At least 20+ dead students in Virginia Tech; shooter dead

Good point, dlowan...

0 Replies

Quote:

Mostly the people making the threats are not insane enough to commit, and threats alone cannot generally get people imprisoned.

If a person is a stalker, as in the Cho case, does that make him "insane enough to commit"? Two women students reported that Cho had stalked them.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Well, we have obligations to warn authorities if someone is making threats...especially if they have means. And to warn the subject of the threats. THAT'S fun, I can tell you...turning up on some person's doorstep whom you have never met, and telling them about threats! I would assume similar ethical rules apply in the US?

Here, as I said, weapons can be removed by police.

Let's face it though, the most common thing is it's some man threatening to kill his ex, and, while guns can be removed, if the police can find him and are prepared to act, all too often he does exactly what he has said he will do.

Mostly the people making the threats are not insane enough to commit, and threats alone cannot generally get people imprisoned.

The stuff being dealt with on this thread is, while awful, relatively uncommon.

The mind numbing violence that happens every day is really a bigger problem.

This stuff just gets people oohing and aahing and noticing.

STOP IT! I'm going to get in trouble here if I have to keep agreeing with you. Razz

The laws here in MA allow the police to do much the same as you've described. Firearns registration is mandatory and the police can look it up as they are responding to a domestic violence call. If the person has a Firearms permit or has registered any firearms the police can seize them temporarily and then, if it is decided that there is a longer term danger, can seek a longer period or revoke the firearms permit which means they will never get them back.

Of course, that only works for people that are already complying with the laws....

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

Quote:
Mostly the people making the threats are not insane enough to commit, and threats alone cannot generally get people imprisoned.

If a person is a stalker, as in the Cho case, does that make him "insane enough to commit"? Two women students reported that Cho had stalked them.

I would be very surprised.

Stalking does not necessarily have anything to do with sanity, anyway, at least the kind of insanity that can get you committed.

Some people who are psychotic will stalk people as part of a delusional system, and that can be very dangerous, but the majority of stalkers, while clearly not mentally healthy, are not gonna qualify for committal. A few would.

Dealing with stalkers has more to do with the law, and whether you can get restraining orders etc.

Which do **** all, really, if somebody is determined to kill you......but getting arrested and getting to cool down in cells for a while may prevent some murders, and tends to discourage a number of violent people over time.

It's like assassination of leaders. If somebody is prepared to die doing it, they can do it.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Paaskynen wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Paaskynen wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
In general, an armed populace can produce an effect against an invader or occupier, most often by guerrilla warfare rather than direct confrontation, but, at any rate, they should have the right to do what they can and not be rendered completely defenseless.

The Iraqi insurgents wholeheartedly agree with that.

Precisely. This belies the assertion that an armed populace is of no use in a war.

Brandon, you are the first American I have come across who declares the Iraqis have the right to kill American soldiers on their soil.

I'm disappointed to see that you are a liar and depend upon this to make your points. As I think you understand perfectly, I said no such thing. What I said was that an armed populace can make a difference in a war, and I agreed with your assertion that Iraq was an example.

Now, if you wish to challenge my assertion that you're a liar, then you need only post a link to any statement of mine that Iraqis possess the right to kill American soldiers, which I certainly never said.

I await your evasive response.

First, you start namecalling, which is not a strong defense of your position.

Second, if you read back the agument you must agree that my conclusion is not at all so far fetched. sometimes what you think you said is not so obvious to others:

You said Precisely...
When I had said Iraqi insurgents...
When you had said In general ... should have the right ...

0 Replies

What Good Could Come From Airing the VT Killer's Video?
What Good Could Come From Airing the VT Killer's Video?
By Dennis Byrne
E & P
April 19, 2007

NBC played into this murderer's hands, and thus makes itself an accomplice to his horrific acts, by flooding the country with his images, making him a hero for every nut job in the country.

So, what does it say about NBC that a sociopathic mass murder selected the network to let him get in the last word by airing his dangerous and perverted tapes.

If I were the decider at NBC, I would have said, "Not on my network, jerk." Instead, NBC played into this murderer's hands, and thus makes itself an accomplice to his horrific acts, by flooding the country with his images, making him a hero for every nut job in the country. When the shots ring out the next time, and students die in their classrooms, I hope NBC executives remember.

This opinion is from a journalist who has more than three decades of experience as a columnist, editorial board member, editor and reporter at three major Chicago newspapers -- the Tribune, Sun-Times and Daily News. This is from a journalist who always felt strongly that our job is to inform and enlighten a public that has a right to know.

But like all rights, the freedom of the press is not absolute, and it certainly ought to be subject to wise and prudent decisions by those who practice the profession. That's why it's called a profession.

One critic of NBC's decision is Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist and ABC News consultant, who appeared on "Good Morning America" today. Sure, that's a competitor's network, but it's still worth quoting him at length:

I promise you the disaffected will watch him the way they watched "Natural Born Killers." I know. I examine these people. I've examined mass shooters who have told me they've watched it 20 times. You cannot saturate the American public with this kind of message.

It's not an issue of blame. It's an appeal [to the media]. Please stop now. That's all. If you can take [talk show host Don] Imus off the air, you can certainly keep [Cho] from having his own morning show.

They turn themselves into icons. They get articles written about themselves in The New York Times. This is perversion. We have to send a message to alienated people, you know what? You hate everybody around you? You're paranoid. You're sad. You're depressed. But these people are perverts.

Welner let the media off easy. By the end of the day, I'm willing to bet that scientific polls will show the public vastly opposed the airing of the tapes, even though the public sat transfixed, watching. Maybe it's hypocrisy on the part of the public, but that doesn't make the criticism of NBC any less valid.

But however the public views us is a digression from the real issue: How do we, as journalists, make our decisions in the public interest? Certainly, disclosure of all information in our hands (it apparently doesn't much matter how it got there) is not an absolute and automatic rule for most news outlets. Every outlet points with pride to when it withholds information in the public's or individual's interest. The wide agreement to not publish the names of rape victims comes to mind. And the disciplining of Geraldo Rivera for disclosing battle plans during the Iraq invasion on live TV is another.

So, the wide acceptance of the principle that some information should not be printed or aired is not what is at issue. And the wide acceptance of the issue makes NBC's decision even more heinous. True, even if NBC had withheld the images, it's possible that they might have been leaked by someone else, and would have escaped into the public realm anyway. But, that excuse is a dodge when deciding whether I'm going to be the one to do it and, not incidentally, do it first.

Today, in the age of the Internet and instant communications, such a decision is irrevocable. There's no correcting this mistake. By now the images have traveled around the world uncountable times, have been replayed and replayed, etched in people's minds. And into the minds of future murderers.

Oh, yes, I know all the arguments about how journalists can't and shouldn't be psychiatrists. We're communicators, and if we don't communicate, we're not doing our jobs. The New York Times and Washington Post, for example, pondered long and hard about whether it should publish the Unabomber ranting and when they did, it ultimately led that murderer's capture. So, good emerged from that decision.

So, maybe someone in our business can explain to me what good will come out of NBC's decision.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dennis Byrne ([email protected]) is a contributing op-ed columnist for the Chicago Tribune and a freelance writer.

0 Replies

"So, maybe someone in our business can explain to me what good will come out of NBC's decision. "

An informed public?

0 Replies

Paaskynen wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Paaskynen wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Paaskynen wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
In general, an armed populace can produce an effect against an invader or occupier, most often by guerrilla warfare rather than direct confrontation, but, at any rate, they should have the right to do what they can and not be rendered completely defenseless.

The Iraqi insurgents wholeheartedly agree with that.

Precisely. This belies the assertion that an armed populace is of no use in a war.

Brandon, you are the first American I have come across who declares the Iraqis have the right to kill American soldiers on their soil.

I'm disappointed to see that you are a liar and depend upon this to make your points. As I think you understand perfectly, I said no such thing. What I said was that an armed populace can make a difference in a war, and I agreed with your assertion that Iraq was an example.

Now, if you wish to challenge my assertion that you're a liar, then you need only post a link to any statement of mine that Iraqis possess the right to kill American soldiers, which I certainly never said.

I await your evasive response.

First, you start namecalling, which is not a strong defense of your position.

Second, if you read back the agument you must agree that my conclusion is not at all so far fetched. sometimes what you think you said is not so obvious to others:

You said Precisely...
When I had said Iraqi insurgents...
When you had said In general ... should have the right ...

First of all, I did not engage in name calling. I stated an opinion as to a matter of fact relevant to this discussion, that you lie, and, therefore, would properly be called a liar, and that your response to my post was based on a lie. That is not name calling.

Secondly, I am still convinced that you understood at the time you made the statement that I had asserted that people have the right to the means of defense, not that Iraqis are morally correct in shooting American soldiers.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Really?

Yes, really. Everyone has a fundamental right to be tried on the merits of the prosecution and their own defense in any criminal action.

When John Wesley Hardin was 15, he got in a fight, and the next day, he shot the man with whom he fought the day before. Although it is alleged that he killed him, i can find no reliable evidence that he did so. He was later pursued by three federal soldiers, who shot at him when they began to overtake them. He shot back, and killed at least two of them, and the third might have died of wounds--once again, i can find no reliable source for precisely what happened. So, at age 15, he was going around bragging about how he had killed three men. He may have. He may have only killed two, he may have killed as many as four. It is, however, arguable in all of these cases that he acted in self-defense.

When he was 17, he was taken in to custody for a murder he did not commit. Given slack conditions in West Texas in those days, he was able to buy an overcoat and a pistol from another man in the cabin where he was being held until he could be taken to El Paso for trial, and so was able to kill the deputy guarding him and escape.

However, if he had been tried before a jury in El Paso for a murder he did not commit, and it were reported to the jury that he had been bragging since he was 15 that he'd killed three men, just what do you think would have happened to "reasonable doubt?" Now Hardin is not the best example, because he was a murderous son-of-a-bitch without whom the world would have been much better off from the time he was 14, and attempted to kill a class mate with a knife. But my point is that had he gone before that jury in El Paso, age 17, he likely would have been hanged for a crime he did not commit. So . . .

Quote:

Accused arsonist started 6 buildings on fire as a kid isn't relevant in determining his likelihood of guilt?

No, and it could lead to a serious miscarriage of justice if he were accused of setting a fire he had not started, and was convicted because his juvenile criminal history were used against him.

Quote:

Guy who beat another to death outside a bar had 12 charges of aggravated assault as a child... isn't relevant to considering his story about this one being self defense?

No, it isn't, the case should be judged on its merits. If he was able to get reliable witnesses that he was defending himself, and his assailant just kept coming back, he may well deserve to get off. If the prosecution can prove that he picked the fight, and that he just wouldn't let his victim alone, then he deserves to be convicted, so long as the prosecution can cross the "reasonable doubt" hurdle. Everyone has the right to be tried on the merits and evidence of the case in which they are accused.

Quote:

I couldn't agree less. A history of violence, reasonably, goes along way towards eliminating reasonable doubt... just as a clean slate goes a long way towards establishing one.

People who have "clean slates," and who have no criminal records because they've never committed a criminal act, can and have committed murder as a crime of passion. People who have a history of violence can and have been convicted and executed when there was a strong reasonable doubt. Tom Horn is a case in point. Tom Horn worked for Pinkerton's in the 1890s, and was a first class tracker, and a very cool customer in a gunfight. He killed seventeen men while employed by Pinkerton, but was let go when it was alleged (probably justifiably) that he had committed a robbery while in their employ. Later, he worked as a "range detective," which basically meant he was a gun for hire. It is believed that he killed 22 men while working as a "range detective," for the bounties he was paid.

In 1901, he happened to be in the area (which is to say, within 50 miles) of an incident in which a 14 year old boy was killed, and whose father was a sheepherder in Wyoming cattle country. The modern historian who has made the most detailed study of the event says that Horn was there the day before, but that no witnesses placed him in the area on the day of the murder. He was arrested by a Federal Marshall who later perjured himself at Horn's trial. One of the town deputies got him drunk, very likely at the instigation of the prosecutor, and with whiskey provided by the Marshall. The deputry then wrote down a "confession," which was rambling statement Horn made while drunk, and which had to be heavily edited before it was presented at trial. At least one other witness at his trial is known to have perjured himself. Horn's girlfriend openly accused the prosecutor of having set-up Horn, and pointed out that there was a feud between the sheepherder, and the local Miller family, and that Jim Miller (the most likely actual suspect) had been in the vicinity on the day of the murder, and had been seen by many people in town acting nervously, and telling contradictory stories about where he had been and what he had done on that day.

The sense of Chip Carlson, author of Tom Horn: Blood on the Moon, is that although Horn could have committed the murder, he very likely did not. He was convicted on an edited "confession," obtained while he was drunk on whiskey provided by the Marshall who had arrested him, and who was operating out of his jurisdiction. He was convicted on circumstantial evidence and perjured testimony. But more than anything else, he was convicted based on his reputation, and the knowledge that he had killed more than 40 men. Did he deserve to die? Perhaps. Did he deserve to die for the murder of Willie Nickell--it is doubtful, and the shadow of that doubt is long and dark.

Everyone deserves to be tried on the basis of the evidence of the crime of which they are accused, and not their alleged reputation.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
Do machine pistols have a legitimate place in the hands of civilians?

The next civilian-friendly submachinegun class starts in May:

http://www.frontsight.com/courses/uzi-submachine-gun-training-3.asp

Quote:

Ammunition Requirements:

Ammunition requirements for a student who is new to Front Sight and who will be attending the classroom lectures: 2,400 rounds of 9mm. Ammunition requirements for a returning Front Sight student who will not be attending the classroom lectures: 2,800 rounds of 9mm. Ammunition must be purchased from Front Sight`s Pro Shop. This ensures correct functioning of the weapon and, more importantly, your safety. Please call our Pro Shop for current ammunition pricing.

Submachine Gun included in the price of the course.

Clearly the boys and girls at Virginia Tech have been wasting their time studying engineering.

0 Replies

Re: Flak Over Killer's Video Spilling Onto Newspaper Pages T

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

The most sickening photos were those found on the front pages of several papers in the eastern part of the U.S. as they depicted individuals who'd been shot. The sick part of the photos was that they were in various colors and blood ( big red blotches ) could be seen over most of the bodies of the victims.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Really?

Yes, really. Everyone has a fundamental right to be tried on the merits of the prosecution and their own defense in any criminal action.

We won't find agreement here. I agree that everyone is and should be entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... however: If the prosecution is allowed to demonstrate a man's historically proven propensity to commit an offence or similar offenses; I find that a compelling factor in determining his likelihood of guilt.

0 Replies

Eight miles from home:

Quote:

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

realjohnboy wrote:

Quote:
So the media is packing up and leaving Blacksburg. From what I hear, the locals and the students are glad to see that happen. Classes will resume on Monday. Most of the kids went home Wed or Thur. Some remain.
Quote:

Good riddens! I heard earlier today that People Magazine sent 30 reporters down there over all of this. That's insanity.

Good evening. So we are coming to the end of a tough week. Not only for the VT family but also for the rest of the state of VA. We all know kids who go there. Or we all know parents who sent there kids there expecting them to be safe. There is the same expectation everywhere, isn't there?

I have pretty much run out of things to say here. I have no interest in the pro-/anti- gun debate. No minds will get changed.

Two stories: I left my store around 1 pm and headed home through the "Corner" district of Cville. Eateries, clubs and shops right across from UVA. As usual, packed with people. Pairs of people or groups of three four or more. Lots of cellphones. Lots of talking. Lots of laughing.
I saw one, I say one, person with a ribbon pinned to his pocket in the colors of VT. He wore a coat and tie and was about my age. Perhaps a professor.

Perhaps, at noon, when the bells tolled, folks stood still and stopped talking. Perhaps not.

Kurt Vonnegut died last week. He wrote what is perhaps the greatest short sentence in American literature. Perhaps it is pertinent today: "So it goes."

2nd story: A stringer for the NPR station in Roanoke (near VT) told this today. Three guys walk into a bar. The bartender is a female--who also happens to be a VT student. Two of them are on cellphones. The third lets her know that they are reporters from (xyz). She asks them what they would like. She is told to wait until his buddies get off the phones. She moves down the bar and meets a regular customer, who's name is Cliff. She chats with him for a minute and then starts to get his drink. One of the media guys slams his fist on the bar and bellows: "We were here first!"

I reckon that is all from me. So it goes. -rjb-

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
Really? Do machine pistols have a legitimate place in the hands of civilians? Do sniper rifles have a legitimate place in the hands of civilians?

Of course they do.

???

What for? In what scenario of straightforward self-defence would one need a sniper rifle? You dont need those to defend yourself against common criminals.

Mostly they are used for hunting and target shooting.

0 Replies

Paaskynen wrote:

the first American I have come across who declares the Iraqis have the right to kill American soldiers on their soil.

I agree that they have that right -- if they follow the laws of war.

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

2nd story: A stringer for the NPR station in Roanoke (near VT) told this today. Three guys walk into a bar. The bartender is a female--who also happens to be a VT student. Two of them are on cellphones. The third lets her know that they are reporters from (xyz). She asks them what they would like. She is told to wait until his buddies get off the phones. She moves down the bar and meets a regular customer, who's name is Cliff. She chats with him for a minute and then starts to get his drink. One of the media guys slams his fist on the bar and bellows: "We were here first!"

Did she beat him over the head with a frosty cold beer mug? If not, she should have... Not that I would encourage that sort of thing - usually.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

Paaskynen wrote:
the first American I have come across who declares the Iraqis have the right to kill American soldiers on their soil.

I agree that they have that right -- if they follow the laws of war.

So they have that right, but in the case of Iraqis killing Americans or British...they dont. I think you are floundering Oralloy.

0 Replies

Quote:

Mostly they are used for hunting and target shooting.

A 50 calibre , bull barreled, flash surpressed long barreled rifle with ammo the size of a tube of toothpaste is used for hunting. Get real, all the dinosaurs were killed off 65 million years ago.

0 Replies

At least 20+ dead students in Virginia Tech; shooter dead

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know