on the internet says that it was your fault for going to a drunk stranger's house without being sure he wasn't a murderer.

Katman

26th December 2019, 17:25

Why would you think a rider that gets drunk and then gets you to hop in his sidecar while he rides around a circuit, would lead to that rider murdering you?

Why would you not consider that your death could be a very real possibility in that scenario?

Katman

26th December 2019, 17:38

A closer analogy would be to spend some time at a pub drinking with a guy who then invites you around to his place to enjoy some more drinks, when you get there he murders you.

Except you're missing out the part where you invite him to choke you.

husaberg

26th December 2019, 17:45

The total absence of any evidence of her fighting off her killer is pretty damning evidence though.

Its a bit of a bummer for you The last girl he nearly suffocated had no injuries either, grace could have also passed out. He also could have threatened her with a knife for all you know.
She likely never consented for explicit photos to be taken of her after her death either.
But go ahead keep making up the story that there is any proof at all she consented to be strangled. Its the only way your latest attempt at trolling the death of a person, you should be ashamed of yourself. but you clearly dont have the ability to actually display any real empathy. Its just as well you never had any children. I cant imagine you being able to love anyone more than you love yourself.
Do the world a favour keep your posts about this sort of crap exclusively to your grinder account.

Katman

26th December 2019, 17:50

grace could have also passed out. He also could have threatened her with a knife for all you know.
She likely never consented for explicit photos to be taken of her afterwards either.

So speculation is only permissible when you do it?

husaberg

26th December 2019, 18:03

So speculation is only permissible when you do it?

you were not speculating though now were you.
You remindered it all wrong stevo

caught in another lie steve

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

Regardless of whether one thinks it's 'weird' or not, my question is "is it sensible to allow a pissed stranger to choke you?"
Not only do I think it's not sensible, I think it's downright fucking stupid (excuse the pun).

And at the risk of repeating myself, is asking a complete stranger to choke you, after only spending a few hours on the piss with them, taking any (let alone 'all') reasonable precautions?

you were presenting your speculation as being a fact.
there is no evidence to suggest Grace ever asked the killer to choke her so stop presenting it as if its a fact in anywhere but your own paranoid mind.

Katman

26th December 2019, 18:04

you were not speculating though now were you.

I thought that was what you were suggesting I was doing.

You should probably make up your retarded mind.

husaberg

26th December 2019, 18:12

I thought that was what you were suggesting I was doing.

You should probably make up your retarded mind.

You clearly haven't thought it through very much, because your whole premise is total conjecture based on the testimony of what his own family describe as a compulsive liar
Yet you continually attempt to present your own conjecture as being fact.
i clearly presented what i said as being conjecture as conjecture. that where the words could and likely come in.

Katman

26th December 2019, 18:15

because your whole premise is total conjecture

I thought you said I wasn't speculating.

caspernz

26th December 2019, 19:47

For two guys who have obvious contempt and borderline hatred for each other, you both sure seem equally fixated on each other. Endless quoted posts, screenshots, signature references and reported posts. It's almost like a love affair.

Almost seems like they've got the room to themselves though...with all this sexual tension most sensible folks just exit :woohoo:

PS. Thanks guys, for reminding me why I rarely stop by KB nowadays.

BMWST?

26th December 2019, 22:15

Agree with the first part - it is entirely possible to take all reasonable precautions and still end up dead.

The last part, she was not to know she had hooked up with a sane person either.
they had all been sane up to that point ,why would you think this time was any different ?

MarkH

27th December 2019, 01:22

Why would you not consider that your death could be a very real possibility in that scenario?

Ah, exactly!

That is what I was explaining in other scenarios, but you kept referring to your post suggesting that your analogy was the only one that should be considered.

Riding a motorcycle on the road - death is a very real possibility.
Mountain climbing - death is a very real possibility.
Doing a parachute jump - death is a very real possibility.
Swimming at a beach - death is a very real possibility.
etc.

But engaging in rough sex with choking has a similarly low probability of death, unless the partner happens to be the sort of person that would deliberately murder you (which is a fairly low risk).

So now, maybe go back to my previous posts and answer my questions?
Like, we as motorcyclists risk our lives riding instead of using a car, but we do it anyway. When we ride on the road with the general public driving in cars (some could be drunk for all we know) we are taking a risk where death is a very real possibility - why are we judging Grace for her risky behaviour. You have NOT addressed this! You have only dismissed this idea saying you take precautions, but your precautions do NOT remove death as a very real possibility. Why is it that we can risk death but it is OK because we are not getting into the sidecar with the drunk rider so it is alright. That is not sensible logic. Many other scenarios risk death, not just your pet scenario.

You keep on saying "but she invited a stranger to choke her" and think it is a valid answer.
Others could say "but you keep on riding a motorcycle on public roads with all the risks that entails", but we don't care - we want to ride motorcycles and we do it anyway. We realise that ATGATT still leaves us vulnerable and no gear will ever eliminate the risk of death at 100kph. We know a car is safer, but we don't want to be in a car. We know that staying at home is safer, but we want to go out and ride. We choose to risk our lives to do something that we enjoy - you only think it is OK when we do that, not when Grace does it. A lot more people die in NZ when riding motorcycles than when having rough sex with choking so why do you think it is OK for you to do one thing and not for Grace to do the other.

MarkH

27th December 2019, 01:26

Do you actually understand the concept of 'mitigating' risk?

I gave an example of Grace mitigating risk.
I gave an example of how you could further mitigate your risk.
I'm pretty sure that there is clear evidence for you to see that I do very much understand the concept of mitigating risk, so that is a fucking stupid question.

BTW
I won't be returning your childish red rep. I could not possibly red rep every moronic post you make, that would take forever even if the systems here would allow it.

Katman

27th December 2019, 06:05

I gave an example of Grace mitigating risk.

Then I disagree with your concept of mitigating risk.

I won't be returning your childish red rep.

Ah well, before you go having too much of a cry about it, take another read of post #177 (your first post in this thread) and ask yourself whether you came here looking for rational discussion or whether you were instead just looking for a confrontation.

Drew

27th December 2019, 07:43

Then I disagree with your concept of mitigating risk.
. we know, but you're an idiot and you're wrong.

Ah well, before you go having too much of a cry about it, take another read of post #177 (your first post in this thread) and ask yourself whether you came here looking for rational discussion or whether you were instead just looking for a confrontation.

That's pretty funny, coming from you.

You want to blame a victim, can't handle that no one thinks that's cool, and you're crying about it and being confrontational.

mashman

27th December 2019, 07:49

Well then I still don't understand why you felt the need to use the word perversion.

'Perversion' has absolutely nothing to do with the point of this thread.

I used "perversion", because some enjoy some thing as a perversion and some enjoy it as a matter of course. Such acknowledges that there's more than black and white reasoning when it comes to defining what is classed as a sensible thing to do. To someone who gets choked all the time, there is nothing not sensible about deriving pleasure from being choked. To someone who sees choking as nothing much more than a violent act, it won't seem sensible. In fact it will seem "perverted" (not deviant). And the shades of grey in between. Just acknowledging that which is, because that which is defines that which is "normal/sensible".

I get that it doesn't seem sensible to you and that you will have your shade of grey to underpin that belief, but perversions are a matter of taste i.e. what's sensible for one isn't necessarily considered sensible by another.

Katman

27th December 2019, 08:14

I used "perversion", because some enjoy some thing as a perversion and some enjoy it as a matter of course. Such acknowledges that there's more than black and white reasoning when it comes to defining what is classed as a sensible thing to do. To someone who gets choked all the time, there is nothing not sensible about deriving pleasure from being choked. To someone who sees choking as nothing much more than a violent act, it won't seem sensible. In fact it will seem "perverted" (not deviant). And the shades of grey in between. Just acknowledging that which is, because that which is defines that which is "normal/sensible".

I get that it doesn't seem sensible to you and that you will have your shade of grey to underpin that belief, but perversions are a matter of taste i.e. what's sensible for one isn't necessarily considered sensible by another.

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.

BMWST?

27th December 2019, 08:56

And for those who would like to liken it to racing a sidecar around Wanganui's street circuit, it would be far more akin to jumping onto a sidecar, as a passenger, with a complete stranger driving it, after you'd be on the piss with them for a few hours, and going for a few laps of that same circuit.

What level of 'sensible' would that be?
straw man.riding on a sidecar with an unknown drunk person is indeed bloody stupid.Talking about sex with a drunk stranger is much more normal behaviour even if it does involve some more risque techniques.
They are not remotely the same.One has a very real threat of injury or death,the other virtually none(in her experience)

Katman

27th December 2019, 09:00

Talking about sex with a drunk stranger is much more normal behaviour even if it does involve some more risque techniques.

I think they did more than just talk about it.

BMWST?

27th December 2019, 09:12

I think they did more than just talk about it.
yes they did but the perceived threat for her was much less than the risk of riding a sidecar around wanganui with a drunk rider

Katman

27th December 2019, 09:18

yes they did but the perceived threat for her was much less than the risk of riding a sidecar around wanganui with a drunk rider

No it wasn't.

The action of allowing a drunk male, who she didn't know from a bar of soap, to place his hands around her throat for the purposes of choking her is the same type of risk as my drunk sidecar rider analogy.

BMWST?

27th December 2019, 10:21

No it wasn't.

The action of allowing a drunk male, who she didn't know from a bar of soap, to place his hands around her throat for the purposes of choking her is the same type of risk as my drunk sidecar rider analogy.
thats being clever AFTER the fact.I said perceived which all you can do BEFORE it happens

pritch

27th December 2019, 10:24

The action of allowing a drunk male, who she didn't know from a bar of soap, to place his hands around her throat for the purposes of choking her is the same type of risk as my drunk sidecar rider analogy.

You seem to be very slow at catching on to the idea that nobody much agrees with you. You might consider the possibility that there's a good reason they don't?

Katman

27th December 2019, 10:24

riding on a sidecar with an unknown drunk person is indeed bloody stupid.

thats being clever AFTER the fact.I said perceived which all you can do BEFORE it happens

So in the same way that it would be wise to not get on the sidecar with the drunk rider it would have been wise to not allow a drunk stranger to choke her.

It's exactly the same principle.

sidecar bob

27th December 2019, 11:31

So in the same way that it would be wise to not get on the sidecar with the drunk rider it would have been wise to not allow a drunk stranger to choke her.

It's exactly the same principle.

I have a good friend seriously injured in Wanganui hospital right now from a sidecar accident he did not cause & I can assure you the rider was not drunk.
It was simply the result of something quite exhilarating & inherently risky going a bit too far.

Katman

27th December 2019, 11:33

....& I can assure you the rider was not drunk.

And I can assure you the one in my analogy is.

Laava

27th December 2019, 12:12

You seem to be very slow at catching on to the idea that nobody much agrees with you. You might consider the possibility that there's a good reason they don't?
No, he will never consider that. That would mean an end to everything his world is built around.

husaberg

27th December 2019, 14:23

No, he will never consider that. That would mean an end to everything his world is built around.

Remember the story with the three little pigs it turns out steveos house is made entirely from strawmen.
he has zero evidence that grace asked the dude to stangle her the last woment he tried to suffocate didnt either.
But lil stevo will never admit he doesnt know if she even asked him to stangle her as that doesnt suit his story.

Murray

27th December 2019, 18:54

Katman

27th December 2019, 19:13

Excuse me how do you know she allowed this??

Because there was no evidence presented that she put up any sort of fight.

husaberg

27th December 2019, 19:42

Because there was no evidence presented that she put up any sort of fight.

So the fact the last women, who testified that he tried to suffocate her, did not give him consent to him suffocating her either.
Or the fact that even after he suffocated her, she did not have any marks on her to indicate a struggle either ,mean nothing.
As you think you know better than either the judge the jury or the other witnesses.
Is it no wonder no one takes you seriously and treats you as a troll.

As this statement was made as if it was a fact that she had asked or consented to be choked.

Asking a pissed stranger to choke her certainly 'contributed' to her death.
Problem fo you is you cant say this is anywhere near a fact its entirely your opinion based on little in the way of knowledge of this case.

Katman

27th December 2019, 19:52

Problem fo you is you cant say this is anywhere near a fact its entirely your opinion based on little in the way of knowledge of this case.

Do you have any evidence you can present that shows she tried to fight her killer off?

Murray

27th December 2019, 20:01

Because there was no evidence presented that she put up any sort of fight.

Do you actually realise how stupid that comment makes you sound, and what difference does it make? YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOU TRIED YOU FIGHT BACK?

Katman

27th December 2019, 20:07

Do you actually realise how stupid that comment makes you sound, and what difference does it make? YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOU TRIED YOU FIGHT BACK?

If there was any evidence that she put up any sort of fight the prosecution would have presented it.

Murray

27th December 2019, 20:11

If there was any evidence that she put up any sort of fight the prosecution would have presented it.

So in your mind is someone is killed the prosecution has to prove that they tried to fight back otherwise they are not guilty, Do you realise how stupid that is!!

Katman

27th December 2019, 20:12

YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOU TRIED YOU FIGHT BACK?

If you're trying to suggest that the choking wasn't consensual then yes, that would be helpful.

Murray

27th December 2019, 20:20

If you're trying to suggest that the choking wasn't consensual then yes, that would be helpful.

Idiotic logic

Katman

27th December 2019, 20:23

Idiotic logic

Well actually Murray, that's the point of the whole thread.

If the choking was consensual then Grace Millane's actions and poor decisions most certainly contributed to her death.

If the choking wasn't consensual then some little scrap of evidence to prove that would be useful.

Murray

27th December 2019, 20:25

Well actually Murray, that's the point of the whole thread.

If the choking was consensual then Grace Millane's actions and poor decisions most certainly contributed to her death.

If the choking wasn't consensual then some little scrap of evidence to prove that would be useful.

So in your mind if someone is killed the prosecution has to prove that they tried to fight back otherwise they are not guilty, Do you realise how stupid that is!!

husaberg

27th December 2019, 20:27

Do you have any evidence you can present that shows she tried to fight her killer off?

I am not the person making claims purporting it to be a fact she asked him to choke her when in fact you have zero evidence that this is a fact.

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

You have zero facts to back up this statement.

Not only that the jury doesn't agree with you either and they were present far more evidence than you were.

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 defence 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.

Justice Moore said murderous intent was when a defendant means to cause bodily injury that is known to be likely to cause death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not.
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."
He said if the jury did not believe he intended to cause harm to Millane, he was not guilty of the charge of murder.
Again, they had to be sure beyond reasonable doubt.
"Are you sure when he applied pressure to Miss Millane's neck [he] ran the risk of Miss Millane dying … he nevertheless continued.
"If yes, then [the accused] is guilty of murder.

Katman

27th December 2019, 20:29

So in your mind is someone is killed the prosecution has to prove that they tried to fight back otherwise they are not guilty, Do you realise how stupid that is!!

No Murray. You appear to be even more clueless tonight than usual.

The point of this thread isn't to determine whether Grace Millane's killer is guilty or not - the court has already decided that. And I have stated in the very first post of the thread that I agree with their decision.

The purpose of this thread is to examine what extent Grace Millane's poor decision making contributed to the outcome.

Katman

27th December 2019, 20:33

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.

caspernz

27th December 2019, 21:00

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.

Nope, you're victim blaming. But just keep digging :brick:

Katman

27th December 2019, 21:05

Nope, you're victim blaming. But just keep digging :brick:

It's not victim blaming.

It's about examining how to lessen victims.

caspernz

27th December 2019, 21:11

It's not victim blaming.

It's about examining how to lessen victims.

What you're failing to grasp is the absence of defensive wounds means nothing in this case. Any inference you draw using that detail is eminently flawed.

Someone shot by a sniper from 1000 yards out has no defensive wounds.

Someone rendered unconscious by way of chloroform and subsequently raped has no defensive wounds.

That's how some of us view your conclusion, it's actually that simple...:rolleyes:

Katman

27th December 2019, 21:16

That's how some of us view your conclusion, it's actually that simple...:rolleyes:

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.

husaberg

27th December 2019, 21:44

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?.................

sidecar bob

28th December 2019, 07:23

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.

Na, it just makes you an idiot that can't accept anyone else's point of view, that believes everyone else agrees with him but just can't admit it.
That's fairly self absorbed.

PrincessBandit

28th December 2019, 11:52

I’m sure we all agree that she in no way shape or form deserved what happened to her. The guy seems (from what has been said about him in public arenas) seems likely to be a narcissistic wanker who gets off on power and domination. This poor woman could have met up with any number of other blokes for the same kind encounter and had a great time and still be alive today. The fact that she ended up with him was tragic.
We’ve all done dumbshit things where we’ve put ourselves at risk and, largely, walked away unscathed. She paid the ultimate price for being in a risky situation with the wrong person at the wrong time. Being judgemental does nothing but add to the heart break.

Katman

28th December 2019, 12:30

Being judgemental does nothing but add to the heart break.

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.

husaberg

28th December 2019, 12:51

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?.................