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.

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).

 Forar wrote:

 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.

I'm grumpy.

You have serious lack of sleep coming if your counting on the human race to "do the right thing"

 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.

 d-usa wrote:
Thanks Obama...

How many post here are actually only focused in the case, and not a backhanded comment about race, liberals, etc?

I'm here for the case! Rabble, rabble, rabble!

 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?

 sebster wrote:

 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.

 sebster wrote:

 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.

 Alfndrate wrote:


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."

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

Sounds like a Hate crime to me

 Alfndrate wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 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.

Cyporiean wrote:
I'm agreeing with Alf.

 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."

 LuciusAR wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:


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."

 sebster wrote:

 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.

Oh and there is this http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/22/another-senseless-murder-youre-not-hearing-about-and-some-in-the-family-wonder-if-it-could-be-a-trayvon-martin-revenge-murder/



Here is an interesting article http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/22/opinion/granderson-criminal-kids-responsibility/index.html?hpt=hp_t1\

(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.

snip

Reds8n



Wall of death

Yeah I know, but sometimes when I just post and article link people complain that they can't see it.

You certainly did not nee to repost the whole thing.

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?

 Alfndrate wrote:

 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.

 xole wrote:

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.

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.

Edit: While I'm also looking for a liberal view that tauts the same thing, this is an interesting article on the whole thing (yes it's fox news, I get that):
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/08/22/boredom-was-not-reason-behind-chris-lane-murder/
text spoilered for the work blocked

Dr. Albow a bit scary in how correct that is.

 Jihadin wrote:
Dr. Albow a bit scary in how correct that is.

Yeah, but to counter it, he also apparently blamed this on facebook among other things. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/keith-ablow-oklahoma-shooting_n_3792225.html?utm_hp_ref=technology

Though he uses it as an example of society's disconnectedness, which I can see, but I definitely agree that these kids ain't got no humanity.

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.