Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   The murderer who stopped the London Bridge attacker will not be denied parole, narwhal he serve a full sentence   (theguardian.com) divider line
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

5645 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Oct 2020 at 5:05 AM (10 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



46 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-10-17 11:35:49 PM  
I see what you did there...
 
2020-10-18 5:09:36 AM  
Narwhals use their singular tusk to club fish.

If you tried to spear something with a thing on your head you would go cross-eyed.
 
2020-10-18 5:10:12 AM  
Just don't let him touch your balls.
 
2020-10-18 5:10:14 AM  
This is cool. Hope the dude does something good with his new freedom. That said, a killer killing someone, even if that person deserved it, isn't a changed man. LOL.
actually I take that back I guess he's changed in the sense that now he only kills people when it's appropriate

LOL LOL LOL.
 
2020-10-18 5:12:06 AM  

waxbeans: This is cool. Hope the dude does something good with his new freedom. That said, a killer killing someone, even if that person deserved it, isn't a changed man. LOL.
actually I take that back I guess he's changed in the sense that now he only kills people when it's appropriate

LOL LOL LOL.


Wait I take that back too he only tackled a guy I don't know  why I assume he killed him
 
2020-10-18 5:23:38 AM  

waxbeans: waxbeans: This is cool. Hope the dude does something good with his new freedom. That said, a killer killing someone, even if that person deserved it, isn't a changed man. LOL.
actually I take that back I guess he's changed in the sense that now he only kills people when it's appropriate

LOL LOL LOL.

Wait I take that back too he only tackled a guy I don't know  why I assume he killed him


He is getting the reduced sentence because he chased after the terrorist after he produced two knives and attacked others. While it is only 10 months, that is still a lot time for some one locked up on a murder rap. I don't condone what he did to get in there, but he has stated that he wants to come out a changed man and is hoping to make some thing of his life.

I for one applauded everyone interviewed, taking a calm and measured response. The son of the victim stated his mixed emotions over it, and acknowledged the bravery involved while also stating the loss he felt. End of the day, what he did was heroic and done for the right reason. He was there, he could've made a difference and tried to help out without knowing what would happen or if he would be rewarded. If that isn't heroic, then I don't know what is.
 
2020-10-18 5:37:15 AM  
Bravo subby
 
2020-10-18 5:39:20 AM  

AnotherAussiefarker: He is getting the reduced sentence because he chased after the terrorist after he produced two knives and attacked others.


Maybe it's just me, but I think someone chasing down a terrorist f*ckwit should not be penalized.
 
2020-10-18 5:47:19 AM  

grumpfuff: AnotherAussiefarker: He is getting the reduced sentence because he chased after the terrorist after he produced two knives and attacked others.

Maybe it's just me, but I think someone chasing down a terrorist f*ckwit should not be penalized.


He isn't. He is being rewarded.
 
2020-10-18 5:53:59 AM  
Oh come on. No NARWHAL NARWHAL video yet? Ok, I will take the reins, and.....

Narwhals : animated music video : MrWeebl
Youtube ykwqXuMPsoc
 
2020-10-18 5:58:08 AM  
I'm glad he's attempting to turn his life around and supposedly doing the things he needs to in order to rejoin society as a rehabilitated person.

I can't be the only one who finds it a bit goofy that on his first day of being out and about in public, as part of his own rehabilitation, he winds up stabbing a "rehabilitated" terrorist, with a freaking narwhal tusk.
 
2020-10-18 6:08:32 AM  

grumpfuff: AnotherAussiefarker: He is getting the reduced sentence because he chased after the terrorist after he produced two knives and attacked others.

Maybe it's just me, but I think someone chasing down a terrorist f*ckwit should not be penalized.


I think it's only you who thinks that he's being penalised for it however... he was convicted of murder long before the event where he confronted the attacker - he was out on day release when it happened, In the same reform program as the attacker.
 
2020-10-18 6:46:35 AM  
I'm ok with this.

Cos guns are rare in this country, when some nutter runs amok passersby do have a fighting chance of stopping them. But it's still a farking brave thing to do.
 
2020-10-18 6:47:34 AM  

mrparks: Narwhals use their singular tusk to club fish.

If you tried to spear something with a thing on your head you would go cross-eyed.


Wanna tell woodpeckers that? I don't think they got the memo.
 
2020-10-18 7:25:39 AM  
Goofus attacks people with knives on bridges when he is on day release.

Gallant attacks people with narwhal tusks on bridges when he is on day release.
 
2020-10-18 7:53:49 AM  
They pull a knife, you pull a narwhal tusk. It's the London way.
 
2020-10-18 7:57:44 AM  

grumpfuff: AnotherAussiefarker: He is getting the reduced sentence because he chased after the terrorist after he produced two knives and attacked others.

Maybe it's just me, but I think someone chasing down a terrorist f*ckwit should not be penalized.


Who didn't read the article? You! You didn't read the article!

Narwhal guy was out on 'day release ' from prison for a past murder. He 'fended off' (not killed) current attacker with the tusk after realizing he was trying to kill people. So narwhal guy got a reduced sentence for his past murder conviction
 
2020-10-18 8:06:03 AM  
It's unfortunate that there wasn't a guy like this in France the other day when a terrorist beheaded a school teacher.  Of course the NYT simply referred to it as a knife attack, but I guess at least they covered it.
 
2020-10-18 8:11:59 AM  

Eightballjacket: It's unfortunate that there wasn't a guy like this in France the other day when a terrorist beheaded a school teacher.  Of course the NYT simply referred to it as a knife attack, but I guess at least they covered it.


The best one was the Scottish airport terrorist attack.
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-18 8:32:18 AM  

Eightballjacket: It's unfortunate that there wasn't a guy like this in France the other day when a terrorist beheaded a school teacher.  Of course the NYT simply referred to it as a knife attack, but I guess at least they covered it.


Sort of like the alleged "asian" rape gangs...
 
yms
2020-10-18 8:47:40 AM  

1funguy: Goofus attacks people with knives on bridges when he is on day release.

Gallant attacks people with narwhal tusks on bridges when he is on day release.


Not sure about the use of the word gallant, he still killed someone on porpoise in the past.
 
2020-10-18 8:59:04 AM  

maddermaxx: grumpfuff: AnotherAussiefarker: He is getting the reduced sentence because he chased after the terrorist after he produced two knives and attacked others.

Maybe it's just me, but I think someone chasing down a terrorist f*ckwit should not be penalized.

I think it's only you who thinks that he's being penalised for it however... he was convicted of murder long before the event where he confronted the attacker - he was out on day release when it happened, In the same reform program as the attacker.


Yup, I done farked up.
 
2020-10-18 9:10:10 AM  

sys_64738: mrparks: Narwhals use their singular tusk to club fish.

If you tried to spear something with a thing on your head you would go cross-eyed.

Wanna tell woodpeckers that? I don't think they got the memo.


Anyone can peck an inanimate object. Heck, I'm doing it right now.

But spearing a fish? I'll save that for later.
 
2020-10-18 9:21:29 AM  

yms: 1funguy: Goofus attacks people with knives on bridges when he is on day release.

Gallant attacks people with narwhal tusks on bridges when he is on day release.

Not sure about the use of the word gallant, he still killed someone on porpoise in the past.


Think it's his name
 
2020-10-18 9:47:02 AM  

Doctoral Candidate Zaius: I'm glad he's attempting to turn his life around and supposedly doing the things he needs to in order to rejoin society as a rehabilitated person.

I can't be the only one who finds it a bit goofy that on his first day of being out and about in public, as part of his own rehabilitation, he winds up stabbing a "rehabilitated" terrorist, with a freaking narwhal tusk.


It's one of those things that if you read it in a book or saw it in a movie you'd be like "No way that kind of thing would ever happen in real life".
 
2020-10-18 9:53:50 AM  
Goofus whips out his cell phone to record the terrorist's murderous rampage.

Gallant grabs a narwhal tusk and goes to town on the guy.
 
yms
2020-10-18 9:55:56 AM  

1funguy: yms: 1funguy: Goofus attacks people with knives on bridges when he is on day release.

Gallant attacks people with narwhal tusks on bridges when he is on day release.

Not sure about the use of the word gallant, he still killed someone on porpoise in the past.

Think it's his name


That'll teach to me to take more notice. Either way he krilled someone.
 
2020-10-18 10:41:14 AM  
What a difference a year makes.  Last year, we were "A guy fought off a rampaging maniac with a farking narwhal tusk!"  This year, we would shrug and consider it completely anodyne.
 
2020-10-18 10:56:01 AM  

Carter Pewterschmidt: The best one was the Scottish airport terrorist attack.


As a pacifist I deplore all violence. As a Glaswegian I admire one of my fellow Glaswegians for spotting a terrorist and kicking him to death. No messing about. Rarely has the boot been so appropriately or so effectively put in.
 
2020-10-18 10:59:43 AM  

yms: 1funguy: yms: 1funguy: Goofus attacks people with knives on bridges when he is on day release.

Gallant attacks people with narwhal tusks on bridges when he is on day release.

Not sure about the use of the word gallant, he still killed someone on porpoise in the past.

Think it's his name

That'll teach to me to take more notice. Either way he krilled someone.


Terribly naughty, agreed, and it's just a Highlights magazine parody joke, so really nothing to carry into the next decade.
You are relieved of concern.
Have a nice day!
 
2020-10-18 11:49:36 AM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: grumpfuff: AnotherAussiefarker: He is getting the reduced sentence because he chased after the terrorist after he produced two knives and attacked others.

Maybe it's just me, but I think someone chasing down a terrorist f*ckwit should not be penalized.

Who didn't read the article? You! You didn't read the article!

Narwhal guy was out on 'day release ' from prison for a past murder. He 'fended off' (not killed) current attacker with the tusk after realizing he was trying to kill people. So narwhal guy got a reduced sentence for his past murder conviction



True.

But this is the UK we're talking about here, where they regularly and consistently prosecute people for defending themselves, so it's a very easy assumption to make.

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/​Q​589.htm

Q589: Are there any legal self defence products that I can buy?

The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm. These are not expensive and can be bought from most local police stations or supermarkets.

There are other self defence products which claim to be legal (e.g. non toxic sprays), however, until a test case is brought before the court, we cannot confirm their legality or endorse them. If you purchase one you must be aware that if you are stopped by the police and have it in your possession there is always a possibility that you will be arrested and detained until the product, its contents and legality can be verified.

However, accepting there is a lot of concern about street crime, we can try to clarify matters a little by putting forward the following points.


You must not get a product which is made or adapted to cause a person injury. Possession of such a product in public (and in private in specific circumstances) is against the law.

[emphasis added]

Right there, you can't actually defend yourself against lethal force with anything approaching parity with your attacker.   If you're lucky enough to have a narwhal tusk or a board with a nail in it lying about and you grab that, fine.  But you can't intentionally arm yourself against attack beforehand because that's illegal.

Which means you pretty much don't have a right to self-defence in the UK.
 
2020-10-18 12:12:07 PM  
Man in prison for being violent is violent on day release.

Obviously violence is neutral, it all depends who you are violent towards.

Moral relativism at it's best.

3.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2020-10-18 12:30:43 PM  

Carter Pewterschmidt: Eightballjacket: It's unfortunate that there wasn't a guy like this in France the other day when a terrorist beheaded a school teacher.  Of course the NYT simply referred to it as a knife attack, but I guess at least they covered it.

The best one was the Scottish airport terrorist attack.
[Fark user image image 850x478]


I got a kick out of some of his other comments - made in regards to the cops not beating the terrorists with their batons: "They should have given me their batons. I would have leathered the both of them!"
 
2020-10-18 12:36:11 PM  

dittybopper: But this is the UK we're talking about here, where they regularly and consistently prosecute people for defending themselves, so it's a very easy assumption to make.

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q​589.htm

Q589: Are there any legal self defence products that I can buy?

The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm. These are not expensive and can be bought from most local police stations or supermarkets.

There are other self defence products which claim to be legal (e.g. non toxic sprays), however, until a test case is brought before the court, we cannot confirm their legality or endorse them. If you purchase one you must be aware that if you are stopped by the police and have it in your possession there is always a possibility that you will be arrested and detained until the product, its contents and legality can be verified.

However, accepting there is a lot of concern about street crime, we can try to clarify matters a little by putting forward the following points.

You must not get a product which is made or adapted to cause a person injury. Possession of such a product in public (and in private in specific circumstances) is against the law.

[emphasis added]

Right there, you can't actually defend yourself against lethal force with anything approaching parity with your attacker.   If you're lucky enough to have a narwhal tusk or a board with a nail in it lying about and you grab that, fine.  But you can't intentionally arm yourself against attack beforehand because that's illegal.

Which means you pretty much don't have a right to self-defence in the UK.


USA murder rate, 5 per 100k.

UK murder rate 1.2 per 100k.

Seems to be working out okay for us.....

Allowing people to possess weapons for "self defence" just means there are lots more weapons around that will be used to kill people. In most cases if you're attacked by the time you got your gun/tazer/pepper spray out of your handbag you'd be dead already.
 
2020-10-18 1:46:00 PM  

maddermaxx: grumpfuff: AnotherAussiefarker: He is getting the reduced sentence because he chased after the terrorist after he produced two knives and attacked others.

Maybe it's just me, but I think someone chasing down a terrorist f*ckwit should not be penalized.

I think it's only you who thinks that he's being penalised for it however... he was convicted of murder long before the event where he confronted the attacker - he was out on day release when it happened, In the same reform program as the attacker.


So, perhaps giving convicted killers day passes isn't a good idea.
 
2020-10-18 2:24:44 PM  

dready zim: Man in prison for being violent is violent on day release.

Obviously violence is neutral, it all depends who you are violent towards.

Moral relativism at it's best.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 450x500]


If violence is always wrong, I would really like to hear what you propose society is allowed to do to guard against violent people.
 
2020-10-18 2:28:30 PM  

waxbeans: waxbeans: This is cool. Hope the dude does something good with his new freedom. That said, a killer killing someone, even if that person deserved it, isn't a changed man. LOL.
actually I take that back I guess he's changed in the sense that now he only kills people when it's appropriate

LOL LOL LOL.

Wait I take that back too he only tackled a guy I don't know  why I assume he killed him


With a name like Gallant, and armed with a narwhal tusk, you just assume that he ran the miscreant through while riding a noble something or other.
 
2020-10-18 3:01:30 PM  

dready zim: Man in prison for being violent is violent on day release.

Obviously violence is neutral, it all depends who you are violent towards.

Moral relativism at it's best.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 450x500]


lmfao

Was this comic drawn by someone who read an ethics 101 book and thinks they have a perfect understanding of it?
 
2020-10-18 3:25:15 PM  

grumpfuff: dready zim: Man in prison for being violent is violent on day release.

Obviously violence is neutral, it all depends who you are violent towards.

Moral relativism at it's best.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 450x500]

lmfao

Was this comic drawn by someone who read an ethics 101 book and thinks they have a perfect understanding of it?


Pretty much
 
2020-10-18 3:43:22 PM  

Carter Pewterschmidt: USA murder rate, 5 per 100k.

UK murder rate 1.2 per 100k.

Seems to be working out okay for us.....

Allowing people to possess weapons for "self defence" just means there are lots more weapons around that will be used to kill people. In most cases if you're attacked by the time you got your gun/tazer/pepper spray out of your handbag you'd be dead already.


Except we've had this discussion before, and you know it's not because of the restrictive laws because prior to 1920, you could carry a handgun with *NO* restrictions.

In fact, it was common enough that the police, who are generally unarmed, could borrow handguns from passersby:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totten​ha​m_Outrage

What was the UK's homicide rate back then?

quod.lib.umich.eduView Full Size


So you're saying that the UK homicide rate is low today because of laws restricting access to guns and prohibiting the carry of any weapons for self defense, yet before any of those laws were enacted, the homicide rate in the UK was about the same?

You seem to have a very poor understanding of both the laws and the history of your own country, at least when it pertains to this subject.
 
2020-10-18 4:21:41 PM  

AnotherAussiefarker: waxbeans: waxbeans: This is cool. Hope the dude does something good with his new freedom. That said, a killer killing someone, even if that person deserved it, isn't a changed man. LOL.
actually I take that back I guess he's changed in the sense that now he only kills people when it's appropriate

LOL LOL LOL.

Wait I take that back too he only tackled a guy I don't know  why I assume he killed him

He is getting the reduced sentence because he chased after the terrorist after he produced two knives and attacked others. While it is only 10 months, that is still a lot time for some one locked up on a murder rap. I don't condone what he did to get in there, but he has stated that he wants to come out a changed man and is hoping to make some thing of his life.

I for one applauded everyone interviewed, taking a calm and measured response. The son of the victim stated his mixed emotions over it, and acknowledged the bravery involved while also stating the loss he felt. End of the day, what he did was heroic and done for the right reason. He was there, he could've made a difference and tried to help out without knowing what would happen or if he would be rewarded. If that isn't heroic, then I don't know what is.


People who have existing psychopathic tendencies don't actually change fundamentally...they just learn to control their impulses better and try to remember the bad consequences of bad actions. They learn to make constructive decisions rather than destructive ones.

That being said, while we call people who act selflessly "heroes", often what makes someone a selfless hero vs what makes them a murderer is really pretty similar. It's the same underlying psychological factors. However, a Ted Bundy or Hitler type obviously has been subject to abuse or mistreatment early in life and became a destructive pariah.

There's lots of psychopaths walking around that we might regard as "normal" people...

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/18/why-p​s​ychopaths-are-so-good-at-getting-ahead​.html

This is of course a trait built into humans. Most animals only kill for food or survival whereas humans may do it for literally no reason. More psychopathic people are less likely to feel guilt about any action they take even if they're not an experienced criminal and are less likely to feel regret or pain if they are injured. This is why some people don't give a shiat about laying off 30,000 employees or foreclosing on cities worth of homes - or alternately, handling a dead body or chasing down an armed suspect and getting into a fight.
 
2020-10-18 5:38:08 PM  

dittybopper: So you're saying that the UK homicide rate is low today because of laws restricting access to guns and prohibiting the carry of any weapons for self defense, yet before any of those laws were enacted, the homicide rate in the UK was about the same?


It isn't the simple rate of gun ownership but the legal principles that you bought up, the willingness to prosecute people who went too far in defending themselves. In the UK possession of such "defensive" weapons is strongly discouraged or outright illegal. I'm old enough to have shot handguns legally but walking around with one on my belt would result in people calling the police.

In the early United States
By the 18th century, many US state legal systems began by importing English common law such as Acts of Parliament of 2 Ed. III (Statute of Northampton), and 5 Rich. II (Forcible Entry Act 1381) in law since 1381-which imposed criminal sanctions intending to discourage the resort to self-help.[8][9] This required a threatened party to retreat, whenever property was "involved" and resolve the issue by civil means.


But while some states originally adopted English law principles in other areas it was very different.

On the American frontier
On the American frontier, the doctrine of no duty to retreat extended outside a residence. It asserted that a man in an altercation that he did not provoke was not obliged to flee from his attacker, but was free to stand his ground and defend himself. A state Supreme Court justice wrote in 1877,[14]

Indeed, the tendency of the American mind seems to be very strongly against the enforcement of any rule which requires a person to flee when assailed.
American West historian Richard M. Brown wrote that under the circumstances, for a man in the American West to flee under such circumstances would be cowardly and un-American. Legendary dentist and gambler Doc Holliday successfully used this defense when he shot Billy Allen as he entered a saloon. Holliday owed Allen $5 (equivalent to $140 in 2019) which Allen wanted paid and had threatened Holliday. Although Allen was unarmed at the time, Holliday had received reports that Allen had been armed and looking for him earlier in the day. During the subsequent trial, Holliday asserted he was within his rights and the jury agreed. He was acquitted on March 28, 1885.[14]

Put simply English law has for several centuries now said "Leave things to us. If you take matters into your own hands we'll arrest you", while still allowing genuine self defence. In the US the attitude has become "Look at me funny? That's a shootin!"
 
2020-10-18 6:46:42 PM  

DerAppie: dready zim: Man in prison for being violent is violent on day release.

Obviously violence is neutral, it all depends who you are violent towards.

Moral relativism at it's best.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 450x500]

If violence is always wrong, I would really like to hear what you propose society is allowed to do to guard against violent people.


Big pillows?
 
2020-10-19 9:09:27 AM  

Carter Pewterschmidt: It isn't the simple rate of gun ownership but the legal principles that you bought up, the willingness to prosecute people who went too far in defending themselves. In the UK possession of such "defensive" weapons is strongly discouraged or outright illegal.


And it didn't used to be, guns were commonly carried and could be used for self-defense purposes, and the homicide rate was about the same as it is today.  In fact, even after the 1920 regulations went into effect, "self-defence" was considered a legitimate reason to own a handgun.   That didn't change until after WWII.

You really aren't very good at this, are you?
 
2020-10-19 10:58:03 AM  

dittybopper: Carter Pewterschmidt: It isn't the simple rate of gun ownership but the legal principles that you bought up, the willingness to prosecute people who went too far in defending themselves. In the UK possession of such "defensive" weapons is strongly discouraged or outright illegal.

And it didn't used to be, guns were commonly carried and could be used for self-defense purposes, and the homicide rate was about the same as it is today.  In fact, even after the 1920 regulations went into effect, "self-defence" was considered a legitimate reason to own a handgun.   That didn't change until after WWII.

You really aren't very good at this, are you?


I'm clearly better then you are. The English laws discouraging excessive self defence date back to 1381 by bringing in legal protections against home invasion to "discourage" self defence. This isn't something that started after WWII or even a century ago. Try well over six hundred years ago.

The UKs policy has been to let the police handle matters and to discourage people from using excessive force themselves while the US, especially in the west, developed a shoot first ask questions later policy that let people more or less shoot on sight.

In other words the UK was discouraging people from taking matters into their own hands since long before your country even existed. We got it right. You are the ones who went nuts.
 
2020-10-19 12:11:14 PM  

DerAppie: If violence is always wrong


Anyway, I didn't say it was. I just found it ironic that a person who was in prison for violence got his sentence reduced by being violent on day release.
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



X
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.