Eric Locke guilty of murder

cantdecide

cantdecide wrote: »

She isn't blameless in this case.

Woman wants sex, deserves death and her teeth smashed in. Got it

Are some people actually having a discussion as to who to blame - worse still, placing any on the poor woman? Have some cop on.

Collie D

This thread is unbelievable, even by AH standards. I wonder do people express the views they do on in here in real life.

Meeting a stranger in a hotel room. Naive? Maybe.
Deserving of the same anger as her killer?

cantdecide

bluewolf wrote: »

Woman wants sex, deserves death and her teeth smashed in. Got it

I generally avoid engaging with you as a rule, BW because of this type of reply but I will make the exception to ask you what exactly I said. If you can point to exactly where I said anything like this, I'll be impressed because I said nothing like this whatsoever.

beertons

He'll be getting lots more sex now in jail.

smurgen

cantdecide wrote: »

She isn't blameless in this case. That child is the only blameless victim of Locke and she put her personal wants ahead of her child. Your indignation is misdirected in this case. You should take a long look at yourself. Not all victims are automatically completely blameless unless you're living on another planet where this kind of thing isn't a possibility.

You're warped in the brain.as a man and older brother to three younger sisters i believe they should pass freely and unharmed through this world regardless of circumstances.anyone ****ing with that belief will get ****ing minced by yours truely.

cantdecide

cantdecide wrote: »

She isn't blameless in this case. That child is the only blameless victim of Locke and she put her personal wants ahead of her child. Your indignation is misdirected in this case. You should take a long look at yourself. Not all victims are automatically completely blameless unless you're living on another planet where this kind of thing isn't a possibility.

If you ever have a ons and someone brutally murders you, I promise you my first thought wouldn't be to tell everyone what YOU did wrong.

It's actually hard to believe that you're saying that the victim - VICTIM - of an absolutely savage murder shares blame for her own death. The only person responsible for her murder is her murderer.

It really is low.

Collie D

cantdecide wrote: »

I generally avoid engaging with you as a rule, BW because of this type of reply but I will make the exception to ask you what exactly I said. If you can point to exactly where I said anything like this, I'll be impressed because I said nothing like this whatsoever.

You said she wasn't a "blameless victim" for "putting her personal wants ahead of her child". It's not much of a stretch to what Bluewolf said.

Billy86

Jesus Christ that's straight out of a horror movie, good to see he wasn't given the benefit of the doubt to be honest.

cantdecide

cantdecide wrote: »

The victim is her son. For his whole life his mother's story is going to be a fable of dating in the internet age. She paid a terrible price for her very poor decisions. I'm as angry at her as I am for Locke.

I missed this somehow.


It's absolutely sickening.

retro:electro

cantdecide wrote: »

She isn't blameless in this case. That child is the only blameless victim of Locke and she put her personal wants ahead of her child. Your indignation is misdirected in this case. You should take a long look at yourself. Not all victims are automatically completely blameless unless you're living on another planet where this kind of thing isn't a possibility.

Generally when people accuse someone of victim blaming I'm usually on the defense of the person and can see some point and logic in what they are saying- and it's one of those terms that has become diluted through the years and used over and over unduly.
This post however is 100% an example of victim blaming, completely and utterly.
I really hope that this is just online bravado and you don't echo these sentiments in the real world.

ProfessorMahoo

greencap wrote: »

I read about how he tried to use his medical history as an out.

He apparently had a periscope weiner, and got teased about it.
Pretty lame excuse really.

It like a normal weiner, except theres no japs eye, and a pinhole on the underside where the banjo string normally is.

I can understand how that would be difficult with all the money spent on new socks, but its a stretch to use it as an excuse.

Sounds like there's a poster on this thread with similar issues and similar pent up anger toward women!

beertons

beertons wrote: »

He'll be getting lots more sex now in jail.

As sickening as the murder is, I don't see why people relish the prospect of sexual assault or rape regardless of the crimes of the victim.

The punishment is detention, not rape.

eviltwin

cantdecide wrote: »

The victim is her son. For his whole life his mother's story is going to be a fable of dating in the internet age. She paid a terrible price for her very poor decisions. I'm as angry at her as I am for Locke.

Why are you angry at her? She didn't make him do it. Only one person to be angry with and its not Sonia. You should be completely ashamed of yourself and your ****ty attitude towards domestic violence.

gitzy16v

cantdecide wrote: »

She isn't blameless in this case. That child is the only blameless victim of Locke and she put her personal wants ahead of her child. Your indignation is misdirected in this case. You should take a long look at yourself. Not all victims are automatically completely blameless unless you're living on another planet where this kind of thing isn't a possibility.

What if someone in her family read what you wrote?
I'd say they'd be pretty pissed off at you saying Sonia is not blameless for getting murdered.
I'm not her family but Sonia was in my primary school class and we were in the same year in secondary school,we also grew up barely a street from each other.
I moved away about 15 years ago and never heard about Sonia again until I heard this news in the media.
It was shocking to say the least and now to have you spewing bullish1t about how Sonia has had some part in her own murder is disgusting at best.
If I've seen your comments it's totally possible some of Sonias close friends and family have too.
A bit of respect please.
R.I.P. Sonia

smurgen

I hope her relatives find strength.i think the thoughts of it all would drive me to an early grave.rip to Sonia Blount.

cantdecide

Candie wrote: »

If you ever have a ons and someone brutally murders you, I promise you my first thought wouldn't be to tell everyone what YOU did wrong.

It's actually hard to believe that you're saying that the victim - VICTIM - of an absolutely savage murder shares blame for her own death. The only person responsible for her murder is her murderer.

It really is low.

The tragedy is the life of her son. A ONS as a single independent person is one thing. A completely blind ONS as the mother to a toddler is beyond the pale in terms of risk. The child is the victim. The child is the one who will suffer forever for his mother's cavalier choices. The child is the victim. For that tragedy, his mother is partially culpable. Her decisions were atrocious and her son will suffer forever for them. That's one of the saddest things about this case.

I have nothing else to say about this. I stand over what I say. Disagree in any terms you wish, I won't be replying any further.

cantdecide

cantdecide wrote: »

The tragedy is the life of her son. A ONS as a single independent person is one thing. A completely blind ONS as the mother to a toddler is beyond the pale in terms of risk. The child is the victim. The child is the one who will suffer forever for his mother's cavalier choices. The child is the victim. For that tragedy, his mother is partially culpable. Her decisions were atrocious and her son will suffer forever for them. That's one of the saddest things about this case.

So just to be clear, you think she shares blame for the brutal torture and murder she endured at the hands of pure evil, because she was a mother and mothers should know better. You believe she in fact isn't a victim at all, and only her child is the victim of a bad mother who makes bad decisions. The child is the victim in all this, not the dead woman. Not only did she get herself killed, but she condemned her kid to a life of suffering too. She really is a bad 'un.

I guess with the way she was behaving she must have been asking for it, right?

You really need to take a long, hard look at your attitude here. It's actually disturbing, and if nothing else it's quite illuminating.

Collie D

For the reasons Gitzy gave a few posts back I hope this thread is locked up.

I try not to let random internet posters get to me but I admit to being a bit wound up by this...and I didn't even know the girl.

ceadaoin.

cantdecide wrote: »

The tragedy is the life of her son. A ONS as a single independent person is one thing. A completely blind ONS as the mother to a toddler is beyond the pale in terms of risk. The child is the victim. The child is the one who will suffer forever for his mother's cavalier choices. The child is the victim. For that tragedy, his mother is partially culpable. Her decisions were atrocious and her son will suffer forever for them. That's one of the saddest things about this case.

I have nothing else to say about this. I stand over what I say. Disagree in any terms you wish, I won't be replying any further.

For gods sake, just stop. As pointed out above what if Sonia's family or friends see your disgusting comments? I doubt you'd care about causing them hurt but somehow I'm pretty sure you'd never such things to their faces

The child will suffer because of the actions of Eric Locke. And that's it. No one else is culpable here

gitzy16v

Collie D wrote: »

For the reasons Gitzy gave a few posts back I hope this thread is locked up.

I try not to let random internet posters get to me but I admit to being a bit wound up by this...and I didn't even know the girl.

Trust me I struggled to put my post politely.

eviltwin

cantdecide wrote: »

The tragedy is the life of her son. A ONS as a single independent person is one thing. A completely blind ONS as the mother to a toddler is beyond the pale in terms of risk. The child is the victim. The child is the one who will suffer forever for his mother's cavalier choices. The child is the victim. For that tragedy, his mother is partially culpable. Her decisions were atrocious and her son will suffer forever for them. That's one of the saddest things about this case.

I have nothing else to say about this. I stand over what I say. Disagree in any terms you wish, I won't be replying any further.

So anyone beaten, raped, robbed or murdered having casual sex deserves all they get? Shame on you, you are truly disturbing and disgusting.

Collie D

Collie D wrote: »

For the reasons Gitzy gave a few posts back I hope this thread is locked up.

I try not to let random internet posters get to me but I admit to being a bit wound up by this...and I didn't even know the girl.

It's not often that posts on the internet actually turn my stomach.

Welruc

in hindsight maybe meeting in the hotel bar would have been a better option, but regardless she didn't deserve what happened to her.

Hopefully he rots in jail for the rest of his life

ProfessorMahoo

The misogyny is strong in cantdecides posts. You'd have to wonder what sorry story lies behind this view of women.

retro:electro

deuceswild wrote: »

in hindsight maybe meeting in the hotel bar would have been a better option, but regardless she didn't deserve what happened to her.

Hopefully he rots in jail for the rest of his life

I'm sure she thought of that. Maybe they even had planned on doing that? Who knows? He clearly manipulated every situation to his advantage. Maybe he said you check in to the room and I'll meet you in the bar when I get there, and then he text and said hey I'm early and at the door can you let me in.
We don't know. It's just awful. The poor woman. My mind won't take me to what she must have gone through.

infogiver

I think he did intend killing her.
I think he was boiling with rage.
What I can't understand is how he thought he was going to get away with it.
Did he only think up to the point where she would have been punished for rejecting him?
He didn't seem to have any plan to abscond, he didn't make any effort to cover his tracks, he gave himself up.
He seemed to think that once he suggested that he wasn't in his right mind that there would be no more about it.
I'm getting the impression of someone very immature and indulged by his family.
It's all a very very sad story.
RIP .

ceadaoin.

anna080 wrote: »

I'm sure she thought of that. Maybe they even had planned on doing that? Who knows? He clearly manipulated every situation to his advantage. Maybe he said you check in to the room and I'll meet you in the bar when I get there, and then he rang and said hey I'm early and at the door can you let me in.
We don't know. It's just awful. The poor woman. My mind won't take me to what she must have gone through.

Yes, he wouldn't have accepted meeting in the bar. Going by the article, he railroaded her into leaving a keycard at reception when that wasn't the plan originally. He did everything to ensure he was alone with her and that he was able to do that before she realized it was him. He wanted to kill her and she bears no responsibility at all. He would have found a way

ibarelycare

cantdecide wrote: »

The tragedy is the life of her son. A ONS as a single independent person is one thing. A completely blind ONS as the mother to a toddler is beyond the pale in terms of risk. The child is the victim. The child is the one who will suffer forever for his mother's cavalier choices. The child is the victim. For that tragedy, his mother is partially culpable. Her decisions were atrocious and her son will suffer forever for them. That's one of the saddest things about this case.

I have nothing else to say about this. I stand over what I say. Disagree in any terms you wish, I won't be replying any further.

Your posts in this thread are some of the most disgusting and shameful posts I've read on boards. Perhaps this is why you're single. Hopefully no woman will ever be unfortunate enough to end up with you.

Omackeral

cantdecide wrote: »

...by failing to ensure her own safety, her son has to grow up without a mother.

Incorrect, the murdering scumbag is the only reason that child will grow up without his mother. This vile piece of sh*t will do rough rough jail though, 23 hours behind a closed door in a space the size of a box room. F*ck him.

I think the thread as it is should be removed. It's distressing just to think that friends and relatives of the victim might read some of the sickening comments upthread. I think everyone connected with the poor girl has been through enough without reading the indefensible posts above.

A new thread could be opened, hopefully discussion could be had without the disgusting comments.

Donald Trump

There are two main separate points that are not helpful to mix
1) A woman was murdered for no reason by some nutcase.
2) Two people apparently arranged to hook up without meeting in person first.
Some people are intrigued/surprised at the second. Unfortunately the first is giving them a reason to talk about the second. I would suggest they open a second thread discussing the second without referring to this case. Try not to mix the two cases

Hannibal_Smith

She had an awful death by the sounds of it. I read somewhere today that he shoved a cloth in her mouth with such force he broke her teeth. I was pleased to see he was found guilty.

Poor girl.

Neyite

So I can lure a man under false pretences to a hotel room, sexually assault him and kill him and it's all his fault for being the dirty slut wanting to have a one night stand? Even better if he's a father to a small kid- then it's really not my fault at all.

Oh wait.

RobertKK

The poor victim and her family, it was a shocking case, a true horror story for all.

Donald Trump

Neyite wrote: »

So I can lure a man under false pretences to a hotel room, sexually assault him and kill him and it's all his fault for being the dirty slut wanting to have a one night stand? Even better if he's a father to a small kid- then it's really not my fault at all.

Oh wait.

There are a lot of crazy and bad people out there. In the case below a male married lawyer with a wife (and I think kids) was trawling for hook ups with other men online. Checked into hotel. His "male" date turned out to be a 21 year old female who stabbed him and killed him.
Link

Omackeral

beertons wrote: »

He'll be getting lots more sex now in jail.

Except he won't. That doesn't happen in our prisons as much as you seemingly like it to. Rape is gas though isn't it?!

Hannibal_Smith

cantdecide wrote: »

The tragedy is the life of her son. A ONS as a single independent person is one thing. A completely blind ONS as the mother to a toddler is beyond the pale in terms of risk. The child is the victim. The child is the one who will suffer forever for his mother's cavalier choices. The child is the victim. For that tragedy, his mother is partially culpable. Her decisions were atrocious and her son will suffer forever for them. That's one of the saddest things about this case.

I have nothing else to say about this. I stand over what I say. Disagree in any terms you wish, I won't be replying any further .

Thanks goodness for that!

Fwiw she was a single independent person She had a son, not a husband. She did not abandon or neglect her son. She went out for a night. She was murdered, pretty brutally by all accounts. She didn't deserve to die the way she did.

Omackeral

cantdecide wrote: »

The victim is her son. For his whole life his mother's story is going to be a fable of dating in the internet age. She paid a terrible price for her very poor decisions. I'm as angry at her as I am for Locke.

Bet you wouldn't say that to anyone that even remotely knows her or any other families/friends of innocent murder victims because you'd have your f*cking head kicked in and you'd deserve it. Absolute tramp material coming out of you. Pathetic and creepy.

eviltwin

If she'd been meeting someone genuine she'd probably have been okay, plenty of casual hook ups happen every day and nothing bad comes of it.

But she wasn't meeting a casual hook up because that man didn't exist. The entire thing was an exercise in deception. We can discuss the safety issues elsewhere but it's irrelevant because Locke was going to punish her for seeking sex elsewhere no matter what. Typical insecure little bully couldn't cope with his ex moving on with her life so he decided to end it.

Eimee90

cantdecide wrote:

It goes without saying Locke is a monster and life in prison is too good for him. However, if the circumstances were as as I understand them, by failing to ensure her own safety, her son has to grow up without a mother. I think this needs to be said too.

cantdecide wrote:

My understanding of the story is this: she met a complete stranger in a hotel. I have assumed that this was meant to be a pre-arranged intimate encounter which is fine. If this was not the case then I will withdraw the statement.

I'll never understand riddiculous comments like this. Unless she had a kill me please sign on her door, she did not invite someone to kill her. Same as if you walk alone, does that mean im forcing someone to attack me.

It aint me, its you. Enough of this victim blaming

Eimee90

cantdecide wrote:

The victim is her son. For his whole life his mother's story is going to be a fable of dating in the internet age. She paid a terrible price for her very poor decisions. I'm as angry at her as I am for Locke.

Get a grip, you have no right to be angry at anyone. This isn't your story

buzzwell

Neyite wrote: »

So I can lure a man under false pretences to a hotel room, sexually assault him and kill him and it's all his fault for being the dirty slut wanting to have a one night stand? Even better if he's a father to a small kid- then it's really not my fault at all.

Oh wait.

Lets say you had fun and no violence, I'm sure the man in your thoughts could go home afterwards and advise his adolescent kid, son or daughter, to engage in the same risky activities when they reach the age.

Dispense with the keeping them safe thing they learn in school.

Why not, what's to go wrong? And if anything does go wrong it won't be their fault anyway, eh?

Same question to you as I asked early- will you recommend that young women start hitchhiking again?

Do you think it would be responsible of you to recommend that they behave irresponsibly in the name of defending their right to put themselves into stupid situations irrespective of the consequences?

eviltwin

buzzwell wrote: »

Lets say you had fun and no violence, I'm sure the man in your thoughts could go home afterwards and advise his adolescent kid, son or daughter, to engage in the same risky activities when they reach the age.

Dispense with the keeping them safe thing they learn in school.

Why not, what's to go wrong? And if anything does go wrong it won't be their fault anyway, eh?

Same question to you as I asked early- will you recommend that young women start hitchhiking again?

Do you think it would be responsible of you to recommend that they behave irresponsibly in the name of defending their right to put themselves into stupid situations irrespective of the consequences?

You are missing the point. She wasn't murdered by a ONS, she was murdered by an ex. He could have used any scenario to set up a meeting, it just so happened to be this one.

buzzwell

elsa21 wrote: »

Get a grip, you have no right to be angry at anyone. This isn't your story

It's a great (bad choice of word) lesson about how fake facebook is.

Sadly, the murdered lady might as well have stuck a pin in a phonebook for her date that night.

gitzy16v

buzzwell wrote: »

Lets say you had fun and no violence, I'm sure the man in your thoughts could go home afterwards and advise his adolescent kid, son or daughter, to engage in the same risky activities when they reach the age.

Dispense with the keeping them safe thing they learn in school.

Why not, what's to go wrong? And if anything does go wrong it won't be their fault anyway, eh?

Same question to you as I asked early- will you recommend that young women start hitchhiking again?

Do you think it would be responsible of you to recommend that they behave irresponsibly in the name of defending their right to put themselves into stupid situations irrespective of the consequences?

Start a new thread on the dangers of online dating!!!!!
Stop with this fcuking sh1t.
Sonia was manipulated by her fcuking scum ex,Not some stranger off the internet.

buzzwell

eviltwin wrote: »

You are missing the point. She wasn't murdered by a ONS, she was murdered by an ex. He could have used any scenario to set up a meeting, it just so happened to be this one.

I'm not missing the point.

Meeting like that is risky.
Or maybe you don't think it is and would recommend your daughter or niece to do it?
Why over analyse this?

buzzwell

gitzy16v wrote: »

Start a new thread on the dangers of online dating!!!!!
Stop with this fcuking sh1t.
Sonia was manipulated by her fcuking scum ex,Not some stranger off the internet.

Well what dangers are you talking about please?

eviltwin

buzzwell wrote: »

I'm not missing the point.

Meeting like that is risky.
Or maybe you don't think it is and would recommend your daughter or niece to do it?
Why over analyse this?

Exactly how risky is it then? Got stats to back that up?

gitzy16v

buzzwell wrote: »

Well what dangers are you talking about please?

This thread is not the place to discuss it.
Sonia was manipulated by her ex,not some random off the net.