Homeless man who was hailed hero of Manchester bombing stole money and phone from victims as they lay dying and took pictures of dead bodies before using injured grandmother's bank card in McDonald's

First topic message reminder :

A homeless man who was hailed a hero of the Manchester terror attack stole from victims and took sick photographs of dead people following the atrocity.

Chris Parker, 33, today admitted taking Pauline Healey's purse as her 14-year-old granddaughter Sorrell Leczkowski lay dying just minutes after the atrocity which killed 22 innocent people.

Graphic footage was played at Manchester Crown Court which showed Parker kneeling over bodies, rifling their bags and taking photographs of dead bodies as he made his way through the foyer to try and steal from victims.

Shockingly, he was seen prodding Mrs Healey's body to check if she was still alive before stealing her purse just moments after the attack on May 22.

Parker, who had been sleeping rough nearby that night, later stole a teenage girl's iPhone 6 and used Mrs Healey's bank card to buy food in McDonald's.

Just minutes earlier at least 400 people were injured following an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena.

He had initially been hailed a 'hero' after he described wrapping an injured girl in a T-shirt and cradled a dying woman in his arms.

Well-wishers even raised £50,000 for him after a GoFundMe page was set up.

But he was arrested after CCTV footage showed him stealing the purse of Mrs Healey as her granddaughter lay dying yards away and also taking the mobile phone.

The crowdfunding site said it is in 'full control' of the funds and that they have not reached Parker.

A GoFundMe spokesman said: 'We are honouring refunds on this campaign under our GoFundMe Guarantee. Donors should go to gofundme.com/guarantee.'

Michael Johns set up the page after being 'horrified' by the news of the attack and previously said donors could get their money back after the trial.

The horrifying footage was played as Parker, from Halifax, West Yorkshire, pleaded guilty to stealing a purse, a second charge of theft of an iPhone 6 from a girl - who cannot be named - and fraud by using one of Mrs Healey's cards.

He denied further charges of attempting to steal the content of a handbag, attempted theft of a coat, using Mrs Healey's bank card in a Tesco store and of using it on the Greater Manchester public transport system.

After the pleas, it emerged he had been on the run for a month when he was bailed to a hostel on condition he wore an electronic tag.

It is believed he cut the tag off and dumped it in a soup can before failing to appear in court on December 6. A warrant was issued for his arrest three days before Christmas.

In a 20 minute compilation of CCTV footage from the arena, too graphic to be released, the defendant is seen going in and out of the foyer, walking around various parts of the entrance.

The footage begins with scenes of crowds leaving the arena visibly flinching as the bomb detonates and a second later terrified concert-goers putting their hands to their mouths and running.

Moments later people gingerly return to the smoke-logged bomb scene and though the footage is pixelated, it is clear there are bodies strewn across the area.

There are also pools of blood and what appear to be body parts and pixelated mounds of people, not moving.

Parker, carrying a rucksack on his back and wearing a woolly cap, is seen walking around, clearly agitated, either looking at his phone or with it to his ear, as dazed people wander around.

The defendant appears to go to the aid of one woman, crouching down as she sits up.

Police and what appear to be arena staff in hi-visibility jackets then appear before more police arrive en masse.

He also speaks to one bewildered young girl, comforting her along with a police officer. The youngster's mother is believed to be one of the fatalities.





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5231695/Homeless-man-pleads-guilty-stealing-purse-victim.html

If you really think about it, throughly, you know I'm right and you know that those victims no longer needed anything. As ghoulish as you might think it is, this man is just doing what he needs to do to make it.

You can't hold a buffet out in front of a starving person and expect them not to jump at it over ethics.

As far as smoking goes, well, nicotine is harder to kick than heroine. If he could afford it, of course he's going to buy it. Anybody addicted to tobacco would know this.

Lastly, if this guy had been a veteran or something, you'd all be much more understanding -- even though none of us really know the first thing about this man. So stuff your moral high ground and try a little empathy.

Ben Reilly wrote:Syl, I thought I was done but I'm not done. You know what? If I lost someone in a terrorist attack, the very LAST thing I'd be thinking about is their cell phone or the fucking money in their pocket.

You would surely hope that they were treated with respect in the aftermath .
To hear that some lowlife had been frisking them as they lay dead or dying wouldnt bring much comfort.

I think Miffs summed it up best, because it addresses exactly the point you made.
The little girl whos legs were blown off didnt need her shoes....so is anyone entitled to take them.?

harvesmom wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Well, it's not like the victims needed that stuff anymore, is it?

I know it's not the most noble thing to do, but when you have no home and no idea where your next meal's coming for, you're going to pounce at any opportunity. How people don't understand this basic fact, that people aren't just going to choose to lay down and starve rather than do what they have to do to live, is beyond me.

What an absolutely repulsive way of thinking. I just remembered why I don't bother posting here anymore. Thats probably the most disgusting thing I've ever heard anyone say.

Okay with all due respect, you're entitled to disagree with that comment but to say you've "just remembered why I don't bother posting here anymore" when you post among some of the nastiest, racist people on another forum, is a bit much.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Syl wrote:

Hopefully you said that to play devils advocate.

To think of any innocent victim, maybe someone you love, lying dead or dying in the most violent way possible, and some stranger leaning over them stealing their possessions, its sickening and repulsive.

I most certainly was not playing devil's advocate. None of you who are jumping my ass have any idea how you'd react if you had no home, no food, no future.

The homeless in the US and UK are not going to starve. It's not a holiday being homeless, but it's not like being homeless in India or Somalia. Take a drive on Lancaster just east of 35. You will see all the homeless hanging out there. They are there because there is food there. They don't need to rob the dead to survive.    

It's not about them being dead, it's about a man who saw an opportunity and jumped on it.

If he'd been a well-off guy who saw an opportunity in the market and pounced on it, you'd be singing his praises. But it's still all about getting by, isn't it?

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

I most certainly was not playing devil's advocate. None of you who are jumping my ass have any idea how you'd react if you had no home, no food, no future.

The homeless in the US and UK are not going to starve. It's not a holiday being homeless, but it's not like being homeless in India or Somalia. Take a drive on Lancaster just east of 35. You will see all the homeless hanging out there. They are there because there is food there. They don't need to rob the dead to survive.    

Absolutely right. I work in a local town centre, I was there several days before Christmas. Church groups and volunteers go out 3 times a day and provide hot drinks and a daily hot meal to the homeless there, about 50 of them were congregated in the local church grounds eating out of a take away container, dont know what they had but there was steam coming off it. Not saying they can all get beds for the night, but they certainly dont starve. Local businesses and market stalls also give their end of day food goods away to them. They even held a Christmas party for them which we all donated to !

Ben Reilly wrote:If you really think about it, throughly, you know I'm right and you know that those victims no longer needed anything. As ghoulish as you might think it is, this man is just doing what he needs to do to make it.

You can't hold a buffet out in front of a starving person and expect them not to jump at it over ethics.

As far as smoking goes, well, nicotine is harder to kick than heroine. If he could afford it, of course he's going to buy it. Anybody addicted to tobacco would know this.

Lastly, if this guy had been a veteran or something, you'd all be much more understanding -- even though none of us really know the first thing about this man. So stuff your moral high ground and try a little empathy.

A person in a grave needs nothing. However, robbing the dead is still illegal, regardless of how much some other person may need some stuff.

This man was not going to die. The Brits do not have people starving to death in the streets any more than we do.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The homeless in the US and UK are not going to starve. It's not a holiday being homeless, but it's not like being homeless in India or Somalia. Take a drive on Lancaster just east of 35. You will see all the homeless hanging out there. They are there because there is food there. They don't need to rob the dead to survive.    

It's not about them being dead, it's about a man who saw an opportunity and jumped on it.

If he'd been a well-off guy who saw an opportunity in the market and pounced on it, you'd be singing his praises. But it's still all about getting by, isn't it?

Stealing is not an opportunity in the market.

Syl wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Syl, I thought I was done but I'm not done. You know what? If I lost someone in a terrorist attack, the very LAST thing I'd be thinking about is their cell phone or the fucking money in their pocket.

You would surely hope that they were treated with respect in the aftermath .
To hear that some lowlife had been frisking them as they lay dead or dying wouldnt bring much comfort.

I think Miffs summed it up best, because it addresses exactly the point you made.
The little girl whos legs were blown off didnt need her shoes....so is anyone entitled to take them.?

I don't consider taking possessions from the dead to be disrespecting them. Raping their bodies? Yes. Snagging a few dollars off them? No. And I wouldn't care. I'd care that my loved one died in a terrorist attack, and I wouldn't give half a shit about what was in his or her pockets.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Syl wrote:

You would surely hope that they were treated with respect in the aftermath .
To hear that some lowlife had been frisking them as they lay dead or dying wouldnt bring much comfort.

I think Miffs summed it up best, because it addresses exactly the point you made.
The little girl whos legs were blown off didnt need her shoes....so is anyone entitled to take them.?

I don't consider taking possessions from the dead to be disrespecting them. Raping their bodies? Yes. Snagging a few dollars off them? No. And I wouldn't care. I'd care that my loved one died in a terrorist attack, and I wouldn't give half a shit about what was in his or her pockets.

What if they are just almost dead? Not quite, but close enough that survival is doubtful?

What if an important family heirloom is stolen? Maybe a wedding ring? Hell, what's a dead woman need with a wedding ring? How about gold teeth? Jerk a few out. It's not like a dead person needs their gold teeth.

eddie wrote:

harvesmom wrote:

What an absolutely repulsive way of thinking. I just remembered why I don't bother posting here anymore. Thats probably the most disgusting thing I've ever heard anyone say.

Okay with all due respect, you're entitled to disagree with that comment but to say you've "just remembered why I don't bother posting here anymore" when you post among some of the nastiest, racist people on another forum, is a bit much.

Edds. Go find me a nasty racist post I have ever made and I'll listen to you. Or even one I have ever agreed with. Or actually find me 5 posts I've even made on there in about 6 months. I've made 1500 posts there in 13 years... you've made 7000. Pot...kettle... its a moot point that is really. Yet here you are supporting someone who thinks its OK basically to be a grave robber.

Ben Reilly wrote:If you really think about it, throughly, you know I'm right and you know that those victims no longer needed anything. As ghoulish as you might think it is, this man is just doing what he needs to do to make it.

You can't hold a buffet out in front of a starving person and expect them not to jump at it over ethics. S

As far as smoking goes, well, nicotine is harder to kick than heroine. If he could afford it, of course he's going to buy it. Anybody addicted to tobacco would know this.

Lastly, if this guy had been a veteran or something, you'd all be much more understanding -- even though none of us really know the first thing about this man. So stuff your moral high ground and try a little empathy.

He wasnt starving, he is homeless, two different things.
My empathy lies with the victims of the bomb and the loved ones they left behind, not with some opportunistic lowlife who must surely be either pure evil or mentally deranged to act the way he did that night....and the way he continued to act in the following days.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Syl wrote:

You would surely hope that they were treated with respect in the aftermath .
To hear that some lowlife had been frisking them as they lay dead or dying wouldnt bring much comfort.

I think Miffs summed it up best, because it addresses exactly the point you made.
The little girl whos legs were blown off didnt need her shoes....so is anyone entitled to take them.?

I don't consider taking possessions from the dead to be disrespecting them. Raping their bodies? Yes. Snagging a few dollars off them? No. And I wouldn't care. I'd care that my loved one died in a terrorist attack, and I wouldn't give half a shit about what was in his or her pockets.

They were not all dead...some were dying, him frisking and robbing them could have been the last thing they ever saw.

Syl wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:If you really think about it, throughly, you know I'm right and you know that those victims no longer needed anything. As ghoulish as you might think it is, this man is just doing what he needs to do to make it.

You can't hold a buffet out in front of a starving person and expect them not to jump at it over ethics. S

As far as smoking goes, well, nicotine is harder to kick than heroine. If he could afford it, of course he's going to buy it. Anybody addicted to tobacco would know this.

Lastly, if this guy had been a veteran or something, you'd all be much more understanding -- even though none of us really know the first thing about this man. So stuff your moral high ground and try a little empathy.

He wasnt starving, he is homeless, two different things.
My empathy lies with the victims of the bomb and the loved ones they left behind, not with some opportunistic lowlife who must surely be either pure evil or mentally deranged to act the way he did that night....and the way he continued to act in the following days.

Since there were body parts laying around, and the guy had no other way to feed himself, he should have snagged a few limbs and cooked them. Seeing how he was staring down starvation and all.

And, if you're dead, you have no need for you limbs.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:If you really think about it, throughly, you know I'm right and you know that those victims no longer needed anything. As ghoulish as you might think it is, this man is just doing what he needs to do to make it.

You can't hold a buffet out in front of a starving person and expect them not to jump at it over ethics. S

As far as smoking goes, well, nicotine is harder to kick than heroine. If he could afford it, of course he's going to buy it. Anybody addicted to tobacco would know this.

Lastly, if this guy had been a veteran or something, you'd all be much more understanding -- even though none of us really know the first thing about this man. So stuff your moral high ground and try a little empathy.

He wasnt starving, he is homeless, two different things.
My empathy lies with the victims of the bomb and the loved ones they left behind, not with some opportunistic lowlife who must surely be either pure evil or mentally deranged to act the way he did that night....and the way he continued to act in the following days.

Since there were body parts laying around, and the guy had no other way to feed himself, he should have snagged a few limbs and cooked them. Seeing how he was staring down starvation and all.

And, if you're dead, you have no need for you limbs.  

If he'd been that desperate, he would have.

The more its discussed the more sickening it is.
My grandson works at the MEN, he was off that night, his stand is in the foyer where the terrorist detonated the bomb.

The thought of somone picking over his possessions if he had been one of the victims that night makes me physically sick.

Thats it...off to bed.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Since there were body parts laying around, and the guy had no other way to feed himself, he should have snagged a few limbs and cooked them. Seeing how he was staring down starvation and all.

And, if you're dead, you have no need for you limbs.  

If he'd been that desperate, he would have.

Yes, if he has crashed in the Andes and had no other food, he might get that desperate.

But he was in Manchester and could get food whenever he wanted it, so your point about him being desperate is kinda moot.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Since there were body parts laying around, and the guy had no other way to feed himself, he should have snagged a few limbs and cooked them. Seeing how he was staring down starvation and all.

And, if you're dead, you have no need for you limbs.  

If he'd been that desperate, he would have.

There's a fine line between scavenging, and stealing. This came up in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, in New Orleans. Police were protecting private proterty, when all people wanted were water and batteries, etc. I would argue that protecting an abstract principle like private property, against survival, is immoral.

If you came upon an auto accident, and you had a first aid kit in you car, would it be proper to deny bandages to the victims because they were your private property? Private property is an invented concept, survival is an instinct.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

If he'd been that desperate, he would have.

Yes, if he has crashed in the Andes and had no other food, he might get that desperate.

But he was in Manchester and could get food whenever he wanted it, so your point about him being desperate is kinda moot.    

You've already given up the point. Now you are arguing issues of degree. We leave issues of degree to the jury.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

If he'd been that desperate, he would have.

There's a fine line between scavenging, and stealing.  This came up in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, in New Orleans.  Police were protecting private proterty, when all people wanted were water and batteries, etc.  I would argue that protecting an abstract principle like private property, against survival, is immoral.

If you came upon an auto accident, and you had a first aid kit in you car, would it be proper to deny bandages to the victims because they were your private property?  Private property is an invented concept, survival is an instinct.

The line is not really that fine. Your fine line is an invented concept.

I have a goat. It's my goat. It's not your goat. You have no right to my goat unless I grant you permission. There is nothing invented about that.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes, if he has crashed in the Andes and had no other food, he might get that desperate.

But he was in Manchester and could get food whenever he wanted it, so your point about him being desperate is kinda moot.    

You've already given up the point.  Now you are arguing issues of degree.  We leave issues of degree to the jury.

What point did I give up?

I have said from the beginning that he had no reason to steal because it was not a matter of life or death for him.

Why do you suck so bad at reading and comprehension?

Ben Reilly wrote:If you really think about it, throughly, you know I'm right and you know that those victims no longer needed anything. As ghoulish as you might think it is, this man is just doing what he needs to do to make it.

Lastly, if this guy had been a veteran or something, you'd all be much more understanding -- even though none of us really know the first thing about this man. So stuff your moral high ground and try a little empathy.

Bull cookies. I couldn’t care less if he was a veteran. What he did was wrong.

Let’s just hope that you never ever have to try and find out how the families of people who are killed feel when their loved ones belongings are stolen or not returned. Or see it. It’s not pretty. So stuff your moral high ground and try a little empathy.

Cass wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:If you really think about it, throughly, you know I'm right and you know that those victims no longer needed anything. As ghoulish as you might think it is, this man is just doing what he needs to do to make it.

Lastly, if this guy had been a veteran or something, you'd all be much more understanding -- even though none of us really know the first thing about this man. So stuff your moral high ground and try a little empathy.

Bull cookies. I couldn’t care less if he was a veteran. What he did was wrong.

Let’s just hope that you never ever have to try and find out how the families of people who are killed feel when their loved ones belongings are stolen or not returned. Or see it. It’s not pretty. So stuff your moral high ground and try a little empathy.

I wouldn't care if they were all strangers. If I saw someone in my neck of the woods robbing from the dead and dying, I'd clean their fucking clock.

Like has been said a few times. There are lines that civilized humans don't cross.

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

Bull cookies. I couldn’t care less if he was a veteran. What he did was wrong.

Let’s just hope that you never ever have to try and find out how the families of people who are killed feel when their loved ones belongings are stolen or not returned. Or see it. It’s not pretty. So stuff your moral high ground and try a little empathy.

I wouldn't care if they were all strangers. If I saw someone in my neck of the woods robbing from the dead and dying, I'd clean their fucking clock.

Like has been said a few times. There are lines that civilized humans don't cross.  

Agree.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

If he'd been that desperate, he would have.

There's a fine line between scavenging, and stealing.  This came up in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, in New Orleans.  Police were protecting private proterty, when all people wanted were water and batteries, etc.  I would argue that protecting an abstract principle like private property, against survival, is immoral.

If you came upon an auto accident, and you had a first aid kit in you car, would it be proper to deny bandages to the victims because they were your private property?  Private property is an invented concept, survival is an instinct.

The line is not really that fine. Your fine line is an invented concept.

I have a goat. It's my goat. It's not your goat. You have no right to my goat unless I grant you permission. There is nothing invented about that.  

How is it your goat?
by what invented concept do you claim ownership?

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The line is not really that fine. Your fine line is an invented concept.

I have a goat. It's my goat. It's not your goat. You have no right to my goat unless I grant you permission. There is nothing invented about that.  

How is it your goat?
by what invented concept do you claim ownership?

My goat is now a taco. It's my taco. If you try to steal it I will shoot you dead and Ben will steel your gold teeth.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You've already given up the point.  Now you are arguing issues of degree.  We leave issues of degree to the jury.

What point did I give up?

I have said from the beginning that he had no reason to steal because it was not a matter of life or death for him.

Why do you suck so bad at reading and comprehension?

What you gave up was the point that there is some point at which you would grant aid to someone. If you wouldn't, I would expect you would eat your own children, and perhaps sell their heart and livers for profit.

And I'm not going to stoop to a dumb fuckin' redneck on the issue of comprehension. I'm ten steps ahead of you, waiting for you to catch up. I think we proved that when I caught you out on the Koch Bros./George Mason University issue.

Fuckin' crackers. They actually think they're even clever these days.

Great. Dickwaving in real time and on here. Just what we all need.

Grow up boys.

Cass wrote:Great. Dickwaving in real time and on here. Just what we all need.

Grow up boys.

Cass, stop trying to be the peacemaker. I'm what you call a snowflake who doesn't give a shit. I could cut a cracker's heart out, and not even blink.

What this world needs is more push-back. Please don't type-cast me as some liberal pussy. I'm one who believes that liberals can cut throats too.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

What point did I give up?

I have said from the beginning that he had no reason to steal because it was not a matter of life or death for him.

Why do you suck so bad at reading and comprehension?

What you gave up was the point that there is some point at which you would grant aid to someone.  If you wouldn't, I would expect you would eat your own children, and perhaps sell their heart and livers for profit.

And I'm not going to stoop to a dumb fuckin' redneck on the issue of comprehension.  I'm ten steps ahead of you, waiting for you to catch up.  I think we proved that when I caught you out on the Koch Bros./George Mason University issue.

Fuckin' crackers.  They actually think they're even clever these days.

This isn't about granting aid. None of these victims were in a position to grant aid.

Original Quill wrote:

Cass wrote:Great. Dickwaving in real time and on here. Just what we all need.

Grow up boys.

Cass, stop trying to be the peacemaker.  I'm what you call a snowflake who doesn't give a shit.  I could cut a cracker's heart out, and not even blink.

What this world needs is more push-back.  Please don't type-cast me as some liberal pussy.  I'm one who believes that liberals can cut throats too.

After you cut their throats, you can steal their jewelry too.

Cass wrote:Great. Dickwaving in real time and on here. Just what we all need.

Grow up boys.

I'm always grown up. It's a flaw of being a redneck.

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:Great. Dickwaving in real time and on here. Just what we all need.

Grow up boys.

I'm always grown up. It's a flaw of being a redneck.  

Grown up...like you did with the KKK.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm always grown up. It's a flaw of being a redneck.  

Grown up...like you did with the KKK.

I've never been a member of the KKK. I was a Boy Scout though.

Oh god.

I’m out.

Cass wrote:Oh god.

I’m out.

Don't leave me alone. I'm scared!!!!!

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Grown up...like you did with the KKK.

I've never been a member of the KKK. I was a Boy Scout though.    

Haha...a boy scout in in the south. I shudder to think.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I've never been a member of the KKK. I was a Boy Scout though.    

Haha...a boy scout in in the south.  I shudder to think.

Yeah, we drank dirty water and raw milk.

Then robbed a few graves.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Haha...a boy scout in in the south.  I shudder to think.

Yeah, we drank dirty water and raw milk.

Then robbed a few graves.

Look I don't know what went on in your community. But I know enough about your region that I don't want to be associated.

Why not we separate amicably, instead of nuking each other to death? We go our own ways, and we are happier. California, the 6th-larges economy in the world, can become the nucleus for a country that is miles away from you ideologically. You would be happier and we would be happier.

What's to be lost?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yeah, we drank dirty water and raw milk.

Then robbed a few graves.

Look I don't know what went on in your community.  But I know enough about your region that I don't want to be associated.

Why not we separate amicably, instead of nuking each other to death?  We go our own ways, and we are happier.  California, the 6th-larges economy in the world, can become the nucleus for a country that is miles away from you ideologically.  You would be happier and we would be happier.

What's to be lost?

Can I have some of that dirty San Fran water? Looks tasty!

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Look I don't know what went on in your community.  But I know enough about your region that I don't want to be associated.

Why not we separate amicably, instead of nuking each other to death?  We go our own ways, and we are happier.  California, the 6th-larges economy in the world, can become the nucleus for a country that is miles away from you ideologically.  You would be happier and we would be happier.

What's to be lost?

Can I have some of that dirty San Fran water?  Looks tasty!    

Why?  Is the water in the Rio Grande polluted by dead bodies?

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The line is not really that fine. Your fine line is an invented concept.

I have a goat. It's my goat. It's not your goat. You have no right to my goat unless I grant you permission. There is nothing invented about that.  

How is it your goat?
by what invented concept do you claim ownership?

My goat is now a taco. It's my taco. If you try to steal it I will shoot you dead and Ben will steel your gold teeth.

But It was my goat so I am not going to steal your taco,
I am going to shoot you first for making my goat into a taco
and then Ben can take pry the taco out of your cold dead hands


it seems the whole 'ownership' thing comes down to 'might is right'


although, I generally agree with the presumption that as he was in the UK, he wasn't truly in starving survival mode. I'd suggest he is probably a drug addict

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

My goat is now a taco. It's my taco. If you try to steal it I will shoot you dead and Ben will steel your gold teeth.

But It was my goat so I am not going to steal your taco,
I am going to shoot you first for making my goat into a taco
and then Ben can take pry the taco out of your cold dead hands  


it seems the whole 'ownership' thing comes down to 'might is right'


although, I generally agree with the presumption that as he was in the UK, he wasn't truly in starving survival mode. I'd suggest he is probably a drug addict

The ownership thing is based on law. Like the laws that define assault, rape and murder.

That's actually one of the few roles of government. To keep people form harming other people, and punish those that do. If you steal my taco, I am harmed. So it's far more complicated than might makes right.

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:


But It was my goat so I am not going to steal your taco,
I am going to shoot you first for making my goat into a taco
and then Ben can take pry the taco out of your cold dead hands  


it seems the whole 'ownership' thing comes down to 'might is right'


although, I generally agree with the presumption that as he was in the UK, he wasn't truly in starving survival mode. I'd suggest he is probably a drug addict

The ownership thing is based on law. Like the laws that define assault, rape and murder.

That's actually one of the few roles of government. To keep people form harming other people, and punish those that do. If you steal my taco, I am harmed. So it's far more complicated than might makes right.      

Laws are made by the people who have the stakes.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The ownership thing is based on law. Like the laws that define assault, rape and murder.

That's actually one of the few roles of government. To keep people form harming other people, and punish those that do. If you steal my taco, I am harmed. So it's far more complicated than might makes right.      

Laws are  made by the people who have the stakes.

So you don't want any laws?

That's quite a switch from your typical statist position in which the government needs to play a very vital role in our lives.

LOL
then by what do you claim ownership?
I claim ownership of the goat, how does your right exceed mine.
You stole my goat and made it a taco. I demand reparations.

You can't cherry pick the bits of social convention that suit you. If you don't want the rest of civilization, that protects other people including those that own nothing, then you don't get the bits that respect the concept of private property.

So No, it is not one of the few roles of Gov't, if the gov't isn't providing education, health care etc than it useless and I like many would completely disregard it.
Gov't and indeed Society is supposed to exist for the mutual good of the many, not the benefit of a few that greedily lay claim to resources.

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

My goat is now a taco. It's my taco. If you try to steal it I will shoot you dead and Ben will steel your gold teeth.

But It was my goat so I am not going to steal your taco,
I am going to shoot you first for making my goat into a taco
and then Ben can take pry the taco out of your cold dead hands  


it seems the whole 'ownership' thing comes down to 'might is right'


although, I generally agree with the presumption that as he was in the UK, he wasn't truly in starving survival mode. I'd suggest he is probably a drug addict

The ownership thing is based on law. Like the laws that define assault, rape and murder.

That's actually one of the few roles of government. To keep people form harming other people, and punish those that do. If you steal my taco, I am harmed. So it's far more complicated than might makes right.      

If you're dead, your taco will do you no good. Dead people don't own things. They're inanimate matter. A rock can't own anything either.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Since there were body parts laying around, and the guy had no other way to feed himself, he should have snagged a few limbs and cooked them. Seeing how he was staring down starvation and all.

And, if you're dead, you have no need for you limbs.  

If he'd been that desperate, he would have.

Yes, if he has crashed in the Andes and had no other food, he might get that desperate.

But he was in Manchester and could get food whenever he wanted it, so your point about him being desperate is kinda moot.

Oh, please. You know as well as I do that desperation is subjective. If it wasn’t we wouldn't see rich dudes jumping off buildings when the stock market crashed.

harvesmom wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Well, it's not like the victims needed that stuff anymore, is it?

I know it's not the most noble thing to do, but when you have no home and no idea where your next meal's coming for, you're going to pounce at any opportunity. How people don't understand this basic fact, that people aren't just going to choose to lay down and starve rather than do what they have to do to live, is beyond me.

What an absolutely repulsive way of thinking. I just remembered why I don't bother posting here anymore. Thats probably the most disgusting thing I've ever heard anyone say.

After all of the racist, anti-social and plain ugly crap that the likes of 'MinorStormee', 'HolyFarter' and SmellyBum' have posted over the last few years, 'harvesmom' claims that this comparatively moderate statement from Ben is "probably the most disgusting thing.." that she has ever read on Internet forums ?!?

Harvesmom must have one mighty warped "moral compass" working there..

Ben Reilly wrote:Syl, I thought I was done but I'm not done. You know what? If I lost someone in a terrorist attack, the very LAST thing I'd be thinking about is their cell phone or the fucking money in their pocket.

What if that phone has the last pictures even taken of your loved one?

There is no excuse for stealing from the dead and dying, that man was not in that kind of need.
You seem to have this 'Dewey eyed schoolgirl' of this man as some hard done to hero just trying to survive, he is far from that.
He is scum.

Think on this...when the plane went down over Lockerbie, were the residents out picking through the corpses for money? If they had been would you have said no problem the dead don't need things?
You need to grow up Ben, seriously. I thought you plumbed the depths with the pro IRA stuff. Another subject you know fuck all about the reality of.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Since there were body parts laying around, and the guy had no other way to feed himself, he should have snagged a few limbs and cooked them. Seeing how he was staring down starvation and all.

And, if you're dead, you have no need for you limbs.  

If he'd been that desperate, he would have.

The more you try to justify this man's behaviour, the more of a twerp you look.