I don't want our own Mary Winkler, I want every one who knowingly commits crime to be punished.

Well Judge Weller and Charla Mack were criminals who were never going to be punished unless a brave man took matters into his own hands. And that is exactly what Darren Mack did.



Darren deserves our support!

I'm gonna have to confess my ignorance on this case to be honest. What has happened exactly?

Quote from Otis the Sweaty

Well Judge Weller and Charla Mack were criminals who were never going to be punished unless a brave man took matters into his own hands. And that is exactly what Darren Mack did.
Darren deserves our support!

Take it easy, Otis. Inciting to violence can compromise the forum. Remember what happened to MikeeUSA's blog

Quote from Feminist_Scum

I'm gonna have to confess my ignorance on this case to be honest. What has happened exactly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Mack

I don't care what the "reason" for his killing was. He killed. It is wrong, legally and quasi-morally. I do not and will not support a man OR WOMAN that takes the law into their own hands. Plain and simple.

That being said, I will make mention and identify that he was pushed to the edge and it is that pushing that needs to be addressed. Using his situation as an example of what the court system does to a man is well and acceptable. But I will still denounce his murderings.

TMOTS

For legal reasons I would never advocate violence but I can ask the open ended question, what other options were there for Darren?


This case has women/feminists (same thing) in an absolute tizzy. An acquittal for Mack would be a devastating blow to mangina judges and cunt ex-wifes.

p.s.: everything that I have heard all points to Mack being a perverted weirdo. I'm not necessarily crazy about the guy, but I am very passionate about this case. It is about much more than whether or not one psychotic, roid-raging millionaire gets away with a double murder.

You can't go around killing people, plain and simple, but how many guys wanted to do exactly what Mack did. Most.

What a load of rot. Weasel words. I am astonished to see them here.

I can understand the 'attracting attention' issue but that simply lets censorship through the back door and prevents more complex discussion.

Darren Mack killed, they say. Accused. Not guilty until proven.

And why did he kill, if he did?

Because the Law ruined him without just cause.

Now, questions. Whose Law is it? Why did 'Law come about? Is the Law there to ruin reasonable men who have done no wrong?

We are 'subject to the Law because we design the law, support the law, allow the law and expect it to work in everyones best interests. We created law to control the wicked and levy a painful punishment upon them when they damaged other people, their rights or their property. It is there to save us doing it, not to prevent us getting Justice. We created 'Law' to hold the powerful in check. To limit the power of Kings and make all men equal before it, including the rich and powerful.

But it doesn't. Kings are few and States have taken power. The State sets itself above the Law. The 'Law' punishes and ruins men who are innocent of any crime.

The Law depends upon Man for its existence. And Men give the Law its powers to act on our behalf.

It doesn't any more. It acts on its own behalf, serving the interests of the scum that pouplate its halls and chambers. The State manipulates Law to subjugate Men.

We have never given it that right and position.

It is the action of a reasonable man to take back what is his when others are misusing it. If the Law is misused, he ought to take it into his own hands. He cannot trust it in the hands of the scum who have it presently.

The law deals in death and ruin. Let it fall from the dirty hands and onto the dirty heads of the Judges and lawyers and scum.

If Darren Mack killed to preserve what was his and punish those who attacked him, I can fully understand him.

I would want Darren to stand and say so. I would not expect him to hide behind mental excuses.

Does this mean I support violence?

Of course it does.

Violence has always been necessary when massive forces oppress. It has always been used, simply because the wicked who hold power resist - with violence - those reasonable men who wish to improve society and throw off the yoke of the wicked.

The 'Law' in the hands of the wicked, does not serve Justice.

Otis, my sweaty friend, that Avatar needs some pants. We can well do without a fat arse in our faces.

Violence is always bad! It should never be done, ever! If they take your money you should take it like a man! If they take your home you should again take it like a man! If they take your children and you never see them again, you should take it like a man! You are better than them and they just don't deserve you giving them your anger!

So what if they will not act unless under threat! You don't need to stoop to their level! Violence just causes more violence and so we should just endure our pain and take it like a men!

Women know this and we should learn from them.
Love is the only way!

Quote from pile of goo

You can't go around killing people, plain and simple, but how many guys wanted to do exactly what Mack did. Most.

Contrary to popular belief men are not quick to use violence. Our species could never have survived. Look at the amount of punishment they are taking: they're being insulted, falsely accused, separated from their children, stripped of their assets, discriminated and vilified on a daily basis. Still the number of violent incidents is relatively low.

Violence is unnecessary. We are after all not a weak minority that's been driven into the corner. Men run this world. They don't have to put up with these shenanigans if they don't want to. Sooner of later they will make it clear that they've had enough.

In the meantime there will be violence by deranged individuals, of course, that may give some men a grim satisfaction. That's human nature.

And another thing: people be careful not to let strangers provoke statements that reflect badly on the MRM or may violate the terms of service. After all, we don't know who "pile of goo" really is. His(?) username doesn't exactly inspire confidence.