TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Woman who stabbed a 77yo convicted paedophile to death has her jail sentence reduced to 3.5 years, just because she was a single mother. The attack was described as being "determined and sustained", but she was convicted for manslaughter instead of murder.

gouldsplosions

September 29, 2015
44 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34390935
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Woman who stabbed a 77yo convicted paedophile to death has her jail sentence reduced to 3.5 years, just because she was a single mother. The attack was described as being "determined and sustained", but she was convicted for manslaughter instead of murder.
Author

gouldsplosions

Upvotes 44
Comments 70
Date September 29, 2015 5:29 PM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3muvmg/woman_who_stabbed_a_77yo_convicted_paedophile_to/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/woman-who-stabbed-a-77yo-convicted-paedophile-to.970427
https://theredarchive.com/post/970427
Red Pill terms in post
single mother
Top posts by gouldsplosions

"Women are not equal to men; they are superior in many ways" - don't worry, it gets worse

249 upvotes
April 10, 2015
/r/MensRights

Teaching assistant Louise Aspinall, 35, 'had sex with boy of 13 on her marital bed' - shouldn't it be called rape if he's under 18?

48 upvotes
May 29, 2015
/r/MensRights

Do you think that violence against men in music videos is glamourised?

22 upvotes
December 12, 2015
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I know that neither of them are completely innocent, but the legal system exists for a reason, and he was awaiting trial at the time of his murder.

[–]altruisticnarcissist 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The legal system is fucking joke in my country.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3238409/Judge-backs-harsher-sentence-given-paedophile-abused-Asian-girls-shame-suffer.html

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This isn't really a mensrights issue though even though it may seem like it. People get leniency all the time for killing people that really deserve to die. One father waited outside of a court room at a payphone with a gun and shot a pedophile in the head for raping his son. The guy got probation.

[–]ZimbaZumba 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Not in the UK.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]muh-soggy-knee 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The fact is the loss of control defence doesn't make allowances for the special characteristics of the victim. Adultery for example is not valid grounds. It has to be a legitimate loss of control caused by the victims immediate actions.

This woman sought a weapon, travelled to the victims home, and then killed him, based upon even in her own words, his smirk and refusal to admit his crimes.

That is not a valid LoC defense. This is a pussypass, plain and simple.

Now, in this case do I actually think she deserves to be spending life behind bars, no. But allowing juries to nullify themselves like this is worrying, because what she did is plainly premeditated murder, and the next person the jury decide "had it coming" might be you

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Terrible.

First, he might not be a pedophile.

Second, he was murdered by a woman who is using it as an excuse to enact her sociopathic behavior.

Third, pedophiles don't necessarily touch children. Child molesters do.

[–]the3rdoption 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok. But this guy was convicted of raping a child.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Did you read the article? Rhetorical question. I know you didn't read the article.

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Did you read my response? Obviously you didn't.

[–]xynomaster 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

Was her son one of the victims?

I've got to say I'm not feeling real sorry for this guy.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]ayumuuu -13 points-12 points-11 points 10 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

It's a pretty hard sell that the "victim" was a "person."

[–]mwobuddy 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Sell me that you're a person. Try it after making a statement like that.

[–]the3rdoption 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

We can assume that /u/ayumuuu has not been convicted of raping a child.

[–]Kyrile 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Neither was the man this woman stabbed to death. In fact he pled not guilty and had not been convicted. She went there with a knife and stabbed a man to death based on accusations alone.

[–]the3rdoption 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes he was.

Pleasted, who had previous convictions, 

[+]ayumuuu -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I don't commit crimes against my species.

[–]Sovietrussia92 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Lions do. Lions rape and murder each other. Are they no longer lions? Just because someone does something horrible doesn't mean they are no longer human. It's important to remember that a person did do this. And that humans are fully and easily capable of things like this.

[–]ayumuuu -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Fine, they are still technically human. But that is not the point I was making. The point is that they are on a lower level than the rest of us. They are evil. They given up their human rights by taking those of another.

[–]Sovietrussia92 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

They give up their constitutional rights according to the law of the United States government, yes. And no they aren't nessecarily on a lower level than us. I say nessecarily because sometimes they kind of are, in the case of severe mental limitation. The point I'm trying to make is that they are every last bit as human as us and are on the same level. I agree they do horrible, horrible things. And on a moral scale they are at a lower level. But on a human level, they are not, all men are created equal. Even the bad ones.

[–]ayumuuu -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

All men are created equal. meaning equal opportunity from the start. Not equal status based on actions. One bad apple spoils the bunch. See, I can use idioms too!

[–]Sovietrussia92 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Great. Sarcasm and talking down to me. And here I thought I was having and mature debate with someone about a controversial topic. I guess not.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Fucking disgusting. Pedophile panic is as bad as pedophilia. I'd rather be fondled as a small boy than charged with "indecent assault of minors" as a man and have people like you conflate me with baby rapists and deny me my humanity. Which only happens with male offenders. Some MRA you are.

[–]ayumuuu -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I apologize. Obviously the man with 24 previous convictions of sexual offenses deserved to live.

My bad.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You wanna tell me you think those women who are on the front page of this sub everyday (the last one I recall had allegedly abused a boy upwards of 50 times) don't deserve to live? Bullshit. Everyone can see how insane that is. You don't have any information on what exactly this man did (decades ago). Which means you're just a man hater in denial.

[–]ayumuuu -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Yes. Duh? You touch kids, you die. Easy. Woman or man. Doesn't matter.

Also, how can I hate men? I am a men.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Bullshit. That's not why he died and you know it. You are defending a senicidal murderess who is the real public menace. Now you're covering your ass trying to take the unpopular (and insane) view that offending against minors should be a capital offense for women. Nobody thinks that. Your view that it should be one for men is pretty popular though.

The moral majority doth protest too much on this issue.

And you can hate men in the same way white knights hate men enough to beat them unconscious for laying a finger on one of the Exalted (women) without permission.

[–]ayumuuu -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This guy gets it

He killed his daughter's molester. No charges. Good for him. She killed a local pedophile. There really should be no difference. Decades of indoctrination tell me there should be a difference, but logic tells me there should be no difference.

And no, women who beat men should get their teeth knocked in just like a guy beating his woman should.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Let's be realistic: I'm sure watching someone get beaten to death in front of her is orders of magnitude more traumatic for a child than being touched in her no-no place.

And no, decades of indoctrination are precisely what tell us that these two offenders should be treated the same. Decades of indoctrination cause all thought to halt when we hear "child molester", so that it's not even permissible to ask whether we're talking about the kind of sick monster who rapes toddlers to within an inch of their lives or the man who tries to be a good person but fondled some 15-year-olds through their clothes, in a few moments of weakness, over several decades otherwise fraught with herculean self-control, including seeking professional help. Decades of indoctrination say that being eviscerated by shiv-wielding inmates is the just deserts of the twenty-year-old who fucks a fifteen-year-old non-virgin who actively sought him out for sex.

You don't even know the difference between logic and its opposite: zealotry.

Again, the murderess didn't kill this victim because of the offenses he was convicted of, nor because he was posing an immediate threat to anyone as far as she knew, but because she couldn't let due process play out. Again, you suck at men's rights. Thinking due process should be thrown out for sex crimes is precisely what we're not about.

And frankly I don't buy that sexual contact by an adult is categorically ruinous to otherwise normal children's lives. It's certainly an unpleasant experience for most, but it's not the crime of crimes you make it out to be, where anyone guilty of it forfeits their human rights indefinitely afterwards. Telling people they've been irreparably damaged by these incidents is hardly any better than dismissing their severity altogether, if at all. That's practically like molesting them twice.

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I've got to say I'm not feeling real sorry for this guy.

How about this guy? Are you feeling sorry for him?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478285/Innocent-man-burned-death-vigilante-neighbours-mistook-paedophile.html

[–]xynomaster -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

But this man was convicted.

[–]danpilon 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

So vigilante murder is totally ok if the person is actually guilty of a crime? Why not just make the death penalty the default sentence? You don't have to like the victim of a murder to think murder is wrong.

[–]Lethn 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Mob justice is for the stupid and the evil.

[–]the3rdoption -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Agree. We should make the default sentence the death penalty, particularly for molest. The disorder that drives it does not seem to be curable.

[–]mjsansai -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Castration?

[–]the3rdoption 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not a cure. Reduces sex drive. Doesn't eliminate it.

[+]ayumuuu -11 points-10 points-9 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So vigilante murder is totally ok if the person is actually guilty of a crime?

....yes?

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet.

[–]Kyrile 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

no he wasnt

[–]ayumuuu -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But.... we're not talking about that guy.

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You mean someone punished to the extent of the law, because we deem that universally to be the required punishment, is not enough? He should just be executed? Why don't you start a U.S. gov website petition to enact death penalty for pedophiles.

Come on. What are you waiting for? If the idea of such a person being alive is so offensive to you, stop being an armchair politician. Start forming petitions and groups to get the death penalty.

What are you waiting for?

[–]xynomaster 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I didn't say he deserved to die just that I don't feel sorry for him.

What she did wasn't right, but if her son was being abused it's understandable. She was punished for it, and she wasn't punished as heavily as she would have been had she murdered an innocent person, which is a very reasonable approach in my view.

[–]soulless_ging 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The judge emphasised the case was "unique" as Sands had lost control rather than taken the law into her own hands and engaged in "vigilante conduct".

He said: "There must never be the slightest encouragement for mob rule." The judge added: "This was a case in which the defendant promptly gave herself up to the police in a highly stressed state, never disputed responsibility for the killing as a matter of fact, did not take the opportunity to get rid of evidence and demonstrated remorse."

During the trial, Sands told the court she had not intended to hurt Pleasted when she went to his flat with a knife, claiming instead she wanted him to admit to his crimes so his young accusers would not have to go to court.

Sands told the jury she was "frightened", adding: "It was not how it was meant to go. He was meant to listen to me". However she said Pleasted "smirked" when he answered the door and told her the boys were all liars who had ruined his life.

Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't, but either way I don't blame a judge for being lenient with a single parent who was enraged by a threat to her community and her child.

What's more, unless we have a similar case to compare it to where a male vigilante was given a harsher sentence, I don't see the Men's Right's issue.

I'm all for giving lighter sentences for understandable crimes, especially to single parents. This woman isn't a danger to the general public, and keeping her in jail for a longer period is also punishing her child.

[–]mwobuddy 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm all for giving lighter sentences for understandable crimes, especially to single parents. This woman isn't a danger to the general public, and keeping her in jail for a longer period is also punishing her child.

Understandable? There is no crime which should be tolerated.

[–]Kyrile 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This woman isn't a danger to the general public, and keeping her in jail for a longer period is also punishing her child.

She accidentally stabbed someone to death while enraged. Next time she is enraged who is she going to stab to death?

She should get the sentence any murderer gets.

[–]ZimbaZumba -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What's more, unless we have a similar case to compare it to where a male vigilante was given a harsher sentence, I don't see the Men's Right's issue

So giving light sentences to lynchers in the Deep South can not be construed as racial issue, as there no instances of blacks similarly lynching whites to compare to? Considering an issue without appropriate context is dangerous thinking.

[–]soulless_ging 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What? Male vigilantes exist and are prosecuted as well. I'm saying we should check the records before we scream pussy pass here.

[–]ZimbaZumba -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

That argument is the last resort of a scoundrel and you should take your stinking, concern trolling arse elsewhere. Any reasonable person, with even just moderate knowledge of the world around them will tell you, you do not get 3.5yrs for premeditatedly going round someones house with knife and killing them. This is even if your stated, unverifiable, purpose was not to kill them.

I am guessing you would consider light sentences, or no sentences, given to white lynchers not racist, due to the lack of sentence data on blacks lynching whites.

[–]192873982 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

How come the English word manslaughter sounds much more serious than murder to me? I mean it contains slaugher.

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Because we slaughter animals daily for food. We don't murder them daily for food, unless you're an animal rights type.

Slaughter implies some sort of utilitarian or non vengeful motive, which this certainly wasn't.

[–]192873982 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That makes at least some sense. However, slauthering men like animals is even worse than when you have vengeful motives. But whatever... languages are strange.

[–]MenandBoysareGood 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She probably got a stern talking to from the judge.

[–]ZimbaZumba 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Where the hell is the Director of Public Prosecutions on this one. THis sentence should be appealed immediately, it sets a dangerous precedent.

[–]Black_caped_man 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you want an increase in vigilante justice? Because this is how you get an increase in vigilante justice.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Sovietrussia92 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no upvotes, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[–]Huitzil37 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Okay... a simple "wrong" would've done just fine.

[–]Huitzil37 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Her actions are not correct. They may be understandable, but they are not correct. Allowing people to do this destroys the justice system and indeed the entire concept of justice.

It is understandable because people feel that emotional impulse to visit infinite punishment on "bad people" -- but the whole purpose of having a justice system is to stop people from doing that.

I think that a man would have been given a light sentence in the same circumstance, because the identity of the victim is way more relevant here than gender of the perpetrator.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mwobuddy 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'll keep this screenshot for a while. If you get into court I can provide premeditated desire to kill a person solely for who they are. They should be able to get 10+ years on you for that.

[–]ukreview 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

if there are seriously some, perhaps many members of the MRM here who believe it's ok to murder convicts, then perhaps some of the criticism levelled at our community about it being filled with thugs and nutters have some merits. disgusted that people here would advocate such a blatant breach of the spirit of justice and due process.

[–]mwobuddy 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

True, however people who want to murder others under the guise of moral outrage exist in all subs, reddit or real world.

When people say things like that, they no longer represent us, as Im sure many naive feminists would say child abusing man castrators do not represent feminism as a group.

It is a point of interest to note that people do in fact use moral outrage to gain appreciation and a fanbase out of a need for being perceived as good. Narcissists do it to be loved, sociopaths do it to get power over others.

[–]Huitzil37 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

People who don't care about what the law says, when the law says to do something contrary to their emotional impulses, cause the law to be meaningless.

The only people who fear primitive retribution are those who fear that someone else who has the power to hurt them will decide that hurting them is good. That group is "every living person".

Your whole post is bonkers.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mwobuddy 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I dont have that defect I want to murder people who are different

Sociopath alert.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mwobuddy 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You want to murder people for reasons and then claim its "for the good of X". Sociopath.

[–]Huitzil37 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You just said we don't need laws because people don't need to know what they can do that is or is not acceptable, and "common sense should suffice". This was just after you said that killing people in order to get things that you want was acceptable, and that the law was not worthy of respect because it told you not to kill people to get what you want.

The things that you are saying are cartoonishly evil.

[–]Kyrile 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

My white knight radar is going beserk over you.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter