• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Former UFC HW Champ arrested for attempted murder

tzrider said:
How courageous of you.
Click to expand...

I've got ~3000 posts in 17 years. Most of them were in the early years. It's not "courageous" of me, just didn't want him to be offended or think he won anything when I don't respond.
 
Climber said:
Don't try to put words in my mouth.

You tried to say that justice wasn't involved, I said it likely was.

I'm not promoting vigilantism, but I'm saying it's understandable, especially when it doesn't look like the legal system will do something about it.

An 'alleged'? That's just a legal term that the press has adopted. I sickens me when somebody shoots another in front of numerous witnesses and they use the term 'alleged', which is just plain nonsensical.

As to this particular case? We don't know how damning the evidence of abuse was. Obviously, Cain thought it was sufficient for his actions, but we don't know the details. For all you know that boy came home with massive stretch marks and bleeding in his anus. Would that still be 'alleged' to you?
Click to expand...

I think what he is saying is that if you look at other threads, there are usually people coming out stating our constitution is there for a reason and that there is a due process. Innocent until proven guilty etc.

But for this particular case. I'm not seeing that, it's just the opposite actually. And it's mainly due to the nature of the accusations. But people are outraged and want/justify actions all of a sudden without due process.

Cain will also go to trial and face judgement and receive guilty/not guilty. And until then should be allowed the same rights.
 
splat said:
-


HEY! Did you see the reunion show for Love is Blind Season 2?

If not: Spoiler alert!

There's this guy, his name is "Shake" and he's the epitome of butt hole lint but doesn't realize it. Everyone from the season (including the hosts) tries to tell him his shit stinks like everyone else's and he fails to see that. You're kinda up there with him. Just thought I'd point it out. I dunno what angle you're trying to get at (or if you're just trying to be edgy), and as annoying as it is, it does provide some comedic relief in a shitty news story that we don't have the same information as the parties involved do.

(I just had to log in to say that. Feel free to respond, but I probably wont see it for a few weeks.)

Putting this comment back since i've been quoted anyways.
Click to expand...

1. I don't watch reality TV

2. That's a lot of explanation for trying to hide calling me an asshole.

Know that I truly give no fucks about you or your opinion. If you have something to say, say it straight up. In fact, who are you?
 
HappyHighwayman said:
1. I don't watch reality TV

2. That's a lot of explanation for trying to hide calling me an asshole.

Know that I truly give no fucks about you or your opinion. If you have something to say, say it straight up. In fact, who are you?
Click to expand...

Well, judging by his profile name, he is what the butthole lint is trying to mop up.
 
Akira-R said:
I think what he is saying is that if you look at other threads, there are usually people coming out stating our constitution is there for a reason and that there is a due process. Innocent until proven guilty etc.

But for this particular case. I'm not seeing that, it's just the opposite actually. And it's mainly due to the nature of the accusations. But people are outraged and want/justify actions all of a sudden without due process.

Cain will also go to trial and face judgment and receive guilty/not guilty. And until then should be allowed the same rights.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree that Cain took the wrong route in this, he most certainly did and given his background, if he was going to take matters into his own hands he should have left the gun out of it, he might have had a possibility of more leniency had he gone that route, and even that wouldn't have been justified without giving the legal system a chance to bring the guy to justice.

What I was finding objectionable was the idea that justice was not part of the equation, that it was 100% revenge. He didn't know that, and I believe that in most cases that there is an element of justice, just self inflicted.

Some on here have stated the belief that the family of the victims only want revenge when the family is involved and trying to get justice. IMHO they are very wrong in that perspective. It seems to be a very popular idea to stick with the label of families only want revenge among the anti death penalty folk.
 
Last edited:
The reason they say alleged is because if you say they're a molester and they're acquitted you can be sued. And legally, it is alleged, it is not proven.

Most rational for the death penalty have been debunked, as it does not provide closure for the families of victims, and the families of victims often do not want them executed.

The state should not murder its own citizens. People are very proud of their blood lust.
 
HappyHighwayman said:
The reason they say alleged is because if you say they're a molester and they're acquitted you can be sued. And legally, it is alleged, it is not proven.

Most rational for the death penalty have been debunked, as it does not provide closure for the families of victims, and the families of victims often do not want them executed.

The state should not murder its own citizens. People are very proud of their blood lust.
Click to expand...
Let's not regurgitate death penalty arguments in this thread, they've been repeated plenty of times in the past. I know I brought it up, but I was giving my reason for not liking the term 'revenge' used in the manner it was.
 
being frustrated or entertained is no reason to go after each other on a personal level.
I adore both of you.

Or I could say, I adore every single one of you!
 
After reviewing my comments I see no instances of me going after him "on a personal level" so I don't know what you mean.

Splat is the one here who made it personal against me, but I guess veiled insults are fine as long as you're just implying someone is like the "Shake" jerk referenced, and not outright.
 
HappyHighwayman said:
If it's considered a reasonable reaction to murder someone for vengeance it would be legal to murder someone for vengeance.
Click to expand...

For context, murdering for vengeance through dueling has probably been a commonly accepting legal practice for a greater span of time in modern (Post Renaissance) civilization than being gay has been.

:dunno

I think the whole thing is just bad news. I don't know if the creeper was actually creeping, but I sympathize when the dude.

I reckon if I thought someone had badtouched my little niece, I would probably do some pretty drastic and unfortunate things.

Feels are just a problem like that.

I'm not saying Cain was right, but shit, man, I get it.
 
Child brides, female circumcision, slavery, martial rape, were all commonly accepted for a great span of time.

They're not legal now. Even when it was legal, it ruined lives, they made a whole musical about Hamilton the Adulterer who was killed in an idiotic duel for some honor purposes nobody gives a fuck about today.


So I ask, what's your point?
 
Pretty certain encouraging criminal activity is not part of their mandate.

Lawyers can be disbarred you know. Even for "trying to get their client off".
if their actions are deemed inappropriate for a member of the bar.
 
He's probably laying the ground work for temporary insanity defense.
 
HappyHighwayman said:
Pretty certain encouraging criminal activity is not part of their mandate.

Lawyers can be disbarred you know. Even for "trying to get their client off".
if their actions are deemed inappropriate for a member of the bar.
Click to expand...
His mandate is to do everything in his power to get his client off on the charges.

I'm certain that he will face no threat to his standing with the Bar for his comments. :laughing
 
cains actions are precisely why vigilante justice cannot be tolerated.

many may be sympathetic to his motivations, but his ensuing actions are reckless and outrageous. hes gonna get the boom thrown at him

the alleged abuser should probably not gotten out until trial, but the fact thats really going to hurt cain, was that dude was on way to get his court ordered monitoring device fitted. he was obeying court orders and had chaperones in the process.
 
Last edited:
kevin 714 said:
cains actions are precisely why vigilante justice cannot be tolerated.

many may be sympathetic to his motivations, but his ensuing actions are reckless and outrageous. hes gonna get the boom thrown at him

the alleged abuser should probably not gotten out until trial, but the fact thats really going to hurt cain, was that dude was on way to get his court ordered monitoring device fitted. he was obeying court orders and had chaperones in the process.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's a bit of a big "oof". If he had randomly encountered the dude at a grocery store and beat the shit out of him / even shot him then, I could see him getting off with a more lenient sentence. But this doesn't seem to have been anywhere near a random encounter, unless they live in the same neighborhood and thus had a higher likelihood of driving near each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top