..During the Colorado cinema shootings.

http://www.digitaljournal...cle/329099

g

Heroes! real men.

Then you have utter cowards who leave their woman and children and escape, then drive away. Like this guy here:

smh

For those brave men. So sad. RIP

It's tempting to sit in judgment from our own safely-removed vantage point, but (mercifully) most of us don't really know how we'd react in that sort of terrifying situation. Maybe our contempt for the 'coward' is because there's a niggling, unsettling thought in the back of our minds that, faced with a situation where 'heroism' likely equalled death, we'd obey our innermost animal instinct and choose the route of survival. Who really knows?

Plus, I often feel like this search for heroes is part of our attempt to try and impose some sense on a senseless act, or some moral order on something so morally destitute. We want to be able to imagine that people in that panicked situation, with the adrenalin coursing through their veins, still had available to them the free choice to pick a more or less moral course of action, when, in reality, they had more likely been reduced to a state of base animality, acting out of instinct as much as the more noble and reflective human capacities those out of the line of fire get to enjoy.

It's the individual who put them in that belittling, abased situation, and then callously and nihilistically played God with their lives, who should be the primary focus of our contempt, not his hapless victims, whatever their shortcomings, IMO. (I say primary focus because some may also want to attribute a degree of responsibility to all of those who helped create the situation where this deranged young man was free and able to arm himself to the teeth with weapons that have no other purpose than to kill and maim human beings; but that's for another thread.)

SometimesIwonder said:

Such a horrible thing that happened, so sad How could he have left his family like that? But what I'm also wondering is who in their right mind would think it is perfectly acceptable to take babies & young children to a blaringly loud cinema at midnight when they should be safely tucked up in their bed?! Or is it just me?

It's not just you. These people had no business being there with small children. None, whatsoever.

But it's that stupid mentality that we have now, "I get to do whatever I want. The fact that I have kids shouldn't change anything." Bullshit. Having kids changes (or should change) everything. Can't go to a midnight movie because you have kids? Boo fuckin' hoo. Hire a sitter at a more normal time - or decide which parent wants to see the film more, and the other parent stays home or goes at another time.

But then, look how this idiot looks on TV. Look at how he's dressed - like a big kid, himself. Take off that stupid cap when you're on television, dumbshit. And put on a grown man's shirt, while you're at it.

Grow the fuck up, for the sake of your kids.

[Edited 7/23/12 9:05am]

Did any women die saving their boyfriends?

Or any men die saving their boyfriends?

Or any women die saving their girlfriends?

I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I am really wondering.

Genesia said:

SometimesIwonder said:

Such a horrible thing that happened, so sad How could he have left his family like that? But what I'm also wondering is who in their right mind would think it is perfectly acceptable to take babies & young children to a blaringly loud cinema at midnight when they should be safely tucked up in their bed?! Or is it just me?

It's not just you. These people had no business being there with small children. None, whatsoever.

But it's that stupid mentality that we have now, "I get to do whatever I want. The fact that I have kids shouldn't change anything." Bullshit. Having kids changes (or should change) everything. Can't go to a midnight movie because you have kids? Boo fuckin' hoo. Hire a sitter at a more normal time - or decide which parent wants to see the film more, and the other parent stays home or goes at another time.

But then, look how this idiot looks on TV. Look at how he's dressed - like a big kid, himself. Take off that stupid cap when you're on television, dumbshit. And put on a grown man's shirt, while you're at it.

Grow the fuck up, for the sake of your kids.

[Edited 7/23/12 9:05am]

deebee said:

It's tempting to sit in judgment from our own safely-removed vantage point, but (mercifully) most of us don't really know how we'd react in that sort of terrifying situation. Maybe our contempt for the 'coward' is because there's a niggling, unsettling thought in the back of our minds that, faced with a situation where 'heroism' likely equalled death, we'd obey our innermost animal instinct and choose the route of survival. Who really knows?

Plus, I often feel like this search for heroes is part of our attempt to try and impose some sense on a senseless act, or some moral order on something so morally destitute. We want to be able to imagine that people in that panicked situation, with the adrenalin coursing through their veins, still had available to them the free choice to pick a more or less moral course of action, when, in reality, they had more likely been reduced to a state of base animality, acting out of instinct as much as the more noble and reflective human capacities those out of the line of fire get to enjoy.

It's the individual who put them in that belittling, abased situation, and then callously and nihilistically played God with their lives, who should be the primary focus of our contempt, not his hapless victims, whatever their shortcomings, IMO. (I say primary focus because some may also want to attribute a degree of responsibility to all of those who helped create the situation where this deranged young man was free and able to arm himself to the teeth with weapons that have no other purpose than to kill and maim human beings; but that's for another thread.)

True @ the bolded part. To add, it is an damned if you do or damned if you don't situation. What is the price for laying your life on the life for someone, especially an loved one? Death. What is the price for not doing so? Your reputation as a selfish wimp, and if it's your girlfriend, she would probably never look at you the same, and call it quits

[Edited 7/23/12 14:24pm]

deebee said:

It's tempting to sit in judgment from our own safely-removed vantage point, but (mercifully) most of us don't really know how we'd react in that sort of terrifying situation. Maybe our contempt for the 'coward' is because there's a niggling, unsettling thought in the back of our minds that, faced with a situation where 'heroism' likely equalled death, we'd obey our innermost animal instinct and choose the route of survival. Who really knows?

Plus, I often feel like this search for heroes is part of our attempt to try and impose some sense on a senseless act, or some moral order on something so morally destitute. We want to be able to imagine that people in that panicked situation, with the adrenalin coursing through their veins, still had available to them the free choice to pick a more or less moral course of action, when, in reality, they had more likely been reduced to a state of base animality, acting out of instinct as much as the more noble and reflective human capacities those out of the line of fire get to enjoy.

It's the individual who put them in that belittling, abased situation, and then callously and nihilistically played God with their lives, who should be the primary focus of our contempt, not his hapless victims, whatever their shortcomings, IMO. (I say primary focus because some may also want to attribute a degree of responsibility to all of those who helped create the situation where this deranged young man was free and able to arm himself to the teeth with weapons that have no other purpose than to kill and maim human beings; but that's for another thread.)

good post

LadyCasanova said:

Did any women die saving their boyfriends?

Or any men die saving their boyfriends?

Or any women die saving their girlfriends?

I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I am really wondering.

Honestly, I would not criticize the guy who jumped from the balcony as if he clearly deliberated about it and abandoned his family in cowardice. It's not like in that situation you would be in your right mind with the amount of fear and adrenaline flowing throw your brain.

I think he is emotional and cares for his family.

So he left his family to die. (Thank goodness his family didn't btw) and I'm supposed to sympathise with dude? Nah man, that's chickenshit.

AsherFierce said:

So he left his family to die. (Thank goodness his family didn't btw) and I'm supposed to sympathise with dude? Nah man, that's chickenshit.

the only chicken shit is that twat who shot everyone...

and every single american for not sorting out gun control,

not some poor fucker who is going to be wracked for the rest of his life because his adrenaline made him do something utterly natural

RicoN said:

Genesia said:

SometimesIwonder said:

Such a horrible thing that happened, so sad How could he have left his family like that? But what I'm also wondering is who in their right mind would think it is perfectly acceptable to take babies & young children to a blaringly loud cinema at midnight when they should be safely tucked up in their bed?! Or is it just me?

It's not just you. These people had no business being there with small children. None, whatsoever.

But it's that stupid mentality that we have now, "I get to do whatever I want. The fact that I have kids shouldn't change anything." Bullshit. Having kids changes (or should change) everything. Can't go to a midnight movie because you have kids? Boo fuckin' hoo. Hire a sitter at a more normal time - or decide which parent wants to see the film more, and the other parent stays home or goes at another time.

But then, look how this idiot looks on TV. Look at how he's dressed - like a big kid, himself. Take off that stupid cap when you're on television, dumbshit. And put on a grown man's shirt, while you're at it.

Grow the fuck up, for the sake of your kids.

[Edited 7/23/12 9:05am]

I thought the same thing... WhoTF would bring a child to a midnight screening of any movie?

Babies too? Who the hell wants to hear babies crying in some damn theater? Really? I got three kids and we see Disney/Pixar made for little kids movie matinees only! But then you can't tell the jungle mommas and poppas how to raise their bebe kids.

This is still sad though and those poor kids.

Genesia said:

SometimesIwonder said:

Such a horrible thing that happened, so sad How could he have left his family like that? But what I'm also wondering is who in their right mind would think it is perfectly acceptable to take babies & young children to a blaringly loud cinema at midnight when they should be safely tucked up in their bed?! Or is it just me?

It's not just you. These people had no business being there with small children. None, whatsoever.

But it's that stupid mentality that we have now, "I get to do whatever I want. The fact that I have kids shouldn't change anything." Bullshit. Having kids changes (or should change) everything. Can't go to a midnight movie because you have kids? Boo fuckin' hoo. Hire a sitter at a more normal time - or decide which parent wants to see the film more, and the other parent stays home or goes at another time.

But then, look how this idiot looks on TV. Look at how he's dressed - like a big kid, himself. Take off that stupid cap when you're on television, dumbshit. And put on a grown man's shirt, while you're at it.

Grow the fuck up, for the sake of your kids.

[Edited 7/23/12 9:05am]

I was questioning these ppl taking their young kids to a midnight movie but was told by other parent friends of mine that it is normal.

Not to me it isn't. I don't have a regular sitter or someone that can watch our son for us that often. Guess what, I go to the movies about once or twice a year.

If there was a movie I really wanted to see, I would do like you said, one parent stay home watching the kids.

When you are a parent, you think of your children first.

A four year old should not be up at midnight watching an adult movie in a movie theater.

Now they have witnessed this horrible event as well and have parents that need to grow up.

I feel so sad for all of the ppl that lost loved ones that night.

RicoN said:

AsherFierce said:

So he left his family to die. (Thank goodness his family didn't btw) and I'm supposed to sympathise with dude? Nah man, that's chickenshit.

the only chicken shit is that twat who shot everyone...

and every single american for not sorting out gun control,

not some poor fucker who is going to be wracked for the rest of his life because his adrenaline made him do something utterly natural

LOL at you tryna defend that coward and sorry excuse of a man. He not only bailed on his gf and 2 kids, but he drove away too.

RicoN said:

AsherFierce said:

So he left his family to die. (Thank goodness his family didn't btw) and I'm supposed to sympathise with dude? Nah man, that's chickenshit.

the only chicken shit is that twat who shot everyone...

and every single american for not sorting out gun control,

not some poor fucker who is going to be wracked for the rest of his life because his adrenaline made him do something utterly natural

Agreed.

Totally misguided criticism IMO.

So the particular dude in question is immature in dealing with his kids. Fine. He will be getting a bunch of shit about it from everyone he knows for a while. That's pretty much all there is to that though.

NO-ONE should get blamed for ANY kind of reaction to the utterly ridiculous, barbaric and completely unpredictable situation that is a gunman firing automatic weapons into a crowd of innocent people.

nd33 said:

RicoN said:

the only chicken shit is that twat who shot everyone...

and every single american for not sorting out gun control,

not some poor fucker who is going to be wracked for the rest of his life because his adrenaline made him do something utterly natural

Agreed.

Totally misguided criticism IMO.

So the particular dude in question is immature in dealing with his kids. Fine. He will be getting a bunch of shit about it from everyone he knows for a while. That's pretty much all there is to that though.

NO-ONE should get blamed for ANY kind of reaction to the utterly ridiculous, barbaric and completely unpredictable situation that is a gunman firing automatic weapons into a crowd of innocent people.

I agree.

LadyCasanova said:

Did any women die saving their boyfriends?

Or any men die saving their boyfriends?

Or any women die saving their girlfriends?

I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I am really wondering.

Friend Uses Fingers To Stop Shooting Victim's Bleeding

Stephanie Davies Refused To Leave Her Friend During Theater Shooting

AURORA, Colo. -- Two young women who survived the shooting met with President Obama on Sunday.They have a remarkable story of survival as a young woman credits her best friend with saving her life."It's every child's worst nightmare. Of being in the dark and you have the bad guy come out to get you," Stephanie Davies told 7NEWS Monday.

She was with her friend Allie Young when the gunman entered the Aurora movie theater and opened fire."There's smoke. There's explosions. There's blood. There's death. There's guns being fired. And there's bats flying on the screen because the movie was still on," Davies said.And amid the chaos, Allie Young realized she been shot -- hit by two bullets in the neck."There's an explosion," Young said from her hospital bed with Stephanie at her side. "I remember opening my eyes. I'm on the ground, blood everywhere."Allie urged Stephanie to flee. But Young's friend stuck by her side."She puts her fingers over my artery, when my carotid artery exploded. She puts her fingers over there," Young said, placing her own fingers on her neck. After what seemed like a lifetime in the dark, Stephanie carried her friend across two parking lots to an ambulance."She saved my life, which is always going to be emotional for me," said Young. "We both survived, which is more than I could have asked."Stephanie added: "And it's something we'll grow through together."

I also heard another story over the weekend of a guy that is still in the hopital recovering. He came out of the theatre, had been shot in the thigh. 4 strangers took a belt and tried to stop the bleeding, then carried him out to a police car. Which was loaded with other victiims, and took him away.

deebee said:

It's tempting to sit in judgment from our own safely-removed vantage point, but (mercifully) most of us don't really know how we'd react in that sort of terrifying situation. Maybe our contempt for the 'coward' is because there's a niggling, unsettling thought in the back of our minds that, faced with a situation where 'heroism' likely equalled death, we'd obey our innermost animal instinct and choose the route of survival. Who really knows?

Plus, I often feel like this search for heroes is part of our attempt to try and impose some sense on a senseless act, or some moral order on something so morally destitute. We want to be able to imagine that people in that panicked situation, with the adrenalin coursing through their veins, still had available to them the free choice to pick a more or less moral course of action, when, in reality, they had more likely been reduced to a state of base animality, acting out of instinct as much as the more noble and reflective human capacities those out of the line of fire get to enjoy.

It's the individual who put them in that belittling, abased situation, and then callously and nihilistically played God with their lives, who should be the primary focus of our contempt, not his hapless victims, whatever their shortcomings, IMO. (I say primary focus because some may also want to attribute a degree of responsibility to all of those who helped create the situation where this deranged young man was free and able to arm himself to the teeth with weapons that have no other purpose than to kill and maim human beings; but that's for another thread.)

IMO (and I am in no way educated in psychology or anything)...there are two basic types of people. The "hero" and the "bystander".

If you've ever seen a bad car accident, you'll know what I mean. Most of us will be startled by the loud crash, then either flee or lurk at a safe distance. THEN there are the other types...the "hero" type...who will rush to the scene of the accident and try to pull people out or help in any way.

I'm not passing judgement, but I'm also not making excuses. You either have it in you or you don't.

I'm not the "hero" type when it comes to stuff like that. My old boss was. Our old office was in a busy intersection prone to car accidents. We'd be sitting there working...then you'd hear tires screeching and a loud bang. While most of us would sit there wondering whether to get up and look, he was leaping over chairs rushing out to see if anyone needed help. He was a volunteer firefighter of course. It was in his blood.

HOWEVER, I can most definitely assure you, that adrenaline or no adrenaline, if I was in any sort of dangerous situation with my kids...I WOULD SURE AS FUCK NOT GET IN MY CAR AND FLEE THE SCENE LEAVING MY CHILDREN BEHIND.

The most basic human instinct - or for MOST of the animal kingdom in fact - is to safeguard our offspring. I can't imagine how fucked up my mind would have to be in order to do that shit. Just like I can't imagine stabbing someone or beating on an old lady, I can't imagine being so deranged to abandon my family in time of crisis.

So, (sorry for the long post), but while there are "hero" types and there are "bystander" types....but damn it if you leave your family behind when they need you the most, you are a COWARD.

Shanti0608 said:

Genesia said:

It's not just you. These people had no business being there with small children. None, whatsoever.

But it's that stupid mentality that we have now, "I get to do whatever I want. The fact that I have kids shouldn't change anything." Bullshit. Having kids changes (or should change) everything. Can't go to a midnight movie because you have kids? Boo fuckin' hoo. Hire a sitter at a more normal time - or decide which parent wants to see the film more, and the other parent stays home or goes at another time.

But then, look how this idiot looks on TV. Look at how he's dressed - like a big kid, himself. Take off that stupid cap when you're on television, dumbshit. And put on a grown man's shirt, while you're at it.

Grow the fuck up, for the sake of your kids.

[Edited 7/23/12 9:05am]

I was questioning these ppl taking their young kids to a midnight movie but was told by other parent friends of mine that it is normal.

Not to me it isn't. I don't have a regular sitter or someone that can watch our son for us that often. Guess what, I go to the movies about once or twice a year.

If there was a movie I really wanted to see, I would do like you said, one parent stay home watching the kids.

When you are a parent, you think of your children first.

A four year old should not be up at midnight watching an adult movie in a movie theater.

Now they have witnessed this horrible event as well and have parents that need to grow up.

I feel so sad for all of the ppl that lost loved ones that night.

Well, it might be "normal," but it isn't right.

I remember only one time when I was a kid that my parents did that time's equivalent of a midnight movie. It was when we went to a drive-in theater to see a double feature. What they'd do was show a family movie first, followed by a more adult movie. You watched the movies from your car, so parents would bring their kids dressed in their pajamas. The kids would watch the first movie, then climb into the back of the station wagon (which had been outfitted with pillows and sleeping bags) and go to sleep while the grown-ups watched their movie. Since even the "family" movie didn't start until at least twilight, by the time it was over, we kids were ready to go to sleep. My parents watched the other movie in peace - and didn't have to pay a sitter.

As I recall, the movies playing that night were "The Love Bug" and "M*A*S*H."

Was that the way my parents would have preferred to spend their evening? Probably not. But they had children - and kids need to be cared for. They did a lot of "divide and conquer," too. Like the time my dad wanted to go to the Milwaukee 200 auto race. My mom knew my youngest sister (3 at the time) was too little to sit in the hot sun while the race was going on. So she took Teresa (who was 3) with her to visit a friend, while my dad took my other two sisters and me with him to the race. He bought us sun hats and treats - and even let us bet on the races. Meanwhile, my mom had a nice visit with her friend (who was a nun at a convent in the area).

If they resented having to do this sort of thing, we never knew it. It was just part and parcel of being a parent.

I remember when I was maybe 3 or 4 years old, my mom took me into a movie theater that was showing an older movie, Ben Hurr(spelling?). Remember, this is Thailand, and back then it was a third world country, so old movies were normal then.

Anyways, I remember being horrified at many of the scenes in the movie.

I can NOT imagine why ANYONE would want to drag a small child into a movie like Batman or ANY movie for that matter. It's far far too loud and horrific for a child who can't possibly comprehend what is going on.

And besides, it annoys the shit out of the rest of us.

Pr1nceQuik said:

RicoN said:

the only chicken shit is that twat who shot everyone...

and every single american for not sorting out gun control,

not some poor fucker who is going to be wracked for the rest of his life because his adrenaline made him do something utterly natural

LOL at you tryna defend that coward and sorry excuse of a man. He not only bailed on his gf and 2 kids, but he drove away too.

Wow

Pr1nceQuik said:

RicoN said:

the only chicken shit is that twat who shot everyone...

and every single american for not sorting out gun control,

not some poor fucker who is going to be wracked for the rest of his life because his adrenaline made him do something utterly natural

LOL at you tryna defend that coward and sorry excuse of a man. He not only bailed on his gf and 2 kids, but he drove away too.

He's too big a pussy (and too devoid of morals) to even marry the mother of his kids. What do you expect?

I watched that video clip. That poor woman looked embarrassed to even be sitting next to that sniveling sack of shit. I hope she bounces his sorry ass and finds herself a real man.

PurpleJedi said:

deebee said:

It's tempting to sit in judgment from our own safely-removed vantage point, but (mercifully) most of us don't really know how we'd react in that sort of terrifying situation. Maybe our contempt for the 'coward' is because there's a niggling, unsettling thought in the back of our minds that, faced with a situation where 'heroism' likely equalled death, we'd obey our innermost animal instinct and choose the route of survival. Who really knows?

Plus, I often feel like this search for heroes is part of our attempt to try and impose some sense on a senseless act, or some moral order on something so morally destitute. We want to be able to imagine that people in that panicked situation, with the adrenalin coursing through their veins, still had available to them the free choice to pick a more or less moral course of action, when, in reality, they had more likely been reduced to a state of base animality, acting out of instinct as much as the more noble and reflective human capacities those out of the line of fire get to enjoy.

It's the individual who put them in that belittling, abased situation, and then callously and nihilistically played God with their lives, who should be the primary focus of our contempt, not his hapless victims, whatever their shortcomings, IMO. (I say primary focus because some may also want to attribute a degree of responsibility to all of those who helped create the situation where this deranged young man was free and able to arm himself to the teeth with weapons that have no other purpose than to kill and maim human beings; but that's for another thread.)

IMO (and I am in no way educated in psychology or anything)...there are two basic types of people. The "hero" and the "bystander".

If you've ever seen a bad car accident, you'll know what I mean. Most of us will be startled by the loud crash, then either flee or lurk at a safe distance. THEN there are the other types...the "hero" type...who will rush to the scene of the accident and try to pull people out or help in any way.

I'm not passing judgement, but I'm also not making excuses. You either have it in you or you don't.

I'm not the "hero" type when it comes to stuff like that. My old boss was. Our old office was in a busy intersection prone to car accidents. We'd be sitting there working...then you'd hear tires screeching and a loud bang. While most of us would sit there wondering whether to get up and look, he was leaping over chairs rushing out to see if anyone needed help. He was a volunteer firefighter of course. It was in his blood.

HOWEVER, I can most definitely assure you, that adrenaline or no adrenaline, if I was in any sort of dangerous situation with my kids...I WOULD SURE AS FUCK NOT GET IN MY CAR AND FLEE THE SCENE LEAVING MY CHILDREN BEHIND.

The most basic human instinct - or for MOST of the animal kingdom in fact - is to safeguard our offspring. I can't imagine how fucked up my mind would have to be in order to do that shit. Just like I can't imagine stabbing someone or beating on an old lady, I can't imagine being so deranged to abandon my family in time of crisis.

So, (sorry for the long post), but while there are "hero" types and there are "bystander" types....but damn it if you leave your family behind when they need you the most, you are a COWARD.

Well, firstly, if there are simply different types, then you certainly can't judge the 'bystander', as his actions (or non-actions) are simply a product of his natural endowment -- "you either have it or you don't." You might as well judge him for not having a big schlong. What can he do? It's just not in him. Same if it's merely obedience to an ingrained protective animal nature: commending it as a morally admirable act would be as absurd as praising a mother rabbit for defending her young. It's just dumb nature, exempt from moral appraisal.

I think this whole discourse of heroism actually rests on the idea that, even in a emergency situation, there is a moral choice, open to everyone (well, every man, anyway - we'll come to that in a moment) to take a more or less heroic path - the more heroic path being one that involves protecting 'his woman' right up to the point of willingly and consciously surrendering his own life; the cowardly path being 'merely' saving his own life. I can't deny that there's something compelling in that: it's moving to see someone put their own life at risk to save someone else - and I don't want to be the tortured liberal who can't face up to the fact that some people are just c*nts. But I think we're vastly overstating the extent to which one makes a conscious, reflective, and thus morally appraisable, decision in that situation, and we're actually imposing a kind of fictitious moral narrative on a senseless act and its chaotic aftermath.

And as well as that point about how the human animal, in shock, responds in an unexpected, terrifying situation, I really dislike the discourse that's being imposed. To my mind, the elephant in the room is how and why, in an advanced liberal democracy in peacetime, it is possible to acquire a vast arsenal of weapons designed to kill and maim, including a frickin' assault rifle. But it seems that, rather than look that one in the eye, people are preferring to tell a story whose lesson is a kind of conservative moralism. Hence, the 'villains' in our story are those who lacked the correct Middle American 'family values' (they took their kids to the cinema; they didn't marry their girlfriends, etc), and the heroes are those whose values were properly patriarchal (they were strong, virile men who defended 'their woman' to the death) and reflective of treasured American patriotism and militarism (our iconic hero is a marine who would have similarly laid down his life for his country, etc). At best, these seem to me to be comforting palliatives, and at worst they're ways of avoiding the glaring problem and allowing those who helped create it - who are the first to preach about morality and personal responsibility - to evade responsibility and take refuge in their favourite hollow myths.

[Edited 7/24/12 10:29am]

saving your own ass over the strangers ass next to you is one thing and in some cases understandable or even forgivable...leaving your own children & their mother in a life or death situation has little to do with adrenaline or instinct or any of that bullshit...it's punk ass bullshit

enter Jarell Brooks, a 19 year old stranger that saw a woman struggling to get out with her two kids and helped her to safety...he was shot in the leg during the process...

“I was thinking, I have to get this family out, without getting hit myself. I managed to do one,” Brooks told ABC News.

call him hero or what you will...to me, he's a shining example of human compassion and selflessness...at the very least, he's everything that the father of those children isn't...

orger said:

saving your own ass over the strangers ass next to you is one thing and in some cases understandable or even forgivable...leaving your own children & their mother in a life or death situation has little to do with adrenaline or instinct or any of that bullshit...it's punk ass bullshit

enter Jarell Brooks, a 19 year old stranger that saw a woman struggling to get out with her two kids and helped her to safety...he was shot in the leg during the process...

“I was thinking, I have to get this family out, without getting hit myself. I managed to do one,” Brooks told ABC News.

call him hero or what you will...to me, he's a shining example of human compassion and selflessness...at the very least, he's everything that the father of those children isn't...

Hold up!!!! This is the same girl in the first video.....Her man rolled out and the brother that helped them took a bullet in the process of saving them.

Am I correct? Is this the same girl? She ain't marrying her boyfriend. She doesn't look too proud to be his girl.....

[Edited 7/24/12 10:14am]

Seaweed said:

Hold up!!!! This is the same girl in the first video.....Her man rolled out and the brother that helped them a bullet in the process of saving them.

Am I correct? Is this the same girl? She ain't marrying her boyfriend. She doesn't look too proud to be his girl.....

same one

Genesia said:

Shanti0608 said:

I was questioning these ppl taking their young kids to a midnight movie but was told by other parent friends of mine that it is normal.

Not to me it isn't. I don't have a regular sitter or someone that can watch our son for us that often. Guess what, I go to the movies about once or twice a year.

If there was a movie I really wanted to see, I would do like you said, one parent stay home watching the kids.

When you are a parent, you think of your children first.

A four year old should not be up at midnight watching an adult movie in a movie theater.

Now they have witnessed this horrible event as well and have parents that need to grow up.

I feel so sad for all of the ppl that lost loved ones that night.

Well, it might be "normal," but it isn't right.

I remember only one time when I was a kid that my parents did that time's equivalent of a midnight movie. It was when we went to a drive-in theater to see a double feature. What they'd do was show a family movie first, followed by a more adult movie. You watched the movies from your car, so parents would bring their kids dressed in their pajamas. The kids would watch the first movie, then climb into the back of the station wagon (which had been outfitted with pillows and sleeping bags) and go to sleep while the grown-ups watched their movie. Since even the "family" movie didn't start until at least twilight, by the time it was over, we kids were ready to go to sleep. My parents watched the other movie in peace - and didn't have to pay a sitter.

As I recall, the movies playing that night were "The Love Bug" and "M*A*S*H."

Was that the way my parents would have preferred to spend their evening? Probably not. But they had children - and kids need to be cared for. They did a lot of "divide and conquer," too. Like the time my dad wanted to go to the Milwaukee 200 auto race. My mom knew my youngest sister (3 at the time) was too little to sit in the hot sun while the race was going on. So she took Teresa (who was 3) with her to visit a friend, while my dad took my other two sisters and me with him to the race. He bought us sun hats and treats - and even let us bet on the races. Meanwhile, my mom had a nice visit with her friend (who was a nun at a convent in the area).

If they resented having to do this sort of thing, we never knew it. It was just part and parcel of being a parent.

Amen to good parenting.