image stats
Robert Reynolds
date added
previous votes
log in


indent register
indent recover

Rot in Hell you maggot

1 star2 stars3 stars4 stars5 stars
Rot in Hell you maggot

Comments for: Rot in Hell you maggot
pulse Report This Comment
Date: July 13, 2016 07:52AM

It's offensive that we're paying for him to still be alive.

His first rapes (well the first we know of) were just around the corner from where I live
woberto Report This Comment
Date: July 13, 2016 06:44PM

Yep, kill him.
Robert Reynolds Report This Comment
Date: July 14, 2016 07:34AM

I didn't want to post that picture but the reason why I did was to keep within
the subject of US gun control laws and Australia's judicial system as opposed to the US'.

More so for you guys in the States - The piece of non human slime pictured
is a repeat rapist who was already on parole PLUS had other pending rape charges to answer for.
He should have already been firmly locked behind bars awaiting his next trial but was freed,
allowing him to commit a horrible rape and murder of a beautiful woman journalist Jill Meagher
on her way home from a bar in Melbourne.

So the points I want to make regarding the fucked up gun control laws in the US are:
If Jill had the legal right to carry a pistol in her purse to protect herself that night (re US 2nd constitutional amendment)
it would of made no difference in her situation and could well have turned out to be even worse
than it already was for other members of the public because
A: She was so drunk, she wouldn't of been able to load it, let alone pull it out of her bag quick enough to use it on the offender and
B: If she did produce a weapon for protective reasons, the criminal would have easily taken it from her no trouble at all
and as mentioned, could well have used it to commit further crimes / rapes that night or the following days to come.

However, there are some rare cases that front the Australian judicial system from time to time, where I and many others wish
a SUB CLAUSE were kept when the government abolished capital punishment - for cases like this.
When it is absolutely 5000% certain, with full admission from the criminals, including video footage of the crimes, no police set ups
and not one speck out doubt who committed the crime, like in this case and the Anita Cobby murder
not to mention a few others - the perpetrators should be put to death instantly with no further waste of tax payers money
on second trials or appeals etc. They shouldn't have the privilege to breath the same air as us let alone use our legal system to their advantage..

So maybe the US could take a page from our book regarding gun control laws but I feel we
should be taking back a page from the US judicial system and remove scum like this from the planet with capital punishment.
No funeral, No headstone. Dissolve them in acid (while they are still alive) and flush them down the toilet.
woberto Report This Comment
Date: July 14, 2016 06:54PM

Yeah-nah. Not gonna read that.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: July 14, 2016 07:25PM

I dunno the particulars of this case, so I'm kinda shootin in the dark here, but ... I'm not so sure this chic 100% could not have changed the outcome of her rape and demise had she been properly trained and armed, nor do I truly expect anyone could say with any certainty she would have been completely powerless unless they themselves were there.

However, given the fact that if she were a law abiding Ozzy citizen, her attacker knew for sure her odds of being able to defend herself against him were not too good. He knew he had little to fear she had any weapon to equalize, let alone put her in a position to hold the upper hand against his physically overpowering onslaught, effectively making her prey.

Robert, you espouse the view that had she had a gun, her odds not only would not have improved, but that it could have meant they would have been decreased and even other victims could have suffered because of it. Without 1st hand knowledge of the incident I submit that is nothing more than a positional posturing of what did and might have occurred.

Here's a question for you and I hope you answer it seriously and honestly:

Envision a scenario where a person has broken into your home where you, your wife/mate live with several minor children and the attacker has your wife/mate at knife point threatening to slit her throat, then go to after your children. You know you can get to a knife or similar weapon, but also have a pistola available, though you know it's unlawful to possess or fire it, even in total defence of your family. Which method of defence would you choose?
Robert Reynolds Report This Comment
Date: July 14, 2016 11:35PM

Yep, totally understand your point Kim and we did have a scenario similar to
what you pointed out in your last paragraph a number of years back.

An old guy living in a house on his own in a Queensland suburb was being attacked by a group of young guys
who were drunk and aggressive. They were kicking at his door demanding money, dunno where the police were.
One of them picked up a brick and smashed his door open, yelling out that he was going to kill him.
The old guy, who did not hand his rifle in during the amnesty, pulled it out from under his bed
and put a bullet straight through the attackers chest. Once police had collected all the statements
from witnesses etc, the old guy was not charged with anything, not even manslaughter,
although it was illegal to have such a firearm there in his house.

In this case, the gun saved his life but there's not thousands of old guys out there with guns hidden under there beds.
If there were, there would bound to be at least some of them who would use the weapon for the wrong reason.

Guess that's my point and just as I'm posting this, another terrorist attack in Nice, France, using a truck and weapons.
Carrying a gun with you to protect yourself is not the answer. It has to be nipped in the bud well before guns are needed
but how??? I dunno.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 15, 2016 08:37AM

For the most part here in the US the vast majority of law abiding citizens who legally carry guns know the dangers involved and do not go to bars and get drunk. I have personally witnessed many people who carry guns both openly and concealed where when they are armed their demeanor changes to more peaceful attitudes. Most who legally carry do not get involved in arguments and tend to just walk away. I also know that the majority of those who carry would go towards the gunfire should it happen with the hopes of helping people.

As Kim stated with the woman, the perpetrator knew without a doubt she could do nothing to defend herself and the other case the younger guys felt certain the old guy had nothing to protect himself with which made them so brazen. The definition of soft targets is such places where there is little protection available and it is not only terrorist who choose soft targets criminals do as well. Take Nice France for example, this guy or guys chose the truck because it can take out more people in a short amount of time then the guns they had in the truck. Just don't know why they didn't use the grenades as well but the point being the truck was able to go though dense crowds easily and for longer before people realized it was a terrorist attack and not just an accident. If he had used a gun and the grenades people would have realized right away it was an attack. Why aren't people calling for a ban on trucks?

I still believe that if everyone were allowed to carry a gun anywhere they want we would be safer. If it is uncertain that a location is armed then that location becomes a hardened target and perpetrators will most likely look elsewhere.

soft tar·get
noun: soft target; plural noun: soft targets

a person or thing that is relatively unprotected or vulnerable, especially to military or terrorist attack.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: July 15, 2016 07:19PM

Ok Robert, let's get to the meat of the matter.

You failed to respond to my thoughts on how your laws effectively made the young lady(ies) this POS raped and murdered "prey" and secondly you flatly failed to answer my direct question put to you how YOU would react to my given scenario by instead relating a relateable, but different scenario.

C'mon man, my queries were pretty direct and as such deserve a direct response, not some trot around the neighborhood meanderings as I'd expect from a politician smiling
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 15, 2016 08:42PM

Kim, I doubt you will get a satisfactory answer to your hypothetical because most people who support disarming just don't believe anything like that could happen to them or they think the police will respond instantly or something. I have heard many people after the attack in Dallas on the police saying the police are our first line of defense and I disagree. We ourselves are our first line of defense and if we give that up then our safety is wholly left up to others.
Woot Report This Comment
Date: July 17, 2016 04:40PM

So this is Mrkim's mugshot, pretty much looks like i though he would.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: July 17, 2016 08:21PM

Sportin a flat top these days but ... []

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 17/07/2016 08:23PM by Mrkim.
robert reynolds Report This Comment
Date: July 18, 2016 03:49AM

I answered your question clear as day Kim. You've got your reading glasses on upside down, inside out.
Why am I not surprised of that?

Doesn't matter anyway, it's never going to change for you guys even if you wanted it to.
It's too late.

Saying "I told you so" doesn't bring back the thousands of lives afflicted by American political culture.

Don't bother replying, won't be reading it, I've moved on :-)
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: July 18, 2016 08:10AM

Meh, guess JG was right after all. Here I'd expected from previous convos that you were a person imbued w/integrity .... HiHo

What ever your current avocation, should you tire of it there's obviously the potential for a bright future in politics for you dude. Not answering direct questions and instead talking around issues without actually answering anything put to you are talents that lend themselves favorably in that arena smiling
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 18, 2016 08:33AM

In the light of all the police deaths lately and the talk about gun control it has been said that the police "have our backs". I say they do have our backs but we as law abiding citizens should have our own fronts and should have to ability to defend ourselves until police arrive. By defend I mean truly defend after a dangerous encroachment has occurred against us. Guns should never be used until their is a clear threat to life or limb and most who carry guns legally believe that. Sure there will always be a very small minority who will use guns wrong but to take guns away from everyone because of a very small amount of crazies is just wrong just like it would be wrong to ban cars and trucks because a few use them the wrong way.