Page 17 of 21 FirstFirst ...
7
15
16
17
18
19
... LastLast
  1. #321
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And, in the way you're using the words, I do not see one whit of provocation to murder, here.

    The same way that there wouldn't be with the children.

    The hypothetical serial killer would disagree, as would the madman with the gun, but that's why they're murderers rather than reasonable people.

    That's why I'm clarifying the difference between motive and justification. Their crazy motive may have driven them to commit murder, but it wasn't justified by the actions of their victims in any way whatsoever. Their victims did not contribute to the motive of the murderer to commit murder. Not one whit.

    He'd disagree, but he'd be wrong. And realizing how wrong he was is a likely reason he took his own life.

    Stop. Blaming. Victims.
    It's provocation to anger, not murder. The killer made their own decision on how they would react, but that doesn't negate provocation. You're slipping back on the idea of justification. Drop it.

    Motive doesn't drive, it simply explains why. If I'm thirsty I might go downstairs and get a glass of water. Being thirsty is my motivation for getting a drink, but it didn't force me to take a particular course of action. It simply explains why I decided to get a drink. I had other options (including doing nothing at all), but I chose to get a glass of water.

    Combating victim blaming is perfectly valid as a response to the all to common practice of suggesting a victim did something wrong when there was no wrongdoing on their part. I don't agree that it's a catchall for any crime, though. We can all agree that for the crime of murder there is a clear distinction between victim and perpetrator, but to completely ignore all surrounding events while having a casual discussion is silly. I can't blame the victims for having been killed because I already noted that the decision to kill was fully on the murderer. Acknowledging that there was wrongdoing on both their parts in the events that led up to the murder is completely separate, and something we apparently agree on. You yourself called them assholes for their feud, and admitted that their actions could have led to more "reasonable" escalation such as "mild violence". The fact that the killer decided to escalate beyond reason doesn't negate that.

  2. #322
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnusthegreat View Post
    I have made that succinct answer in at least 3 posts that you have replied to.

    Here is the first time you failed to comprehend it:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnusthegreat View Post
    I don't think he ever said that they are at fault for getting shot. I'm fairly certain 0% of the posts in here say that.

    They are rightfully being blamed for initiating a fight with their neighbor. The fight ended with their deaths. These are the facts of the situation.
    I remember that post. And you were wrong. Even when you made that post there had been people that said they share fault in their murder.

    But, we can let this be now.

  3. #323
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    I remember that post. And you were wrong. Even when you made that post there had been people that said they share fault in their murder.

    But, we can let this be now.
    Great, we can both be wrong and move on with our lives. Mistakes happen! Glad we were both civil enough to not murder each other!

  4. #324
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnusthegreat View Post
    Great, we can both be wrong and move on with our lives. Mistakes happen! Glad we were both civil enough to not murder each other!
    For my part, I vow to never shovel my snow onto your driveway.

  5. #325
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    Combating victim blaming is perfectly valid as a response to the all to common practice of suggesting a victim did something wrong when there was no wrongdoing on their part. I don't agree that it's a catchall for any crime, though. We can all agree that for the crime of murder there is a clear distinction between victim and perpetrator, but to completely ignore all surrounding events while having a casual discussion is silly. I can't blame the victims for having been killed because I already noted that the decision to kill was fully on the murderer. Acknowledging that there was wrongdoing on both their parts in the events that led up to the murder is completely separate, and something we apparently agree on. You yourself called them assholes for their feud, and admitted that their actions could have led to more "reasonable" escalation such as "mild violence". The fact that the killer decided to escalate beyond reason doesn't negate that.
    @Endus, @Slant, @Evil Midnight Bomber
    I'm responding here to the three people who were discussing the issue with me earlier today. The bolded part summarizes my point of view on this situation precisely. If the above and my contrition of it seem to contradict my previous assertions or statement, then my bad for poor communication.

    (I hope it's ok to "mention" three people at one time in this situation, in that we were all discussing the same topic, and they were disagreeing with me - if not I will remove/erase/delete)

  6. #326
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    66,530
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    @Endus, @Slant, @Evil Midnight Bomber
    I'm responding here to the three people who were discussing the issue with me earlier today. The bolded part summarizes my point of view on this situation precisely. If the above and my contrition of it seem to contradict my previous assertions or statement, then my bad for poor communication.

    (I hope it's ok to "mention" three people at one time in this situation, in that we were all discussing the same topic, and they were disagreeing with me - if not I will remove/erase/delete)
    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.

  7. #327
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    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.


    Can't think of anything to add to that.

  8. #328
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    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.
    We can all agree that the couple and the guy were both responsible for the argument - two to tango and all that.

    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).

    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.

    So how do you resolve this then? Help out with your reasoning here. I don't blame the victims for getting shot. At all. I do blame the victims, and so do you, for getting in the argument. And the shooting wouldn't have happened without the argument. But the shooting itself is absolutely not the couple's fault.

    Seriously - I'm not baiting or being sarcastic (in case it seems that way). I'm honestly asking how we resolve those three statements.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    Can't think of anything to add to that.
    See above for response (I hope it's ok I'm just responding at length to one of you - I'm guessing you agree with Endus, lol, given the above).

  9. #329
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    66,530
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    We can all agree that the couple and the guy were both responsible for the argument - two to tango and all that.

    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).

    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.

    So how do you resolve this then? Help out with your reasoning here. I don't blame the victims for getting shot. At all. I do blame the victims, and so do you, for getting in the argument. And the shooting wouldn't have happened without the argument. But the shooting itself is absolutely not the couple's fault.

    Seriously - I'm not baiting or being sarcastic (in case it seems that way). I'm honestly asking how we resolve those three statements.
    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.
    The same way that a woman acting "slutty" does not cause her rape in any way, shape, or form. Because the rapist is an abuser looking for an opportunity/excuse to act.
    The same way that a woman cheating on her husband does not cause him to kill her. Because he's a violent man looking for an opportunity/excuse to act.
    The same way (to use a non-violent example) a grandma trying to get her banking done and not understanding the processes doesn't cause a con man to exploit her. Because he was looking for an opportunity/excuse to con someone.

    The same logic applies in every case like this. It's never the victim's fault.

    That's the thing; despite your claims that you don't like the rape comparison because it's "not the same", my position isn't the one that needs to develop special cases and exceptions because the rules are uncertain and iffy and change on the fly. The rules are clear, and solid, and apply in every case.

    The shooting wouldn't have happened without the argument, in the same way that the rape wouldn't have happened without the victim attracting her abuser's attention, the same way the murder wouldn't have happened if the wife hadn't cheated, the same way the grandma wouldn't have gotten conned if she'd known how things worked.

    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.
    Last edited by Endus; 2021-02-10 at 02:00 AM.

  10. #330
    I'm reminded of the father that murdered the drunken driver that killed his two sons.

  11. #331
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    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.
    The same way that a woman acting "slutty" does not cause her rape in any way, shape, or form. Because the rapist is an abuser looking for an opportunity/excuse to act.
    The same way that a woman cheating on her husband does not cause him to kill her. Because he's a violent man looking for an opportunity/excuse to act.
    The same way (to use a non-violent example) a grandma trying to get her banking done and not understanding the processes doesn't cause a con man to exploit her. Because he was looking for an opportunity/excuse to con someone.
    The same logic applies in every case like this. It's never the victim's fault.
    That's the thing; despite your claims that you don't like the rape comparison because it's "not the same", my position isn't the one that needs to develop special cases and exceptions because the rules are uncertain and iffy and change on the fly. The rules are clear, and solid, and apply in every case.
    No, I'm afraid not. There is no evidence for that whatsoever, and the mentality of violence is not the same the mentality of rape. That's why they are handled differently. They are literally given different names. The law literally handles them differently. With different rules, different terms - everything. You trying to say otherwise sounds like you are now becoming who you claimed me to be. You don't like the results so you want to change the rules.

    The rules are solid, but they apply differently to different cases. The rules and the law.

  12. #332
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    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.
    It was only a matter of time before this guy did something like this, and the couple just happened to piss him off on the wrong day. Whether it happened that day when they got snow on his property, or the next day when the mailman delivered a package that had a dent in the side, or the day after when someone mispronounced his name, or the day after when someone ended a sentence in a prepositional phrase. So their actions have very little bearing on WHAT happened, only WHO it happened to and WHEN. The shit that happened in that video wasn't just a "whoops, well this was a random occurrence that would've only happened because the couple were jerks." It was going to happen eventually. So I feel bringing attention to their actions is dodging the real problem BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THEY DID. Though it does highlight a lesson for the rest of us - be cognizant of the crazies around you because one may be looking for an excuse.

    By the way, ever find that article that said they were harassing him for decades? Should be easy to find by looking at your internet history. I'm legitimately curious if there's more info to this story.

    One last thing, anyone else think their reaction to him pulling out the gun was really strange? It was almost like he had done it in the past and they thought he was just bluffing again. Even when he started shooting, it was almost like they couldn't even fathom he'd do it so they took a while to put together he was firing shots at them. I guess this is my own personal narrative but I get the idea he was one of those neighbors who'd complain about extremely petty shit while bragging about his gun collection, so the neighbors starting doing little things intentionally to piss the little power trip pussy off... and then things just escalated over time.

  13. #333
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    66,530
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    No, I'm afraid not. There is no evidence for that whatsoever, and the mentality of violence is not the same the mentality of rape. That's why they are handled differently. They are literally given different names. The law literally handles them differently. With different rules, different terms - everything. You trying to say otherwise sounds like you are now becoming who you claimed me to be. You don't like the results so you want to change the rules.

    The rules are solid, but they apply differently to different cases. The rules and the law.
    The "mentality" of rape and violence, psychologically, aren't legally relevant and are not part of the law in any way whatsoever. Rape introduces concepts like consent, but consent determination is by no means unique to rape prosecutions.

    And you're still cherry-picking out that one example and arguing it's a special case. Hand-waving the justification for that with vague claims that don't actually exist in the law in any meaningful sense. That was one of three additional examples I cited. And your protest wouldn't apply to either other case.

    I'm not changing any rules. This is very simple; there are victims. You are assigning some measure of blame to those victims. That is victim-blaming, by definition. You know enough to know that victim-blaming is bad, but you're unwilling to admit that what you are doing is "victim-blaming", because you don't want to admit you've done something bad.

    And that's not how things work. You don't get to rewrite terms like this because you don't like it when they're applied against you.

    The psychological mentality that leads one to commit a given crime is a straw man that has no bearing on what's being discussed. Sure, this murderous neighbour probably wouldn't rape someone, because he's not a rapist (as far as I know). But the law isn't concerned with the psychology behind an act, beyond the consideration that the accused is mentally capable enough to know right from wrong. Just the particulars of the act itself, with occasionally some consideration for the information the accused was aware of (in cases where they claim to have made a justifiable decision on incomplete or false information they had at the time, or something). But not the psychology. That's something your prison psychologist will be concerned with, not the courts.
    Last edited by Endus; 2021-02-10 at 02:19 AM.

  14. #334
    Once again find myself in lockstep with @Endus
    @cubby I do not believe it is your intent or desire to blame the victims...but that is what you are doing. When you say that the argument caused the shooting...you are blaming the victims. You are saying "Well, if they had been nicer...they would still be alive today".

    Which is the exact same thing for blaming a rape victim for their rape.

    "Well, if she hadn't of dressed like that..."
    "Well, if she hadn't of been so flirty..."
    "Well, if she had been a little nicer when she rejected him..."

    Lets try a hypothetical

    A man and a woman get into an argument. The woman started the argument and is escalating it at every turn. They are both as vile and disgusting as these people here are. As the argument escalates the man throws the woman on the ground and brutally rapes her.

    Would you say "Well, if she had been nicer...she wouldn't have been raped"?

  15. #335
    Funny how you think rape and murder are the same thing...

  16. #336
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    I'm reminded of the father that murdered the drunken driver that killed his two sons.
    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.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Funny how you think rape and murder are the same thing...


    Because if you are...i don't see how you would draw that conclusion based on what I said.

  17. #337
    "Don't compare these two different things because it's wrong. By the way, this reminds me of the time a father killed the drunk driver that killed his sons" lolz

  18. #338
    Quote Originally Posted by ohtlmtlm View Post
    nah man they were both still alive when he went inside to get the AR, he came out a third time with another gun (not on the OP video) and shot them again. but they were both definitely still alive after the first clip he used from his pistol
    It was a magazine, not a clip. Clips are quite different.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    I'm reminded of the father that murdered the drunken driver that killed his two sons.
    Yeah, that snow they shoveled murdered his kids...

    Wtf are you talking about?

  19. #339
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    It was a magazine, not a clip. Clips are quite different.
    Does it being a clip or a magazine make any material difference at all in the situation?

    Move along, Captain Semantics...you aren't needed here.

  20. #340
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    Move along, Captain Semantics...you aren't needed here.
    He's CLEARLY an Admiral! Get it right.

    Signed,
    Assistant Deputy Semantics.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •