Batman Shooting

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Cuso wrote:
Why is it that we define such a “killing spree” as “running amok” while a bombing is an “act of terrorism”? Again in my eyes the answer is quite simple: If mass slayings with handguns would correctly be labeled as acts of terrorism, we would probably have to rethink the 2nd amendment, and by definition think about outlawing handguns.
[/quote]

Terrorism is defined by having a means of Coercion. Without knowing someones motive you can’t label them as a terrorist. School shootings would not fall in the category of terrorism for this reason.[/quote]

Agreed, and most reasons for Coercion are political ideologies or outcome goals. Terrorism is generally defined as having an ulterior motive for the violence, ie: using violence and terror as a means to accomplish some other greater goal, not just kill people for the sake of it. That’s called crazy. Money/love/jealousy is generally not a proper motive for politically or religiously motivated ideological violence…but it is for “crimes of passion” and crazy. That’s why it’s not terrorism.[/quote]

Of course you’re both right with your definintion of terrorism, even though the definition of terrorism itself, is still a very grey area.

If one defines coercion as the opposite of freedom:

Wiki: “The purpose of coercion is to substitute one’s aims to those of the victim. For this reason, many social philosophers have considered coercion as the polar opposite to freedom.”

or terror as a means to influence a large group of people:

Terror Research: “Terrorism is a criminal act that influences an audience beyond the immediate victim.”

and when one considers the higher level of security in the aftermath of the shooting:

and the canceled premier in Paris:

the restrictions placed on people attending:

http://www.funtober.com/costumes-questioned-at-theaters/

and the arrests of “copycats” who directly terrorised people in theaters:

I would have to argue that what you define as a state of coercion exists not at the moment of a mass shooting, however for a undefined timeframe afterwards. This argument is confirmed by parents not wanting, or fearing to send their children into any school after a massacre such as at Columbine or Erfurt.

On the same note, and this point cannot be denied; some people do not venture into certain areas of a city because they are afraid of getting shot for intruding on an unknown “gang” border, or of being robbed at gunpoint. This is also coercion. It’s just not a state sponsored firing squad executing the enemies of a terror regime in country X.

Just a last question to test my point:

If you were sitting in a bus and someone pulled out a gun and aimed it at you, would you be thinking:

A). Oh shit, a crazy with a gun…I’m dead.
B). Oh shit, this is it.

It wouldn’t matter, because in exactly that second you would be terrorised, which means by definintion that through fear and intimidation, a state of coercion exists. It wouldn’t matter to you if the shooter started screaming some form of religious or politically oriented battle cry before he pulled the trigger.

142

C. oh shit. hope he’s not good shot because i’m not going to miss

143

[quote]Cuso wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Cuso wrote:
Why is it that we define such a “killing spree” as “running amok” while a bombing is an “act of terrorism”? Again in my eyes the answer is quite simple: If mass slayings with handguns would correctly be labeled as acts of terrorism, we would probably have to rethink the 2nd amendment, and by definition think about outlawing handguns.
[/quote]

Terrorism is defined by having a means of Coercion. Without knowing someones motive you can’t label them as a terrorist. School shootings would not fall in the category of terrorism for this reason.[/quote]

Agreed, and most reasons for Coercion are political ideologies or outcome goals. Terrorism is generally defined as having an ulterior motive for the violence, ie: using violence and terror as a means to accomplish some other greater goal, not just kill people for the sake of it. That’s called crazy. Money/love/jealousy is generally not a proper motive for politically or religiously motivated ideological violence…but it is for “crimes of passion” and crazy. That’s why it’s not terrorism.[/quote]

Of course you’re both right with your definintion of terrorism, even though the definition of terrorism itself, is still a very grey area.

If one defines coercion as the opposite of freedom:

Wiki: “The purpose of coercion is to substitute one’s aims to those of the victim. For this reason, many social philosophers have considered coercion as the polar opposite to freedom.”

or terror as a means to influence a large group of people:

Terror Research: “Terrorism is a criminal act that influences an audience beyond the immediate victim.”

and when one considers the higher level of security in the aftermath of the shooting:

and the canceled premier in Paris:

the restrictions placed on people attending:

http://www.funtober.com/costumes-questioned-at-theaters/

and the arrests of “copycats” who directly terrorised people in theaters:

I would have to argue that what you define as a state of coercion exists not at the moment of a mass shooting, however for a undefined timeframe afterwards. This argument is confirmed by parents not wanting, or fearing to send their children into any school after a massacre such as at Columbine or Erfurt.

On the same note, and this point cannot be denied; some people do not venture into certain areas of a city because they are afraid of getting shot for intruding on an unknown “gang” border, or of being robbed at gunpoint. This is also coercion. It’s just not a state sponsored firing squad executing the enemies of a terror regime in country X.

Just a last question to test my point:

If you were sitting in a bus and someone pulled out a gun and aimed it at you, would you be thinking:

A). Oh shit, a crazy with a gun…I’m dead.
B). Oh shit, this is it.

It wouldn’t matter, because in exactly that second you would be terrorised, which means by definintion that through fear and intimidation, a state of coercion exists. It wouldn’t matter to you if the shooter started screaming some form of religious or politically oriented battle cry before he pulled the trigger.[/quote]

There needs to be some other element to it otherwise the word is pointless. Robbed at gunpoint, yes you are “terrorized” but we don’t call it terrorism, its just called armed robbery.

144

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

There needs to be some other element to it otherwise the word is pointless. Robbed at gunpoint, yes you are “terrorized” but we don’t call it terrorism, its just called armed robbery.[/quote]

Sorry, but this is taken out of context.

145

I think what Bale did was nothing short of awesome. He is and always will be a favorite in my book.

But rather than have him visit the victims what if we rallyed and got him to put on the batsuit, snuck him into prison and then had him beat the retarded life from james???

Whats yalls take on him all of a sudden flipping the crazy switch? Now the are saying he might be bipolar or schizophrenic. Anyone else buying it?

146

[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
Whats yalls take on him all of a sudden flipping the crazy switch? Now the are saying he might be bipolar or schizophrenic. Anyone else buying it? [/quote]

I mean, normal people don’t do what he did…

So yeah, I would say there is something wrong with him. I don’t know if there is a name for it yet or not.

147

I don’t think it matters if there is something psychologically wrong with him. In fact, I think that it’s a given that anyone who would shoot 70 strangers for no reason is mentally ill. Regardless of that we need to make an example of him and punish him to the fullest extent of the law. We don’t need other mentally deranged copy cats who try to make this guy into some sort of hero acting out their own mentally twisted violent fantasies.

I’ll predict that he will meet the same fate as Timothy McVeigh even though the death penalty is rare in Colorado.

148

Thats the point kids, this matters in terms of punishment and rights. If deemed mentally ill or insane he will be excused from DP as far as I know and serve life in an institution which is vastly different then a state pen. I believe he is faking a mental illness to escape the death penatly.

149

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Terrorism is defined by having a means of Coercion. [/quote]

I always think of terrorism as politically motivated.

Create fear in a population so they do something politically, like how Spain acted in the elections after the train bombing.

This is more like violent vandalism. No logic or purpose.

150

[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
Thats the point kids, this matters in terms of punishment and rights. If deemed mentally ill or insane he will be excused from DP as far as I know and serve life in an institution which is vastly different then a state pen. I believe he is faking a mental illness to escape the death penatly. [/quote]

Can you really fake a mental illness? Is there not a way to run tests or something else to diagnose the individual? This dude needs to get the DP, no ifs, ands, or buts.

151

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ll predict that he will meet the same fate as Timothy McVeigh even though the death penalty is rare in Colorado.[/quote]

I predict he won’t. The law is soft and flabby these days.

152

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ll predict that he will meet the same fate as Timothy McVeigh even though the death penalty is rare in Colorado.[/quote]

I predict he won’t. The law is soft and flabby these days.[/quote]

Unfortunately Mak is correct on this.

We currently have three on death row here in Colorado.

Sir Mario Owens - guilty for ordering the hit and participating in killing two witnesses against him in broad daylight (one was going to testify against him in another murder trial).

Nathan Dunlap - Guilty for the 1993 killing of 4 at a Chuck E Cheese after closing hours. Now tryin an insanity appeal.

Robert Ray - Guilty for helping in the killing that Owens above committed of the witness.

So the chances of this guy if he receives the death penalty will sit on death row for close to 20 years before they finally get to do it.

153

Death seems more like an escape than a punishment to me.

If only there was a way to both do justice and rehabilitate. To reunite a monster with his/her humanity again. I wish I had a answer or even an inkling of one but I don’t. All I can think of is to remove the perp. from society to make sure they can’t ever continue to perpetuate their madness and evil into civilized or at least semi-civilized society.

154

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
All I can think of is to remove the perp. from society to make sure they can’t ever continue to perpetuate their madness and evil into civilized or at least semi-civilized society.[/quote]

Death is the only way to guarantee that 100%

155

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ll predict that he will meet the same fate as Timothy McVeigh even though the death penalty is rare in Colorado.[/quote]

I predict he won’t. The law is soft and flabby these days.[/quote]

You could be right Mak, but I’m thinking that they may want to make an example of this guy. And I doubt that life in prison would have the same impact.

And as we both know he certainly deserves it!

156

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ll predict that he will meet the same fate as Timothy McVeigh even though the death penalty is rare in Colorado.[/quote]

I predict he won’t. The law is soft and flabby these days.[/quote]

You could be right Mak, but I’m thinking that they may want to make an example of this guy. And I doubt that life in prison would have the same impact.

And as we both know he certainly deserves it![/quote]

Either he is insane or he deserves it.

Make up your mind.

There are arguments for putting down a rabid dog, “he deserves it” is not one of them.

157

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ll predict that he will meet the same fate as Timothy McVeigh even though the death penalty is rare in Colorado.[/quote]

I predict he won’t. The law is soft and flabby these days.[/quote]

You could be right Mak, but I’m thinking that they may want to make an example of this guy. And I doubt that life in prison would have the same impact.

And as we both know he certainly deserves it![/quote]

Either he is insane or he deserves it.

Make up your mind.

There are arguments for putting down a rabid dog, “he deserves it” is not one of them. [/quote]

Hadn’t thought about it that way. Seems like a good point.

158

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ll predict that he will meet the same fate as Timothy McVeigh even though the death penalty is rare in Colorado.[/quote]

I predict he won’t. The law is soft and flabby these days.[/quote]

You could be right Mak, but I’m thinking that they may want to make an example of this guy. And I doubt that life in prison would have the same impact.

And as we both know he certainly deserves it![/quote]

Whether he deserves it or not is sadly irrelevant now ZEB. The limp wristed flower children will prevail and decide he needs to be “rehabilitated” at the expense of the taxpayer.

I’m guessing 20-25 years non-parole.

159

I don’t think that modern psychology gives a way to rehabilitate this type.

160

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ll predict that he will meet the same fate as Timothy McVeigh even though the death penalty is rare in Colorado.[/quote]

I predict he won’t. The law is soft and flabby these days.[/quote]

You could be right Mak, but I’m thinking that they may want to make an example of this guy. And I doubt that life in prison would have the same impact.

And as we both know he certainly deserves it![/quote]

Whether he deserves it or not is sadly irrelevant now ZEB. The limp wristed flower children will prevail and decide he needs to be “rehabilitated” at the expense of the taxpayer.

I’m guessing 20-25 years non-parole.[/quote]

I hope this won’t happen. And that hope is based on the severity and profile of the crime. While it’s not quite up to the number of people that Timothy McVeigh killed or injured it is still obviously a horrendous act. But then again Colorado isn’t Oklahoma so I won’t be surprised either way.