A random act of violence has left a promising 22-year-old college baseball player dead, a family devastated and two countries half a world apart rattled.
Christopher Lane, who's from Australia, was gunned down in Duncan, Oklahoma, while he was out jogging last week. The motive? Three teens who had nothing better to do, according to police
I think it's great how the liberal media outlets aren't saying that the three teens are black, would kind of ruin their whole Zimmerman "white Hispanic" thing
Whether or not the boys are black, white, or other should not be central to this story... yet, when it's omitted, it becomes more "relevant" to the story due to our media suppressing basic facts. Anyhoo... this isn't new.
Horrible story.
I'm readying several articles... did the really 'fess up that they "were bored and didn't have anything to do, so we decided to kill somebody"???
whembly wrote: Whether or not the boys are black, white, or other should not be central to this story... yet, when it's omitted, it becomes more "relevant" to the story due to our media suppressing basic facts. Anyhoo... this isn't new.
Horrible story.
I'm readying several articles... did the really 'fess up that they "were bored and didn't have anything to do, so we decided to kill somebody"???
Sounds like that is the case, at least they are being charged as adults.
Huh, so this is what happens when people are too poor to afford FPS video games. I think we need the government to pay for an Xbox and the latest Call of Duty in every home. That way stuff like this is less likely to happen!
Just a waitin' to hear Obama say how the victim could have looked like his son, followed shortly by Sharpton and Jackson expressing outrage and all the protests. Of course, Spike Lee is anxious to twitter the address of the murderers families.
Oh for feths sake! A guy is dead! Have at least some decency. Can you not go a single thread without railing on The Great Enemy?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: The perpetrators have nothing to contribute to society, and instead have destroyed the hopes and dreams of someone who could.
Exactly. This is what we should be focusing on, not "Oh Well what will Obama say about this then? Cause he's totally corrupt guys! Even though this is only related to the point that two people have been shot, I haven't gone a day without mentioning Obama so I'll do it in this thread!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
pities2004 wrote:I think it's great how the liberal media outlets aren't saying that the three teens are black, would kind of ruin their whole Zimmerman "white Hispanic" thing
Relapse wrote:Just a waitin' to hear Obama say how the victim could have looked like his son, followed shortly by Sharpton and Jackson expressing outrage and all the protests. Of course, Spike Lee is anxious to twitter the address of the murderers families.
Crickets chirping
I love how neither of these actually comment on the people involved in the murder beyond "Its black v white so we can link it to how liberals suck!"
do you genuinely care so little about the fact that a promising young athlete has died that you're completely fine with not even commenting on "oh what a horrible crime" or "The people who did this are monsters" or even, requiring barely any effort at all, "that sucks", but perfectly fine with going immedaitely agains the Hated Enemy?
Relapse wrote: Just a waitin' to hear Obama say how the victim could have looked like his son, followed shortly by Sharpton and Jackson expressing outrage and all the protests. Of course, Spike Lee is anxious to twitter the address of the murderers families.
Crickets chirping
Just because politicians will use a tragedy for cheap political points does not mean actual human beings always need to also, and I say this as someone who has no love for Obama.
Goliath wrote: Oh for feths sake! A guy is dead! Have at least some decency. Can you not go a single thread without railing on The Great Enemy?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: The perpetrators have nothing to contribute to society, and instead have destroyed the hopes and dreams of someone who could.
Exactly. This is what we should be focusing on, not "Oh Well what will Obama say about this then? Cause he's totally corrupt guys! Even though this is only related to the point that two people have been shot, I haven't gone a day without mentioning Obama so I'll do it in this thread!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
pities2004 wrote:I think it's great how the liberal media outlets aren't saying that the three teens are black, would kind of ruin their whole Zimmerman "white Hispanic" thing
Relapse wrote:Just a waitin' to hear Obama say how the victim could have looked like his son, followed shortly by Sharpton and Jackson expressing outrage and all the protests. Of course, Spike Lee is anxious to twitter the address of the murderers families.
Crickets chirping
I love how neither of these actually comment on the people involved in the murder beyond "Its black v white so we can link it to how liberals suck!"
do you genuinely care so little about the fact that a promising young athlete has died that you're completely fine with not even commenting on "oh what a horrible crime" or "The people who did this are monsters" or even, requiring barely any effort at all, "that sucks", but perfectly fine with going immedaitely agains the Hated Enemy?
I am extremely pissed about the murder and its circumstances. If I said what I thought about the people that did it, there would develop a fair bit of obcenity in my post. I'm just backing out of this one because you have no idea how pissed I am.
Relapse wrote:Just a waitin' to hear Obama say how the victim could have looked like his son, followed shortly by Sharpton and Jackson expressing outrage and all the protests. Of course, Spike Lee is anxious to twitter the address of the murderers families.
Crickets chirping
Are you seriously trying to make this about race somehow? Monsters are monsters and come in all varieties of colors. Leave it at that.
Relapse wrote:Just a waitin' to hear Obama say how the victim could have looked like his son, followed shortly by Sharpton and Jackson expressing outrage and all the protests. Of course, Spike Lee is anxious to twitter the address of the murderers families.
Crickets chirping
Are you seriously trying to make this about race somehow? Monsters are monsters and come in all varieties of colors. Leave it at that.
Nope, not making it about race. It was an atrocious act by a trio of oxygen thieves. I am just pissed and outraged by the murder and saying the least offensive thing that came into my head. I keep thinking about this guys family and girlfriend having him taken from them and the feelings they are now wrestling with because these subhumans were "bored". I am pissed at the world after reading this story.
I really can't talk much more on this thread because I am extremely upset about this right now.
Pointless and cruel crime. Can't add much more, I can't quite believe their motive was rooted in almost nothing.
Shame this thread didn't get out the gate before it was turned around to criticising the liberal media. Is that all some people look for when reading a news item now?
What i want to know is would any self respecting Australian play baseball in stead of cricket?
Truthfully though this has gotta be the text book definition of "senseless murder". Little gakheads deserve everything they get. Maybe we'll get lucky and someone will take the backside of a cricket bat to their knees.
And rather than rave about my thirst for revenge, much as I might wish to, I will instead say that I hope they are treated lawfully, the matter is thoroughly investigated, the evidence is collected properly, and that if found guilty beyond any measure of reasonable doubt, that they are incarcerated for whatever period of time is deemed suitable.
Because as tempting as it is to cry for blood, we strive for higher as a society.
Relapse wrote:Just a waitin' to hear Obama say how the victim could have looked like his son, followed shortly by Sharpton and Jackson expressing outrage and all the protests. Of course, Spike Lee is anxious to twitter the address of the murderers families.
Crickets chirping
Are you seriously trying to make this about race somehow? Monsters are monsters and come in all varieties of colors. Leave it at that.
Nope, not making it about race. It was an atrocious act by a trio of oxygen thieves. I am just pissed and outraged by the murder and saying the least offensive thing that came into my head. I keep thinking about this guys family and girlfriend having him taken from them and the feelings they are now wrestling with because these subhumans were "bored". I am pissed at the world after reading this story.
I really can't talk much more on this thread because I am extremely upset about this right now.
Fair enough, I'll chalk it up to very strangely misdirected rage.
motyak wrote:What is Oklahoma like in terms of penalties for crimes?
Only Texas executes more people every year by sheer volume. However, if you use a rate based on population size, even Texas thinks Oklahoma might be a little needle-happy.
motyak wrote: What is Oklahoma like in terms of penalties for crimes?
The two younger guys (15 & 16) are charged with first degree murder, which would give them potential life sentences. Too young for the death penalty.
The oldest (17) is charged with use of a vehicle in the discharge of a weapon and accessory after the fact, both felonies. Not sure what the potential sentence would be for that.
Forar wrote: This is terrible, senseless and tragic.
And rather than rave about my thirst for revenge, much as I might wish to, I will instead say that I hope they are treated lawfully, the matter is thoroughly investigated, the evidence is collected properly, and that if found guilty beyond any measure of reasonable doubt, that they are incarcerated for whatever period of time is deemed suitable.
Because as tempting as it is to cry for blood, we strive for higher as a society.
It won't bring the victim back.
But neither will sating a thirst for vengeance.
This amount of senseless evil is precisely the moment I think clamoring for blood is appropriate. People who actually think like this can never function in a healthy manner with the rest of us, and the resources spent keeping them alive are better spent on those who contribute to the higher society you refer to.
I'm usually among the first to rally against any sort of strict prison sentences, but to the soylent green factories with these ones.
Ugh, the 17 year old Jones' Pregnant girlfriend was in court! JUST KEEP POPPING THEM OUT!
Asked if she had a message for the Lane family outside court, Ms Luna told the Herald Sun: "I feel sorry for them, my heart goes out to them, it really does, but that's my baby too."
Stop having children you selfish pricks!
"Yes, I do," Mr Edwards replied outside court when asked if he believed his son, who hoped to be an Olympic wrestler, was innocent.
Jihadin wrote: If Jesse Jackson and/or Al Sharpton scream bloody Hell about their sentencing at the end of trial then IMO they totally lost any credibility
Jihadin wrote: If Jesse Jackson and/or Al Sharpton scream bloody Hell about their sentencing at the end of trial then IMO they totally lost any credibility
You still believe that they have any?
The reason behind the murder trumps almost any other fact about this murder.
Jihadin wrote: If Jesse Jackson and/or Al Sharpton scream bloody Hell about their sentencing at the end of trial then IMO they totally lost any credibility
You still believe that they have any?
The NON reason behind the murder trumps almost any other fact about this murder.
I give the benefit of the doubt to them both. I tend to lean towards Alan West former House Delegate on what he says about them. Right now they're sliding into the "Ignore" column due to perception of a "Double Standards"
d-usa wrote: I don't know if they got the weapon or anything like that.
They have the vehicle that they were driving speeding away from the scene on security cameras, which helped track them down.
The big one is the admission of one of the kids.
Yeah, it's that I hadn't read anything other than the admission that got me wondering. My mind went back to the Central Park Jogger - with the right police techniques its shockingly easy to get a confession out of innocent people, especially when they're kids. This just sounded, from what little I've read about it, that it was hitting the same beats - lots of moral outrage, and absolute certainty of guilt.
I'm not saying that happened here, I have no clue what led them to the kids and I hope they've got a mountain of evidence. And its good that they have security footage of the car.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Waoaw, i wonder when the NRA starts saying that the gun is not to blame.
Is the gun to blame because it was the murder weapon? What if they used a cricket bat, would cricket be to blame? Did they obtain these guns lawfully? This is impossible since they're underage and cannot legally own a firearm. So who is to blame, I wouldn't put the blame on the gun simply because it was the murder weapon.
The blame is on whatever aspect of society failed these kids.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Waoaw, i wonder when the NRA starts saying that the gun is not to blame.
Is the gun to blame because it was the murder weapon? What if they used a cricket bat, would cricket be to blame? Did they obtain these guns lawfully? This is impossible since they're underage and cannot legally own a firearm. So who is to blame, I wouldn't put the blame on the gun simply because it was the murder weapon.
The blame is on whatever aspect of society failed these kids.
You can't pretend that it is a societal issue while ignoring the fact that if they had no access to a firearm that things might have been different.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Waoaw, i wonder when the NRA starts saying that the gun is not to blame.
Is the gun to blame because it was the murder weapon? What if they used a cricket bat, would cricket be to blame? Did they obtain these guns lawfully? This is impossible since they're underage and cannot legally own a firearm. So who is to blame, I wouldn't put the blame on the gun simply because it was the murder weapon.
The blame is on whatever aspect of society failed these kids.
You can't pretend that it is a societal issue while ignoring the fact that if they had no access to a firearm that things might have been different.
Yeah, they might have hit him with the vehicle, or a baseball bat, or a brick.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Waoaw, i wonder when the NRA starts saying that the gun is not to blame.
Is the gun to blame because it was the murder weapon? What if they used a cricket bat, would cricket be to blame? Did they obtain these guns lawfully? This is impossible since they're underage and cannot legally own a firearm. So who is to blame, I wouldn't put the blame on the gun simply because it was the murder weapon.
The blame is on whatever aspect of society failed these kids.
You can't pretend that it is a societal issue while ignoring the fact that if they had no access to a firearm that things might have been different.
You know I live in my own fantasy land Kan, I can ignore whatever the feth I want .
But seriously, how is the gun to blame? Did these kids go to a place that sells firearms and legally buy the gun? Well they couldn't have done that, because they can't legally buy a gun under the age of 18. Did they acquire (buy, steal, etc...) the gun from a local gangbanger, family friend, or another such place? Why did they feel they needed the gun in the first place? Were they protecting themselves from another threat or was it because they wanted to seems strong, powerful, and in control (as teens tend to want, they just took it several steps too far).
Who's to say that they wouldn't have done the same with a bat, a knife, or their fists. If these guys were looking to hurt someone because they had nothing better to do, then not having access to a firearm probably would not have stopped them.
Holy fething gak... That's fethed up, and you're right I can't tell if it's sarcasm or not.
As to the whole gun thing, I'd believe that the gun is to blame if the kids said, "we wouldn't have done it if we didn't have a gun" or something along those lines. I'm just saying that if these kids killed this guy because they were bored, I don't think the lack of a firearm would have stopped them.
I'm interested in how these three got the gun in the first place.
I blame the car manufacturers for making cars so that you can shoot people on the move, while I'm at it I blame lane for thinking he can take a jog in suburbia. These kids are innocent, can't you see that the white man made them do it! BLAME CANADA!
As for evidence, there is security video tape from local businesses, thats what lead to such a quick arrest. What exactly is on the tape, I don't think we know yet.
The one thing that keeps popping into my head for all the people that really do look at this as racial. If Lane had been Black and walking the streets of Chicago or NYC in a hoody.......would police have solved his murder so quickly? My wife worked in a major urban triage ward in Cleveland during her residency, so many times people would come in that were just randomly shot like this, usually in the ass. It was very strange.
Facebook is not news. Unless it is, then I'm going to start taking pictures of the stuff on bathroom stalls and using it to further my goals. None of those goals involve having a good time though.
Are people here really trying to start a gun debate over this killing? The victim was killed because the perpetrators were bored and didn't have enough decency to realise that boredom is never a justification for harming anyone else.
Lets put the blame where it belongs - firmly on the shoulders of those who carried out this horrible deed.
Actually, I believe they are all probably mixed race. (I don't think you can be pure black, unless you just immigrated here). Luna's' Mom is as white as you get....white trash though from what I have read about her. They do however fit the stereo type of Urban Youths if you look at their everyday pics, Urban culture is directly linked to "evil blacks" in most peoples minds.
"They listen to Rap, come from the hood and wear baggy clothes, they are black no matter what race they are" That's what many people believe.
"We were bored. We wanted something to do and we decided to kill somebody."
That is not the statement of a normal person, that is not the statement of someone even remotely remorseful for their actions. That is the statement of someone that should be locked up in a hole so dark, and so deep that they forget what the sun looks like.
Alfndrate wrote: The thing that bugs me about this whole thing...
"We were bored. We wanted something to do and we decided to kill somebody."
That is not the statement of a normal person, that is not the statement of someone even remotely remorseful for their actions. That is the statement of someone that should be locked up in a hole so dark, and so deep that they forget what the sun looks like.
Or their robbery went bad and now they are fronting that they are crazy killers so hard because these three kids will look so pretty to the old boys in prison.
Monster Rain wrote: Looks like 2 black teens and one archetypal redneck reprobate to me.
Honestly, and I'm not saying you do as you were just replying to others above, but I don't understand why it matters. Shouldn't matter if they're black or white or purple. All it should take is looking at whether they're genuinely utter filth (as though they appear to be from everything I've read), and if so, then into the wood chipper they go.
Monster Rain wrote: Looks like 2 black teens and one archetypal redneck reprobate to me.
Honestly, and I'm not saying you do as you were just replying to others above, but I don't understand why it matters. Shouldn't matter if they're black or white or purple. All it should take is looking at whether they're genuinely utter filth (as though they appear to be from everything I've read), and if so, then into the wood chipper they go.
The only reason I think it's really important is the term "three black teens" is getting thrown around a bit, and it's not terribly accurate.
But yes, I'm an equal opportunity kind of guy. Into the wood chipper with all three of them if they are found guilty.
On the gun comment easy access makes easy use, on the comment on they use bats or cars, in countries with stricter gun rules you don't hear much about use of car or bat in a drive by.
Those 3 pictures look like befor and after pictures.
daedalus wrote: This amount of senseless evil is precisely the moment I think clamoring for blood is appropriate. People who actually think like this can never function in a healthy manner with the rest of us, and the resources spent keeping them alive are better spent on those who contribute to the higher society you refer to.
I'm usually among the first to rally against any sort of strict prison sentences, but to the soylent green factories with these ones.
Someone is free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that between the cost of the courts, the time and resources needed to obtain a proper conviction and the lengthy appeals process, it is generally more cost effective to keep someone imprisoned for life than it is to have them given the death penalty.
But that was an essential element of the topic, as set by the OP. That was the topic as presented - some guys was killed, and liberals aren't talking about it.
I mean, if you now only want to talk about the facts of the case, we can do so, but that's kind of narrowing it from how it started (with the derp throttle set to max).
daedalus wrote: This amount of senseless evil is precisely the moment I think clamoring for blood is appropriate. People who actually think like this can never function in a healthy manner with the rest of us, and the resources spent keeping them alive are better spent on those who contribute to the higher society you refer to.
I'm usually among the first to rally against any sort of strict prison sentences, but to the soylent green factories with these ones.
Someone is free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that between the cost of the courts, the time and resources needed to obtain a proper conviction and the lengthy appeals process, it is generally more cost effective to keep someone imprisoned for life than it is to have them given the death penalty.
Is this no longer the case?
If you're referencing real world economics, then I'm uncertain, but I'm talking some sort of Frazzled-style black and white "take the rabid dog out back and put two in its head" kind of motion that sidesteps all of that and still doesn't wind up getting the wrong people. It's that little vindictive self-righteous outrage that I, being a human being living in the 21st century, feel to help me better sleep at night.
daedalus wrote: It's that little vindictive self-righteous outrage that I, being a human being living in the 21st century, feel to help me better sleep at night.
I'm grumpy.
Just do what everyone else does and offer your prayers on Facebook.
Alfndrate wrote: Is the gun to blame because it was the murder weapon? What if they used a cricket bat, would cricket be to blame? Did they obtain these guns lawfully? This is impossible since they're underage and cannot legally own a firearm. So who is to blame, I wouldn't put the blame on the gun simply because it was the murder weapon.
The blame is on whatever aspect of society failed these kids.
Nah, that doesn't really work.
Thing is, let's say these kids lined up to kill the poor baseballer, but that baseballer had his concealed carry weapon on him, and he drew down, shooting the kids and saving his life. There is no fething way on God's green earth that you'd be sitting there claiming that we should celebrate the baseballer's heroism and quick reflexes, and that the gun he used was merely a tool.
And so when the gun is used to kill someone that shouldn't have been killed, you don't get to walk away and pretend the gun played no part in it.
None of that mitigates the guilt of the people that killed this guy, obviously. But it is something a society should be able to talk about in sensible terms.
You know how extreme a trust is in play for me to even coming close to talking about my experience overseas. These little SoB's off the bat went and killed someone and posted on a Facebook page "Two down with one shot" or something to that effect. I've no emotions when plying part of my trade in the "Box" but these A$$hats did it in one drive by.
The term that Manchu nailed me with is posted in my sig. That quote is all theirs. All three of them.
edit
Which of the three is the shooter, driver, and major cheering section?
Alfndrate wrote: Is the gun to blame because it was the murder weapon? What if they used a cricket bat, would cricket be to blame? Did they obtain these guns lawfully? This is impossible since they're underage and cannot legally own a firearm. So who is to blame, I wouldn't put the blame on the gun simply because it was the murder weapon.
The blame is on whatever aspect of society failed these kids.
Nah, that doesn't really work.
Thing is, let's say these kids lined up to kill the poor baseballer, but that baseballer had his concealed carry weapon on him, and he drew down, shooting the kids and saving his life. There is no fething way on God's green earth that you'd be sitting there claiming that we should celebrate the baseballer's heroism and quick reflexes, and that the gun he used was merely a tool.
And so when the gun is used to kill someone that shouldn't have been killed, you don't get to walk away and pretend the gun played no part in it.
None of that mitigates the guilt of the people that killed this guy, obviously. But it is something a society should be able to talk about in sensible terms.
Lets also remember he was an Australian, and as such, wouldn't have been packing a gun, but only a giant Bowie knife.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I don't understand why you think we wouldn't be okay with your scenario.
Self-defense, and all that, right? I mean, shots fired all around, the (would have been) murder weapon still in the death-grip of the kid that held it. Open and shut in my mind. Still doesn't draw the parallels with Zimmerman I think you're trying to make.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, suppose there are no guns even at all. Suppose they knifed him, as long as we're inventing hypotheticals. Three on one with knifes doesn't spell well for him.
How did they get the knifes? Why are kids running around with knifes? Shouldn't we do something about that?
Now suppose he had a spear...
Automatically Appended Next Post: What if he tore off a car antenna, because there was a 25 year old car nearby and he had a chance. He took one down with that.
daedalus wrote: Also, I don't understand why you think we wouldn't be okay with your scenario.
Self-defense, and all that, right? I mean, shots fired all around, the (would have been) murder weapon still in the death-grip of the kid that held it. Open and shut in my mind. Still doesn't draw the parallels with Zimmerman I think you're trying to make.
What? Read my post, please. There's no parallel to Zimmerman, and it isn't about being 'okay' with the scenario. fething obviously if a guy defends himself from three gun wielding loons, it's a good thing.
The hypothetical was all about guns, and the double think in people's minds about when guns do and do not improve one's ability to do violence.
Because in trying to remove the gun from part of this equation, people have claimed that they could have used other weapons, or run him down with a car or something... claiming that the gun wasn't part of the issue at all.
But if a gun was used in self defence, they wouldn't make that same claim. You wouldn't hear any of the pro-gun people claim 'oh the gun was just a tool, the CCW guy was heroic and had great reflexes, he could have just as easily done it with a knife'.
If a gun can be an important tool in one's personal defence, then it also has to be an important tool in criminal attacks on other people. You have to pick one - either guns make violence easier, or they do not.
Alfndrate wrote: Is the gun to blame because it was the murder weapon? What if they used a cricket bat, would cricket be to blame? Did they obtain these guns lawfully? This is impossible since they're underage and cannot legally own a firearm. So who is to blame, I wouldn't put the blame on the gun simply because it was the murder weapon.
The blame is on whatever aspect of society failed these kids.
Nah, that doesn't really work.
Thing is, let's say these kids lined up to kill the poor baseballer, but that baseballer had his concealed carry weapon on him, and he drew down, shooting the kids and saving his life. There is no fething way on God's green earth that you'd be sitting there claiming that we should celebrate the baseballer's heroism and quick reflexes, and that the gun he used was merely a tool.
And so when the gun is used to kill someone that shouldn't have been killed, you don't get to walk away and pretend the gun played no part in it.
None of that mitigates the guilt of the people that killed this guy, obviously. But it is something a society should be able to talk about in sensible terms.
These words that you're putting in my mouth? You can have them back. You don't know what I would say if he had a CCW and shot and killed/scared off his would-be attackers. There's a good chance I might say, "thankfully he had the training to survive such a situation." and never bring the gun in it. My point was that the gun is not the blame because these three fethwads went out and killed someone because they were bored. The reason why I was asking if the cricket bat would be blamed as the tool because if a gun wasn't used the comment most likely wouldn't have been made. Much like you said that either guns make it easier to do violence or they don't, I was saying that these kids were going to go out and do violence regardless of the weapon they had at hand.
I'd like to know how the kids got the gun(s) (they had a shotgun in the trunk), and what possessed them to go out and kill someone. I have a gun, yet I never look at it and go, "ya know let's go kill someone just because." You know why I don't think that? It's because I'm a well adjusted member of society. So that goes back to my point earlier about some part of society failing these kids. Let's figure that gak out instead of just getting into these fething stupid gun debates.
This is a terrible crime, and it's awful someone was murdered by a trio of thugs. Why this had to descend into race and the liberal media is beyond me.
The blame is on whatever aspect of society failed these kids.
Not really, society can only be to blame for so much. I don’t think western society is so corrupt that it should shoulder the blame for random acts of murder.
Obviously the full facts are yet to come out, but if the initial statements are true and they killed someone simply out of boredom then I don’t see how anyone can be to blame but the killers themselves and the parents in the case of the minors.
One of the Oklahoma teenagers accused of killing 23-year-old Australian Christopher Lane had previously posted images online showing himself posing with guns and wads of cash.
And three days before what police call the indiscriminate shooting, the suspect, 15-year-old James Edwards Jr., tweeted, "With my n****s when it's time to start taken life's."
Back in April, he tweeted, "90% of white people (people) are nasty. #HATE THEM."
Alfndrate wrote: Is the gun to blame because it was the murder weapon? What if they used a cricket bat, would cricket be to blame? Did they obtain these guns lawfully? This is impossible since they're underage and cannot legally own a firearm. So who is to blame, I wouldn't put the blame on the gun simply because it was the murder weapon.
The blame is on whatever aspect of society failed these kids.
Nah, that doesn't really work.
Thing is, let's say these kids lined up to kill the poor baseballer, but that baseballer had his concealed carry weapon on him, and he drew down, shooting the kids and saving his life. There is no fething way on God's green earth that you'd be sitting there claiming that we should celebrate the baseballer's heroism and quick reflexes, and that the gun he used was merely a tool.
And so when the gun is used to kill someone that shouldn't have been killed, you don't get to walk away and pretend the gun played no part in it.
None of that mitigates the guilt of the people that killed this guy, obviously. But it is something a society should be able to talk about in sensible terms.
These words that you're putting in my mouth? You can have them back. You don't know what I would say if he had a CCW and shot and killed/scared off his would-be attackers. There's a good chance I might say, "thankfully he had the training to survive such a situation." and never bring the gun in it. My point was that the gun is not the blame because these three fethwads went out and killed someone because they were bored. The reason why I was asking if the cricket bat would be blamed as the tool because if a gun wasn't used the comment most likely wouldn't have been made. Much like you said that either guns make it easier to do violence or they don't, I was saying that these kids were going to go out and do violence regardless of the weapon they had at hand.
I'd like to know how the kids got the gun(s) (they had a shotgun in the trunk), and what possessed them to go out and kill someone. I have a gun, yet I never look at it and go, "ya know let's go kill someone just because." You know why I don't think that? It's because I'm a well adjusted member of society. So that goes back to my point earlier about some part of society failing these kids. Let's figure that gak out instead of just getting into these fething stupid gun debates.
Imposter101 wrote: This is a terrible crime, and it's awful someone was murdered by a trio of thugs. Why this had to descend into race and the liberal media is beyond me.
"Back in April, he tweeted, "90% of white people (people) are nasty. #HATE THEM."
The blame is on whatever aspect of society failed these kids.
Not really, society can only be to blame for so much. I don’t think western society is so corrupt that it should shoulder the blame for random acts of murder.
Obviously the full facts are yet to come out, but if the initial statements are true and they killed someone simply out of boredom then I don’t see how anyone can be to blame but the killers themselves and the parents in the case of the minors.
Did I say blame all of society? No I said blame whatever part failed these kids that caused them to seek out guns and violence and random acts of murder.
Were these kids in a gang? (idk) If so, then something made them want to join a gang, whether it was for money, power, security, something lacking in their lives would have caused them to want to join.
Were they lacking a support structure that you see in many families of well adjusted kids? Do they have a missing parent, do they live in a neglectful house, did something happen in their lives that disenfranchised them with the thought of being normal members of society?
Was it those durned video games? Did they see him as nothing more than a gamerscore?
These are all things that you can pin on society, is that the entirety of society? No, it's not, but these are some of the things that run through my head when I say things like, "the blame is on whatever aspect of society failed these kids."
daedalus wrote: Also, I don't understand why you think we wouldn't be okay with your scenario.
Self-defense, and all that, right? I mean, shots fired all around, the (would have been) murder weapon still in the death-grip of the kid that held it. Open and shut in my mind. Still doesn't draw the parallels with Zimmerman I think you're trying to make.
What? Read my post, please. There's no parallel to Zimmerman, and it isn't about being 'okay' with the scenario. fething obviously if a guy defends himself from three gun wielding loons, it's a good thing.
Then perhaps I saw it going in directions that you weren't trying to make it go in. Something along the lines of (assuming you want to play the race card) white guy defends himself from "black" attackers and kills them, leaving no witnesses. Seems I read too much into it though, and I apologize.
The hypothetical was all about guns, and the double think in people's minds about when guns do and do not improve one's ability to do violence.
Because in trying to remove the gun from part of this equation, people have claimed that they could have used other weapons, or run him down with a car or something... claiming that the gun wasn't part of the issue at all.
But if a gun was used in self defence, they wouldn't make that same claim. You wouldn't hear any of the pro-gun people claim 'oh the gun was just a tool, the CCW guy was heroic and had great reflexes, he could have just as easily done it with a knife'.
If a gun can be an important tool in one's personal defence, then it also has to be an important tool in criminal attacks on other people. You have to pick one - either guns make violence easier, or they do not.
I would have probably said "good for him" and been done with it until someone tried to score cheap political points off of it by turning it into a gun debate.
The problem here is that you're looking at defensive action and offensive action as if they're the same thing. They're not. In the case of an offensive action, the intent is to do harm. You are planning on hurting someone. If you really WANT to hurt something, or someone, you'll find a way to do so. Speaking with respect to defense, your primary intent is NOT to allow harm caused to yourself. You're not going to go out of your way to attack others because you can.
Now, am I going to say that using a knife to hurt someone is easier than a gun? No, of course not. Am I going to say that there is a difference between using a gun to attack someone and using a gun defensively? Yeah.
And here's the thing: They killed him because they were bored. Do you think that someone like that is going to get hung up on whether they do it with a knife, car, spear, creme pie, or gun? They used the gun because it was somehow easily accessible to them.
This post has taken me about 3 hours to get out due to also doing stuff at work. I hope it is as put together as I think it is.
Zimmerman'd! Well before I even got the chance to say it. Which is not surprising but still depressing.
I'm not going to debate whether or not guns were to blame for this crime, but I will say that trying to take them away from Americans is more or less pointless. First, there are too many of them, and second, people like them too much.
(CNN) -- A detail in the fatal shooting of 14-year-old Shaaliver Douse by a New York Police Department officer earlier this month has been stopping me from grieving his death.
The tragedy happened around 3 a.m.
Why was a 14-year-old boy out that late without his mother, Shanise Farrar, who called the shooting an assassination? Or his aunt, Quwana Barcene, who said the bloody gun police say was found near his body was part of a coverup? Where was the supervising adult who should have been with a 14-year-old boy walking the streets of New York at 3 o'clock in the morning?
"I'm not saying that he's the best one, but he's my angel," his grieving mother said.
Her "angel" was a suspected gang member who police say was chasing and shooting at an unidentified man when they encountered him. Her "angel" was arrested last month for attempted murder of a 15-year-old. Her "angel" left their apartment around 8 p.m. and she had no idea where he was until the next morning when detectives informed her that her son was dead.
I want to mourn for her loss, I really do.
But as callous and as heartless as this sounds, I just can't get past what awful parents she and the boy's father were. Children may be born angels, but with all the temptations out there in the world, it takes work to try to keep them that way.
I'm sure the three teenagers suspected in the death of 23-year-old Christopher Lane -- killed because they allegedly were bored -- started off as angels. But who, besides their parents, would call them angels now?
"I know my son. He's a good kid," said Jennifer Luna, the mother of the boy prosecutor Jason Hicks said pulled the trigger.
As a newspaper reporter, I covered and was around a fair number of crime scenes involving juvenile delinquents and few things bothered me more than listening to their parents. Crying, ranting, proclaiming how great their children were despite being kicked out of school or previous run-ins with the law.
That's not to say kids won't be kids. Of course they will be.
Which is why it is vitally important that parents be parents.
So when kids get bored, they don't think they should go "f**k with some n**gers," as then-18-year-old Deryl Dedmon Jr. suggested before he and his buddies ran over and killed 49-year-old auto worker James Craig Anderson, the first black person he saw, with his pickup truck back in 2011. Or randomly shoot a college student jogging down the street as entertainment -- though it seems the shooting may not have been as random as previously thought considering one of the suspects, who is black, tweeted that he hated white people back in April.
Parents are supposed to instill a sense of right and wrong in their children and then keep up the due diligence necessary to make sure they don't veer off that path. When parents don't do that, we end up with three 15-year-olds assaulting and breaking the arm of a 13-year-old on a school bus in Florida.
"This is life. I am sorry what happened to the victim," Julian McKnight Sr., whose son Julian was one of the boys accused in the attack, said after a court appearance. A second appearance is scheduled later this month.
"It's just the way it is. My son ain't never been no bad person, he just got mixed with bad people, that's all ... he sorry."
I am not a perfect parent with all the answers. But I do know that it was the father, and not the son, who was apologizing -- and that, my friends, is our problem in a nutshell.
We don't teach accountability, we don't expect accountability and I'm not even sure we even know what accountability looks like anymore. Some of us have become so addicted to pointing fingers at others for all the wrong that happens in our lives that self-assessment has become synonymous with blaming the victim.
Yes, there are cultural factors that make parenting difficult. And sometimes a bad seed is just that. But none of this excuses us from taking personal responsibility where we can.
I am tired of seeing "sorry" being used to cloak negligent parents.
Sorry won't bring back Christopher Lane or James Craig Anderson.
And they, too, were each somebody's "angel."
If sorry is not good enough to protect a bartender who serves alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person who drives and kills someone, why is sorry good enough for parents who, through negligence, are culpable for the crimes their undisciplined children commit?
If my son goes out and breaks the neighbor's window, I have to pay for it. Why is a window more sacred than another human life?
We need to hold parents more accountable, both culturally and legally, for the actions of their children. Maybe then more parents will be more engaged in the lives of their children on the front end, rather than the back end, in front of a judge. Society has avenues for juveniles who refuse to obey their parents. But where are the safeguards for society when parents decide not to use those avenues?
I'm tired of hearing how good the kids who commit heinous crimes are. Maybe we should start putting parents on the witness stand so they can tell us exactly what they did to raise such perfect children.
I don't buy that they were just bored. At best it was a hate crime with some sociopathy, at worst it was a thrill killing, like this little ball of crazy.
xole wrote: I don't buy that they were just bored. At best it was a hate crime with some sociopathy, at worst it was a thrill killing, like this little ball of crazy.
I doubt it was a hate crime, but even still ending someone's life for the hell of it is sociopathic in itself. These boys fit the basic outline for antisocial personality disorder with the exception that they're not 18 yet.
very much a hate crime, a few of the thugs were tweeting racist commments immediately prior.
and just because a white guy was part of their "gang" doesnt mean it wasnt racially motivated, even CNN is showing the perps racist tweets that "90% of white people deserve to die" (something to that effect)
this IS related to the zimmerman thing, because its one, of MANY, racially motivated "payback"s from people unhappy with the zimmerman ruling.
easysauce wrote: very much a hate crime, a few of the thugs were tweeting racist commments immediately prior.
and just because a white guy was part of their "gang" doesnt mean it wasnt racially motivated, even CNN is showing the perps racist tweets that "90% of white people deserve to die" (something to that effect)
this IS related to the zimmerman thing, because its one, of MANY, racially motivated "payback"s from people unhappy with the zimmerman ruling.
Did they say they were killing white people because a hispanic man got off for causing the death of a black kid?
easysauce wrote: very much a hate crime, a few of the thugs were tweeting racist commments immediately prior.
and just because a white guy was part of their "gang" doesnt mean it wasnt racially motivated, even CNN is showing the perps racist tweets that "90% of white people deserve to die" (something to that effect)
this IS related to the zimmerman thing, because its one, of MANY, racially motivated "payback"s from people unhappy with the zimmerman ruling.
Did they say they were killing white people because a hispanic man got off for causing the death of a black kid?
I regret going down this road.
The media didn't portray zimmerman as hispanic, they portrayed him as white. In the kids' eyes, it would have been "killing white people because a racist white man got off free for murdering a black kid."
I wouldn't ignore the tweets and messages of the three killers. Just because one of them said they did it because they were bored doesn't make it their only reason, or their reason at all.
The media didn't portray zimmerman as hispanic, they portrayed him as white. In the kids' eyes, it would have been "killing white people because a racist white man got off free for murdering a black kid."
I wouldn't ignore the tweets and messages of the three killers. Just because one of them said they did it because they were bored doesn't make it their only reason, or their reason at all.
Nah, don't regret it. They portrayed him as white until it came out that his heritage was not as white as they had thought and then they labeled him 'white hispanic'.
I don't think that these kids were out looking for revenge against whitey, I truly believe these kids were looking to kill someone simply because they could do so and because they wanted to.
The mischaracterization of the alleged violence by Chancey Luna, Michael Jones and James Edwards began when one of the trio claimed they had hunted down and shot dead Australian Chris Lane because they were “bored.”
The statement is so devoid of humanity and so headline-ready that the media seized upon it as a literal and complete explanation for why these three accused killers acted so inhumanely.
But the statement is a smokescreen. Boredom—of the kind sane people experience—had nothing, whatsoever, to do with Lane’s death and explains nothing about how it happened.
When normal people are bored, they go to the movies, go shopping or skateboarding or take a drive to the beach. Only when people are severely psychologically disordered do they think up murder as an antidote to boredom. Only when extraordinarily disordered patterns of thought, feeling or perception fill one’s mind does the vacuum of boredom draw someone to the idea of using a gun to shoot a stranger in the head.
Chancey Luna, Michael Jones and James Edwards, if guilty, are not normal. So we should not be surprised, nor take at face value, the self-report that they killed out of boredom, because that excuse emerges from a person who is psychologically shattered and unaware enough to pump a bullet into another man’s skull.
So why would these three allegedly do this if it had nothing to do with boredom? Probably because Chris Lane, a strong man running the streets on a bright day, was as good a symbol as any of what they had lost: their humanity. They had lost the capacity to feel for others. They could not perceive the suffering of Lane during his death, nor of his family members after his death. They had lost that singular, defining human quality called empathy.
My 20 years as a forensic psychiatrist tell me that, in all three cases, it will be found that traumatic life events, perhaps coupled with head trauma, drug use and disordered brain chemistry from birth, left these young men detached from their own thoughts and feelings – and those of others. I would venture that on August 16, 2013, more than one of Chris Lane’s assailants was, for all intents and purposes, psychologically dead.
That’s why one of the three alleged assailants said they killed because they were “bored”—because his very disordered mind was like an echo chamber that allowed his feelings of being annihilated, dehumanized and dead to boomerang back to him as an impulse to kill.
That goes along with how quick they were to post on Facebook "Two Kills with one shot". I'm a bit clueless on the "Two Kill" part when there was one target.
edit
I can see where he was going with the Third Trimester bit he used as an example.
One of the Oklahoma teenagers accused of killing 23-year-old Australian Christopher Lane had previously posted images online showing himself posing with guns and wads of cash.
And three days before what police call the indiscriminate shooting, the suspect, 15-year-old James Edwards Jr., tweeted, "With my n****s when it's time to start taken life's."
Back in April, he tweeted, "90% of white people (people) are nasty. #HATE THEM."
djones520 wrote: County already said it won't be prosecuted as such. Just a bunch of teens acting out for attention...
I'd say the fact that they purposefully cruised around to kill a guy shows it was more then just a bunch of teens acting out...
I agree, but it wouldn't be convenient for any of the usual suspects that normaly come out from under a rock for a Black on White crime to admit it was a hate crime because of who the assailants are. The county doesn't want to admit the truth because they don't want these same agitators coming down on them.
Alfndrate wrote: These words that you're putting in my mouth? You can have them back. You don't know what I would say if he had a CCW and shot and killed/scared off his would-be attackers. There's a good chance I might say, "thankfully he had the training to survive such a situation." and never bring the gun in it.
It seems the problem is that I gave you too much credit, and had assumed that you would be able to reach the common sense conclusion that if a person used a gun to defend himself from criminal attack then the gun was an important part of his defence. If we go with your idea of giving credit to training, then why bother having CCW and guns in the first place? They don't help, it's all about having training...
It really, really shouldn't be too hard to grasp this - if you want guns because you feel they are an effective tool for personal defence, then you have to recognise that the same weapon, in the hands of a criminal is an effective offensive tool. This means that you need to recognise that criminals use guns because they make their crimes easier.
That doesn't actually mean anything in terms of one's conclusions about gun control. But it is something people have to recognise in order to keep some kind of basic honesty in their arguments.
My point was that the gun is not the blame because these three fethwads went out and killed someone because they were bored. The reason why I was asking if the cricket bat would be blamed as the tool because if a gun wasn't used the comment most likely wouldn't have been made. Much like you said that either guns make it easier to do violence or they don't, I was saying that these kids were going to go out and do violence regardless of the weapon they had at hand.
Yes, but the gun made it easier.
I'd like to know how the kids got the gun(s) (they had a shotgun in the trunk), and what possessed them to go out and kill someone. I have a gun, yet I never look at it and go, "ya know let's go kill someone just because." You know why I don't think that? It's because I'm a well adjusted member of society. So that goes back to my point earlier about some part of society failing these kids. Let's figure that gak out instead of just getting into these fething stupid gun debates.
They're not mutually exclusive things. One can debate the use of a gun in a crime, and the social disfunction of the criminal. You can even do it in the same thread.
But what you can't, or at least shouldn't do, is just handwave away the role of guns in homicide with 'oh society failed these kids somehow so let's focus on that, and not talk about the guns'.
sebster wrote: Well then we should just make sure everyone has 'training' and get the guns out of their hands, because they don't need them, when training is what matters
Training! Training is nothing. Will is everything.
The will to act.
Anyway, this is a big news story in Australia, yah?
I dunno, it might be. The papers up here are pretty rubbish by and large, not worth the 2 bucks. And I've been playing way too much War Thunder to watch the TV news.
sebster wrote: But what you can't, or at least shouldn't do, is just handwave away the role of guns in homicide with 'oh society failed these kids somehow so let's focus on that, and not talk about the guns'.
I'm not handwaving the guns away, thus why I said, "I'd like to know how the kids got the guns." Find out how they got the guns, and start to work on a solution to figure out a way to remove people's ability to acquire guns in that fashion. If they're buying them from criminals, crack down on gun smuggling in your state, if they're buying them "legally" from a firearms vendor, someone is fething up with the paperwork. If they stole it from their home, there's not much that can be done if the parents were legal gun owners, but just idiots. Kids shouldn't have guns, unless they need to defend themselves from drop bears, giant spiders, anything else Australia has native to it's lands, or against Tornados, I heard firing at a Tornado is effective, which is why Texas never has Tornados, they fire into the sky to show dominance.
daedalus wrote: Then perhaps I saw it going in directions that you weren't trying to make it go in. Something along the lines of (assuming you want to play the race card) white guy defends himself from "black" attackers and kills them, leaving no witnesses. Seems I read too much into it though, and I apologize.
Not a problem, and thankyou.
I would have probably said "good for him" and been done with it until someone tried to score cheap political points off of it by turning it into a gun debate.
The problem here is that you're looking at defensive action and offensive action as if they're the same thing. They're not. In the case of an offensive action, the intent is to do harm. You are planning on hurting someone. If you really WANT to hurt something, or someone, you'll find a way to do so. Speaking with respect to defense, your primary intent is NOT to allow harm caused to yourself. You're not going to go out of your way to attack others because you can.
Now, am I going to say that using a knife to hurt someone is easier than a gun? No, of course not. Am I going to say that there is a difference between using a gun to attack someone and using a gun defensively? Yeah.
Yeah, and I don't want to overstate the point and let people think that this wouldn't have happened if the attacker didn't have access to a gun. Obviously murder happens anyway. But it is made easier, and is therefore more common, when you have access to a gun. You say that a person will find a way to kill their target, but closing to arm's reach and stabbing a person enough times to ensure they're dead is a hell of a different thing to shooting them.
And note that I'm not actually anti-gun - you want them then you should get to have them, sure they end up with more people dead but so does alcohol, and we can't run our societies purely on removing all possible danger. I'm just arguing for a little honesty in the debate, for people to recognise that just as a gun might help a person defend themself, they also help a person commit murder.
And here's the thing: They killed him because they were bored. Do you think that someone like that is going to get hung up on whether they do it with a knife, car, spear, creme pie, or gun? They used the gun because it was somehow easily accessible to them.
What this really boils down to is parents not having a fething clue what the hell is going on with their children.
You listen to the parents, and they'll talk about what sweet angels they were, never getting into trouble, playing their video games.
Not how they routinely had access to guns (shown in a video with one bragging and playing with a rifle), were raving racists (with the tweets), or any of the other tons of signs that I'm sure were evident, but ignored.
Ouze wrote: Anyway, this is a big news story in Australia, yah?
It's got a bit of coverage, but there's an election on so most of the news is about politicians promising stuff we don't need. I did read one 'crazy America' editorial, which was exactly as ill-informed and patronising as you'd expect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alfndrate wrote: I'm not handwaving the guns away, thus why I said, "I'd like to know how the kids got the guns." Find out how they got the guns, and start to work on a solution to figure out a way to remove people's ability to acquire guns in that fashion. If they're buying them from criminals, crack down on gun smuggling in your state, if they're buying them "legally" from a firearms vendor, someone is fething up with the paperwork. If they stole it from their home, there's not much that can be done if the parents were legal gun owners, but just idiots. Kids shouldn't have guns, unless they need to defend themselves from drop bears, giant spiders, anything else Australia has native to it's lands, or against Tornados, I heard firing at a Tornado is effective, which is why Texas never has Tornados, they fire into the sky to show dominance.
And yeah, asking how they got the guns is a pretty good question.
whembly wrote: Whether or not the boys are black, white, or other should not be central to this story... yet, when it's omitted, it becomes more "relevant" to the story due to our media suppressing basic facts. Anyhoo... this isn't new.
Horrible story.
I'm readying several articles... did the really 'fess up that they "were bored and didn't have anything to do, so we decided to kill somebody"???
Andrew1975 wrote: Hasn't gun violence and violence in general in Australia actually risen since the gun ban? Banning guns isn't the answer, controlling them is.
I believe it has gone down... but I have no stats proving or disproving my point, it is based on what people have hashed, rehashed, and then refried the rehash.
Relapse wrote:Just a waitin' to hear Obama say how the victim could have looked like his son, followed shortly by Sharpton and Jackson expressing outrage and all the protests. Of course, Spike Lee is anxious to twitter the address of the murderers families.
Crickets chirping
Are you seriously trying to make this about race somehow? Monsters are monsters and come in all varieties of colors. Leave it at that.
Your liberal feathers are showing. We've been hammered for months about the Zimmerman thing, ignoring real events and worsening conditions.
Andrew1975 wrote: Hasn't gun violence and violence in general in Australia actually risen since the gun ban? Banning guns isn't the answer, controlling them is.
I believe it has gone down... but I have no stats proving or disproving my point, it is based on what people have hashed, rehashed, and then refried the rehash.
This is just wiki, but it seems to support Alf
Wikipedia wrote: Historically, Australia has had relatively low levels of violent crime. Overall levels of homicide and suicide have been in decline for several decades, while the proportion of these crimes that involved firearms has consistently declined since the early 1980s. Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm-related deaths in Australia declined 47%.[26] According to a 2011 report from the Australian government, "...the number of victims of homicide has been in decline since 1996". There were 354 victims in 1996, but only 260 victims in 2010, a decrease of 27 percent. Also, "The proportion of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms in 2009–10 represented a decrease of 18 percentage points from the peak of 31 percent in 1995–96 (the year in which the Port Arthur massacre occurred with the death of 35 people, which subsequently led to the introduction of stringent firearms legislation)."
Jehan-reznor wrote: Waoaw, i wonder when the NRA starts saying that the gun is not to blame.
Is the gun to blame because it was the murder weapon? What if they used a cricket bat, would cricket be to blame? Did they obtain these guns lawfully? This is impossible since they're underage and cannot legally own a firearm. So who is to blame, I wouldn't put the blame on the gun simply because it was the murder weapon.
The blame is on whatever aspect of society failed these kids.
You can't pretend that it is a societal issue while ignoring the fact that if they had no access to a firearm that things might have been different.
Could have just run over him.
Its illegal for minors to own firearms in the first place, so no.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote: Looks like 2 black teens and one archetypal redneck reprobate to me.
A certain crowd has been waiting on a high profile black-on-white killing to somehow prove that they are right. Not surprised with the development of this case.
xole wrote: I don't buy that they were just bored. At best it was a hate crime with some sociopathy, at worst it was a thrill killing, like this little ball of crazy.
and Daedalus, I agree. Their race and color of their skin shouldn't matter.
Why?
Because three white kids could have done the same thing to a black South African rugby player and it would be just as reprehensible of an act. Three fethwads killed someone for no reason. The tweets indicate hate of white people, but at the same time, I hate other drivers on the road, yet I'm not gunning them down because I'm bored.
and Daedalus, I agree. Their race and color of their skin shouldn't matter.
Why?
Because three white kids could have done the same thing to a black South African rugby player and it would be just as reprehensible of an act. Three fethwads killed someone for no reason. The tweets indicate hate of white people, but at the same time, I hate other drivers on the road, yet I'm not gunning them down because I'm bored.
But they didn't. We are dealing with the fact pattern that actually occurred.
whembly wrote: Whether or not the boys are black, white, or other should not be central to this story... yet, when it's omitted, it becomes more "relevant" to the story due to our media suppressing basic facts. Anyhoo... this isn't new.
Horrible story.
I'm reading several articles... did the really 'fess up that they "were bored and didn't have anything to do, so we decided to kill somebody"???
It is relevant, sorry.
My point is that it really shouldn't be... but, if the media tries to so hard to obscure or misrepresent that information (aka Zimmerman), then it becomes a story. Which is really ridiculous... a dude was killed because of 3 bored kids.
This is what happens when you live in a state as flat as a pool table. We need hills people. Won't someone think of the children!
Dude... OK has some serious fething hills man... I can't tell you how many times I was nearly BLOWN off the fricking highway in broad daylight. It's fething windy there... o.O
d-usa wrote: A certain crowd has been waiting on a high profile black-on-white killing to somehow prove that they are right. Not surprised with the development of this case.
Don't really need a high profile one. They happen at a rate of 14:1 for white on black killings. They're all over the place. Like the WW2 Vet who was just murdered yesterday.
d-usa wrote: A certain crowd has been waiting on a high profile black-on-white killing to somehow prove that they are right. Not surprised with the development of this case.
Don't really need a high profile one. They happen at a rate of 14:1 for white on black killings. They're all over the place. Like the WW2 Vet who was just murdered yesterday.
Should have included "...that they could spin into a hate-crime", sorry for the omission.
d-usa wrote: A certain crowd has been waiting on a high profile black-on-white killing to somehow prove that they are right. Not surprised with the development of this case.
Don't really need a high profile one. They happen at a rate of 14:1 for white on black killings. They're all over the place. Like the WW2 Vet who was just murdered yesterday.
Should have included "...that they could spin into a hate-crime", sorry for the omission.
How about the 88 year old WWII vet that was beaten to death by two black teens for "No reason"
d-usa wrote: A certain crowd has been waiting on a high profile black-on-white killing to somehow prove that they are right. Not surprised with the development of this case.
Don't really need a high profile one. They happen at a rate of 14:1 for white on black killings. They're all over the place. Like the WW2 Vet who was just murdered yesterday.
Exactly. Its just filed under "general crime."
And no one is going to convince me Oklahoma is anything but poured concrete flat. I have been to your cities! flaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat...
Let's turn the tables just a minute - had a white person gunned down a black person, and tweeted that "90% of black people (people) are nasty. #HATE THEM" would we even be having a debate over whether or not the crime was motivated by racism?
But don't worry, there is already a call in that thread to get some rednecks to catch the black teens and give them the justice that they deserve.
I can't really argue with the sentiment. Anyone who'd curb stomp an 88 year old man for no reason deserves whatever happens to them. But our justice system will prevail, as it should.
d-usa wrote: A certain crowd has been waiting on a high profile black-on-white killing to somehow prove that they are right. Not surprised with the development of this case.
Don't really need a high profile one. They happen at a rate of 14:1 for white on black killings. They're all over the place. Like the WW2 Vet who was just murdered yesterday.
Should have included "...that they could spin into a hate-crime", sorry for the omission.
Which is why I've been saying that the color of their skin or their race shouldn't come into play. These are three kids that did a horrible crime and should be punished appropriately.
Duncan, Oklahoma: Chris Lane was murdered as a part of a gang initiation, according to James Johnson, the father of a boy who was also allegedly targeted by the three youths accused of killing Mr Lane.
Police have not commented on the claim, though court documents confirm the accused were eventually arrested in front of the boy's home.
In their car, police say they found a shotgun and the .22-calibre revolver they believe was used to kill Mr Lane, and a cache of ammunition.
Mr Johnson told Fairfax Media that the three youths had been trying to recruit his 17-year-old son, Chris, into a gang, and that Chris had refused.
On Friday afternoon, two hours after Mr Lane's murder, Mr Johnson was working on his truck in the Immanuel Church car park opposite the home where Chris lives with his mother, Sheila Haynes.
From inside the home, Chris rang Mr Johnson and said he had received a death threat from the accused boys, who he knew from school, via Facebook. As he put his mobile phone away, Mr Johnson saw the three youths, whom he has known all their lives, in a black car in the middle of the car park.
Mr Johnson was unaware of the earlier shooting, or that police were already scouring the town for the car after it had been described at the scene of the earlier shooting.
According to Mr Johnson, one of the boys, James Edwards, got out of the car and appeared to either stretch or reach down for something.
Pretending to still be on the phone to Chris, Mr Johnson called police, who were on the scene within minutes.
Court documents filed by police confirm that Mr Johnson called police to tell them three armed youths were in front of the home at 7.05pm, some four hours after Mr Lane was shot dead, and that officers were dispatched to the car park where they arrested the three accused.
But the documents also show that police found ammunition for a .22-calibre revolver like the one they allege was used to kill Mr Lane was by then hidden in the car's air intake, while a second weapon, a shotgun, was disassembled.
"I don't think it was an initiation – I know it was an initiation, my son told me it was an initiation," Mr Johnson told Fairfax Media.
Since the murder and the arrests, Mr Johnson has sent Chris away for safety to a youth program.
If Mr Johnson is correct, the revelation could go some way to providing a motive for the killing. Duncan residents — and people around the world — have struggled to accept that the youths would have committed the murder out of boredom, as one of the accused has told police.
"I just thank God I was there, and that Chris was not outside, they could have just driven past and shot him, I don't even like to contemplate that," Mr Johnson said.
"To be quite honest, if they were smarter, they could have come up behind me and shot me in the head."
He described the three youths - James Edwards, Michael Jones and the accused shooter, Chancey Luna - as good boys who had gone off the rails.
"They don't have proper fathers in their lives. You can't be a friend to your son, you got to be the father," he said.
"I feel very sorry for them, they have ruined their whole lives, but they did the crime, they have to do the time. Perhaps they can make a life inside, get God in their lives," he said.
"That Edwards was some talent, wrestling, football, he was an athlete. Satan has taken a lot of lives here."
He said a gang operating in nearby cities, such as Oklahoma City and Dallas, has been recruiting in Duncan. He said he believed the gang was responsible for the theft of guns in the area.
Sheila Haynes, who has three children with Mr Johnson, was not at home during the incident, which occurred on her birthday. Chris was at home with their youngest daughter, Shanelle, who is 15.
"I am just thankful that I did not have to lose a son on my birthday," she said. "But I am so sad that someone else did."
Asked if Chris had been scared by the incident, she said: "Well, if he is, he is not going to tell me, as his mom.
"He just said to me, 'Mom if it is my time, it is my time'."
d-usa wrote: A certain crowd has been waiting on a high profile black-on-white killing to somehow prove that they are right. Not surprised with the development of this case.
Don't really need a high profile one. They happen at a rate of 14:1 for white on black killings. They're all over the place. Like the WW2 Vet who was just murdered yesterday.
Should have included "...that they could spin into a hate-crime", sorry for the omission.
Which is why I've been saying that the color of their skin or their race shouldn't come into play. These are three kids that did a horrible crime and should be punished appropriately.
This has always been my issue with hate crime legislation.
Why not punish all crimes as harshly as we would a "hate crime"?
Duncan, Oklahoma: Chris Lane was murdered as a part of a gang initiation, according to James Johnson, the father of a boy who was also allegedly targeted by the three youths accused of killing Mr Lane.
Police have not commented on the claim, though court documents confirm the accused were eventually arrested in front of the boy's home.
In their car, police say they found a shotgun and the .22-calibre revolver they believe was used to kill Mr Lane, and a cache of ammunition.
Mr Johnson told Fairfax Media that the three youths had been trying to recruit his 17-year-old son, Chris, into a gang, and that Chris had refused.
On Friday afternoon, two hours after Mr Lane's murder, Mr Johnson was working on his truck in the Immanuel Church car park opposite the home where Chris lives with his mother, Sheila Haynes.
From inside the home, Chris rang Mr Johnson and said he had received a death threat from the accused boys, who he knew from school, via Facebook. As he put his mobile phone away, Mr Johnson saw the three youths, whom he has known all their lives, in a black car in the middle of the car park.
Mr Johnson was unaware of the earlier shooting, or that police were already scouring the town for the car after it had been described at the scene of the earlier shooting.
According to Mr Johnson, one of the boys, James Edwards, got out of the car and appeared to either stretch or reach down for something.
Pretending to still be on the phone to Chris, Mr Johnson called police, who were on the scene within minutes.
Court documents filed by police confirm that Mr Johnson called police to tell them three armed youths were in front of the home at 7.05pm, some four hours after Mr Lane was shot dead, and that officers were dispatched to the car park where they arrested the three accused.
But the documents also show that police found ammunition for a .22-calibre revolver like the one they allege was used to kill Mr Lane was by then hidden in the car's air intake, while a second weapon, a shotgun, was disassembled.
"I don't think it was an initiation – I know it was an initiation, my son told me it was an initiation," Mr Johnson told Fairfax Media.
Since the murder and the arrests, Mr Johnson has sent Chris away for safety to a youth program.
If Mr Johnson is correct, the revelation could go some way to providing a motive for the killing. Duncan residents — and people around the world — have struggled to accept that the youths would have committed the murder out of boredom, as one of the accused has told police.
"I just thank God I was there, and that Chris was not outside, they could have just driven past and shot him, I don't even like to contemplate that," Mr Johnson said.
"To be quite honest, if they were smarter, they could have come up behind me and shot me in the head."
He described the three youths - James Edwards, Michael Jones and the accused shooter, Chancey Luna - as good boys who had gone off the rails.
"They don't have proper fathers in their lives. You can't be a friend to your son, you got to be the father," he said.
"I feel very sorry for them, they have ruined their whole lives, but they did the crime, they have to do the time. Perhaps they can make a life inside, get God in their lives," he said.
"That Edwards was some talent, wrestling, football, he was an athlete. Satan has taken a lot of lives here."
He said a gang operating in nearby cities, such as Oklahoma City and Dallas, has been recruiting in Duncan. He said he believed the gang was responsible for the theft of guns in the area.
Sheila Haynes, who has three children with Mr Johnson, was not at home during the incident, which occurred on her birthday. Chris was at home with their youngest daughter, Shanelle, who is 15.
"I am just thankful that I did not have to lose a son on my birthday," she said. "But I am so sad that someone else did."
Asked if Chris had been scared by the incident, she said: "Well, if he is, he is not going to tell me, as his mom.
"He just said to me, 'Mom if it is my time, it is my time'."
There really is no real gang activity in that town.
And the whole "kill some random stranger gang initiation" is mostly an urban myth.
Now I wouldn't be surprised if these three were going around pretending to be some sort of gang because they wanted to pretend to be street-wise gang-bangers.
The story itself doesn't make much sense. These three were already in a gang and tried to recruit his son, but then they killed somebody so that they could be in a gang. It doesn't really flow.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Let's turn the tables just a minute - had a white person gunned down a black person, and tweeted that "90% of black people (people) are nasty. #HATE THEM" would we even be having a debate over whether or not the crime was motivated by racism?
There really is no real gang activity in that town.
And the whole "kill some random stranger gang initiation" is mostly an urban myth.
Now I wouldn't be surprised if these three were going around pretending to be some sort of gang because they wanted to pretend to be street-wise gang-bangers.
The story itself doesn't make much sense. These three were already in a gang and tried to recruit his son, but then they killed somebody so that they could be in a gang. It doesn't really flow.
I was kinda hoping for something more than "we were bored".
There really is no real gang activity in that town.
And the whole "kill some random stranger gang initiation" is mostly an urban myth.
Now I wouldn't be surprised if these three were going around pretending to be some sort of gang because they wanted to pretend to be street-wise gang-bangers.
The story itself doesn't make much sense. These three were already in a gang and tried to recruit his son, but then they killed somebody so that they could be in a gang. It doesn't really flow.
I was kinda hoping for something more than "we were bored".
Thanks for your input.
I think everyone hopes that there is a "better" reason (as if there is ever a good reason), and it could still be gang related. But the history isn't really there in that town.
Oklahoma City if filled with gangs, and we don't ever have anything like that here. So it would be very weird for something like that to happen in Duncan.
But a bunch of wanna-be gangsters doing something that comes straight out of the gang-banger urban legend journal, that seems more likely.
My black Uncle said this "Sometimes our race does it to ourselves. Our Steadfast defense of any black person accused of a crime is what gives our race a bad rep. As if we ur race is perfect. Sometimes people do bad things. White people do not tands by murderers and theives. Neither do Hispanics. but black people will automatically say 'He didnt do it, they where framed/threatened' leading to the idea we think crime is ok, or we are ignorant"
It got me thinking. Recently with black crimes in which there was TOO much evidence(This, The Stubenville rape case, the martin shoot) they stood by them, despite overwhelming evidence.
hotsauceman1 wrote: My black Uncle said this "Sometimes our race does it to ourselves. Our Steadfast defense of any black person accused of a crime is what gives our race a bad rep. As if we ur race is perfect. Sometimes people do bad things. White people do not tands by murderers and theives. Neither do Hispanics. but black people will automatically say 'He didnt do it, they where framed/threatened' leading to the idea we think crime is ok, or we are ignorant"
It got me thinking. Recently with black crimes in which there was TOO much evidence(This, The Stubenville rape case, the martin shoot) they stood by them, despite overwhelming evidence.
You've obviously never been to Steubanville... It's mostly white, and only 1/2 of the crew involved in that case was black. The other guy was white, and both races in the town were saying they were innocent...
Although during my visit to Germany (That's the full name of Holland btw), I find the Germandutchs to be very uptight.
That's sort of a cultural thing.
Now, back to whether or not this crime was racist. it makes it a bit more confusing since one of the kids was white(assuming they have the right photos for all 3 of them) while at least one of the others seemed to hate white people..
Although during my visit to Germany (That's the full name of Holland btw), I find the Germandutchs to be very uptight.
That's sort of a cultural thing.
Now, back to whether or not this crime was racist. it makes it a bit more confusing since one of the kids was white(assuming they have the right photos for all 3 of them) while at least one of the others seemed to hate white people..
The family thinks it was a gang initiation. The random killings for a gang initiation being ordered by the gang is mostly an urban myth, but calling it an urban myth is a half truth. It's highly unlikely that a gang member would directly tell perspective members that are not yet trusted to commit murder because they have not earned the gangs trust yet and doing so is conspiracy to commit murder. What is very likely is those 3 wanted into a gang, and decided on their own to take a drastic measure as a desperate effort to prove themselves.
The location was near Oklahoma city which has a bad crime problem. It's not South LA, Detroit, Flint, or Oakland bad, but Oklahoma city is more violent than New Orleans and is 9th in the nation in property crimes.
Mug shots of the shitbirds.
It looks more like a gang initiation to me than a hate crime because well I couldn't help but notice one of them was a nearly 6'4" tall white boy and usually when people commit a hate crime they don't ask a member of the ethnic group being attacked to drive the getaway car.
Last but not least Al Sharpton did make a comment on the killing.
People race baiting this killing are acting like Al Sharpton, are seeing a race issue when a race issue isn't there like Al Sharpton, are using an imaginary race issue to race bait like Al Sharpton, and are forcing me to agree with Al Sharpton on this one particular issue.
Hypothetically speaking, if I were white, and openly stated that I hate whites, and started killing whites, maybe by virtue of the fact they were white, would that be a hate crime?
I've been against the race card from the beginning, but I am curious.
Ouze wrote: Truly, Obama is history's greatest monster.
Just giving some possible reasons why people answered that poll the way they did. If there are now roughly 40,000 abandoned homes that are rotting to pieces in that city and being squatted in by 2x the number of homeless as pre Katrina, it would definitely make people think the current administration is dragging it's feet in aid.
I see - we're claiming Obama is responsible for the poor response to Hurricane Katrina by stretching the definition of "response" to 8 years afterward, is that fair to say, with the idea that to "the administration is dragging it's feet in aid"?
Automatically Appended Next Post: We should start a new thread for this, it's pretty offtopic.
Ouze wrote: I see - we're claiming Obama is responsible for the poor response to Hurricane Katrina by stretching the definition of "response" to 8 years afterward, is that fair to say, with the idea that to "the administration is dragging it's feet in aid"?
Automatically Appended Next Post: We should start a new thread for this, it's pretty offtopic.
Almost every thread goes full circle and eventually contains "blame the gun" "race-baiting" "Obama's fault" "Everybody hates the ACA" "Liberal Media" "Religion is evil" and "#YOLO".
Ouze wrote: I see - we're claiming Obama is responsible for the poor response to Hurricane Katrina by stretching the definition of "response" to 8 years afterward, is that fair to say, with the idea that to "the administration is dragging it's feet in aid"?
Automatically Appended Next Post: We should start a new thread for this, it's pretty offtopic.
You don't think 8 years along is horrible response time? Look at the poll. 29 per cent thinks that Obama has a horrible response time because he has had four and a half years to get things cleaned up and hasn't. All I did was show possible reasons they think that way based off two of a few news items that outline the complaints of people living there. You might not like it and go off trying to make light of the opinions of people in New Orleans by saying Obama is history's greatest monster, but they're the ones having to deal with the crap.
Would you be happy, thinking you were being forgotten for an 8 year stretch of time? Read the posted articles to understand how these people feel.
Jihadin wrote: I thought the Corp of Engineers are handling the reconstruction of Post Katrina?
Here's the Wiki on the deal. It seems like the corp has been paying contractors and there is some of the usual red tape happening. The homless situation was bad when I lived there and it's changed by far for the worse.
Relapse wrote: You don't think 8 years along is horrible response time?
Of course it's terrible - but after like, the first 6 months, it's not really a federal problem. And it pretty arguably wasn't before that, either.
At some point it becomes Louisiana's fault, and I posit to you, that point has passed many years ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Almost every thread goes full circle and eventually contains "blame the gun" "race-baiting" "Obama's fault" "Everybody hates the ACA" "Liberal Media" "Religion is evil" and "#YOLO".
We are almost there, keep it going!
I'm not complaining, my shift at work is just about over and I've almost got bingo.
Ouze wrote: Truly, Obama is history's greatest monster.
Just giving some possible reasons why people answered that poll the way they did. If there are now roughly 40,000 abandoned homes that are rotting to pieces in that city and being squatted in by 2x the number of homeless as pre Katrina, it would definitely make people think the current administration is dragging it's feet in aid.
How's on god's green earth is Katrina response/aftermath Obama's fault? If there's any fault to be thrown out, it's the State/Gov/Mayor of LA.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Is this a new thing, or has this always happened and I just never really noticed?
Always been that way, but I'll admit we go 'round all the hot topics MUCH quicker these days.
I guess we'd have to ask the people living there why they thought that. Back when Katrina first hit, Bush immediatly offered aid money on the condition it be accounted for, but the mayor of the city turned him down for three days.
Relapse wrote: I guess we'd have to ask the people living there why they thought that. Back when Katrina first hit, Bush immediatly offered aid money on the condition it be accounted for, but the mayor of the city turned him down for three days.
Not yelling at you man... just thought why Nawlin's would blame Obama. As Ouze mentioned earlier... this is a local issue if anything.
Relapse wrote: I guess we'd have to ask the people living there why they thought that. Back when Katrina first hit, Bush immediatly offered aid money on the condition it be accounted for, but the mayor of the city turned him down for three days.
Not yelling at you man... just thought why Nawlin's would blame Obama. As Ouze mentioned earlier... this is a local issue if anything.
Naw, I didn't take it as yelling. There's a good Wiki article on the whole messed up deal that has blame enough for all parties involved. I feel bad for the regular Joes that live there, but don't care what happens to the gang bangers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think Ouze called it right saying this conversation could use it's own thread since we have wondered way far afield here.
Gotta love good old Oklahoma political football. I just wish our politicians wouldn't make us look stupid on a regular basis...
WASHINGTON — Gov. Mary Fallin, who said Sunday that it would be “a nice gesture” for President Barack Obama to comment on the Oklahoma killing of an Australian college student, is satisfied with a White House statement on the tragedy, a spokesman for the governor said Monday.
The White House issued a statement on Saturday — a day before Fallin's comments — regarding the killing of Christopher Lane, an Australian who was a student at East Central University. Lane was shot while jogging Aug. 16 in Duncan. Three teens have been charged in connection with the case.
The statement, which appeared in an Australian newspaper, was attributed to White House spokesman Matt Lehrich and said, “As the President has expressed on too many tragic occasions, there is an extra measure of evil in an act of violence that cuts a young life short. The President and First Lady's thoughts and prayers are with Chris Lane's family and friends in these trying times.”
Alex Weintz, spokesman for Fallin, said Monday, “The governor thinks the president did the right thing by reaching out to the Lane family and the people of Australia.”
Fallin had told Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” that it “would be nice if our nation were to certainly express their condolences, how very sorry we are.”
We don't have time for your country's statements, we have a highly charged political campaign, including a debate between crocodile dundee's homophobic older brother and the guy building the titanic mkII
Andrew1975 wrote: Hasn't gun violence and violence in general in Australia actually risen since the gun ban? Banning guns isn't the answer, controlling them is.
Nope. There's some NRA dodgy bs out there claiming otherwise, mostly by focusing on really specific regions or cherry picking the start and end points for their figures, but the trend is actually down.
Andrew1975 wrote: Hasn't gun violence and violence in general in Australia actually risen since the gun ban? Banning guns isn't the answer, controlling them is.
Nope. There's some NRA dodgy bs out there claiming otherwise, mostly by focusing on really specific regions or cherry picking the start and end points for their figures, but the trend is actually down.
Psst... guns violence is actually trending down in the US... with gun ownership at all time high.
I'm going with Sebster on that. Last I heard of violence in Australia was the teen female taking an fire axe to someone vehicle in front of a court house there.
whembly wrote: Psst... guns violence is actually trending down in the US... with gun ownership at all time high.
Those surveys comparing countries are rubbish.
I know, gun violence is trending down all over the developed world, as part of a greater trend in a decline in overall violence. All of which is for social factors that are far more powerful than the number of guns in society.
Which is why the NRA claims about gun violence increasing in Australia are such total bs, not only because they're factually incorrect, but also because even if they were, the cause would likely be due to other factors.
That said - the comparisons aren't rubbish. Your rate of gun violence is crazy high compared to the rest of us, and has been for a long time. It rises and falls like everywhere else, for lots of reasons, but its always much, much higher. And over time you can pull out all those other local factors, and you get left with guns.
Now that doesn't mean you have to ban guns or anything. They kill 10,000, but alcohol kills 8 times that, so its perfectly okay to say the good is worth the harm - we don't have to make every possible sacrifice for the sake of safety. But you do have to recognise the reality of the situation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: I'm going with Sebster on that. Last I heard of violence in Australia was the teen female taking an fire axe to someone vehicle in front of a court house there.
That was hilarious.
Get your hands on Underbelly - its a dramatic retelling of a gang war in Melbourne. It's really good. But make sure you get the first series, the rest drop off in quality fairly quickly.
Relapse wrote: No wonder Thunder Dome takes place in Australia!
Here's a story, might be an urban myth but it's good all the same. The first Mad Max film, where he gets revenge on the hoodlums who raped his wife, that was made as a straight movie, no post-apocalyptic elements at all. But when they shipped that movie to the US, Americans saw the outback towns it was set in and assumed society was collapsing and something had happened to make the place so run down and bleak.
Nope, that's just what towns in country Australia look like.
Anyhow, they ran with it and went on to make the sequel an actual post-apocalyptic thing.
Relapse wrote: No wonder Thunder Dome takes place in Australia!
Here's a story, might be an urban myth but it's good all the same. The first Mad Max film, where he gets revenge on the hoodlums who raped his wife, that was made as a straight movie, no post-apocalyptic elements at all. But when they shipped that movie to the US, Americans saw the outback towns it was set in and assumed society was collapsing and something had happened to make the place so run down and bleak.
Nope, that's just what towns in country Australia look like.
Anyhow, they ran with it and went on to make the sequel an actual post-apocalyptic thing.
How much of the first Mad Max film was fantasy? Which aspects? I'm not knowledgeable of Australia in that time.
.
That's what many people believe.
