PA couple shot over long-going dispute with neighbor

[Shadowferal]

Sure, grats on 22,222 posts.

I just can't leave it at that... Philly (I live nearby), has had almost 500 murders last year. The current trend doesn't bode well.

[Adamas102]

The argument did not cause the shooting in any way, shape, or form. The shooter was an angry, violent person looking for an opportunity/excuse to act.

...

What you seem to be missing is that you assume the shooter wouldn't have snapped and gotten violent in any other circumstance, and frankly, that seems like a ridiculous allegation and you're going to have to demonstrate, in concrete detail, exactly what about this particular argument necessitated that kind of murderous response, no matter who its target was. Otherwise, you're admitting that the murderous neighbour had a violent streak and one bad moment away from shooting someone. As we saw. Because that's what he did.

Wow, talk about making assumptions. There's no way you can claim that the shooter woke up that morning looking for an excuse to kill (unless you're psychic, of course). You're also making the assumption that he would have snapped under other circumstances. Your entire position seems to be predicated on things you couldn't possibly know.

Meanwhile, we have video that clearly shows an argument, followed by the shooter returning to their home to get a gun, and then within a seconds returning to kill the people he had an argument with. A series of connected events. If you want to argue that other circumstances could have resulted in the same outcome then you can go blue in the face letting your imagination run wild. However, there is one version of events that actually HAPPENED.

If the argument made no difference and all this psycho wanted to do was kill then why didn't he initiate the confrontation while armed? If he had a violent streak and was just looking for an opportunity to act, then why the prolonged feud?

Here's the big difference;

It's perfectly reasonable to point out that the victims were contributors to the ongoing feud (given the ongoing nature, I'm not gonna get into who's responsible for the whole thing). They were responsible for being assholes and doing dickish things to their neighbour.

That's all separate from the murder. If we were just dealing with the question of "who's the asshole in this feud between neighbours", then "all of them" is reasonable. When it comes to the murder, though? Entirely the murderer's fault, and blaming his victims is not defensible.

And no; the one does not lead to the other. Plenty of feuds like this don't end in bloodshed. That's where you start victim-blaming, when you take those actions and impute that they contributed to the murder as a result.

Unless you're arguing that those prior actions necessitated or justified the murderous neighbour's response, those prior actions are not relevant to the establishment of blame with regards to the crime.

Jesus, it's like trying to bore through concrete with a toothbrush...

It doesn't matter that most feuds don't end in bloodshed. Completely irrelevant because this one did. Going for a "well most of the time this doesn't happen" argument is almost as silly as suggesting that these circumstances will always lead to this outcome. A person can make decisions that place them in a situation without then being an active participant in the ensuing situation (for example, participating in an argument that escalates to violence without then being responsible for murder).

You seem to be hung up on words like "blame", "fault", "contribute", and "justified" which I've expressly distanced myself from so there's little point in trying to have a discussion. Since you have no actual basis for an argument you just keep beating a dead horse that no one is trying to revive.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't see how the incidents are comparable

One is a grief stricken father killing the man that killed his sons.

The other is man that murdered two people over shoveled snow.

I can understand why a father might be driven to such an act after seeing both his sons die.

Also, the father was found not guilty of killing that drunk driver. Legally speaking, he didn't murder anyone.

Well, in a way there is a connection to be made here. It seems like you made the point of tacitly approving murder by suggesting that it would be reasonable in a certain situation (father seeing his sons die). The only reason the father wasn't convicted was because the defense successfully argued that the driver was killed by an unknown 3rd party.

Lets for a moment pretend that the father did it. IF the father had killed that drunk driver, that would be murder. Perhaps you could relate, but it still wouldn't be justified. It's a retaliatory execution. Unlike what Endus has been trying to argue you at least seem to see that there's a connection between the act of murder and the events that precede it. Father sees sons killed and as a result decides to be a murderer.

Motive is just the "why". Could be revenge for the loss of a loved one or rage over a petty argument. It doesn't need to make sense to us in order to draw a connection between the all the events that led to the ultimate crime.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Well, in a way there is a connection to be made here. It seems like you made the point of tacitly approving murder by suggesting that it would be reasonable in a certain situation (father seeing his sons die).

Didn't say I approved. Said I could understand. Man watched his sons get crushed to death. If he killed that driver...well, I could see how something like that could happen in the heat of the moment. Doesn't mean I think it was justified.

The only reason the father wasn't convicted was because the defense successfully argued that the driver was killed by an unknown 3rd party.

Never said he didn't do it. Just said that he was found not guilty. That's how the legal system works. Prosecutor has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense only has to provide for that reasonable doubt. It's entirely possible another person could have killed that driver.

Lets for a moment pretend that the father did it. IF the father had killed that drunk driver, that would be murder.

Yes it would.

Perhaps you could relate, but it still wouldn't be justified. It's a retaliatory execution.

I completely agree. As I said, I can understand the motive behind the murder but it doesn't mean i think it was the right thing to do.

Unlike what Endus has been trying to argue you at least seem to see that there's a connection between the act of murder and the events that precede it.

There's a connection between the events...in the sense that one followed the other. The drunk driver is responsible for killing those boys. He isn't responsible for his own murder.

Father sees sons killed and as a result decides to be a murderer.

An alleged murderer.

Motive is just the "why". Could be revenge for the loss of a loved one or rage over a petty argument. It doesn't need to make sense to us in order to draw a connection between the all the events that led to the ultimate crime.

Motive isn't really important as far as the victims are concerned.

If you want me to say that the shooting followed a vicious argument between the involved parties....I have never denied that. If you want me to say that those two events are connected...I've never denied that either. If you want me to say that the victims are in any way responsible for their murder...I can't help you there. Only one person bears responsibility for that...and we may never fully understand exactly what his motive was.

[Adamas102]

If you want me to say that the shooting followed a vicious argument between the involved parties....I have never denied that. If you want me to say that those two events are connected...I've never denied that either. If you want me to say that the victims are in any way responsible for their murder...I can't help you there. Only one person bears responsibility for that...and we may never fully understand exactly what his motive was.

Fair enough. All of that pretty much matches up with what I've been saying. My mistake in assuming you fully agreed with Endus' position.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Fair enough. All of that pretty much matches up with what I've been saying. My mistake in assuming you fully agreed with Endus' position.

I don't think there's a lot of distance between Endus and myself on this issue. I've found myself agreeing with most of the things he has said.

While I am fairly certain that the argument was at least part of the shooter's motives...I can't say that I know that it was the only consideration that prompted him to such violent action. The neighbours had apparently been fighting for years...so was it that this was just the final straw...or was there something special about that day? Since he killed himself rather than be arrested...we may not ever know. As far as I know...we don't even know exactly what started the long-running feud between them. I imagine there are people investigating that...but since the psycho offed himself...I doubt it's a burning issue with the local police.

[Adamas102]

I don't think there's a lot of distance between Endus and myself on this issue. I've found myself agreeing with most of the things he has said.

While I am fairly certain that the argument was at least part of the shooter's motives...I can't say that I know that it was the only consideration that prompted him to such violent action. The neighbours had apparently been fighting for years...so was it that this was just the final straw...or was there something special about that day? Since he killed himself rather than be arrested...we may not ever know. As far as I know...we don't even know exactly what started the long-running feud between them. I imagine there are people investigating that...but since the psycho offed himself...I doubt it's a burning issue with the local police.

Eh, he has had a tendency to throw up a few straw men along the way, but the only thing we actually disagree on is the idea that there can exist a connection between the act itself and preceding events. Endus took the position that preceding events are irrelevant, that the murder stands on it's own devoid of context. It's predicated on his assumption that the shooter wanted to kill his neighbors all along and didn't actually need an inciting event to do so.

Motive doesn't have to be a singular event. As you noted, perhaps the argument was the last straw or perhaps there were other factors that all culminated into homicidal rage (job issues, family troubles, etc). What we do have is video evidence that suggests the shooter interacted with his neighbors while he was unarmed (can't really claim he intended to kill them at that point), and then after an argument made the conscious decision to return to his house, arm himself, and then proceed to murder the people he had been arguing with. That's a pretty clear set of connected events.

The reason Endus can't cross that bridge is because he equates making a connection with implying justification and shifting blame away from the perpetrator. Using the context of the hypothetical "father kills drunk driver" example that we both agreed on; saying "seeing his sons killed led the father to commit murder" doesn't take away the father's agency, blame, or guilt. It's simply a recognition that the events are connected.

[Slant]

Funny how you think rape and murder are the same thing...

They're not. But I'm fascinated by people elevating rape to the special status it has. You have been bombarded by rape discussions so badly that whenever someone says rape, you're emotionally flinching inside your heads and instantly lose all rationale to discuss crime as what they are: Crimes. Breaking of rules that society sets. Rape and murder are not the same thing, that's why they each are different rules.

But for the sake of a discussion about legal concepts like guilt, responsibility, causality... you know, the things we're talking about here? Doesn't matter if it's rape, murder or a toddler nicking a dime from his best friend.

And I know, inside your head your emotions are now running wild, you're SCREAMING inside your head. How could I compare RAPE the UNHOLIEST OF ALL THAT IS UNHOLY compare to a toddler nicking a dime from his buddy? You need to calm down. Crimes are crimes. None of them are pretty but if you don't get your bullshit in check, all we can use you for is a chaotic lynch mob, not a modern legal system.

- - - Updated - - -

A rape victim can get away with murder and you wouldn't blame her for a second when she kills her attacker.

Not sure what the obsession with rape is, but you are now consciously drawing up a bad analogy to prove that all analogies are wrong. That's not how it works, buddy. You're introducing a new concept here, which is self defense. And now you're saying self defense is legal in a rape case and you wouldn't blame her for shooting the guy dead.

Yes, sure. But somehow you seem to think this carries over to someone cussing at them and the dude shooting them back for that. No. That's not how self defense works. That dude has left all the limits for self defense far behind.

And it's not even touching on the subject of people blaming the cussing couple for this incident, which is still wrong. Just like it would still be wrong to assign blame to the rape victim, regardless of the rape victim shooting the rapist in self defense or not.

You're quite lost in this discussion, I'm afraid. You might want to take a step back and think about it.

[Kathranis]

Fun fact, there are as many gun deaths in this one incident as there were in the entire country of Japan during the year of 2017.

Japanese citizens can only legally own hunting rifles and shotguns, and only if they undergo a mental health evaluation, background check, complete a safety course, pass a written exam, and pass a shooting range test with a 95% accuracy rate.

In the US there are on average about 20,000 gun-related homicides per year.

[Slant]

Fun fact, there are as many gun deaths in this one incident as there were in the entire country of Japan during the year of 2017.

Japanese citizens can only legally own hunting rifles and shotguns, and only if they undergo a mental health evaluation, background check, complete a safety course, pass a written exam, and pass a shooting range test with a 95% accuracy rate.

In the US there are on average about 20,000 gun-related homicides per year.

This is probably not the right thread for that. But it's interesting nonetheless.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Eh, he has had a tendency to throw up a few straw men along the way, but the only thing we actually disagree on is the idea that there can exist a connection between the act itself and preceding events. Endus took the position that preceding events are irrelevant, that the murder stands on it's own devoid of context. It's predicated on his assumption that the shooter wanted to kill his neighbors all along and didn't actually need an inciting event to do so.

Motive doesn't have to be a singular event. As you noted, perhaps the argument was the last straw or perhaps there were other factors that all culminated into homicidal rage (job issues, family troubles, etc). What we do have is video evidence that suggests the shooter interacted with his neighbors while he was unarmed (can't really claim he intended to kill them at that point), and then after an argument made the conscious decision to return to his house, arm himself, and then proceed to murder the people he had been arguing with. That's a pretty clear set of connected events.

The reason Endus can't cross that bridge is because he equates making a connection with implying justification and shifting blame away from the perpetrator. Using the context of the hypothetical "father kills drunk driver" example that we both agreed on; saying "seeing his sons killed led the father to commit murder" doesn't take away the father's agency, blame, or guilt. It's simply a recognition that the events are connected.

I don't want to speak for the man but I gathered Endus' point to be more that this guy was always going to do something like this. All that he needed was an inciting event...it didn't have to be this one. It could have been getting fired from his job, getting rejected by a woman, getting cut off in traffic, etc. This guy was a timebomb.

It's very different from the situation with the father and his sons because that's a very specific trigger and that's what makes it a bad comparison. I think most of us can understand why a father might be driven to murder a man that just killed both of his sons. I think that's part of the reason he was acquitted. I doubt the jury was convinced by the defense's story that there was another shooter responsible for the killing...but it gave them just enough of a push towards reasonable doubt.

[ohtlmtlm]

have we not learned anything? be nice to eachother... are you trying to get shot?

- - - Updated - - -

What you are saying is "if they had been nicer...they wouldn't be dead now"

And that's Victim Blaming.

okay, but it's also a factual statement.

[Endus]

Eh, he has had a tendency to throw up a few straw men along the way, but the only thing we actually disagree on is the idea that there can exist a connection between the act itself and preceding events. Endus took the position that preceding events are irrelevant, that the murder stands on it's own devoid of context. It's predicated on his assumption that the shooter wanted to kill his neighbors all along and didn't actually need an inciting event to do so.

That's not what I said. I said he was a person who clearly had anger issues and a propensity for violence, as we can determine by how his anger and lack of control led to him murdering two people. Thus, he was essentially a powder keg, primed to go off. This argument sparked enough to light the fuse, but if it hadn't been this argument, it was a matter of time and convenience before another circumstance set him off this way.

No suggestion that he "wanted to kill them all along", and no suggestion that an event didn't trigger his impulses.

What led to him killing them was that powder keg. Not the little spark of the argument that lit it. Anyone who wasn't such a powder keg would get triggered in such a way.

The reason Endus can't cross that bridge is because he equates making a connection with implying justification and shifting blame away from the perpetrator. Using the context of the hypothetical "father kills drunk driver" example that we both agreed on; saying "seeing his sons killed led the father to commit murder" doesn't take away the father's agency, blame, or guilt. It's simply a recognition that the events are connected.

If you're arguing that a crime was justified by circumstances, you're arguing that it was not really a crime. Or at least, that the crime was the natural consequence of the circumstances, and that anyone would react that way in those circumstances.

That is what I'm disputing. Even in your hypothetical; plenty of parents lose kids to terrible accidents and drunk drivers. They almost never lose their minds and try and kill the perpetrator. That takes something else. The loss of those kids is the motive for the murder. Motives aren't justifications, and do not accurately present a cause and effect relationship between the events of the motive and the acts of the one acting upon it.

The events may be "connected", but so is a woman being raped and the actions she took that made her rapist take notice of and target her. We wouldn't blame her for those actions. And it's the same here; blaming the victim for their killer's actions is horrendous and indefensible.

I don't want to speak for the man but I gathered Endus' point to be more that this guy was always going to do something like this. All that he needed was an inciting event...it didn't have to be this one. It could have been getting fired from his job, getting rejected by a woman, getting cut off in traffic, etc. This guy was a timebomb.

Yarp, you got it. Which is good, since it means I'm expressing myself well enough, I guess.

[ohtlmtlm]

It was a magazine, not a clip. Clips are quite different.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, that snow they shoveled murdered his kids...

Wtf are you talking about?

facepalm. thanks for man-splanning and getting into the real heart of the story on whether the ammunition holder on a semi-auto pistol is called a clip or a magazine in plain talk. thank you for your fucking contribution that no one asked for

[Rozz]

I don't get the need to antagonize each other and invent problems, but stay civil or the thread will be closed if this continues.

[cubby]

If a rapist is shot to death by his victim no one would be foolishly making that comparison.

For me, this sums up the entire discussion - and so far no one has adequately resolved an answer:

1. We can all agree that the couple and the guy were both responsible for the argument - two to tango and all that.
2. And we seem to all agree that the shooter was absolutely not justified in shooting the couple - not the first time, not the second time (/shudder).
3. The issue at hand is whether the shooting would have happened without the argument. And the shooting would not have happened - not on that day - without the argument.

No one has disagreed with the above, merely argument about ancillary issues. After this particularly long roller coaster ride, I still haven't heard anyone disagree with the above.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not what I said. I said he was a person who clearly had anger issues and a propensity for violence, as we can determine by how his anger and lack of control led to him murdering two people. Thus, he was essentially a powder keg, primed to go off. This argument sparked enough to light the fuse, but if it hadn't been this argument, it was a matter of time and convenience before another circumstance set him off this way.

What led to him killing them was that powder keg. Not the little spark of the argument that lit it. Anyone who wasn't such a powder keg would get triggered in such a way.

You have no basis for that conclusion. Zero. Throughout this entire argument you have made this statement in various ways, and there is no evidence to support such a statement.

And prisons have plenty of people who have one act of violence in their lives, not some "powder keg" just waiting to go off. Unless you're trying to argue that since he did "go off" he was a powder keg, which is entirely tautological.

[ohtlmtlm]

it's not okay to victim blame when they literally said "do it, fucking do it"?

how many rape victims have said that? ... anyone?
maybe it's not the same.

they got the confrontation they were looking for, they just were unaware to how far this guy was willing to go.

"pussy pussy pussy" at the guy pointing a gun at you... how is this like blaming a rape victim?

[cubby]

it's not okay to victim blame when they literally said "do it, fucking do it"?

how many rape victims have said that? ... anyone?
maybe it's not the same.

they got the confrontation they were looking for, they just were unaware to how far this guy was willing to go.

"pussy pussy pussy" at the guy pointing a gun at you... how is this like blaming a rape victim?

It's not - the rape analogy is ridiculous in this situation. The problem is people are using simplistic definitions of "victim blaming" while ignoring the larger social settings that generated the phrase to begin with. Victim blaming is for rape, domestic abuse, and crimes where authorities/others try to blame the person who was injured for the injury - both criminal and personal. It's VERY complicated, and summing it up with a WikiLink definition doesn't even remotely work.

[Endus]

You have no basis for that conclusion. Zero. Throughout this entire argument you have made this statement in various ways, and there is no evidence to support such a statement.

Other than the actual events of the actual crime, you mean.

Little things like that, y'know.

And prisons have plenty of people who have one act of violence in their lives, not some "powder keg" just waiting to go off. Unless you're trying to argue that since he did "go off" he was a powder keg, which is entirely tautological.

That's not "tautological", that's just deduction from the facts.

Yes, an accurate and correct deduction from the facts will appropriately lead you to presume that the outcome that occurred was likely to occur in that situation, because that's how cause and effect works. That's not a "tautology", at all.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not - the rape analogy is ridiculous in this situation.

You've literally never explained why, other than your own emotional irrationality about it.

The problem is people are using simplistic definitions of "victim blaming" while ignoring the larger social settings that generated the phrase to begin with. Victim blaming is for rape, domestic abuse, and crimes where authorities/others try to blame the person who was injured for the injury - both criminal and personal. It's VERY complicated, and summing it up with a WikiLink definition doesn't even remotely work.

The concept of victim blaming did not emerge solely in reference to rape victims and has never been exclusively restricted to rape victims. You're flatly wrong about this, and I've already provided plenty of sources demonstrating that, whereas you have provided precisely jack squat to justify your attempt to redefine the term.

[ohtlmtlm]

It's not - the rape analogy is ridiculous in this situation. The problem is people are using simplistic definitions of "victim blaming" while ignoring the larger social settings that generated the phrase to begin with. Victim blaming is for rape, domestic abuse, and crimes where authorities/others try to blame the person who was injured for the injury - both criminal and personal. It's VERY complicated, and summing it up with a WikiLink definition doesn't even remotely work.

exactly this. I was more fascinated with this video at just how quick and cold it escalated. You never know if maybe the neighbor you're yelling at is the family member of a cartel dood and you're 5 minutes away from appearing on a reddit video. You blindly poke your finger in enough holes and you might eventually get bitten no matter your luck.

apparently the youths have a saying "fuck around and find out" well, that happened here.

call a dude with a gun drawn at you a pussy multiple times, maybe he's going to prove to you that in fact he is not a pussy... As the shooter said "Pussy, huh?" before executing the dude struggling to breathe because he already unloaded a pistol on him and his spouse.

[Shadowferal]

"Crimes of passion" exist. News at 11...and for more about the "not guilty" judgment handed down to the killer of the drunk driver...