Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 pities2004 wrote:

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."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/21/justice/australia-student-killed-oklahoma/index.html

Sounds like a Hate crime to me

Yep.

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...

 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.

Well, Jesse Jackson already sent a tepid response to the matter. Tweeting that he "frowned apon" murdering white people. *rolls eyes*

 djones520 wrote:
Well, Jesse Jackson already sent a tepid response to the matter. Tweeting that he "frowned apon" murdering white people. *rolls eyes*

Is that the actual tweet?

edit:

"Praying for the family of Chris Lane. This senseless violence is frowned upon and the justice system must prevail," Jackson tweeted.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/22/rev-jesse-jackson-criticized-over-frowned-upon-tweet/#ixzz2ckrrquBF

Wow, tepid was definitely the right word for that.

 motyak wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Well, Jesse Jackson already sent a tepid response to the matter. Tweeting that he "frowned apon" murdering white people. *rolls eyes*

Is that the actual tweet?

edit:

"Praying for the family of Chris Lane. This senseless violence is frowned upon and the justice system must prevail," Jackson tweeted.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/22/rev-jesse-jackson-criticized-over-frowned-upon-tweet/#ixzz2ckrrquBF

Wow, tepid was definitely the right word for that. I know its fox, but they wouldn't change what a tweet said.

It says the same thing on other news outlets, so you are indeed correct.

Then, of course these murderers are orators of such skill, let's give them a chance to say what they think of white people:

http://o.dailycaller.com/thedailycaller/#!/entry/black-teen-who-allegedly-murdered-australian-jogger-posted-racist-tweets,521509a1da27f5d9d00f20bc/3

Oops I thought I removed that bit, I went and checked other news ones afterwards. I'll cut it now.

 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.

Yeah, absolutely. First and foremost

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.

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.

 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"???

It is relevant, sorry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Yup.

They had nothing better to do.

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!

 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.

 azazel the cat wrote:

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.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 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)."

It seems to be referencing this paper http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/261-280/tandi269/view%20paper.html

 Jihadin wrote:
I have no trouble or compassion for them. If they get a sentence for life will it go past 18 though?

Yes, they will be tried as adults.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 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.

Nope incorrecto.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Sorry Mods

and Daedalus, I agree. Their race and color of their skin shouldn't matter.

Why?

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.

Yep. I feel for the family and their loss.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Sorry Mods

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.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Sorry Mods

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Yup.

They had nothing better to do.

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

Well the problem is that, its likely wasn't because they were three bored kids. Their own statements are pretty racist.

 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.

 djones520 wrote:

 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:

 djones520 wrote:

 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"

 djones520 wrote:

 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...