Y’know, this is one of the things that sometimes makes me hesitate about “hate crime enhancements”. Is it really more evil to kill someone because you have an irrational hate for them, or (as here) to do so simply out of depraved indifference?
1 Like
Did you mean to address this to me? My approach is that I’m opposed to the death penalty.
Of course not! You should be more concerned with the deed than the color of the perpetrator.
If it doesn’t bleed it doesn’t lead.
2 Likes
No, wasnt to you. it was in response to the same thing you were responding to. Thanks for asking.
Leopold and Loeb 2.0?
Nope. You might want to label these people as mentally ill “monsters” – but nope. Not at all.
Are you sure about that? What made you reach that conclusion?
Oh dear. Reverse racisim. Yay.
-
Yeah right. So much worse it gets them acquitted when they just walk right up and shoot them after having a cop tell them not to? You have a funny definition of worse.
-
The report is glossing it over because it is assumed to be commonplace. That is why they are glossing it over.
-
There is so much hate and outrage that black guys don’t even have to shoot anyone to have a higher chance of getting the death penalty for it. Remember that “hate killing” got an acquittal. Let’s see how many people donate millions to these kids.
"So no, it’s not “racists” who care. It’s people who think when they read and are left wondering if an agenda is being pursued by a news organization. "
Only upholding the status quo. In either case. You see the two cases as opposite. I see them as the same thing,racism, both disadvantaging blacks on the whole. Because that is how racism works, systemically, and all it has to depend on is people upholding the status quo.
1 Like
Thanks for the diagnosis.
He didn’t have a shoot out and a clerk at the school talked him into putting down his gun and surrendering and no one was shot, hurt or killed. Surely you’ve heard “if it bleeds, it leads”.
He was. But there’s probably not much overlap between “maker” kids and “bored homicide” kids. So the homemade zip-gun probably won’t be murdering foreigners. Therefore it’s irrelevant to the gun-control conversation.
Wait, why even bother with that conversation? Homemade guns are regulated tighter than machine guns!
Because the death penalty is immoral. Because the death penalty is not carried out fairly with respect to race and socio-economic status. Because innocent men have been convicted and executed in the past and will continue to be in the future. And, in my opinion, the death penalty is unconstitutional.
1 Like
The amazing thing about modern media is how quickly we are informed of certain stories. This one certainly has the media in a twitter with the ‘bored teen’ angle.
Teens boys have been senselessly killing people for a long time. The fact that they said it was out of boredom is merely an example of a child without self awareness and a poor understanding of his own actions. I feel this has more to do with the myth of regeneration through violence which has played on the stage of the American theater for more than 200 years.
It’s all very typically sad.
Well, at least they didn’t say it was because of video games.
1 Like
I notice no one is blaming the car. Without which it would’ve been much harder to go to and return from a remote place anonymously. If they forgot the gun they could’ve used the car to kill him and claimed it was an accident.
I didn’t provide a diagnosis. But more than likely? They aren’t mentally ill. To paint the mentally ill as violent people is pretty effed up. Besides, you’re the one that gave the diagnosis (“mentally ill”) without any way to know that for certain.
Excuse me? I’m not painting the mentally ill as violent, as yes, that would be inaccurate (effed up), that accusation offends me, to be honest.
What exactly makes someone a ‘monster’ then? Does a psychopath not have a mental health issue? Or do you just understand what mental health is?
It often seems to me that people with gun fetishes come in two flavors - pro-gun and anti-gun. Both kinds equally likely to jump to conclusions and demonize their designated opposition, without regard to real demonstrated consequences of their words or actions.
I advocate near-universal weapons training, improved gun safety technology, and stringent firearm regulation, but oppose gun control. I think the NRA leadership are demonstrably and dangerously nutso, and are driving the more numerous moderate gun owners away from the club, but the anti-gun lobby’s been detached from reality for even longer than the NRA. You can make of that what you wish, I guess, and interpret my statement as necessary to suit what you want me to be and have said. That’s the way gun arguments usually work online.
But I am more interested in reducing street crime and unintended gun violence than demonstrating allegiance to any particular meme or political party. So I’ve shared the observation I received from Pedro’s father, in hopes that someone, somewhere would gain something from it. When you say “gun control” it’s code for “take away the right of armed self-defense from law-abiding citizens” in many ears, and that’s a counter-productive argument. I recommend you say something more nuanced and meaningful, that won’t end up inevitably putting more guns on the street, instead.
I don’t think there’s any correlation. But I absolutely do think the kind of people who sell illegal weapons to kids can make weapons from scratch. It’s pretty trivially easy, after all, and it’s possible to buy homemade weapons today in illegal markets, so this isn’t exactly a controversial idea.
Really.
Nope, sorry.
I was (perhaps crudely) mocking the idea that modern America can be disarmed. It’s a totally ludicrous proposition, which could only conceivably be accomplished by a wholesale slaughter unequaled since the Civil War. I apologize for my lack of bon mot.
