Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Miami Monster Eats Man's Face
Daily Online UK ^ | May 28, 2012 | Christine Snow

Posted on 05/29/2012 7:16:04 AM PDT by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

This is the first look at the naked homeless man who ate another Man's face while high on a new potent form of LSD.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: bathsalts; cannibalism; crime; drugs; drugwar; faceeater; faceeatingzombies; lsd; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd; zombieapocalypse
Hmm free range lean meat and vegetables?

It's the South Beach diet craze!!

1 posted on 05/29/2012 7:16:11 AM PDT by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

I never eat anything that doesn’t have a face.


2 posted on 05/29/2012 7:20:39 AM PDT by Hang'emAll (Ride to the sound of the guns!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hang'emAll

Have you seen the guys picture?

If Obama had a son he would taste like him.


3 posted on 05/29/2012 7:22:37 AM PDT by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh (I cling to guns and religion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hang'emAll

It inspired a new dish...

Loose Lips with Chips


4 posted on 05/29/2012 7:23:47 AM PDT by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh (I cling to guns and religion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

From the article:

“Traffic clogged the area for hours as people used the route to descend into South Beach for Urban Beach Week, an annual festival dedicated to hip-hop music.”


5 posted on 05/29/2012 7:26:17 AM PDT by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

So both men were naked and also both on LSD and homeless? Did I read that correctly? UGH! I am NOT going back to read it again. Disgusting!


6 posted on 05/29/2012 7:26:50 AM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

Maybe Rudy mistook the naked homeless guy for an Indonesian dog?


7 posted on 05/29/2012 7:27:06 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

“Stay on the streets of this town
And they’ll be carving you up alright
They say you gotta stay hungry
Hey baby I’m just about starving tonight”

Bruce Springstein


8 posted on 05/29/2012 7:29:13 AM PDT by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

Those bath salts killed the father of one of my students. They found him naked in the middle of a field, dead.
Nothing like LSD at all.


9 posted on 05/29/2012 7:31:06 AM PDT by struggle (http://killthegovernment.wordpress.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
The zombie apocalypse has begun.....
10 posted on 05/29/2012 7:45:11 AM PDT by BO Stinkss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: struggle
They found him naked in the middle of a field, dead.

Read one source that said it cranks up the metabolism to the point of causing hyperthermia.

11 posted on 05/29/2012 7:46:29 AM PDT by Gamecock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: struggle
They found him naked in the middle of a field, dead.

Read one source that said it cranks up the metabolism to the point of causing hyperthermia.

12 posted on 05/29/2012 7:46:44 AM PDT by Gamecock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

Just before he died he could be heard saying: “It taste just like chicken”


13 posted on 05/29/2012 8:00:13 AM PDT by DeaconRed (My vote in Nov will be dictated by my extreme hatred for ZERO and what he is doing to our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
look at the naked homeless man who ate another Man's face

Note to self:
Next time you see this in an article preview, DON'T CLICK ON IT !!!

14 posted on 05/29/2012 8:15:06 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

Where is his hoodie?


15 posted on 05/29/2012 8:21:36 AM PDT by Stymee (Father of 7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stymee
Where is his hoodie?

He's not circumcised?

16 posted on 05/29/2012 8:28:00 AM PDT by null and void (Day 1225 of our ObamaVacation from reality [and what dark chill/is gathering still/before the storm])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

Did he do it for Trayvon?


17 posted on 05/29/2012 8:32:47 AM PDT by GOPJ ( "A Dog In Every Pot" - freeper ETL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
I don't know whether to react in horror or to crack jokes about the zombie apocalypse.

I choose horror. : (

18 posted on 05/29/2012 9:39:55 AM PDT by Caipirabob (I say we take off and Newt the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

Tastes great, less filling.

But seriously, when you have millions of people who have given up and live only for themselves - including people on the edge who formerly were treated for mental illness, not given free money and assistance in order to pursue or be pursued by whatever demons happens along - then can we expect any better?


19 posted on 05/29/2012 1:44:09 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DeaconRed
Just before he died he could be heard saying: “It taste just like chicken”

I guess it had to be said.

20 posted on 05/29/2012 4:19:25 PM PDT by Gamecock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
a new potent form of LSD.

Sensationalist garbage: no blood-test results have been made public, and the very idea of a "new form of LSD" is chemically illiterate - you might as well talk about "a new form of H2O."

21 posted on 05/29/2012 7:42:39 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Still pushing drugs, eh Nanny.

You want ALL drugs to have NO restrictions at the federal level, but somehow you want communities (like yours, as you stated) to be able to overturn that federal de-regulation to make those same drugs you want legalized to be banned from your community.

In other words, you want the federal government to push the destruction of drug usage into everyone’s back yard but not in your backyard.

And it’s pretty funny how you say that the report of this heinous crime being caused by a new type of LSD is Sensationalist.

Can you hear yourself?

The guy gnawed the face off another human being, and this type of deranged violence is consistent with several other cases in the same area.

And you focus on people discussing the drug aspect of this as ‘sensationalist garbage.’

It seems you still have trouble understands linguistic usage. When someone says ‘a new form of LSD,’ they are not discussing chemistry. They are discussing a drug people take for a particular type of drug experience. You know, that sort of thing you want to be prevalent on every American street (except yours).


22 posted on 05/30/2012 5:44:30 AM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

and here’s another...

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/mother-charged-with-murdering-son-and-eating-his-brain/story-e6frev00-1225755386495


23 posted on 05/30/2012 4:21:03 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe

I despise drugs but there’s no drug in the world that will make a decent human being do something like this. This guy was a sicko regardless of drug use or no drug use.


24 posted on 05/30/2012 4:24:08 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ditter

The homeless man was beaten unconscious and stripped naked by the cannibal. Then eaten. The cannibal had already discarded his own clothes, money, ID...as he walked away from the place where his illegally parked car was towed away. He lost his mind when he found his car had been towed away.


25 posted on 05/30/2012 4:27:07 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

Yes, I have not been able to avoid this disgusting story all day.


26 posted on 05/30/2012 6:14:10 PM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

I don’t know if a drug will cause someone to act like this. I don’t doubt that if we keep on the path with ‘designer’ drugs we will eventually get to the point where some recreational drugs can result in completely psychotic episodes.

Have you ever had to deal with someone on PCP? If not, let me tell you, when someone has a bad high on PCP, you are dealing with a temporary psychotic.

But that wasn’t the point of my argument. The point of my argument is that extreme ‘liberaltarians’ (those beyond libertarians who do believe in conserving our cultural mores) believe the government should not be restricting any drug usage, even something like ‘bath salts.’ I argue that as a culture and as a nation, we should do what we need to minimize the usage of hardcore substances that have such a destructive effect on its users that those users lose the ability or desire to provide for themselves and those they may have brought into this world and thus do very much impact others with their behavior by requiring others to pay to feed and house them.


27 posted on 06/01/2012 6:02:45 AM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
Sensationalist garbage: no blood-test results have been made public, and the very idea of a "new form of LSD" is chemically illiterate - you might as well talk about "a new form of H2O."

Still pushing drugs, eh Nanny.

Never have, never will. Still telling falsehoods about those who disagree with you, eh?

You want ALL drugs to have NO restrictions at the federal level, but somehow you want communities (like yours, as you stated) to be able to overturn that federal de-regulation

No "overturning" required ... my community - and your too, I'm sure - has a plethora of statutes (residential speed limits, zoning, etc. etc.) that in no way depend on the feds.

to make those same drugs you want legalized to be banned from your community.

In other words, you want the federal government to push the destruction of drug usage into everyone’s back yard

To legalize is not to "push" - there are no federal laws against insulting one's spouse.

It seems you still have trouble understands linguistic usage. When someone says ‘a new form of LSD,’ they are not discussing chemistry. They are discussing a drug people take for a particular type of drug experience.

There's already a word for that: "hallucinogen." LSD is a specific chemical compound and only one of many hallucinogens.

You know, that sort of thing you want to be prevalent on every American street (except yours).

No, I want every community to make its own decision. Why don't you want that?

28 posted on 06/06/2012 11:55:07 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
I don’t doubt that if we keep on the path with ‘designer’ drugs we will eventually get to the point where some recreational drugs can result in completely psychotic episodes.[...] extreme ‘liberaltarians’ (those beyond libertarians who do believe in conserving our cultural mores) believe the government should not be restricting any drug usage, even something like ‘bath salts.’

Government restrictions on other drugs are what create a market niche for ‘designer’ drugs and ‘bath salts.’ If legal adult Joe Stoner could buy a joint where others buy their Jack, he'd have zero interest in messing with new, little-understood chemicals.

29 posted on 06/06/2012 12:05:49 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

They’ll all be legal if you have your way. And none of them will have to go through the FDA or any other type of safety review.


30 posted on 06/06/2012 7:18:18 PM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Silly, Nanny.

You keep using your copy-and-paste to appear logical, while proving the illogic of your position.

You have already stated, numerous times, that you want there to be NO restrictions on any type of drugs that people want to make, sell, and use.

Period.

That is your position. The hell that comes with such a position is your doing.

But you sure as hell can’t lift all restrictions at the federal level and then think small communities will be able to make their own decisions contrary to what is legal at the federal law.

And before you go on some addled illogical reaction, please point to the community in the US that has successfully outlawed abortion.

You see, Nanny, I call you Nanny, because you have been brainwashed into believing that if you lift any and all restrictions at the highest level of government, you somehow free the people to make their own choices. You are wrong. When you impose a Soviet-style mandate at that level, you are forcing a morality down the throats of every state, every county, every town, every neighborhood, every family, and every individual in the country.

You, sir, and your anarcho-Sovietism are the ultimate Nanny.


31 posted on 06/06/2012 7:23:47 PM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

To legalize is not to push, eh.

So did abortion in the US increase or decrease after Roe v. Wade?

Seriously, do you not see, or do you really refuse to admit that when a society condones something by legalizing it will become more prevalent?

You can’t seriously pretend that it diminishes, can you?


32 posted on 06/06/2012 7:27:46 PM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
Government restrictions on other drugs are what create a market niche for ‘designer’ drugs and ‘bath salts.’ If legal adult Joe Stoner could buy a joint where others buy their Jack, he'd have zero interest in messing with new, little-understood chemicals.

They’ll all be legal if you have your way.

Legal substances that nobody wants are not a problem.

And none of them will have to go through the FDA or any other type of safety review.

No more than the drugs alcohol or tobacco do now - but I'm not opposed to government regulation of purity.

33 posted on 06/07/2012 12:27:12 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
you sure as hell can’t lift all restrictions at the federal level and then think small communities will be able to make their own decisions contrary to what is legal at the federal law.

And before you go on some addled illogical reaction, please point to the community in the US that has successfully outlawed abortion.

Roe v Wade didn't "lift restrictions at the federal level" - it actively abolished restrictions at every level. Repeal of federal drug laws wouldn't do that - it would be just that, a repeal of federal laws.

You see, Nanny, I call you Nanny, because you have been brainwashed into believing that if you lift any and all restrictions at the highest level of government, you somehow free the people to make their own choices. You are wrong. When you impose a Soviet-style mandate at that level

No "mandate" - just a removal of federal law. For example, my community has a 25mph-unless-otherwise-posted speed limit despite no such federal law existing.

34 posted on 06/07/2012 12:32:26 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

He’s taking the Heat losses pretty hard.


35 posted on 06/07/2012 12:33:40 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
To legalize is not to "push" - there are no federal laws against insulting one's spouse.

do you not see, or do you really refuse to admit that when a society condones something by legalizing it will become more prevalent?

To allow to become more prevalent is not to "push" - did the government "push" alcohol when Prohibition was repealed?

36 posted on 06/07/2012 12:35:14 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Your stance, as you have stated, is that you want no restrictions on anyone regarding the manufacture, sale, distribution, and consumption of drugs.

You want bath salts, LSD, heroin, crack, and meth to be for sale in everyone’s local liquor store.

You claim this will reduce the use of these destructive, life-ruining substances.

You claim the crimes associated with the use of these substances will decline.

You claim that the government that will be required to oversee the manufacture, sale, and rehab for the use of these substances will be smaller than the enforcement branches that prevent and punish the crime associated with these substances. This is nothing less than foolish.

You are wrong. It is the height of illogical, fallacious reasoning to argue that if something is legal and far more prevalent the use and ‘bad’ behavior associated with such substances will miraculously improve. It is the height of selfishness to want to push the utter destruction these drugs use onto families and neighborhoods (but not in YOUR neighborhood, of course, because you want your neighborhood to be able to ban these substances...in your neighborhood, after you have pushed the feds to legalize it nationally. Brilliant.)

But hey, you are a liberal at core, trolling a conservative site to push your liberal agenda.

Period.


37 posted on 06/08/2012 5:46:58 AM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Back in the 1970’s when the bleeding-heart, anti-American, anti-middle class liberals proposed allowing criminals out of jail early to easy the burden of our prisons, when conservatives pushed back for fear that it would put more violent criminals, rapists, and murderers on the streets, the liberals retorted with:

“That is Sensationalist Hysteria.”

This, just like the “-ist” ad hominem attack, has become part of the standard ammunition of liberals who are trying to inflict harm on America and the middle class.


38 posted on 06/08/2012 5:51:35 AM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
Just like a ghost; All air. No substance.

Please note:

Beer distributors don't have turf wars.

Jack Daniels doesn't hire mules to sneak their product across our borders.

Philip Morris didn't create 40 types of newer and stronger cigarettes that get you hooked quicker.

No one is "pushing" anything. Some of us just feel VERY strongly about the express limits on Federal power as articulated in Article 1 Section 8. No clause of which gives the FedGov the power to run a "drug war", or a "salt war", or a "sugar war", or a "tobacco war"...

Deal with it.

39 posted on 06/08/2012 6:01:20 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (Steampunk- Yesterday's Tomorrow, Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
Roe v Wade didn't "lift restrictions at the federal level" - it actively abolished restrictions at every level. Repeal of federal drug laws wouldn't do that - it would be just that, a repeal of federal laws. [...] No "mandate" - just a removal of federal law. For example, my community has a 25mph-unless-otherwise-posted speed limit despite no such federal law existing.

Back in the 1970’s when the bleeding-heart, anti-American, anti-middle class liberals proposed allowing criminals out of jail early to easy the burden of our prisons, when conservatives pushed back for fear that it would put more violent criminals, rapists, and murderers on the streets, the liberals retorted with:

“That is Sensationalist Hysteria.”

This, just like the “-ist” ad hominem attack, has become part of the standard ammunition of liberals who are trying to inflict harm on America and the middle class.

I notice that not a single word of your reply actually addresses my argument. I'm confident that other readers notice that, too.

40 posted on 06/08/2012 9:21:53 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
Your stance, as you have stated, is that you want no restrictions on anyone regarding the manufacture, sale, distribution, and consumption of drugs.

You want bath salts, LSD, heroin, crack, and meth to be for sale in everyone’s local liquor store.

Only those whose community chooses to license such.

You claim this will reduce the use of these destructive, life-ruining substances.

Here's what I say - feel free to rebut it if you can:

Government restrictions on other drugs are what create a market niche for ‘designer’ drugs and ‘bath salts.’ If legal adult Joe Stoner could buy a joint where others buy their Jack, he'd have zero interest in messing with new, little-understood chemicals.

You claim the crimes associated with the use of these substances will decline.

Crime committed to pay for these substances will decline, since the price will decline sharply. (Simply transporting heroin base from its source to its destination currently results in a more than 30-fold price increase.)

You claim that the government that will be required to oversee the manufacture, sale, and rehab for the use of these substances will be smaller than the enforcement branches that prevent and punish the crime associated with these substances. This is nothing less than foolish.

You are wrong. It is the height of illogical, fallacious reasoning to argue that if something is legal and far more prevalent

"Far more prevalent" is your unsupported boogeyman. Why should we believe that there are millions of people who are deterred by the criminality of drugs but not by their inherent harms?

the use and ‘bad’ behavior associated with such substances will miraculously improve. It is the height of selfishness to want to push the utter destruction these drugs use onto families and neighborhoods

As I said, to allow to become more prevalent is not to "push" - did the government "push" alcohol when Prohibition was repealed?

(but not in YOUR neighborhood, of course, because you want your neighborhood to be able to ban these substances...in your neighborhood, after you have pushed the feds to legalize it nationally. Brilliant.)

My community - and your too, I'm sure - has a plethora of statutes (residential speed limits, zoning, etc. etc.) that in no way depend on the feds. (And, no, Roe v Wade is not a counterargument; as I already explained, with no relevant response from you, Roe v Wade didn't "lift restrictions at the federal level" - it actively abolished restrictions at every level. Repeal of federal drug laws wouldn't do that - it would be just that, a repeal of federal laws.)

41 posted on 06/08/2012 9:28:22 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
But you sure as hell can’t lift all restrictions at the federal level and then think small communities will be able to make their own decisions contrary to what is legal at the federal law.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Congress can only impose restrictions if it is delegated the power to do so. Otherwise, it is reserved to the States.

Which section of the Constitution do you believe delegates intrastate drug regulation to Congress?

42 posted on 06/08/2012 7:44:23 PM PDT by Ken H (Austerity is the irresistible force. Entitlements are the immovable object.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson