Topic: Fort Hood Shooting
started by: Wareagle11B
Posted by Wareagle11B on Nov. 05 2009,2:38 pm
Shooting at Fort Hood Texas. Confirmed 7 dead 12 wounded confirmed 2 shooters possibly 3. 1 in custody 1 possibly 2 still unaccounted for.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Nov. 05 2009,3:11 pm
Now updating with as many as 20 wounded. Shooter in custody was apparently shot and wounded by MP's.
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Nov. 05 2009,6:16 pm
Well it seems the psychiatrist went psycho, good thing he's dead, but they should have got out of him of what he was thinking then kill the SOB.But we all know the reason for the attack.
With a name like Malik Nadal Hasan. (Sometimes there is truth to somethings eh?) is it any wonder? And the concentration on the medical processing center. HMMMM.
Dead, Dead dumb b!atch.
Posted by ControlledHyperness on Nov. 05 2009,8:29 pm
Cept he isnt dead. He is in stable condition, but wounded. From what I have heard he did not want to go over to Afghanistan/Iraq...which he had just found out he was deployed to. He had hired lawyers to try and get out of the military before he was due to be shipped. He graduated from Virginia Tech, born and raised in Virginia. The Lt. Genl. said that "his death is not immenant". (yes I am watching the live conference at the moment). The Lt. Gen. also said he could not rule out terroism, but he thought it probably not. Please do not missunderstand me, I am not sticking up for him..just relaying information that has been uncovered. I do wonder if he didn't want to go over because he is a wanted man by his own kind. He joined the military against his parents wishes.
I guess when it comes down to it, he took lessons from Corp. Klinger, only modified it to modern day. Sad stab at humor...
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Nov. 05 2009,8:41 pm
Well its a damn shame he isn't dead, the man is a waste of O2. Also the anti gun morons are clamoring for gun bans. You just can't make this stuff up. Unarmed soldiers. LOL
What a bunch of maroons.
Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 05 2009,8:47 pm
QUOTE
From what I have heard he did not want to go over to Afghanistan/Iraq...
Looks like he's going to get his wish.
Posted by ControlledHyperness on Nov. 05 2009,8:49 pm
And sadly, what they will fail to realize (for one reason or another), will be that the reason many of the Soldiers that were injured or killed was due to them being unarmed. Someone in the know told me that those Soldiers who are at the location where the shooting happened are unarmed at the time they are in the buildings. Hence part of the reason so many were injured and/or killed. So in short, sorry...but lack of guns wont work this time. Go take the sob story somewhere else.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Nov. 05 2009,8:57 pm
(ControlledHyperness @ Nov. 05 2009,8:49 pm)
QUOTE
And sadly, what they will fail to realize (for one reason or another), will be that the reason many of the Soldiers that were injured or killed was due to them being unarmed. Someone in the know told me that those Soldiers who are at the location where the shooting happened are unarmed at the time they are in the buildings. Hence part of the reason so many were injured and/or killed.
So in short, sorry...but lack of guns wont work this time. Go take the sob story somewhere else.
So in short, sorry...but lack of guns wont work this time. Go take the sob story somewhere else.
Most weapons when on a military base are stored in the unit arms room. Soldiers do not as a rule carry weapons on the base unless their job (i.e MP's) dictate it. The only time I ever carried my M16 /M203 (always seemed to get stuck with that one) was when we were either training or something like that. This is why those who were shot and killed/wounded were unarmed.
Posted by ControlledHyperness on Nov. 05 2009,9:02 pm
Thanks for clarification. My source only worked on a base as civilian, yet married to a Vet. who is no longer with us. Either way...it should never have happened. On the other hand, that particular gun sounds like it would potentially be "fun" to have to carry...that is, if I had to carry one...which I don't since I am not in active duty..or non active duty...
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Nov. 05 2009,9:15 pm
Fine piece of hardware.
Posted by busybee on Nov. 06 2009,2:24 am
It's getting rather old...this...our own killing our own at home and blaming others, their childhood, politics, the economy, drugs, guns, etc... for their choice. 
Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 06 2009,7:35 am
(Grinning_Dragon @ Nov. 05 2009,9:15 pm)
QUOTE
Fine piece of hardware.
In our 3-man MP teams, the team leader carried the m-16/203, while the driver carried the SAW and an m-16, and the gunner carried his m-16 plus had either an m-60/.50 Cal/MRK 19 ... oh and don't forget our 9mm Beretta's...never cared much for the Beretta's...because a skilled (enemy) soldier could disassemble it with one move in close hand to hand combat.
Posted by Two Bears on Nov. 06 2009,11:20 am
(busybee @ Nov. 06 2009,2:24 am)
QUOTE
It's getting rather old...this...our own killing our own at home and blaming others, their childhood, politics, the economy, drugs, guns, etc... for their choice.
He is not "our own" meaning not one of us, he is a raghead muslum that hates people from the west.
The government should lock up ALL muslum that are in the military just for the protection of our military people and the country itself. Discharge them from the service and send them packing.
We just can't trust them.
Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 06 2009,12:54 pm
That's about as closed-minded of an answer as let's put everyone who is of Japanese ancestry in interment camps. 
Posted by irisheyes on Nov. 06 2009,12:59 pm
After that we'll put all the Jews in these isolated prisons. Although I don't like the way isolated prisons sounds. So let's call them camps. Concentration camps, for lack of a better term.
Posted by Two Bears on Nov. 06 2009,1:11 pm
(MADDOG @ Nov. 06 2009,12:54 pm)
QUOTE
That's about as closed-minded of an answer as let's put everyone who is of Japanese ancestry in interment camps.
Why take the chance again? Get them out of the military, we need to protect our service personel- you know the guys that are protecting your freedom.
Sounds like the government was tracking this guy for 6 months because he was too vocal about suicide bombings and such on web sites. Just an example of why they should not be in the US military.
Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 06 2009,2:31 pm
Sounds like an internal problem that was individual in nature. QUOTE
In the Flesh
So ya
Thought ya
Might like to
go to the show
To feel the warm thrill of confusion
That space cadet glow
I've got some bad news for you sunshine
Pink isn't well he stayed back at the hotel
And they sent us along as a surrogate band
And we're going to find out where you fans
Really stand
Are there any queers in the theatre tonight
Get 'em up against the wall
That one looks Jewish
And that one's a coon
Who let all this riff raff into the room
There's one smoking a joint and
Another with spots
If I had my way I'd have all of you shot
So ya
Thought ya
Might like to
go to the show
To feel the warm thrill of confusion
That space cadet glow
I've got some bad news for you sunshine
Pink isn't well he stayed back at the hotel
And they sent us along as a surrogate band
And we're going to find out where you fans
Really stand
Are there any queers in the theatre tonight
Get 'em up against the wall
That one looks Jewish
And that one's a coon
Who let all this riff raff into the room
There's one smoking a joint and
Another with spots
If I had my way I'd have all of you shot
Posted by ControlledHyperness on Nov. 06 2009,2:34 pm
Two Bears,While some of what you say is true, the logic behind it is about as far out as me saying that he took Klinger's plan to get out of the Army(first acting insane, then gay, then family, etc.) and modified it to his own plans. It does make me wonder however, as stated somewhere else on this forum, if he wasn't scared to face his own kind for fear of retrobution of joining OUR military...just a thought...
Posted by irisheyes on Nov. 06 2009,2:59 pm
(Two Bears @ Nov. 06 2009,1:11 pm)
QUOTE
Why take the chance again? Get them out of the military, we need to protect our service personel- you know the guys that are protecting your freedom.
So by your logic we should protect those who are protecting our freedoms by taking freedom away from people based on their ethnicity? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Also, I don't quite see how Iraq or Afghanistan has anything to do with protecting OUR freedoms. It was about revenge, and liberating THEM, not us. The war on terror has done far more to take freedom away from Americans than protecting it.
QUOTE
Sounds like the government was tracking this guy for 6 months because he was too vocal about suicide bombings and such on web sites. Just an example of why they should not be in the US military.
Wow, so he was voicing his opinion on the internet? How dare he!!
I haven't seen anything in the news reports about what he said in the past that makes him sound anything other than passionate about his religion, and ending both wars.
Posted by Wolfie on Nov. 06 2009,5:00 pm
Common Citizen, as a weapons instructor and armorer, I find a couple of things humorous about your statement about the beretta m9. First of all you shouldnt be letting the enemy EVER get that close thats what your primary weapon is for. Second if your beretta m9 has been properly brass checked (loaded), it will be as follows, round in the chamber with loaded mag installed, safety/decocker off, and hammer back. You should easily be able to pull the trigger and discharge your weapon. My use of force ladder was rather convoluted, but when it came to someone reaching out to grab my weapon it was very clear. Aim and pull the trigger. Seems like a lot of worry for a situation that should never present itself.
Posted by twingroves on Nov. 06 2009,6:17 pm
if you are not white you are not rite
Posted by ANTILIBERAL on Nov. 06 2009,9:14 pm
[quote=irisheyes,Nov. 06 2009,2:59 pm]So by your logic we should protect those who are protecting our freedoms by taking freedom away from people based on their ethnicity? Nope, just a dangerous religon which we are battleing every day since 9/11
Posted by twingroves on Nov. 06 2009,9:50 pm
rite on
Posted by irisheyes on Nov. 06 2009,10:22 pm
So you'll select people for persecution based on their religion instead? Many of the first people who came to this country sought to avoid people with that same idea. I don't know what the 1st Amendment or the rest of the Bill of Rights means to you folks, but to me it means not letting people sacrifice freedom for the mirage of safety.
Posted by hot84svo on Nov. 06 2009,11:11 pm
QUOTE
So you'll select people for persecution based on their religion instead?
Jihad is acceptable to you Mr Irish?
Posted by OEF_Soldier on Nov. 07 2009,12:26 am
(hot84svo @ Nov. 06 2009,11:11 pm)
QUOTE
Jihad is acceptable to you Mr Irish?
So you would condemn an entire religious belief and it's believers for the actions of a few? You would condemn millions of peaceful people worldwide, and yes even some right here in Albert Lea, just because of your ignorance?
What makes you think such idiotic and asinine thoughts? I'm sorry I am not trying to drop on you like a bunker buster bomb but what you are stating by your posts and those who would utter such moronic statements as
QUOTE
if you are not white you are not rite
makes me think that you and twingroves need to get your heads out of your a$$es.Comparing the radical Jihadists to the entire religion of Islam is like comparing Christianity to the Aryan Brotherhood and the actions of those who commit crimes in the name of "white power". Yes Islam tends to have more of a war like basis but that does not mean that EVERY person who practices the religion follows through on the text of the Qu'ran. You really need to stop and think about what you are stating when you would condemn a religion based on the actions of the minority. Jihad is not acceptable to many people and that includes many who practice the religion of Islam.
As for Antiliberal....
QUOTE
Nope, just a dangerous religon which we are battleing every day since 9/11
It is not the religion that we are battling but the extreme believers of that religion. We are not battling Islam. We battle the extremists who believe they are the righteous ones amongst their chosen religion.
Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 07 2009,6:46 am
(hot84svo @ Nov. 06 2009,11:11 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
So you'll select people for persecution based on their religion instead?
Jihad is acceptable to you Mr Irish?
First of all you couple of rum heads,
jihad is not a religion. It's a arabic word meaning holy war.Some muslim extremists use the term in their beliefs to go to extremes and war against nonmuslims. As you term the word, these people have gone to extremes. It is not the religion of muslims to do this. Those that do would be termed radicals.
OEF is right on. You guys are either just plain ignorant or nuts. Maybe OEF should consider that you are the Aryans.
Perhaps the US military should give you each a weapon and ship you off to Iran so you can rampage and KILL, KILL, KILL! You white boys can start a Jihad of your own.
Posted by hot84svo on Nov. 07 2009,10:42 am
Does the term "white boys" include Jews or just Bubba with the Jesus Saves T-Shirt?
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Nov. 07 2009,10:47 am
What I find disturbing is that POS obama and his lackadaisical response to the shooting, his demeanor, body language and tone seemed to have presented as it was really no big deal. He could have canceled his stupid meeting, but once again he shows his true colors of his disdain for the United States Military. It is no wonder why a majority of those in the military have 0 respect for this idiot.
Sic Semper Tyrannis mr obama
Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 07 2009,12:29 pm
Yes, the Texas Air National Guard slacker who had everything handed to him his whole life was so much less of an embarrassment to the military.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 07 2009,12:31 pm
QUOTE
What I find disturbing is that POS obama and his lackadaisical response to the shooting, his demeanor, body language and tone seemed to have presented as it was really no big deal.
If he did make a big deal of it, the kooks would accuse him of using it as a photo op.
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Nov. 07 2009,12:58 pm
I am not suggesting the moron go all out jerimiah wright on the situation, but damn atleast show some damn concern for the men and women of the military, and try to act like a Commander in Chief. I am sure your lil photo op with the indians could take a back seat for a while and they would understand.as for the bush crap, how much longer, really guys. It matters not to me I hated him just as much as I hate obama.
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 07 2009,5:17 pm
Discriminate against Muslims? I don't think so, BUT--Ann Coulter's famous piece about profiling came to mind. It's at airport crew rooms all over the U.S.QUOTE
MULTIPLE CHOICE...
Reflect back, and take the following multiple choice test. The events are actual cuts from past history. They actually happened!!!
Do you remember?
-1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by
a. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d . Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40
1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and 70 year old Leon Klinghoffer, an American passenger confined to a wheelchair, was murdered and thrown overboard by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and Robert Stidham, a US Navy diver was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
9. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill' s women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10.On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to
take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed
into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the
passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
Nope, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you..?
Reflect back, and take the following multiple choice test. The events are actual cuts from past history. They actually happened!!!
Do you remember?
-1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by
a. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d . Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40
1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and 70 year old Leon Klinghoffer, an American passenger confined to a wheelchair, was murdered and thrown overboard by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and Robert Stidham, a US Navy diver was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
9. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill' s women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10.On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to
take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed
into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the
passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
Nope, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you..?
Posted by Pretzel Logic on Nov. 07 2009,5:48 pm
(Grinning_Dragon @ Nov. 07 2009,12:58 pm)
QUOTE
I am not suggesting the moron go all out jerimiah wright on the situation, but damn atleast show some damn concern for the men and women of the military, and try to act like a Commander in Chief. I am sure your lil photo op with the indians could take a back seat for a while and they would understand.
as for the bush crap, how much longer, really guys. It matters not to me I hated him just as much as I hate obama.
as for the bush crap, how much longer, really guys. It matters not to me I hated him just as much as I hate obama.
I don't know, I am still pissed about Reagan and his trickle down economics.
Posted by Ned Kelly on Nov. 07 2009,5:58 pm
Good to see that there wasn't one radical Catholic or Lutheran on Coulter's list of bad boys.... There are things to be thankful for... ...ned
Posted by Two Bears on Nov. 07 2009,9:38 pm
(jimhanson @ Nov. 07 2009,5:17 pm)
QUOTE
Discriminate against Muslims? I don't think so, BUT--Ann Coulter's famous piece about profiling came to mind. It's at airport crew rooms all over the U.S.
QUOTE
MULTIPLE CHOICE...
Reflect back, and take the following multiple choice test. The events are actual cuts from past history. They actually happened!!!
Do you remember?
-1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by
a. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d . Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40
1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and 70 year old Leon Klinghoffer, an American passenger confined to a wheelchair, was murdered and thrown overboard by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and Robert Stidham, a US Navy diver was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
9. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill' s women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10.On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to
take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed
into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the
passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
Nope, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you..?
Reflect back, and take the following multiple choice test. The events are actual cuts from past history. They actually happened!!!
Do you remember?
-1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by
a. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d . Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40
1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and 70 year old Leon Klinghoffer, an American passenger confined to a wheelchair, was murdered and thrown overboard by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and Robert Stidham, a US Navy diver was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
9. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill' s women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10.On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to
take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed
into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the
passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
Nope, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you..?
Um, I choose "D" Bob...
Posted by Two Bears on Nov. 07 2009,9:39 pm
(Ned Kelly @ Nov. 07 2009,5:58 pm)
QUOTE
Good to see that there wasn't one radical Catholic or Lutheran on Coulter's list of bad boys... There are things to be thankful for... ...ned
...nedNow thats god damn funny, I don't care who you are...
Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 08 2009,9:11 am
(Wolfie @ Nov. 06 2009,5:00 pm)
QUOTE
Common Citizen, as a weapons instructor and armorer, I find a couple of things humorous about your statement about the beretta m9. First of all you shouldnt be letting the enemy EVER get that close thats what your primary weapon is for. Second if your beretta m9 has been properly brass checked (loaded), it will be as follows, round in the chamber with loaded mag installed, safety/decocker off, and hammer back. You should easily be able to pull the trigger and discharge your weapon. My use of force ladder was rather convoluted, but when it came to someone reaching out to grab my weapon it was very clear. Aim and pull the trigger. Seems like a lot of worry for a situation that should never present itself.
Have you ever had to walk through a night club on post with your weapon secured in the suicide holster that we were issued and ordered to patrol without a round in the chamber?? I did.
...and we had to abide by OUR use of force rules or be scrutinized and reprimanded by the chain of command.
Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 08 2009,9:14 am
(irisheyes @ Nov. 06 2009,10:22 pm)
QUOTE
So you'll select people for persecution based on their religion instead?
sounds a lot like what some do to Christians on this forum...
Posted by Wolfie on Nov. 08 2009,8:59 pm
Well whomever made the choice to have you patrol without a round chambered probably had their reasons. As far as my convoluted use of force ladder goes yes it was messed up but there was the skip to shoot section for very specific situations. You have to realize I was a weapons instructor on a firing line. We would start our duty day by picking up cases of ammo from the ammo dump and then proceed to the armory and pick up racks of weapons and transport them to the range. Our primary duty was the security of said weapons and ammo and then the teaching on the firing line. All of our weapons were in "condition one". Someone reaching and grabbing for your person or weapon skipped them to the top of the ladder and approaching bullet magnet status. Any other out of the ordinary action with a weapon other than directly shooting at another student and they would be ordered to stop repeatedly and upon the third issuance of the order and subsequent disobedience would result in them becoming a bullet magnet. There were many other instances where the number of times you had to order a subject to do or not do something would fluctuate, and that is why I would call in convoluted as it was not uniform. Yes I have pulled my weapon and taken up around 6 pounds of the 8 pound trigger pull on my issue Beretta due to a student not following orders. I have also left the muzzle impression on the back of the neck of a civilian that didnt listen when told to back away from the transport vehicle. BTW I wasnt finding fault with what you mentioned just said it was humorous. As I have students bring up some of those same things in class.
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 09 2009,5:18 pm
(Ned Kelly @ Nov. 07 2009,5:58 pm)
QUOTE
Good to see that there wasn't one radical Catholic or Lutheran on Coulter's list of bad boys... There are things to be thankful for... ...ned
...nedSee "B" on #11.
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Nov. 09 2009,7:01 pm
Well maybe the psycho terrorist should have followed this law. Only in the mind of liberal would this have been a good idea.
Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 10 2009,7:38 am
I found this to be an interesting observation.QUOTE
By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ
It can by now come as no surprise that the Fort Hood massacre yielded an instant flow of exculpatory media meditations on the stresses that must have weighed on the killer who mowed down 13 Americans and wounded 29 others. Still, the intense drive to wrap this clear case in a fog of mystery is eminently worthy of notice.
The tide of pronouncements and ruminations pointing to every cause for this event other than the one obvious to everyone in the rational world continues apace. Commentators, reporters, psychologists and, indeed, army spokesmen continue to warn portentously, "We don't yet know the motive for the shootings."
What a puzzle this piece of vacuity must be to audiences hearing it, some, no doubt, with outrage. To those not terrorized by fear of offending Muslim sensitivities, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's motive was instantly clear: It was an act of terrorism by a man with a record of expressing virulent, anti-American, pro-jihadist sentiments. All were conspicuous signs of danger his Army superiors chose to ignore.
What is hard to ignore, now, is the growing derangement on all matters involving terrorism and Muslim sensitivities. Its chief symptoms: a palpitating fear of discomfiting facts and a willingness to discard those facts and embrace the richest possible variety of ludicrous theories as to the motives behind an act of Islamic terrorism. All this we have seen before but never in such naked form. The days following the Fort Hood rampage have told us more than we want to know, perhaps, about the depth and reach of this epidemic.
One of the first outbreaks of these fevers, the night of the shootings, featured television's star psychologist, Dr. Phil, who was outraged when fellow panelist and former JAG officer Tom Kenniff observed that he had been listening to a lot of psychobabble and evasions about Maj. Hasan's motives.
A shocked Dr. Phil, appalled that the guest had publicly mentioned Maj. Hasan's Islamic identity, went on to present what was, in essence, the case for Maj. Hasan as victim. Victim of deployment, of the Army, of the stresses of a new kind of terrible war unlike any other we have known. Unlike, can he have meant, the kind endured by those lucky Americans who fought and died at Iwo Jima, say, or the Ardennes?
It was the same case to be presented, in varying forms, by guest psychologists, the media, and a representative or two from the military, for days on end.
The quality and thrust of this argument was best captured by the impassioned Dr. Phil, who asked us to consider, "how far out of touch with reality do you have to be to kill your fellow Americans . . . this is not a well act." And how far out of touch with reality is such a question, one asks in return—not only of Dr. Phil, but of the legions of commentators like him immersed in the labyrinths of motive hunting even as the details of Maj. Hasan's proclivities became ever clearer and more ominous.
To kill your fellow Americans—as many as possible, unarmed and in the most helpless of circumstances, while shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is great), requires, of course, only murderous hatred—the sort of mindset that regularly eludes the Dr. Phils of our world as the motive for mass murder of this kind.
As the meditations on Maj. Hasan's motives rolled on, "fear of deployment" has served as a major theme—one announced as fact in the headline for the New York Times's front-page story: "Told of War Horror, Gunman Feared Deployment." The authority for this intelligence? The perpetrator's cousin. No story could have better suited that newspaper's ongoing preoccupation with the theme of madness in our fighting men, and the deadly horrors of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, than this story of a victim of war pressures gone berserk. The one fly in the ointment—Maj. Hasan had of course seen no war, and no combat.
Still, with a bit of stretching, adherents of Maj. Hasan-as-war-victim theme found a substitute of sorts—namely the fears allegedly provoked in him by his exposure, as an army psychologist, to the stories of men who had been deployed. The thesis then: Maj. Hasan's mental stress, provoked by the suffering of Americans who had been in combat, caused him to go out and butcher as many of these soldiers as he could. Let's try putting that one before a jury.
By Sunday morning, Gen. George Casey Jr., Army chief of staff, confronted questions put to him by ABC's George Stephanopolous—among them the matter of the complaints about Maj. Hasan's anti-American tirades that were made by fellow students in military classes, as well as other danger signs ignored by officials when they were reported, apparently for fear of offense to a Muslim member of the military.
These were speculations, Gen. Casey repeatedly cautioned. We need to be very careful, he explained, "We are a very diverse army." Mr. Stephanopolous then helpfully summarized matters: This case then was either a case of premeditated terror—or the man just snapped.
The general was not about to address such questions. He was there to recite the required pieties, and describe the military priorities . . . which are, it appears, a concern above all for the sensitivities of a diverse army, a concern so great as to render even the mention of salient facts out of order, as "speculation.'" "This terrible event," Gen. Casey noted, "would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty."
To hear this, and numerous other such pronouncements of recent days, was to be reminded of all those witnesses to the suspicious behavior of the 9/11 hijackers who held their tongues for fear of being charged with discrimination. It has taken Maj. Hasan, and the fantastic efforts to explain away his act of bloody hatred, to bring home how much less capable we are of recognizing the dangers confronting us than we were even before September 11.
It can by now come as no surprise that the Fort Hood massacre yielded an instant flow of exculpatory media meditations on the stresses that must have weighed on the killer who mowed down 13 Americans and wounded 29 others. Still, the intense drive to wrap this clear case in a fog of mystery is eminently worthy of notice.
The tide of pronouncements and ruminations pointing to every cause for this event other than the one obvious to everyone in the rational world continues apace. Commentators, reporters, psychologists and, indeed, army spokesmen continue to warn portentously, "We don't yet know the motive for the shootings."
What a puzzle this piece of vacuity must be to audiences hearing it, some, no doubt, with outrage. To those not terrorized by fear of offending Muslim sensitivities, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's motive was instantly clear: It was an act of terrorism by a man with a record of expressing virulent, anti-American, pro-jihadist sentiments. All were conspicuous signs of danger his Army superiors chose to ignore.
What is hard to ignore, now, is the growing derangement on all matters involving terrorism and Muslim sensitivities. Its chief symptoms: a palpitating fear of discomfiting facts and a willingness to discard those facts and embrace the richest possible variety of ludicrous theories as to the motives behind an act of Islamic terrorism. All this we have seen before but never in such naked form. The days following the Fort Hood rampage have told us more than we want to know, perhaps, about the depth and reach of this epidemic.
One of the first outbreaks of these fevers, the night of the shootings, featured television's star psychologist, Dr. Phil, who was outraged when fellow panelist and former JAG officer Tom Kenniff observed that he had been listening to a lot of psychobabble and evasions about Maj. Hasan's motives.
A shocked Dr. Phil, appalled that the guest had publicly mentioned Maj. Hasan's Islamic identity, went on to present what was, in essence, the case for Maj. Hasan as victim. Victim of deployment, of the Army, of the stresses of a new kind of terrible war unlike any other we have known. Unlike, can he have meant, the kind endured by those lucky Americans who fought and died at Iwo Jima, say, or the Ardennes?
It was the same case to be presented, in varying forms, by guest psychologists, the media, and a representative or two from the military, for days on end.
The quality and thrust of this argument was best captured by the impassioned Dr. Phil, who asked us to consider, "how far out of touch with reality do you have to be to kill your fellow Americans . . . this is not a well act." And how far out of touch with reality is such a question, one asks in return—not only of Dr. Phil, but of the legions of commentators like him immersed in the labyrinths of motive hunting even as the details of Maj. Hasan's proclivities became ever clearer and more ominous.
To kill your fellow Americans—as many as possible, unarmed and in the most helpless of circumstances, while shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is great), requires, of course, only murderous hatred—the sort of mindset that regularly eludes the Dr. Phils of our world as the motive for mass murder of this kind.
As the meditations on Maj. Hasan's motives rolled on, "fear of deployment" has served as a major theme—one announced as fact in the headline for the New York Times's front-page story: "Told of War Horror, Gunman Feared Deployment." The authority for this intelligence? The perpetrator's cousin. No story could have better suited that newspaper's ongoing preoccupation with the theme of madness in our fighting men, and the deadly horrors of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, than this story of a victim of war pressures gone berserk. The one fly in the ointment—Maj. Hasan had of course seen no war, and no combat.
Still, with a bit of stretching, adherents of Maj. Hasan-as-war-victim theme found a substitute of sorts—namely the fears allegedly provoked in him by his exposure, as an army psychologist, to the stories of men who had been deployed. The thesis then: Maj. Hasan's mental stress, provoked by the suffering of Americans who had been in combat, caused him to go out and butcher as many of these soldiers as he could. Let's try putting that one before a jury.
By Sunday morning, Gen. George Casey Jr., Army chief of staff, confronted questions put to him by ABC's George Stephanopolous—among them the matter of the complaints about Maj. Hasan's anti-American tirades that were made by fellow students in military classes, as well as other danger signs ignored by officials when they were reported, apparently for fear of offense to a Muslim member of the military.
These were speculations, Gen. Casey repeatedly cautioned. We need to be very careful, he explained, "We are a very diverse army." Mr. Stephanopolous then helpfully summarized matters: This case then was either a case of premeditated terror—or the man just snapped.
The general was not about to address such questions. He was there to recite the required pieties, and describe the military priorities . . . which are, it appears, a concern above all for the sensitivities of a diverse army, a concern so great as to render even the mention of salient facts out of order, as "speculation.'" "This terrible event," Gen. Casey noted, "would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty."
To hear this, and numerous other such pronouncements of recent days, was to be reminded of all those witnesses to the suspicious behavior of the 9/11 hijackers who held their tongues for fear of being charged with discrimination. It has taken Maj. Hasan, and the fantastic efforts to explain away his act of bloody hatred, to bring home how much less capable we are of recognizing the dangers confronting us than we were even before September 11.
Posted by hairhertz on Nov. 10 2009,9:55 am
The cowardly psychologist should be used for live target training by those who survived his actions.
Posted by twingroves on Nov. 10 2009,12:06 pm
here are some numbers for that camel jockey 22 38 45 357 take your pick and use them
Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 10 2009,12:09 pm
I'd go with a Browning M2 .50 cal MG. I'll even give 'em a 500 yard head start.
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 10 2009,1:11 pm
Now it has been revealed that the Army KNEW he had contacted Al Quaeda--and they STILL promoted him to Major in May. Fear of offending Muslims--Political Correctness gone awry.
Posted by twingroves on Nov. 10 2009,2:23 pm
do like they did in ww2 with the japs put all the muslims in some kind of camp
Posted by OEF_Soldier on Nov. 10 2009,2:23 pm
(Botto 82 @ Nov. 10 2009,12:09 pm)
QUOTE
I'd go with a Browning M2 .50 cal MG. I'll even give 'em a 500 yard head start.
Barret 50 Cal sniper rifle. Unlike the Ma Deuce you won't waste as much ammo.
Some more numbers to add to twingroves list...
5.56mm, 7.62mm, .308, 40mm, 9mm ....
Posted by OEF_Soldier on Nov. 10 2009,2:25 pm
(twingroves @ Nov. 10 2009,2:23 pm)
QUOTE
do like they did in ww2 with the japs put all the muslims in some kind of camp
^
Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 10 2009,2:42 pm
(OEF_Soldier @ Nov. 10 2009,2:23 pm)
QUOTE
(Botto 82 @ Nov. 10 2009,12:09 pm)
QUOTE
I'd go with a Browning M2 .50 cal MG. I'll even give 'em a 500 yard head start.
Barret 50 Cal sniper rifle. Unlike the Ma Deuce you won't waste as much ammo.
Oh, I know. I just like the sound it makes.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Nov. 11 2009,10:51 am
(twingroves @ Nov. 10 2009,2:23 pm)
QUOTE
do like they did in ww2 with the japs put all the muslims in some kind of camp
Ok how about drive by shootings in our major cities should, we gather up all the saggy pants and put them in a camp too?
Posted by twingroves on Nov. 11 2009,11:41 am
what do you want to do to them tell them thats a no no
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Nov. 24 2009,4:57 pm
So is there really a reason on why the updates on that muslim POS, that he has no feeling below his waist and that he is probably paralyzed? Do they think it will tug at our heart strings? And feel sorry for this pole smoker? Hell, I'd fry a retard if found guilty of the same thing.
That POS, committed treason and should be hung by the neck till dead, then after they cut him down put two in his head, then douse his corpse with bacon grease and set is butt a blaze.
Man
that POS. hope he burns.
Posted by ControlledHyperness on Nov. 24 2009,6:41 pm
^Good to hear the South's voice on this topic CB Havent really heard it yet in all of this hoopla Seriously tho, keep in mind, they are trying to make him a victim of circumstances. He didn't want to go over seas, and the stress of knowing he was being deployed made him act irrationally...I mean, after all, he IS pleading the insanity defence. Doubt it will go anywhere...seemed perfectly sane when he was promoted. I mean, has anyone else caught the conflict of interest yet?? Civilian lawyer who was a military JUDGE for a few years of a Major being tried in MILITARY court with MILITARY law?! Sounds even MORE fishy to me then the Army knowing he had contacted the enemy and still promoting the guy.
I personally think he IS off his rocker...just not emotionally, psychologically, or mentally. Then again, who/how better to silently decimate our forces then by someone on the inside?
Obama takes office (of Muslim heritage...) and this type of thing starts happening
. It is sad to see...PC has come to a whole new level of dumb in my books....
Posted by irisheyes on Nov. 24 2009,9:14 pm
(ControlledHyperness @ Nov. 24 2009,6:41 pm)
QUOTE
Seriously tho, keep in mind, they are trying to make him a victim of circumstances. He didn't want to go over seas, and the stress of knowing he was being deployed made him act irrationally...
You view that as trying to make him the victim, personally I see that as just trying to figure out why he did it. They're not the same thing. People want to know why he did it, and I don't see any of what's been reported as trying to justify his actions.
QUOTE
I personally think he IS off his rocker...just not emotionally, psychologically, or mentally.
That's not exactly the smartest thing I've read today. What does "off his rocker" mean to you if you're ruling out emotionally, psychologically, and mentally?
QUOTE
Obama takes office (of Muslim heritage...) and this type of thing starts happening . It is sad to see...PC has come to a whole new level of dumb in my books...
. It is sad to see...PC has come to a whole new level of dumb in my books...He's a Christian, just like most of us. Would you conservatives prefer to have him blacklisted from politics because of his heritage?
Bush's first year the death toll was a little higher from terrorist attacks on our own soil. Of course nobody seemed to blame the President for the 3000 dead. Maybe heritage had something to do with that.
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Nov. 24 2009,9:39 pm
Christ, we all know why he did it, the damn fool, hated America and Americans, and wanted to fulfill his jihad BS. And probably meet his 72 virgins, but one thing that isn't mentioned, what kind of virgins, women or men. And what if the virgins didn't have any holes, oh snap. LOL What a stupid GodDamn religion. freakin goat thumpers.All of this "He was messed up about being deployed, blah, blah, blah", Yeah, umm ok, what-ever.
The freak is just that a freak, he should have never been in the military, and never should have been promoted, hell the man shouldn't have been born, another reason for the need of abortions.
Hook em up to some high DC voltage and let him stew in his own juices as he rides the lightning.
Posted by hairhertz on Nov. 24 2009,10:23 pm
fry him ASAP
Posted by irisheyes on Nov. 24 2009,10:24 pm
Totally random, but GD's posts really remind me of the Drill Sergeant on Full Metal Jacket.
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Nov. 24 2009,10:56 pm
Is this what you are thinking of?I love that movie, and R Lee Ermy rocks
Ask and ye shall receive.. LOL
Posted by Wareagle11B on Nov. 25 2009,6:05 pm
He was going to be deployed and he was upset about it...whoopdee freaking doo. Deployments happen as a consequence of wearing the uniform of the military services whether they are a peacetime deployment or a wartime deployment to a combat zone. The thing that seems to be going right past everybody where this azzmunch is concerned is that he was a freaking Psychiatrist!!!! He would have stayed at Bagram or Khandahar and most likely would never have gone outside the wire except when he chose to do so. He was not a combat arms officer nor enlisted soldier he was a Psychiatrist. (aka Desk Jockey)
Posted by twingroves on Nov. 25 2009,6:13 pm
what do you expect from a crazy muslim
Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 26 2009,9:14 am
Fundamentalist religious fervor is insane - in any form.
Posted by busybee on Nov. 27 2009,2:00 pm
C.H...QUOTE
Seriously tho, keep in mind, they are trying to make him a victim of circumstances. He didn't want to go over seas, and the stress of knowing he was being deployed made him act irrationally
"They" can't push him as a victim unless he is the one to prove to be the victim of circumstances.
Or can they?
Could this be where our "legal" system fails to hold those accountable for the choice to commit crimes against others?
C.H...
QUOTE
I mean, after all, he IS pleading the insanity defence.
Claiming insanity as a form of defense in an attempt to avoid full accountability for his choices, related to his inability to deal with his stress, can only be accomplished if he agrees.
Once again, I question, does our country's legal system "push" these types of defenses and can this be done without the accused agreeing to this?
QUOTE
Doubt it will go anywhere...seemed perfectly sane when he was promoted.
I'm not convinced the insanity plea won't get him anywhere in the U.S. Court System.
He was "caught" MURDERING PEOPLE, a violent CRIME defined by our country, yet, all U.S. citizens are supposed to see him as "Innocent until proven Guilty by trial in the appropriate Court of Law."
Therefore;
He deserves a trial.
He deserves the right to an attorney, a FREE attorney, if he can't afford one. This FREE attorney's job is to defend him even though he was "caught" murdering innocent people.
If he's found guilty for anything he has the right to blame the FREE attorney because he was too poor to afford a "better" attorney. If he can find "one" mistake made in his first defense, he then has the right to request an appeal and get another FREE attorney.
He has the right to a speedy trial.
He also has the right to waive his right to a speedy trial, pay for or request several different FREE attorney's.
He has the right to blame and use as a defense; the military expectations of him, addiction to drugs and/or alcohol, insanity to the point of not remembering what he's done, society oppression because of who he is, his psychiatrist, his military colleagues and/or those ranked above or below him, simple failures in the investigation of his crime, the legal process, ect...
All of the above and more can possibly get him an innocent verdict at trial, a plea bargain to lesser crimes without a trial, and/or a reduced sentence that forces him to participate in a professional mental health program to help him "learn" and "understand" why he choose to commit violent crimes against others.
What do the dead victims or their families get the RIGHT to?
Irish...
QUOTE
You view that as trying to make him the victim, personally I see that as just trying to figure out why he did it. They're not the same thing. People want to know why he did it, and I don't see any of what's been reported as trying to justify his actions.
Sadly, Irish, I see understanding or explaining why and the accused using that as a defense for a violent crime or any other crime that creates the victimization of another, as the "norm" in our U.S. legal system.
This has caused less accountability for violence, support for the true victims of crime and increased costs to every U.S. citizen.
Think about it.
How many people who choose to drive drunk and the result of this is a vehicle accident that kills innocent people attempt to BLAME a bar establishment for serving them because the employee should have known better?
How many parents aren't held accountable for not paying child support because they don't get to see their children?
How many accused get out of being accountable for robbery because they claim to be high on some type of drug and don't remember or claim to be "insane" at the time they committed crime?
How many accused get out of the crimes they commit because of one mistake made in a police report, the investigation or the legal process?
How many sex abusers get out of their sex crimes because they know the person they assaulted?
How many parents get a second or more chances than that to prove they won't put their child in a closet for a week again because they were just "stressed" out from being a parent?
How many significant others are not held accountable for beating the crap out of the one they say they love because they went "crazy?"
From the Grin...
QUOTE
Hell, I'd fry a retard if found guilty of the same thing.
Exactly...
I think as a society we need to STOP trying to understand or allow the defense of violent crimes and crimes where someone is surviving victimization, for any other reason than the perpetrator's choice to commit the crime at the time because they believed they had the RIGHT to do it.
Posted by irisheyes on Nov. 28 2009,9:13 pm
(busybee @ Nov. 27 2009,2:00 pm)
QUOTE
Could this be where our "legal" system fails to hold those accountable for the choice to commit crimes against others?
I think as a society we need to STOP trying to understand or allow the defense of violent crimes and crimes where someone is surviving victimization, for any other reason than the perpetrator's choice to commit the crime at the time because they believed they had the RIGHT to do it.
I think as a society we need to STOP trying to understand or allow the defense of violent crimes and crimes where someone is surviving victimization, for any other reason than the perpetrator's choice to commit the crime at the time because they believed they had the RIGHT to do it.
This is the military justice system, not civilian. I don't care whether he has a civilian lawyer or not, it will be in military court, which from what little I've heard is a lot harder. Even if this was civilian court and he had the dream team, he doesn't have a prayer. But I think it's funny that so many of you think he's going to get away with it.
QUOTE
C.H...
Claiming insanity as a form of defense in an attempt to avoid full accountability for his choices, related to his inability to deal with his stress, can only be accomplished if he agrees.
QUOTE
I mean, after all, he IS pleading the insanity defence.
Claiming insanity as a form of defense in an attempt to avoid full accountability for his choices, related to his inability to deal with his stress, can only be accomplished if he agrees.
Busybee, sometimes people are actually insane. Either way, proving insanity isn't an easy thing, especially when everyone is looking for blood, like in a case like this.
QUOTE
Once again, I question, does our country's legal system "push" these types of defenses and can this be done without the accused agreeing to this?
Sure, the judge and prosecutor want you to plead insanity.
The defense is supposed to zealously defend their client. If you or a relative is facing a death sentence or life in prison, I think you're going to do the best for them that you can.
QUOTE
He has the right to a speedy trial.
He also has the right to waive his right to a speedy trial, pay for or request several different FREE attorney's.
He has the right to blame and use as a defense; the military expectations of him, addiction to drugs and/or alcohol, insanity to the point of not remembering what he's done, society oppression because of who he is, his psychiatrist, his military colleagues and/or those ranked above or below him, simple failures in the investigation of his crime, the legal process, ect...
All of the above and more can possibly get him an innocent verdict at trial, a plea bargain to lesser crimes without a trial, and/or a reduced sentence that forces him to participate in a professional mental health program to help him "learn" and "understand" why he choose to commit violent crimes against others.
He also has the right to waive his right to a speedy trial, pay for or request several different FREE attorney's.
He has the right to blame and use as a defense; the military expectations of him, addiction to drugs and/or alcohol, insanity to the point of not remembering what he's done, society oppression because of who he is, his psychiatrist, his military colleagues and/or those ranked above or below him, simple failures in the investigation of his crime, the legal process, ect...
All of the above and more can possibly get him an innocent verdict at trial, a plea bargain to lesser crimes without a trial, and/or a reduced sentence that forces him to participate in a professional mental health program to help him "learn" and "understand" why he choose to commit violent crimes against others.
Your hatred for the Constitution is showing again. Although I'd love for you to go rob a liquor store, turn yourself in, and see how easy it is to beat the system. Tell the judge you were high on crack, or that daddy didn't hug you enough and let us know how sympathetic he is.
QUOTE
If he's found guilty for anything he has the right to blame the FREE attorney because he was too poor to afford a "better" attorney.
Yep, they can blame all they want from Prison or death row. I see everyone from people filing for bankruptcy to people in divorce blaming everyone but themselves, so I fail to see how you expect people in prison to be better than everyone else.
QUOTE
How many people who choose to drive drunk and the result of this is a vehicle accident that kills innocent people attempt to BLAME a bar establishment for serving them because the employee should have known better?
Well Busy, to answer your question I've known lots of people who have a DWI, and I've never heard that as a defense or excuse. Tell me, how many real examples of that defense can you cite?
One or two headlines about a drunk driver blaming the bar or a murderer blaming rap music isn't enough to make me think that it's a common occurrence. I've said before, the media writes what will sell more advertising, not necessarily what's statistically relevant.
QUOTE
How many accused get out of being accountable for robbery because they claim to be high on some type of drug and don't remember
MN statutes regarding that would disagree with you.
Statute 609.075: Intoxication as Defense
QUOTE
An act committed while in a state of voluntary intoxication is not less criminal by reason thereof, but when a particular intent or other state of mind is a necessary element to constitute a particular crime, the fact of intoxication may be taken into consideration in determining such intent or state of mind.
I looked up that statute years ago because I was sick of people claiming that being drunk or high would get you off the hook. Even in a notoriously liberal state like ours, it doesn't work that way.
QUOTE
How many accused get out of the crimes they commit because of one mistake made in a police report, the investigation or the legal process?
You mean like the cops lying about something in a report, or not having probable cause for a search? I guess maybe you consider those things to be trivial, but they're not to me. Fruit of the poisonous tree... You can't use information gained illegally, and I don't understand why you think they should be able to.
Posted by busybee on Dec. 09 2009,4:37 am
I know this thread is old and all I wanted to let Irish know is that I don't hate the constitution! I dislike that it appears more often than not every person who commits a crime that diminishes another person's/peoples rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is granted the opportunity to pursue the outcome of their future life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than the ones they harmed, could harm again or to harm someone else.
Do you know people who have been the chosen prey of criminal offenders? If so, do you know how well the crime against them was handled in each step of the legal process so that their right to future life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is defended and protected along with any other person the criminal offender could harm in the future?
Honestly, do you know how many real victims of a crime are satisfied with the justice system processes and decisions and walk away with more faith in the system than before an offender committed a crime against their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Posted by ControlledHyperness on Dec. 10 2009,10:16 pm
I would like to add for the record, that I was NOT hopping on the bandwagon saying he was distressed and that caused him to shoot. Nothing caused him to shoot those guys other then his own choice. Personally, anyone who could shoot like that, and as calmly as he reportedly was, was NOT distressed or insane. Irish or busy, not sure which of you questioned my term of "off his rocker"...what I meant was that he wasn't all there. Using a southern cliche' of he was one oar short of a canoe...or a sterotypical blond. The blond analogy would be most apropriate, as their sterotypical behavior is not caused by mental, emotional, or psychotic influences. Of course, think of the laughs he would receive if we were to call him a "blond Muslim"
As it has been mentioned, he is going to be tried via Military. They are a hard bunch to fool. They have the tools and resources to dig up any and all information about you, and if THEY can't find it, they can access what FBI, CIA, and who all else DID. Added into the mix that this is in Texas, I can assure you that once found guilty, he will be first in line to fry...IF he makes it that far. Then again, as this is the Military, and as they are wont to do, he will most likely be kept in confinement for not only HIS protection, but others as well. Also, look for this to be somewhat a quick thing. Growing up in Texas, something blatant as this, with as much proof as is evident, I do know that it won't take long.
I apologize if my thoughts are a bit scrambled...its been a rough day, and my brain is through with thinking for the night. If you have any questions, feel free to ask...either oin here, or PM me.
Posted by busybee on Dec. 11 2009,9:59 pm
CH...no worries. I just like to battle with Irish on occasion about the judicial/legal system.
Irish offers me a different perspective and I believe I do the same in return.
Posted by irisheyes on Dec. 12 2009,3:07 am
(busybee @ Dec. 09 2009,4:37 am)
QUOTE
I dislike that it appears more often than not every person who commits a crime that diminishes another person's/peoples rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is granted the opportunity to pursue the outcome of their future life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than the ones they harmed, could harm again or to harm someone else.
Sure, there are some that get second, third, and fourth chances and still don't get it. They continue to hurt people, rob, steal, etc. Some that I can think of I wouldn't mind seeing in prison forever, or at least MANY years until they grow out of it.
On the other hand, for many that second, third, and fourth chance does the trick. California's 3 strikes law wasn't a bad idea in theory. Trouble is, for many their first two strikes were for the same offense. And a 3rd strike could be for something as simple as a pot plant or stealing some golf clubs. Not exactly a good way to use an already overcrowded prison system.
QUOTE
Do you know people who have been the chosen prey of criminal offenders? If so, do you know how well the crime against them was handled in each step of the legal process so that their right to future life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is defended and protected along with any other person the criminal offender could harm in the future?
I know of a few acquaintances who supposedly were the victim of someone else through violence, but the version the police and prosecutor believed wasn't exactly true. A couple times in particular I can tell you that, because I was there (and no, I wasn't the suspect/accused). If you ask me, many times the wrong person ends up in jail because of another making a false police report. This is a big part of why I'm such an advocate for Rights of the accused.
I think you need to be careful in judging the legal system by if the victim was happy with the result or not. How many times have you seen people on this forum sound as if the only way they'd be satisfied is if the perpetrator was castrated with a rusty spoon and hung in the public square. And they don't even ask about what evidence is available, the police "thinking" they know what happened is good enough.
Sorry for the rant, but hope that answers your question somewhat. If I had been in your situation, I'm sure my view would be much different. I'll always be a big advocate for Rights of the accused though.
Posted by irisheyes on Dec. 12 2009,3:46 am
(ControlledHyperness @ Dec. 10 2009,10:16 pm)
QUOTE
I would like to add for the record, that I was NOT hopping on the bandwagon saying he was distressed and that caused him to shoot. Nothing caused him to shoot those guys other then his own choice. Personally, anyone who could shoot like that, and as calmly as he reportedly was, was NOT distressed or insane.
I don't see what being calm has to do with it. And I wouldn't base someone's psychiatric state on media reports of how people saw another person act during a few seconds of madness.
He'll probably be evaluated at some point, at which time they'll say he's fine or not fine, and they'll put him in prison forever either way.
QUOTE
Irish or busy, not sure which of you questioned my term of "off his rocker"...what I meant was that he wasn't all there. Using a southern cliche' of he was one oar short of a canoe...
I know what "off his rocker" means. Here's the post.
QUOTE
QUOTE
I personally think he IS off his rocker...just not emotionally, psychologically, or mentally.
That's not exactly the smartest thing I've read today. What does "off his rocker" mean to you if you're ruling out emotionally, psychologically, and mentally?
My point was that that post doesn't make any sense. That isn't even to the level of dimestore psychology.
QUOTE
Growing up in Texas, something blatant as this, with as much proof as is evident, I do know that it won't take long.
I don't doubt the guy is guilty as sin. But then again, people in Texas don't care if someone is guilty or innocent. They just love to flip that switch.
Posted by busybee on Dec. 13 2009,1:42 pm
QUOTE
Sure, there are some that get second, third, and fourth chances and still don't get it. They continue to hurt people, rob, steal, etc. Some that I can think of I wouldn't mind seeing in prison forever, or at least MANY years until they grow out of it.
Criminal offenders who commit crimes against victims don't ever "get it" or "grow out of it." In order for that to even remotely come close to being possible the offender must have the ability to recognize their own irrational thinking patterns.
I do understand what you are stating in a sense though because with increased age it does appear criminals who victimize others don't commit as many crimes. We might believe they've changed, when in actuality they've just gotten better at mastering their manipulations and power plays upon others to stay out of trouble legally.
QUOTE
If you ask me, many times the wrong person ends up in jail because of another making a false police report. This is a big part of why I'm such an advocate for Rights of the accused.
I can't wrap my mind around someone wanting to accuse another of a crime against them. There is no excuse, justification or reason for cruelty like that!
I will never dispute that this happens, because I have known a couple of people who have accused wrongfully in a quest for revenge. I have not known of anyone who has been put in jail because of someone wrongfully accusing them of a crime though.
QUOTE
I think you need to be careful in judging the legal system by if the victim was happy with the result or not. How many times have you seen people on this forum sound as if the only way they'd be satisfied is if the perpetrator was castrated with a rusty spoon and hung in the public square.
I didn't mean it like that at all so if it came across that way, I'll try to explain it better.
Of course it's important to have checks and balances in place to assure an accused offender isn't being wronged by their accuser or the legal system process. I don't dispute this.
What I mean by if a victim is satisfied with the results, I am referring to the legal process as it applies to them, the whole process from start to finish.
When we speak of the right to due process, a vigorous defense, the right to a trial (speedy or not), one thing I don't think many recognize is how the system is equally obligated to do the same for crime victims.
The fact is, as soon as someone is accused and probable cause is determined that a crime has occurred against another, the victims are placed in the same position as the accused.
This happens because it's rare for an accused to admit guilt when guilty and thus begins their minimizations, blaming and accusations against their victims, others or a situation that they believe made them commit the crime, and also their power plays within the system.
It is of equal importance that accurate police reporting, thorough investigations and the handling of evidence be "perfect" for crime victims, not just for the accused offender.
It is also of equal importance that crime victims are given the right to knowledge about every step and decision made by the prosecution about the crime committed against them, just as the accused offender has.
Sadly, inaccuracies, mistakes, lack of being informed of decisions made by prosecution, etc... is not something crime victims get to present to the Courts, even though this affects them negatively, just as these same problems can negatively affect the accused and their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
This is how re-victimization occurs for victims of crime. It's real, not imagined or personal failures of crime victims to get on with their life, although this is often what society chooses to opinion about it if a victim speaks out.
As for others wanting to throw the book at an accused without full knowledge of the evidence and facts, I don't agree with that anymore than you do.