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.

 Manchu wrote:
It seems like the real question people want to ask ITT is, was this a hate crime?

I think the shooter's own words speak to that;
"“What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them."

It is unclear whose initials he is referring to. He continues, “As for Dylann Roof? You (deleted)! You want a race war (deleted)? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE …(deleted)!!!” He said Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to act. "

It's a damn shame this man successfully took the cowards way out, but I suppose anyone that guns down defenseless people in cold blood is something of a coward.

Horrible act of cowardice. Poor families.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
It's a damn shame this man successfully took the cowards way out, but I suppose anyone that guns down defenseless people in cold blood is something of a coward.

Shot them in the back no less.

As to whether it's a hate crime- technically no I think. This was basically a premeditated murder against people he thought had wronged him.

The guy that did this is a domestic terrorist.

Glad he had the common decency to shoot himself and save the taxpayers from the cost of a lengthy court case & imprisonment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
This murderer cheated our civilization out of its inherent right to judge and punish him.

Thats ok. Better that he is no longer alive.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
The guy that did this is a domestic terrorist.

Glad he had the common decency to shoot himself and save the taxpayers from the cost of a lengthy court case & imprisonment.

Are all murderors terrorists? This isn't the first time someone was murdered on live TV in the US. It's not like he was a mass shooter or anything- not to belittle what he did, but terrorist seems a little extreme.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
The guy that did this is a domestic terrorist.

Glad he had the common decency to shoot himself and save the taxpayers from the cost of a lengthy court case & imprisonment.

Are all murderors terrorists? This isn't the first time someone was murdered on live TV in the US. It's not like he was a mass shooter or anything- not to belittle what he did, but terrorist seems a little extreme.

The guy specifically targeted unarmed people based entirely on their ethnicity. He planned their murder in advance, and walked into their workplace. He filmed the murders and tried to post them as propaganda. He cited "race war" as his motivation. Yes, that is domestic terrorism.

Absolutely. 100%.

I have made the exact same statement about Dylan Rough, James Holmes, Adam Lanza, Chris Dorner, etc.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
The guy that did this is a domestic terrorist.

Glad he had the common decency to shoot himself and save the taxpayers from the cost of a lengthy court case & imprisonment.

Are all murderors terrorists? This isn't the first time someone was murdered on live TV in the US. It's not like he was a mass shooter or anything- not to belittle what he did, but terrorist seems a little extreme.

Terrorism is often seen a violent act, or series of acts, that have a political element. Dylon Roof was considered a domestic terrorist because he murdered people because of his racist views. This killer also killed people because of racial reasons. Given the similarities why would we not consider this domestic terrorism?

James Holmes was just a nutcase, not a terrorist. He had no political or social issues to drive or change.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Ouze wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Considering public urination is grounds for denial in a NICS check, I'd say that warrants a further look.

No it isn't, and what's more, you know it isn't.

Here's the 4473 which I'm quite certain you are familiar.

It looks like you're making an argument that public urination should be grounds to block a gun sale and/or be picked up for a mental evaluation. I can only shrug at this.

Actually...

Section 12c asks if you have ever committed a felony, or a misdemeanor that carries a maximum penalty greater than one year. Ohio allows misdemeanors to extend to two years. This would disqualify you. In addition, some people have ended up on the sex offender registry as a result of urinating in public because they were charged with a different, but related, crime like indecent exposure or even sexual battery.

Again, you're wrong. I'll wait for my apology.

Gents, three people dead and another couple injured and you're arguing about pissing in public?

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
The guy that did this is a domestic terrorist.

The term Terrorist is overused to the extent that it means nothing anymore.

If a gangbanger targets a white couple in a mugging and shoots them, that is also targeting someone based on their ethnicity. Your use of the word dilutes it to include any violent act where a certain demographic is targeted for unjust reasons.

 Manchu wrote:
It is a shame the murderer successfully committed suicide. The expense of his trial, imprisonment, and likely execution would have been high but these costs are justified. Suicide and execution are not equivalent outcomes.

Murder and suicide. Not something I would care to be standing in judgement of on the other side.

I don't think this is terrorism. Just seem like a man with very bad mental problem.

This is a tragedy either way.

The problem with mental health in the US. is the stigma attached to seeking help.

Also personal history with at least one of the victims. Seems less terrorism and more a planned murder of someone with a personal connection related to their shared job.

 Psienesis wrote:
James Holmes was just a nutcase, not a terrorist. He had no political or social issues to drive or change.

I'm of the mind that massacring a theater full of people and booby trapping your apartment building is terrorism, even if you don't have a written political manifesto. He made carefully calculated moves in order to maximize his carnage.

Simply my opinion, of course. As are all my posts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
Also personal history with at least one of the victims. Seems less terrorism and more a planned murder of someone with a personal connection related to their shared job.

Did you read his manifesto in which he clearly states that he has a racial and political motivation which led to the killings?

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
James Holmes was just a nutcase, not a terrorist. He had no political or social issues to drive or change.

I'm of the mind that massacring a theater full of people and booby trapping your apartment building is terrorism, even if you don't have a written political manifesto. He made carefully calculated moves in order to maximize his carnage.

Simply my opinion, of course. As are all my posts.

Terrorism has an actual definition, it's not just a word:

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright 2011 wrote:
terrorism
ˈterəˌrizəm
noun
The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
James Holmes was just a nutcase, not a terrorist. He had no political or social issues to drive or change.

I'm of the mind that massacring a theater full of people and booby trapping your apartment building is terrorism, even if you don't have a written political manifesto. He made carefully calculated moves in order to maximize his carnage.

Simply my opinion, of course. As are all my posts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
Also personal history with at least one of the victims. Seems less terrorism and more a planned murder of someone with a personal connection related to their shared job.

Did you read his manifesto in which he clearly states that he has a racial and political motivation which led to the killings?

yes he was also saying God told him to shoot those people. So is this Christian Terrorism then or maybe a mentally ill person?

Other religions have "gods" don't drag us into this.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Other religions have "gods" don't drag us into this.

Sorry his exact wording was "Jehova made him shoot those people"

also siting the recent church shootings.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
James Holmes was just a nutcase, not a terrorist. He had no political or social issues to drive or change.

I'm of the mind that massacring a theater full of people and booby trapping your apartment building is terrorism, even if you don't have a written political manifesto. He made carefully calculated moves in order to maximize his carnage.

Simply my opinion, of course. As are all my posts.

Terrorism has an actual definition, it's not just a word:

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright 2011 wrote:
terrorism
ˈterəˌrizəm
noun
The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.

A political goal like escalating a perceived race war?

Again, given the personal ties between victim and shooter? Not seeing the terrorism angle. Especially considering that, as a plan of action, it's ill-thought. Did he expect the race war to erupt in the wake of his actions (as Roof did)? Did he expect the race war to cease?

Neither are true, or even possible, because there isn't a race war going on, just human beings being terrible to other human beings, which is pretty much how it's always been.

His manifesto reads like someone who has latched on to current events as both an outlet for, and a justification of, rage at personal slights, either real or imagined, rather than an attack against a larger segment of society or the government that rules it.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Ouze wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Considering public urination is grounds for denial in a NICS check, I'd say that warrants a further look.

No it isn't, and what's more, you know it isn't.

Here's the 4473 which I'm quite certain you are familiar.

It looks like you're making an argument that public urination should be grounds to block a gun sale and/or be picked up for a mental evaluation. I can only shrug at this.

Actually...

Section 12c asks if you have ever committed a felony, or a misdemeanor that carries a maximum penalty greater than one year. Ohio allows misdemeanors to extend to two years. This would disqualify you. In addition, some people have ended up on the sex offender registry as a result of urinating in public because they were charged with a different, but related, crime like indecent exposure or even sexual battery.

Again, you're wrong. I'll wait for my apology.

You'll get one when I'm wrong, which of course, I'm not. Putting aside the incredible goal-post moving of being a sex offender, Ohio has different classes of misdemeanors. It's not one size fits all. Public urination would probably be, at most, a 4th degree misdemeanor - which is 30 days.

You've gone from making an argument that public urination should be grounds for disqualification for a firearm purchase, and/or confinement for a mental evaluation, to pretending that you might serve 2 years for public urination. At this point I have to realize that I am engaging in crazy-person arguments, and find something more productive to do with my time.

Relapse wrote:
Gents, three people dead and another couple injured and you're arguing about pissing in public?

I think it's hard to claim a high ground when posting in a thread that has a snuff video embedded on the first page, like 5 posts in.

 Manchu wrote:
It seems like the real question people want to ask ITT is, was this a hate crime?

Yes, he hated being fired, he hated not being in control, he hated that they hired someone to replace him, he hated everyone, because it was all their fault.

You expect reporters being shot working in a warzone but not doing some local item, RIP

 Psienesis wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
James Holmes was just a nutcase, not a terrorist. He had no political or social issues to drive or change.

I'm of the mind that massacring a theater full of people and booby trapping your apartment building is terrorism, even if you don't have a written political manifesto. He made carefully calculated moves in order to maximize his carnage.

Simply my opinion, of course. As are all my posts.

Terrorism has an actual definition, it's not just a word:

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright 2011 wrote:
terrorism
ˈterəˌrizəm
noun
The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.

I would say he had definite political goals. He was under the delusion that there is some race war going on. Thats definitely political.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I would say he had definite political goals. He was under the delusion that there is some race war going on. Thats definitely political.

But he still chose as victims people he had history with. The "race war" delusion just served as an excuse for taking revenge on former colleagues for slights real and imagined. Maybe he wasn't quite crazy enough to kill just for getting fired but worked himself up to it by attaching some extra racial and social issues to his list of reasons? That's IMO not terrorism, it's a deranged man justifying murder by trying to make it seem less personal.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I would say he had definite political goals. He was under the delusion that there is some race war going on. Thats definitely political.

But he still chose as victims people he had history with. The "race war" delusion just served as an excuse for taking revenge on former colleagues for slights real and imagined. Maybe he wasn't quite crazy enough to kill just for getting fired but worked himself up to it by attaching some extra racial and social issues to his list of reasons? That's IMO not terrorism, it's a deranged man justifying murder by trying to make it seem less personal.

And yet he didn't exactly hesitate to shoot in the back a complete stranger.

I have seen the accusation that he was insane thrown around, but is there any real evidence for mental illness? Writing a 27 page document detailing you grievances with the world sounds more like a mad teenager than evidence that you are mentally compromised.

 the Signless wrote:
I have seen the accusation that he was insane thrown around, but is there any real evidence for mental illness? Writing a 27 page document detailing you grievances with the world sounds more like a mad teenager than evidence that you are mentally compromised.

I would posit that writing a 27 page suicide note and shooting 3 people in public, on live TV, killing two of them, are not the actions of a mentally healthy adult.

From the sound of it, I would guess the shooter had some very powerful self image and depression issues.

Some history of Vester Flanagan. Yep. He was definitely crazy (on a side note: terrible typing in this by BBC):

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34044053

The man who accused of killing two broadcast journalists in Virginia has been identified as Vester Lee Flanagan, a former employee at the station where the victims worked.
Police said Flanagan, 41, of Roanoke, Virginia, shot himself and later died after the murders on Wednesday.
Using the name Bryce Williams, Flanagan had worked as a TV journalist in several southern states for many years.
In 2012, he was hired at WDBJ, the same Roanoke TV station where his victims Alison Parker and Adam Ward worked.
Jeffrey Marks, WDBJ's general manager, described Flanagan as unhappy, difficult to work with and always "looking out for people to say things he could take offence to".
"Eventually after many incidents of his anger coming to the fore, we dismissed him. He did not take that well,'' Marks explained. He said Flanagan had to be escorted by police out of the station when he was fired.
As police searched for Flanagan on Wednesday morning, more information about Flanagan surfaced.He posted a video of the shooting to his Twitter account - an account which only had tweets two weeks old and included many childhood and other photos.
On Twitter, Flanagan also accused the murdered reporters of making racist comments and said he complained to human resources about it.
ABC News said they had received a "lengthy" fax from someone purporting to be Bryce Williams between Tuesday night and Wednesday morning and had turned it over to the authorities.
The broadcaster described the 23-page letter as "rambling" and said the writer described being motivated by previous gunmen in US mass shootings - including those in Columbine and Virginia Tech, but said the "tipping point" was the murder of nine African-Americans in Charleston early this summer.
"I've been a human powder keg for a while… just waiting to go BOOM!!!!," he wrote.
He suggested on the Twitter account he had modelled as a child and young adult, been a "high paid companion", and was raised as a Jehovah's Witness.According to his own LinkedIn account, he worked in several positions in customer service and had an undergraduate degree in broadcast media from San Francisco State University.
Local media reported Flanagan filed a lawsuit against WDBJ, alleging discrimination by the whole station, naming most of the staff in his complaint.
The case was dismissed by a judge in July 2014.
A local paper in Florida said he had sued a station there that had fired him, also alleging racial discrimination.
The writer said he had suffered both from racial discrimination and attacks for a being gay.

I think we should take people at their own words. If someone says he killed these people because he wanted a race war, and because of the church shootings, I believe him.

Terrorists/bad buys mean what they write and state. I never understood people who read i.e. Hamas manifesto about destroy all of Israel, and then swats it away with "they dont really mean this", and then is suprised when ISIL, after threatening to do the same to the yezidis and christians actually starts mass murder.