I actually found out via a friend's FaceBook status ... CNN is reporting 11 dead, 31 wounded. Two to three gunmen, all soldiers, one shot dead by the military police and two in custody.
My prayers are with the families of the fallen. This is horrible.
Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.
Army shrink; guy was a Major. I was speculating at first that some kids did this, who just came back from Iraq and had PTSD. But the shrink who's supposed to treat them? What the hell happened down there?
Methinks the Army is going to sit on the details for awhile....
"People who can be made to believe absurdities can be made to commit atrocities." - Voltaire, on religion
"Many of these people would sooner die than think. In fact, they do." - Bertrand Russell, on religion
Psychiatrists are known for having drug problems. He might have been wacked out on something.
Horrible, horrible indeed.
******************************
"The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others." ~ Bertrand Russell
... he's ALIVE.
(And in hospital - most likely under VERY HEAVY guard.)
According to stuff coming over the wires, he's a native-born American Muslim who had been making it known for quite awhile that he felt we (i.e., US forces) should not be in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else in the middle east, and that he had been extremely upset that he was going to be sent to Iraq.
This mess is just beginning....
But I feel for the families of those who have lost loved ones and friends.
Explain yourself, enigma. What exactly is so convenient? No one made any conclusions about this but YOU, in your sarcasm. No one said "ahhh those damn Muslims it's all their fault." Chill out.
In light of various comments that friends have made, regarding certain news outlets latching onto the Muslim connection like sick little terriers, I'm not terribly ashamed of my annoyance.
but that's why I listen to NPR, who is trying to report less on the shooter and more on the fallen.
This whole situation has no winners and I hope the media doesn't make this just another "Muslims hate America" bs-plot. It helps no one to make those generalizations.
I'm praying for the families, even the family of the shooter. This is all so tragic.
From what little is known, it sounds anything but clear cut and dry. Word is the shooter had faced a lot of harassment in the military over his religion since 9/11, and maybe had been asked to be discharged? We can't be sure now or maybe ever over the situation or intentions, but none of that matters to the unfortunate ones who were killed and their loved ones. Like with Columbine and other shootings I am sure there will be plenty of people who exploit this as a reason to speculate why this happened, and point fingers of blame here and there, unfortunately.
(edited to correct a confusing typo)
This message has been edited by RedHed383 on Nov 6, 2009 2:59 PM
There were sparse facts this morning and at least half of them had to be corrected (he was set to be deployed to Iraq, not Afghanistan, for one). Until we know more it's inappropriate to draw conclusions about why this happened or what it means. We just don't know enough.
Houndentenor
"Unleash your ferocity on an unsuspecting world." -- Bette Midler
What's really goin on?!?!? man.. is gun control even the answer anymore?
"There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of the moment. A man's whole life is a succession of moment after moment. If one fully understands the present moment, there is nothing left to do, and nothing else to pursue."
Y. Tsunetomo
Not nearly as much death and bloodshed, but still one person killed and five wounded, according to the article I found. The article says that the killer had been fired TWO YEARS AGO by the firm at which he carried out the shooting.
The only bright spot that I see in these two incidents is that the perpetrators survived and can therefore be made to face legal consequences for their actions.
Baritonobasso
"The students are overstimulated. Willie, remove all the colored chalk from the classrooms!"
He should have just offed himself. Then we wouldn't have had to pay for him to sit in prison for an entire trial, fund the court process to find out what everyone knows, and then deal with appeals.
When everyone this side of the Atlantic knows this guy did it and he admits to doing so, how is justice being served to him by putting him through a trial? It wastes his time, our time, and our money. It's essentially a kangaroo court.
Yes, we still have to have a trial. If it's that open and shut, then if he has any kind of lawyer at all he will try to get his client some sort of plea arrangement. Yes, we still have to have a trial in spite of "what everybody knows". Do you really want trial by media to replace the legal system? Let's just appoint Nancy Grace chief justice and be done with it! ARRGH.
I do understand the knee-jerk sentiment. But I don't think you'd really want to live in a country where just because someone looks guilty (based on media reports...you know that same media you don't trust for anything else). If it's that obvious it should be a pretty easy job for the prosecution.
Houndentenor
"Unleash your ferocity on an unsuspecting world." -- Bette Midler
You brought up an interesting point. You said he "looks guilty." You're right, I wasn't in the room when he shot people.
Just for shits and giggles: if there were a video tape of him pulling the trigger, and it was him without a doubt, bang bang, would you still say "put him through a trial to find out if he's guilty"?
That is what makes our justice system. Innocent until proven guilty, and the RIGHT to a fair trial. Even if he is on the video committing the crime, he still deserves a trial.
let's go a step further. I know you think it's stupid but I'm trying to isolate what's important.
So let's say you have a room, and in this room you have a person who is going to murder someone, a person who is going to be murdered, the entire jury, the judge, and the lawyers. Everyone in the room watches the person kill the other person. Are you still going to say that it's best to put them through a trial??!
I mean that is the exact definition of kangaroo. Come on.
We can all create ridiculous extreme cases. You know what...most people who are on trial actually are guilty. So why have a trial for anyone? Let's just let the DA decide whose guilty. The government decides you should go to jail so you do. And you'll just sit there until they decide to let you out. That's the ridiculous extreme on the other side of what you are arguing.
Yes, we either have to have a guilty plea or a trial. I don't think you would want to live in a country where people are arrested and jailed with no trial. Or would you?
Houndentenor
"Unleash your ferocity on an unsuspecting world." -- Bette Midler
Doesn't a jury still need to determine if it's first or second degree?
November 6 2009, 7:30 PM
Did the murderer say, "I've been planning to shoot you for 12 years," or did he say, "I am so mad, I could just, just," and then shoot the guy? Even then, was he acting?
Everyone deserves a trial. Too bad the jury is already in on you.
Ridiculous hypothetical still doesn't make out your argument.....
November 6 2009, 7:38 PM
Of course, you assume the defendant is going to plead not gulty. In such a case, highly unlikely. And if the jurors, judge and lawyers were watching, then by definition they could not be judges, jurors or lawyers in the trial.
The perpetrator may have killed someone, but may have a defence recognisd by the law, such as self defence, insanity or duress. In which case they may properly be found not guilty.
And by the way, a kangaroo court is one where the outcome is guaranteed not because of the strength of the evidence, but because the processes are so flawed that only one result is possible.
So I'm not going to challenge your knowledge on this, although I have no clue what kind of law you practice. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate. I think our legal system is pretty shitty in general, but that's not really relevant. As for kangaroo courts, you're going too far in your definition---the only necessary condition is that the outcome is decided beforehand, it can be because of process (i.e., Ceausescu) or it can be based on evidence. The former are more publicized obviously but the latter occur, too.
Why do you call my hypothetical ridiculous? I'm just asking a question for argument's sake. Chill out.
Anyway, you're not answering my question. Of course if everyone involved had been exposed to the crime itself, they'd be excluded from the process. You're picking apart my flawed example instead of attacking the question I'm trying to ask.
This message has been edited by holyfire on Nov 6, 2009 7:44 PM
An accused is entitled to require the state to prove its case. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle for protection of civil liberties. Its benefits far outweigh the downside of some defendants possibly running umeritorious cases. The overwhelming majority of defendents with strong cases against them will plead guilty to get a softer sentence. Like most human rights, there is an imperfect balancing of competing interests involved.
You are wrong about the meaning of kangaroo court. The term does not apply to a trial which has perfectly fair procedures but leads inevitably to a conviction because of strength of evidence.
He doesn't know what kangaroo court means and he can't think through something like this to the inevitable abuse that a system where we just assumed people accused were guilty would lead to. There are countries where the government can lock people up because they look guilty and they are not places where any of us would want to live.
Houndentenor
"Unleash your ferocity on an unsuspecting world." -- Bette Midler
You already know the answer, and you're being a jerk.
Obviously someone pleading guilty when there's a videotape of the crime is an idiot and has a bigger idiot for an attorney. But yes, a jury has to watch the video tape and hear expert testimony that it's authentic, wasn't doctored or edited, etc.
Someone has to make this determination. At the very least a judge would have to make the determination that there is indeed a video and it does show what the prosecution claims.
Do you really want mob rule?
We have a system that is far from perfect but doesn't pretend to be. Given that we are human and flawed, our system allows for checks and balances. It keeps things from getting too out of hand. Perfect, no. In need of some reform, of course. But should we just go with what is "obvious" at the expense of situations where things are not as they seem?
For the case at hand, weren't there three shooters? Why have I only heard one name? Maybe this is just what it looks like. And maybe there is more too it. It would be easier if we didn't have to go through a trial. But as someone from Texas, we saw what happens when we cut corners in the legal system. Innocent people get convicted. I don't find that acceptable. So yes, we have to go through the process, even in the rare cases when it's obvious. (How often does someone plead not guilty when they are caught on tape? Does someone know?)
One day you or I maybe be accused of a crime we didn't commit. Won't you want the chance at a trial even if someone claims it's "obvious" that you did it?
Houndentenor
"Unleash your ferocity on an unsuspecting world." -- Bette Midler
Sheesh, I hate to admit it, but I'm with PDW on this one.
November 6 2009, 5:46 PM
I don't necessarily think it's a good thing that the shooter(s) survived. All that means is that we have to drag his ass (along with the families of the dead) through the court system (most likely on our dime) for gawd knows how long and then house his ass in jail (again, on our dime) for gawd knows how long. Maybe it's my old right-wing-nut roots showing through, but it would have been a lot less painful if all we had to do was send him home in a box.
******************************
"The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others." ~ Bertrand Russell
But seriously, of course we're both right on this. If he kills himself, then he gets what he deserves. If he doesn't, all of a sudden we have to pay for him to go through this ridiculous kangaroo process? Sorry, it's absurd. Let him kill himself (that's free), then have someone else pay for his funeral. instead we're going to foot the bill for him for the next five to ten years. Unbelievable.
"There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of the moment. A man's whole life is a succession of moment after moment. If one fully understands the present moment, there is nothing left to do, and nothing else to pursue."
Y. Tsunetomo
If he pleads guilty, then no trial. If he pleads not guilty, then under our current system, despite your objections, he goes to trial and a jury is selected.
Of course, the above assumes a typical due process scenario for civilians under criminal law (which is different from civil/tort law, and there will almost certainly be a multitude of those brought later on, by the survivors and their families). Since this guy is in the US Army and this happened on a military base, martial law may well apply. And that may play out completely differently.
FWIW, I understand how you feel, and how this might look to us as a slap in the victims' families' collective faces. (My views on what should be done with Bernie Madoff, for example, are unconventional to say the least.) However, it's possible the families may need and want to see this guy stand trial for what he did, for closure and other psychological reasons. If I were Queen of the World, I'd respect their wishes first and foremost.
"People who can be made to believe absurdities can be made to commit atrocities." - Voltaire, on religion
"Many of these people would sooner die than think. In fact, they do." - Bertrand Russell, on religion
There was no doubt that he was guilty. Everyone knew it. For rather obvious reasons, he negotiated a plea. He could not have possible gotten off. Especially not after all that publicity and so much public anger at Wall Street.
I think this is a scenario that rarely plays out. People caught red-handed are going to get a better deal with a plea.
Houndentenor
"Unleash your ferocity on an unsuspecting world." -- Bette Midler
...is that we can actually find out how this happened from the horse's mouth.
As I drove around in the car that day, the news changed from:
-main shooter dead, 2 or 3 others in custody.
-only one shooter; the others were innocents trying to get away.
-only one shooter, still alive.
I was quite worried that we would never find out what happened if the main/solo gunman was killed. If it was due to terrorist activity, we would need as many live bodies to question, in order to understand how it happened and to prevent it in the future. If it was just a crazy soldier who happened to be Muslim, the measures for prevention would be vastly different.
Also, I am extraordinarily concerned to see ANY American arguing against selective denial of due process of law. Would you really give up your right to trial in order to save everyone else a few bucks? That goes beyond fiscal conservatism (I dare you to get any libertarian to agree with it), and it's definitely against the Bill of Rights (Amendment V):
_...nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."_
If we had a system where those who were "obviously" guilty did not receive any kind of trial, that would make it awfully easy to start framing people. Kidnap a person, plant a lookalike to do the actual deed for videotape or eyewitness evidence, do a switcheroo, and boom! An "obviously" guilty, yet perfectly innocent, person.
Literally right across from my old condo when I was with Orlando Opera!
November 7 2009, 6:20 AM
Like, right down the block!
So sad.
A bit, OT, but when I was there I was obviously being watched....as soon as I started spending a lot of time at my gf's, my "high security/luxury" apt was busted into, stole laptop, ransacked the place....
And people are worried for my safety in New York......
BQ
"Until last week, I thought legato was a cured meat!"
We are dedicating today's Verdi Requiem performance to the victims and their families
November 8 2009, 10:33 AM
I'm performing in College Station, Texas, at Rudder Auditorium on the Texas A&M campus. There certainly will be family members and friends among the audience. I hope our performance brings them some comfort.
Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.
