PA couple shot over long-going dispute with neighbor

[Lynarii]

I don't think he ever thought it was a justified response. I think this was an act of rage without much clear thinking at all. It'd have been his main defense in trial surely. Some people in that reddit thread talked about him being a cold killer, I think the theory that another redditor posted was more likely: The second he turned around to get his gun, he already made up his mind about the suicide. Think about it, if you're already suicidal and they manage to push him over the edge, killing them turns from murder to a mere formality in the psyche of a deranged mind that sees the solution in quitting the game 5 minutes after the deed.

I think there is a strong case that he was not able to mentally assess the situation in any manner at the time he started shooting, least of all think about moral or ethical justifications.

People self-justify their actions in the moment without needing to explicitly give thought to moral and ethical factors. Even in your example, the self-justification would be something along the lines of it not mattering anymore because he was going to suicide. In that scenario, the gap between 'taunt' and 'murder' would be filled with the factors that made him suicidal to begin with, and I would give those factors greater weight to the end result than mean words had.

[Slant]

People self-justify their actions in the moment without needing to explicitly give thought to moral and ethical factors. Even in your example, the self-justification would be something along the lines of it not mattering anymore because he was going to suicide. In that scenario, the gap between 'taunt' and 'murder' would be filled with the factors that made him suicidal to begin with, and I would give those factors greater weight to the end result than mean words had.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the word justification here... but given the lack of insight into his mind, I'd presume a "fuckit" attitude more than a "ok, now I'm justified". The suicide theory really isn't about justification, it's about the opposite, the need for justification falls away, as the resulting consequence is the same to him. It is likely that his last thoughts were "winning" the fight before he goes lights out.

[DarkAmbient]

Endus is legally trained. This story? If we didn't have it on a video, it might come straight out of a textbook for students. It's a simple case, all elements are known, it's a prime example to discuss certain things. What I'm noticing is that Endus looks at it more analytically and with legal training, while the rest of you are very much caught up in emotions and moralities. He's right, that you are even arguing Endus only tells me that you haven't thought about his posts.

It's not condescending, you clearly don't have legal training, so it's being dumbed down for you. That's just the reality of it. But instead of trying to get the point, you get all emotional about it again. Sorry about that, but the reality is that you probably don't have the knowledge to properly assess this and when people like Endus try to make you understand the misconception you're suffering from, you refuse to listen. That's on you.

Lastly, people aren't just "remarking" on it, they are exclusively focusing on it, dismissing the shooter's responsibility almost entirely. That is just not acceptable. End of story.

No disrespect to Endus, but either your opinion of his contributions in this thread is unreasonably high, or your judgment of the capacity of others to understand him is unreasonably harsh. He is not making a complicated or subtle argument.

People understand how this would play out in a court of law. But that's not where we are.

[Slant]

No disrespect to Endus, but either your opinion of his contributions in this thread is unreasonably high, or your judgment of the capacity of others to understand him is unreasonably harsh. He is not making a complicated or subtle argument.

People understand how this would play out in a court of law. But that's not where we are.

Then the victim blaming becomes even less acceptable and I have to seriously question your morality.

[Dead Moose Fandango]

This case often reminds me of my dad telling me why you shouldn't honk/curse or otherwise antagonize others while driving or stuck in heavy traffic. You never know if the person you're pissing off might have a gun or other type of weapon on them.

No one deserved to die here. But sometimes, the chickens come home to roost. Hell, had a new neighbor moved in who was volatile from the start and they pulled the bullying and asshole behavior, it might have happened sooner.

Seriously, don't be an asshole. Like either side.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

This case often reminds me of my dad telling me why you shouldn't honk/curse or otherwise antagonize others while driving or stuck in heavy traffic. You never know if the person you're pissing off might have a gun or other type of weapon on them.

No one deserved to die here. But sometimes, the chickens come home to roost. Hell, had a new neighbor moved in who was volatile from the start and they pulled the bullying and asshole behavior, it might have happened sooner.

Seriously, don't be an asshole. Like either side.

Funny, my parents taught me that I shouldn't murder people.

Even if they are antagonistic cunts.

Also, I'm not sure where everyone seems to have gotten idea that the couple were the only ones guilty of being antagonistic cunts in this apparently decade long feud. In my experience feuds like that require participation on both sides. In that video, before the shooting started...he was being as much of a cunt as they were...but he's the only cunt that brought the gun into the argument.

[Lynarii]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the word justification here... but given the lack of insight into his mind, I'd presume a "fuckit" attitude more than a "ok, now I'm justified". The suicide theory really isn't about justification, it's about the opposite, the need for justification falls away, as the resulting consequence is the same to him. It is likely that his last thoughts were "winning" the fight before he goes lights out.

By justification, I mostly am saying that the jump from insult to execution is not one that gets made in a vacuum. If that was a natural jump for him, it'd probably have happened long prior in his life. There had to be other things going on in his head that balanced the scales between the two, be it factors that increased the value of his grievance against the other person, or factors that reduced the value of the other person's life, but SOMEHOW the scales evened out if only for long enough to go through with it. And I posit, given the difference in magnitude between action and reaction, that whatever those factors were would likely be significant to the shooter.

[Orange Joe]

Perhaps we can agree to disagree.


This isn't victim blaming. And people need to stop claiming it is.

Everyone but cubby. "you're victim blaming" Cubby, no I'm not.



Yes you are.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not victim blaming - I'm not going to keep having this same conversation with people.

Then stop fucking victim blaming and people will stop calling you on it.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not victim blaming. You keep using that term incorrectly.

only person using it wrong is YOU, so you can feel better about it.

- - - Updated - - -

The victims are being blamed for what they did, according to the facts at hand. It is not an opinion.

This is not Victim Blaming.

Does not compute.....

- - - Updated - - -

No. Victim Blaming would be saying they caused themselves to get killed. That is not what's being said. What's being said is that they started the fight that ended with their deaths.

I believe the facts warrant them being blamed for starting the fight because that's what the facts state, both video evidence and neighbor testimony. Of course - more facts may arise. But currently, that is the narrative.

Do you not understand the words you use? lmfao.....

- - - Updated - - -

But the loser of the bar fight who gets shot isn't blameless. That's my point. The resulting shooting isn't justified, which is why he would go to jail for the shooting. But the loser of the fight isn't blameless.

"Victim blaming" isn't a term to be used in every situation. It's for cases like rape. Where the victim is always blameless.

Edit: also recall that the shooting happened during the bar fight too - the shooter in our case shot the couple, then went back to get another gun.

Says who? Cubby? Who the fuck are you to say what a word means?

[Slant]

By justification, I mostly am saying that the jump from insult to execution is not one that gets made in a vacuum. If that was a natural jump for him, it'd probably have happened long prior in his life. There had to be other things going on in his head that balanced the scales between the two, be it factors that increased the value of his grievance against the other person, or factors that reduced the value of the other person's life, but SOMEHOW the scales evened out if only for long enough to go through with it. And I posit, given the difference in magnitude between action and reaction, that whatever those factors were would likely be significant to the shooter.

We'll never find out. I can only hope that this remains a singular incident and doesn't find copycats. Neighbour disputes are as old as neighbourhoods. If people pick up on this and make it a trend, it could be a very bloody business. Imagine having to go inside to get a gun for potential self defense anytime anything other than "Hello neighbour!" is said.

[Magical Mudcrab]

Exactly. The pushee is at fault, but the pusher takes some of the responsibility.

I think I understand the problem now. While you do admit in other posts that the fault lies with the shooter, the sort of statement you've made here would be considered a form of victim blaming, and Shadowferal's statement would certainly be a form of victim blaming. With the statement by Shadow, the issue is being reframed such that the victims are the actors (i.e.: they "push[ed] a guy") and the shooter is the one being acted upon (i.e.: "Keep pushing, and he goes over the edge") and, while it may not be the intent, it is a form of excusing the actions of the shooter. There is a substantive difference between describing the context of an event (i.e.: the altercation began with an antagonistic confrontation between the shooter and the victims, seemingly instigated by the victims; however, the shooter proceeded to follow through with an unreasonable escalation of violence) and Shadow's remark, which was essentially "Talk shit, get shot," placing the blame squarely on the victims.

[Slant]

"Victim blaming" isn't a term to be used in every situation. It's for cases like rape. Where the victim is always blameless.

So if the rape victim had cussed the dude and made fun of his sexual prowess, without blame, yet in this case they're not? Simply based on the nature of the crime? That doesn't seem very just. Seems arbitrary.

[draynay]

Since the white knights seem to be out in force, I want to say, every step of the way, these people did everything wrong. Every action they took was a mistake that led to further escalation. Do I say this because I want to blame them? No, I want people to learn from them, don't be complete jackasses like they were or the risk of escalation climbs higher, possibly until tragedy like this. People shouldn't kill each other, even if pushed to the brink, and people shouldn't push each other to the brink just to see what happens. Nobody is blameless, nobody wins here, posters in this thread trying to keep score need to remember that.

[Adamas102]

If it went from verbal taunts, to physical assault, to theft, to destruction of property, to rape, and THEN to murder, a lot more people would be talking about the rape as being a significant factor in the murder than the verbal taunts.

And that's kinda the thing. The gap between verbal taunts and an execution is extreme. Orders of magnitude extreme. And yet at least in that specific moment the shooter clearly thought it was a justified response because he did it. Something bridged the gap between 'taunt' and 'murder' in the mind of the shooter. It may have been mental health issues the shooter had, it may have been undisclosed actions by the couple that we're unaware of, it may be a lot of things. But lets be brutally honest here, this was a grown-ass man who had been in the military. There is almost NO chance whatsoever that that was the first time in his life someone said something mean to him. There's no indication that he had a history of shooting every person he met with a foul mouth, so I feel fairly confident in saying that even if the words may have been the triggering event they were unlikely to be the actual reason why he responded in that manner. So I guess I feel that giving significant weight to the words alone is drawing a line from A to Z and ignoring the alphabet in between.

You missed the point then. It doesn’t matter if the couple went and murdered the dude’s whole family. That still doesn’t justify a retaliatory execution. The point is to not get caught up in the process of escalation.

If the reports that this was an ongoing feud can be believed then there was almost certainly a series of escalating events (even if it remained in mere harassment territory). The video itself shows the couple actually encouraging more escalation. The fact that they didn’t know it would go from A to Z doesn’t absolve them of their participation. If they had gone from A to B and then back and forth across the whole alphabet of increased retaliation that still doesn’t make it any better or more justifiable.

None of us can read minds so there’s no way to know why this particular argument triggered a homicidal rage when there were apparently other arguments before this. There’s definitely value in discussing that AS WELL. Nothing is going to make his actions right, just as nothing is going to paint a malicious feud with a neighbor as a reasonable thing for good, civil people to participate in.

[Nurasu]

Lots of homophobe apologists and ableists in this thread.

[Endus]

Don't be stupid, there's no support for that, implicit of otherwise. Just like Endus you're conflating recognition of the circumstances with justification for the outcome. I was very clear that there's no condoning the escalation to violence. Are you going to sit there with a straight face and say that the verbal altercation had absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with the subsequent shooting?

If there's a reasonable chance your neighbour will murder you with a gun because of a heated spat, then the issue is entirely with the neighbour and/or the permissive weapons legislation that allowed them to so arm themselves, not with the assholes provoking them.

It isn't that I'm somehow not recognizing the circumstances, I am flatly denying that those circumstances gave rise to this outcome.

The verbal altercation's only contribution to the shooting is that it constituted the shooter's motive.

Like if a husband finds out his wife is cheating on him, so he tracks down her lover and shoots him to death.
Or if a child wants to inherit their parents' estate and has debts that need paying, so they off their parents to get that inheritance sooner than otherwise.

What you're describing in every case is motive. Motives do not cause criminal conduct. They are the excuse for criminal conduct. The offender who uses that excuse was someone who was looking for an excuse; that motive did not force them into any particular action, in any way whatsoever. It's just the excuse they gave themselves for cutting loose and hurting people.

I'd find it just as galling if you were saying "well, don't cheat on your SO if you don't want to get murdered", or "well, don't be well-off and have kids with debt problems if you don't want to get murdered". Because those motives are not the reasonable, logical response to those circumstances.

- - - Updated - - -

Endus is legally trained.

Let's not oversell my supposed qualifications. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't have a law degree. I have taken law courses in my university training, and I've worked in fields helping governments to write legislation, even to the point of writing said legislation in a form that could be enacted as-is, but that was strictly in an advisory capacity as a consultant; we were handing them our recommendations but the clients were free to amend or discard those recommendations if they so chose. Also in professions where interpretation of the particularities of the law and their application is a major component of the work (city planning, specifically). The law isn't just lawyers and courtrooms.

So there's "legal training" in there, but I don't want people to think I'm making claims to particular qualifications that I'm not and never have.

[Adamas102]

I'd find it just as galling if you were saying "well, don't cheat on your SO if you don't want to get murdered", or "well, don't be well-off and have kids with debt problems if you don't want to get murdered". Because those motives are not the reasonable, logical response to those circumstances.

Ok, but no one is really claiming that this was a reasonable response. Recognizing that a particular series of events appears to have culminated in murder doesn’t mean that those series of events SHOULD produce that same result in all cases. Or that we should act a certain way ONLY because of fringe cases like these.

Motive doesn’t excuse action, nor does it force action, it simply answers the question “why”. Unless you want to argue that the killer had no motive, the evidence seems to point to the argument. If you take away the motive (the argument) would he have killed them on that day? Maybe, maybe not. It’s impossible to tell. The only thing we have is video evidence that apparently portrays an altercation that escalated to murder.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Motive doesn’t excuse action, nor does it force action, it simply answers the question “why”. Unless you want to argue that the killer had no motive, the evidence seems to point to the argument. If you take away the motive (the argument) would he have killed them on that day? Maybe, maybe not. It’s impossible to tell. The only thing we have is video evidence that apparently portrays an altercation that escalated to murder.

And no one has said that it didn't. Everyone acknowledges that the argument led to the murder.

What is at issue is the idea that the couple are to be blamed for their murder because of the argument.

[cubby]

Everyone but cubby. "you're victim blaming" Cubby, no I'm not.



Yes you are.

- - - Updated - - -





Then stop fucking victim blaming and people will stop calling you on it.

Lol, you sure don't pay attention to threads you post in. But keep it classy OJ, we're all rooting for you.

- - - Updated - - -

I think I understand the problem now. While you do admit in other posts that the fault lies with the shooter, the sort of statement you've made here would be considered a form of victim blaming, and Shadowferal's statement would certainly be a form of victim blaming. With the statement by Shadow, the issue is being reframed such that the victims are the actors (i.e.: they "push[ed] a guy") and the shooter is the one being acted upon (i.e.: "Keep pushing, and he goes over the edge") and, while it may not be the intent, it is a form of excusing the actions of the shooter. There is a substantive difference between describing the context of an event (i.e.: the altercation began with an antagonistic confrontation between the shooter and the victims, seemingly instigated by the victims; however, the shooter proceeded to follow through with an unreasonable escalation of violence) and Shadow's remark, which was essentially "Talk shit, get shot," placing the blame squarely on the victims.

And I definitely see what you're saying here. I appreciate the civil dialogue and exploration of points of view. Conversations like this on topics that are tough really make for good introspection.

The tough part of this topic is making sure to say things correctly, while walking a delicate line. We want to acknowledge that the shooting is not justified, but at the same time point out that the couple shot were part of the problem. To add to it, we have the shooter going back for a second gun, which complicates the discussion immensely. I took to seeing the events as two separate things - the initial altercation that led to the guy shooting the couple, and then the shooter going back for the second gun. And it's a tough line to walk, even in a verbal conversation where misunderstandings and clarifications can happen immediately - but in a written setting, it's almost impossible.

- - - Updated - - -

So if the rape victim had cussed the dude and made fun of his sexual prowess, without blame, yet in this case they're not? Simply based on the nature of the crime? That doesn't seem very just. Seems arbitrary.

It's almost impossible to draw any analogy with this shooting and a rape. Rape, while violence, NEVER has a victim at fault. Which is why victim blaming is a term to use when people try and come back to defend the rapist.

In our case, the best analogy is a bar fight. Both parties initiated and are responsible for the escalation, but nothing justifies the shooting. Others in this thread have done a better job of summarizing the distinction.

[Endus]

Ok, but no one is really claiming that this was a reasonable response. Recognizing that a particular series of events appears to have culminated in murder doesn’t mean that those series of events SHOULD produce that same result in all cases. Or that we should act a certain way ONLY because of fringe cases like these.

Motive doesn’t excuse action, nor does it force action, it simply answers the question “why”. Unless you want to argue that the killer had no motive, the evidence seems to point to the argument. If you take away the motive (the argument) would he have killed them on that day? Maybe, maybe not. It’s impossible to tell. The only thing we have is video evidence that apparently portrays an altercation that escalated to murder.

And no one has said that it didn't. Everyone acknowledges that the argument led to the murder.

What is at issue is the idea that the couple are to be blamed for their murder because of the argument.

What EMB said.

If this had turned into a slap-fight in the street with both parties slipping in the snow and falling down, it wouldn't be news. It would just be a bunch of assholes being assholes.

When one of those assholes decides to step it way up and goes to get a gun, it stops being that. It starts being first-degree murder, and the victims have no part in the blame for that outcome. That they were being abusive dingdongs to the guy does not constitute reasonable provocation or any kind of threat that would warrant that response. They are blameless in that.

That they may have shared blame in some other timeline for a much different outcome is really completely irrelevant.

To repeat; the argument constitutes the motive for the murder.

That does not mean the argument provoked the murder.

[cubby]

And no one has said that it didn't. Everyone acknowledges that the argument led to the murder.

What is at issue is the idea that the couple are to be blamed for their murder because of the argument.

I know I said I was going to bow out of our back and forth, but I just saw this and I have to say, I completely agree with what you've said above. I would add, just to clarify, that it takes two to argue.

Also, and I have to say, I'm not blaming the couple for their murder because of the argument. I'm just saying the couple was part of the argument initially. Shoot - I'm still not being as clear as I'd like to be here.

I'm not saying we agree, obviously we don't - lol - but I'm saying, I think, that we disagree on a very small part of this tragic encounter.