The Joker [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : The Joker


maxsnafu
07-23-2012, 11:07
http://takimag.com/article/the_jokers_razor_jim_goad/print#axzz21SbOoufj

"In the wake of Friday morning’s bloodbath at a Colorado movie theater, America struggles to figure out who or what to blame.

They’ve obviously ruled out the shooter."

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 11:26
Which makes me wonder again, if the entire concept of "innocent by reason of insanity" is an unreasonable concept. Insanity should be an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one. As a society, sympathy has trumped practicality. Incarceration is best used to keep those unable to work and play well with others away from the rest. A person who does not have the mental circuit breakers to prevent them from acting violently against innocent third parties should be locked up much longer because of that, not coddled by the system.

17119jfkioe
07-23-2012, 11:32
Which makes me wonder again, if the entire concept of "innocent by reason of insanity" is an unreasonable concept. Insanity should be an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one. As a society, sympathy has trumped practicality. Incarceration is best used to keep those unable to work and play well with others away from the rest. A person who does not have the mental circuit breakers to prevent them from acting violently against innocent third parties should be locked up much longer because of that, not coddled by the system.

+1000, dead on!

maxsnafu
07-23-2012, 11:41
Where were Holmes' parents in all this? Were they totally unaware that their little boy was deranged?

The Columbine killers amassed a huge cache of guns under the noses of their disengaged parents. Jared Loughner's parents knew he was nuts and did nothing.

Do the parents in any of these cases deserve any blame for foisting their murderous progeny upon an unsuspecting public?

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 11:53
Where were Holmes' parents in all this? Were they totally unaware that their little boy was deranged?

The Columbine killers amassed a huge cache of guns under the noses of their disengaged parents. Jared Loughner's parents knew he was nuts and did nothing.

Do the parents in any of these cases deserve any blame for foisting their murderous progeny upon an unsuspecting public?

In this case, the parents were living in a separate state.

Holmes is 100% culpable. So far, the worst question I have seen so far was some idiot wondering why the 6 year old was at a midnight showing, as if she went there herself, somehow implying it was her or her parents fault. I'm sure her parents are comforted by that question being asked.

It's times like these that the constitution becomes a little pesky. We will spend millions on trying this turd. They should release him into a locked auditorium, and allow family members to go in voluntarily with a declaration of legal and civil immunity for anything they say or do to him.

But you have to take the good with the bad in any human created system, for better or worse.

brickboy240
07-23-2012, 12:16
It is not unusual to question the parenting skills (or lack thereof) of a person that thinks it is a good idea to take a 6 year old to an R-rated movie at midnight on a weekday.

If we actually had more questioning of bad parenting....we would not end up with young adults that shoot up public places...think about it.

Today? Forget it. You cannot say anything about anyone's parenting style...anything goes. Who are we to judge, say anything or try to set some sort of norms for our society...right?

- brickboy240

Lethaltxn
07-23-2012, 12:46
It is not unusual to question the parenting skills (or lack thereof) of a person that thinks it is a good idea to take a 6 year old to an R-rated movie at midnight on a weekday.

If we actually had more questioning of bad parenting....we would not end up with young adults that shoot up public places...think about it.

Today? Forget it. You cannot say anything about anyone's parenting style...anything goes. Who are we to judge, say anything or try to set some sort of norms for our society...right?

- brickboy240

I thought TDKR was PG-13?
I know still older than six, but a pretty big difference I would think.

brickboy240
07-23-2012, 13:09
Maybe it was PG-13 but still...does a 6 year old need to be in a movie with that subject matter at midnight on a weekday?

If we cannot question that...why bother trying to question how these young people get to the point where they gun down many people in a fit of rage like this.

- brickboy240

beforeobamabans
07-23-2012, 13:13
Which makes me wonder again, if the entire concept of "innocent by reason of insanity" is an unreasonable concept.
The Butcher of Aurora is "innocent" since the very nature of his act is insane, i.e., no sane person would do this.

maxsnafu
07-23-2012, 14:09
The Butcher of Aurora is "innocent" since the very nature of his act is insane, i.e., no sane person would do this.

Then free him immediately.

beforeobamabans
07-23-2012, 14:19
Then free him immediately.

That's not the result of an 'innocent by insanity' judgment.

Lethaltxn
07-23-2012, 14:27
Maybe it was PG-13 but still...does a 6 year old need to be in a movie with that subject matter at midnight on a weekday?

If we cannot question that...why bother trying to question how these young people get to the point where they gun down many people in a fit of rage like this.

- brickboy240

I'll grant you that. I would never take my kid to see that movie at that age. I'd wait for it on Blu-ray if I couldn't get a sitter, because that's what responsible parents do.

brickboy240
07-23-2012, 14:47
You don't have to be a total evangelical moral crusader to think that maybe a movie that shows tons of killing, violence and swearing is not the best thing for a child of age 6.

...do you?

-brickboy240

countrygun
07-23-2012, 14:53
You don't have to be a total evangelical moral crusader to think that maybe a movie that shows tons of killing, violence and swearing is not the best thing for a child of age 6.

...do you?

-brickboy240


Was that rhetorical?

the evidence is that some of the posters on this forum seems to imply they think it is wrong to try and keep a 6-year old child from their right to see simulated brain matter splattered on a wall.

Lethaltxn
07-23-2012, 14:53
You don't have to be a total evangelical moral crusader to think that maybe a movie that shows tons of killing, violence and swearing is not the best thing for a child of age 6.

...do you?

-brickboy240

I agreed with you. I would not have taken my kid.
I think a lot of parents today don't realize that kids mean you have to sacrifice a lot.

Case in point, I went to see season of the witch and there was a guy and gal there with what had to be no more than a 5 year old. I just shook my head.

brickboy240
07-23-2012, 14:56
We missed a lot of movies and skipped out on some of our favorite restaurants when our daughter was very small. Again...part of being a parent and putting your child's needs ahead of your own.

Many parents of today can't or won't do this so we get kids that shoot their classmates and don't know how to act in public.

- brickboy240

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 19:15
Maybe it was PG-13 but still...does a 6 year old need to be in a movie with that subject matter at midnight on a weekday?

If we cannot question that...why bother trying to question how these young people get to the point where they gun down many people in a fit of rage like this.

- brickboy240

And that's the biggest crime you can think of that night?

:faint:

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 19:18
The Butcher of Aurora is "innocent" since the very nature of his act is insane, i.e., no sane person would do this.

Sometimes, words are used incorrectly.

The last thing I would ever use to describe this guy is innocent. It may not be pure, it may not be righteous, but this guy sure seems to be a rabid dog that simply needs to be put down.

Kentak
07-23-2012, 19:21
The real image is more disturbing than the photoshopped one.

http://www.usmagazine.com/uploads/assets/articles/54490-dark-knight-rises-shooting-suspect-james-holmes-appears-dazed-in-court/1343062508_james-467.jpg

Kentak
07-23-2012, 19:28
Where were Holmes' parents in all this? Were they totally unaware that their little boy was deranged?

The Columbine killers amassed a huge cache of guns under the noses of their disengaged parents. Jared Loughner's parents knew he was nuts and did nothing.

Do the parents in any of these cases deserve any blame for foisting their murderous progeny upon an unsuspecting public?

My sense is that the answer is no--in most cases. I personally knew a fine, Christian couple who raised an adopted son in a solid, loving family-oriented home. As a young adult, he brutally murdered his girlfriend. Although an extreme example, we all probably know good parents whose kids have gone astray. Kids are, after all, individual beings with free will--not marionettes controlled by their parents--and parents shouldn't want them to be.

beforeobamabans
07-23-2012, 20:11
Sometimes, words are used incorrectly.

The last thing I would ever use to describe this guy is innocent. It may not be pure, it may not be righteous, but this guy sure seems to be a rabid dog that simply needs to be put down.

Yeah, the plea is actually "not guilty (not innocent) by reason of insanity". And then he gets committed to a mental hospital.

nursetim
07-23-2012, 20:28
He'll be eating his caca in no time. Writing grievances upon grievances soon as well. He is nutty as squirrel merde. He absolutely should not get off by reason of insanity. It can be argued that anyone who kills another, except in self defense, is insane.

DustyJacket
07-23-2012, 20:46
Being crazy doesn't get you a not guilty.

It has to be either;
- didn't know right from wrong and didn't know what (s)he was doing was wrong
or
- is not now competent to assist in his/her own defense.

The first one gets you a trip to the rubber ward.
The second one gets you a (presumably) shorter trip, to cure you enough that you can participate in your defense. Then it is off to trial.


----
So you can be crazy, but if you knew it was wrong, too bad.

maxsnafu
07-24-2012, 07:29
My sense is that the answer is no--in most cases. I personally knew a fine, Christian couple who raised an adopted son in a solid, loving family-oriented home. As a young adult, he brutally murdered his girlfriend. Although an extreme example, we all probably know good parents whose kids have gone astray. Kids are, after all, individual beings with free will--not marionettes controlled by their parents--and parents shouldn't want them to be.

My quarrel is NOT with the "good parents" who have a bad kid. It's with the bad parents who are either too disengaged to actually parent their children and those who KNOW their kid has serious mental problems and do nothing, like Jared Loughner's parents. Should they be able to unleash a mass murderer on the public and get off scott free?