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...

deebee said:

PurpleJedi said:

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]

I think you may be overanalyzing everything.

This thread is dedicated to the three men (and I'm sure others) who placed their lives in danger (some losing their lives in the process) to save the lives of OTHERS.

Then there is the shining example of the dweeb who has no shame admitting he got in his car and left his baby momma and kids in the midst of the chaos and commotion.

One type is selfless and heroic.

One type is selfish and cowardly.

That's all there is to it really.

We can debate on other threads how nature-vs-nurture affects one's responses to stress or how someone can abandon the most basic human instinct to care for one's young. The gun control issue is already a hot topic across the board. We can even discuss how our modern culture & lifestyle may be emasculating modern man in general.

But for the purposes of this thread, it's a simple act of heroism vs cowardice.

& B Wild.

PurpleJedi said:

deebee said:

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]

I think you may be overanalyzing everything.

This thread is dedicated to the three men (and I'm sure others) who placed their lives in danger (some losing their lives in the process) to save the lives of OTHERS.

Then there is the shining example of the dweeb who has no shame admitting he got in his car and left his baby momma and kids in the midst of the chaos and commotion.

One type is selfless and heroic.

One type is selfish and cowardly.

That's all there is to it really.

We can debate on other threads how nature-vs-nurture affects one's responses to stress or how someone can abandon the most basic human instinct to care for one's young. The gun control issue is already a hot topic across the board. We can even discuss how our modern culture & lifestyle may be emasculating modern man in general.

But for the purposes of this thread, it's a simple act of heroism vs cowardice.

& B Wild.

Perhaps you're underanalysing.

I don't think there's anything 'simple' about the rush to judgment, the way a discourse of 'heroes' gets imposed on every instance of nihilistic mass-casualty violence in America, or the unforgiving 'family values' yardstick by which young parents committing the sin of taking their babies to a movie theatre (a relatively minor transgression in the Grand Scheme of Things) are practically judged to have brought it on themselves.

But, hey, if sitting in judgment about another's actions during a terrifying ordeal allows us all a self-congratulatory pat on the back, then let's just keep it 'simple'. Hopefully, our own proclaimed 'heroism' will never be put to the test, one day, in a similar situation.

deebee said:

PurpleJedi said:

I think you may be overanalyzing everything.

This thread is dedicated to the three men (and I'm sure others) who placed their lives in danger (some losing their lives in the process) to save the lives of OTHERS.

Then there is the shining example of the dweeb who has no shame admitting he got in his car and left his baby momma and kids in the midst of the chaos and commotion.

One type is selfless and heroic.

One type is selfish and cowardly.

That's all there is to it really.

We can debate on other threads how nature-vs-nurture affects one's responses to stress or how someone can abandon the most basic human instinct to care for one's young. The gun control issue is already a hot topic across the board. We can even discuss how our modern culture & lifestyle may be emasculating modern man in general.

But for the purposes of this thread, it's a simple act of heroism vs cowardice.

& B Wild.

Perhaps you're underanalysing.

I don't think there's anything 'simple' about the rush to judgment, the way a discourse of 'heroes' gets imposed on every instance of nihilistic mass-casualty violence in America, or the unforgiving 'family values' yardstick by which young parents committing the sin of taking their babies to a movie theatre (a relatively minor transgression in the Grand Scheme of Things) are practically judged to have brought it on themselves.

But, hey, if sitting in judgment about another's actions during a terrifying ordeal allows us all a self-congratulatory pat on the back, then let's just keep it 'simple'. Hopefully, our own proclaimed 'heroism' will never be put to the test, one day, in a similar situation.

That seems to be the whole point.

The very nature of humanity's penchant for observing, analyzing and criticizing others is for our own benefit. Take laughter for example...it's said that humans developed laughter by our ealry ancestors baring their teeth and screeching in response to them witnessing something bad happening to others (falling out of a tree let's say) as a way of "warding off" that bad event.

So now that we witness something so horrific and unimaginable that it captivates the nation's attention...of COURSE we are going to observe/analyze/criticize everything.

I don't quite grasp what you're trying to say with the whole "brought it on themselves" part. I don't think that ANYONE on this thread was inplying that if you take small children to an inappropriate movie, you are subject to random shootings. But we can sure a hell express our disdain for parents who disregard age-appropriate activities. It is what it is.

But calling a spade a spade is not necessarily a "self-congratulatory pat on the back". Apples and oranges.

PurpleJedi said:

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...

Though I do agree that we do not know how we would react to an life threatening situation, if we shall encounter it, this guy's reaction by running off, and leaving his kids is going to cost him: humiliation from his community and the public, and his relationship may be at stake. It's a damned if you do, and damned if you don't type of situation.

PurpleJedi said:

deebee said:

Perhaps you're underanalysing.

I don't think there's anything 'simple' about the rush to judgment, the way a discourse of 'heroes' gets imposed on every instance of nihilistic mass-casualty violence in America, or the unforgiving 'family values' yardstick by which young parents committing the sin of taking their babies to a movie theatre (a relatively minor transgression in the Grand Scheme of Things) are practically judged to have brought it on themselves.

But, hey, if sitting in judgment about another's actions during a terrifying ordeal allows us all a self-congratulatory pat on the back, then let's just keep it 'simple'. Hopefully, our own proclaimed 'heroism' will never be put to the test, one day, in a similar situation.

That seems to be the whole point.

The very nature of humanity's penchant for observing, analyzing and criticizing others is for our own benefit. Take laughter for example...it's said that humans developed laughter by our ealry ancestors baring their teeth and screeching in response to them witnessing something bad happening to others (falling out of a tree let's say) as a way of "warding off" that bad event.

So now that we witness something so horrific and unimaginable that it captivates the nation's attention...of COURSE we are going to observe/analyze/criticize everything.

I don't quite grasp what you're trying to say with the whole "brought it on themselves" part. I don't think that ANYONE on this thread was inplying that if you take small children to an inappropriate movie, you are subject to random shootings. But we can sure a hell express our disdain for parents who disregard age-appropriate activities. It is what it is.

But calling a spade a spade is not necessarily a "self-congratulatory pat on the back". Apples and oranges.

Exactly. I don't agree with the parents decision but at the end of the day I do not think ANYONE deserves being shot at, wounded or killed.

I just can't wrap my head around the idea of thinking it is a good idea to have a young child at an adult movie like Batman at midnight.

No one deserves to witness that sort of crime, especially not his children. I know that we cannot protect our children from harm 24/7 but come on, have some common sense for their wellbeing.

Parents need to parent, that means looking after your children first and your own selfish bs comes second.

nobody here thinks that the parents brought anything on themselves, to even imply that is absurd ...but most here agree that it's ridiculous to have small children and infants at a movie theatre at midnight...there were a handful of small children and one infant at the midnight screening I attended and my mind was blown then - the only thing I feel those parents deserve is a class on common sense parenting

and to be clear, there's nothing "heroic" about protecting your own family...it's part of the responsibilty & obligation that comes with being a parent...all the situational shock in the world couldn't make me leave my children and their mother behind like the guy being discussed here...I reject the notion that none of us know what we'd do in that situation...I know goddam well I wouldn't abandon my family

orger said:

nobody here thinks that the parents brought anything on themselves, to even imply that is absurd ...but most here agree that it's ridiculous to have small children and infants at a movie theatre at midnight...there were a handful of small children and one infant at the midnight screening I attended and my mind was blown then - the only thing I feel those parents deserve is a class on common sense parenting

and to be clear, there's nothing "heroic" about protecting your own family...it's part of the responsibilty & obligation that comes with being a parent...all the situational shock in the world couldn't make me leave my children and their mother behind like the guy being discussed here...I reject the notion that none of us know what we'd do in that situation...I know goddam well I wouldn't abandon my family

I don't know how I would judge how anyone would've handled that situation... but I'm with those who say "I won't abandon my family". Hell I think if something like that was to have occurred, we would've gotten the heck out of Dodge.

paintedlady said:

orger said:

nobody here thinks that the parents brought anything on themselves, to even imply that is absurd ...but most here agree that it's ridiculous to have small children and infants at a movie theatre at midnight...there were a handful of small children and one infant at the midnight screening I attended and my mind was blown then - the only thing I feel those parents deserve is a class on common sense parenting

and to be clear, there's nothing "heroic" about protecting your own family...it's part of the responsibilty & obligation that comes with being a parent...all the situational shock in the world couldn't make me leave my children and their mother behind like the guy being discussed here...I reject the notion that none of us know what we'd do in that situation...I know goddam well I wouldn't abandon my family

Co-

You know, I had my niece and nephews overnight this weekend and took them hiking and swimming. Since they're still pretty young (aged 7-10) and there was no lifeguard, I made sure that my bf or I were in the water with them the whole time. They all know how to swim and chances were good nothing would happen but I wanted to be extra super sure someone was there just in case.

My only thought was for their safety, and this was just a regular afternoon of swimming in a lake. You can bet damn sure if some crazy person entered the scene the ONLY thing on my mind would be the safety of those kids. And I'm not even their parent.

PurpleJedi said:

deebee said:

Perhaps you're underanalysing.

I don't think there's anything 'simple' about the rush to judgment, the way a discourse of 'heroes' gets imposed on every instance of nihilistic mass-casualty violence in America, or the unforgiving 'family values' yardstick by which young parents committing the sin of taking their babies to a movie theatre (a relatively minor transgression in the Grand Scheme of Things) are practically judged to have brought it on themselves.

But, hey, if sitting in judgment about another's actions during a terrifying ordeal allows us all a self-congratulatory pat on the back, then let's just keep it 'simple'. Hopefully, our own proclaimed 'heroism' will never be put to the test, one day, in a similar situation.

That seems to be the whole point.

The very nature of humanity's penchant for observing, analyzing and criticizing others is for our own benefit. Take laughter for example...it's said that humans developed laughter by our ealry ancestors baring their teeth and screeching in response to them witnessing something bad happening to others (falling out of a tree let's say) as a way of "warding off" that bad event.

So now that we witness something so horrific and unimaginable that it captivates the nation's attention...of COURSE we are going to observe/analyze/criticize everything.

I don't quite grasp what you're trying to say with the whole "brought it on themselves" part. I don't think that ANYONE on this thread was inplying that if you take small children to an inappropriate movie, you are subject to random shootings. But we can sure a hell express our disdain for parents who disregard age-appropriate activities. It is what it is.

But calling a spade a spade is not necessarily a "self-congratulatory pat on the back". Apples and oranges.

Ahh, PJ, I dunno.... Perhaps I'm just trying to avoid the conclusion that some people are just assholes - in this case on account of their cowardice. But I suppose I do harbour a fluffy notion that even 'cowards' need a bit of empathy and compassion, too - maybe alongside some direction and even sanction. Maybe the guy came face to face with an ugly truth about a certain facet of his human nature that most of the rest of us get to keep safely out of sight. There but for fortune....

We're all in the business of making judgments, it's true, and it's necessary, like you say. But sometimes it does seem relentlessly harsh and unforgiving, and the sheer ferocity of it makes me uncomfortable. I wonder how each of us measures up when the stones start getting cast. I'd prefer to think of it like criticism and sanction for one's wrong actions with the possibility of redemption if one learns the lessons, not just being pegged as something ("a coward", "a sorry excuse of a man", etc) and written off as the scum of the earth, end of story.

Maybe it's true that this guy did act like a boy when he needed to be a man. He certainly did the wrong thing, and I do respect those who found it in themselves to be protective of others. But, Christ, I just think if there's anything likely to make you piss your pants and run screaming for your mum it's being confronted with a psychotic gunman slaying terrified people with no mercy. And I still hold to the idea that, if there's condemnation to be meted out, it's to be directed at the one who planned and then carried out a malicious act that abased people to the extent that they were forced to find out whether, in the moment of terror, they became one of life's heroes or one of its cowards.

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. That's why I rarely go to movies, because of fucktards posing as parents.

deebee said:

PurpleJedi said:

That seems to be the whole point.

The very nature of humanity's penchant for observing, analyzing and criticizing others is for our own benefit. Take laughter for example...it's said that humans developed laughter by our ealry ancestors baring their teeth and screeching in response to them witnessing something bad happening to others (falling out of a tree let's say) as a way of "warding off" that bad event.

So now that we witness something so horrific and unimaginable that it captivates the nation's attention...of COURSE we are going to observe/analyze/criticize everything.

I don't quite grasp what you're trying to say with the whole "brought it on themselves" part. I don't think that ANYONE on this thread was inplying that if you take small children to an inappropriate movie, you are subject to random shootings. But we can sure a hell express our disdain for parents who disregard age-appropriate activities. It is what it is.

But calling a spade a spade is not necessarily a "self-congratulatory pat on the back". Apples and oranges.

Ahh, PJ, I dunno.... Perhaps I'm just trying to avoid the conclusion that some people are just assholes - in this case on account of their cowardice. But I suppose I do harbour a fluffy notion that even 'cowards' need a bit of empathy and compassion, too - maybe alongside some direction and even sanction. Maybe the guy came face to face with an ugly truth about a certain facet of his human nature that most of the rest of us get to keep safely out of sight. There but for fortune....

We're all in the business of making judgments, it's true, and it's necessary, like you say. But sometimes it does seem relentlessly harsh and unforgiving, and the sheer ferocity of it makes me uncomfortable. I wonder how each of us measures up when the stones start getting cast. I'd prefer to think of it like criticism and sanction for one's wrong actions with the possibility of redemption if one learns the lessons, not just being pegged as something ("a coward", "a sorry excuse of a man", etc) and written off as the scum of the earth, end of story.

Maybe it's true that this guy did act like a boy when he needed to be a man. He certainly did the wrong thing, and I do respect those who found it in themselves to be protective of others. But, Christ, I just think if there's anything likely to make you piss your pants and run screaming for your mum it's being confronted with a psychotic gunman slaying terrified people with no mercy. And I still hold to the idea that, if there's condemnation to be meted out, it's to be directed at the one who planned and then carried out a malicious act that abased people to the extent that they were forced to find out whether, in the moment of terror, they became one of life's heroes or one of its cowards.

this is the stuff that makes me as a man cry our wonderful beautifully crafted planet earth is being destroyed by the devils work . looking at these faces makes me feel so sadden lord have mercy and sped your grace on us

SometimesIwonder said:

I don't know for complete certain, but I'd hazard a guess that here in the UK if you turned up at a cinema at that time of night with babies & infants that they would not admit you. I can't see that being allowed here to be honest. I understand that not all parents choose to be parents but when it's been thrust upon them, they need to accept the responsibility of their children's welfare. I haven't been to the cinema in 3 years now & rarely go out to socialise. Tough titty, I'm a Mummy & that's my job. And that father that ran away? Obviously his natural nurturing & protection skills weren't as switched on as his girlfriends. [Edited 7/27/12 4:08am]

I watched one video discussing this and it said that the theater there imposed that no one should come in with masks or whatever. They don't seem to care about the welfare of KIDS AND BABIES but they tell you, a grown ass adult, to not wear a mask. Are you kidding me? That's a good policy there in the UK to not invite kids to theaters after midnight or even past their curfew, whatever that curfew is. Seems we've done forgotten about curfew here in the United States...

[Edited 7/27/12 8:26am]

Timmy84 said:

SometimesIwonder said:

I don't know for complete certain, but I'd hazard a guess that here in the UK if you turned up at a cinema at that time of night with babies & infants that they would not admit you. I can't see that being allowed here to be honest. I understand that not all parents choose to be parents but when it's been thrust upon them, they need to accept the responsibility of their children's welfare. I haven't been to the cinema in 3 years now & rarely go out to socialise. Tough titty, I'm a Mummy & that's my job. And that father that ran away? Obviously his natural nurturing & protection skills weren't as switched on as his girlfriends. [Edited 7/27/12 4:08am]

I watched one video discussing this and it said that the theater there imposed that no one should come in with masks or whatever. They don't seem to care about the welfare of KIDS AND BABIES but they tell you, a grown ass adult, to not wear a mask. Are you kidding me? That's a good policy there in the UK to not invite kids to theaters after midnight or even past their curfew, whatever that curfew is. Seems we've done forgotten about curfew here in the United States...

[Edited 7/27/12 8:26am]

I am an American and had no damn clue you could take children that young in to an adult movie. I looked on IMBD and the movie is classified as PG13 so I guess it is the parents responsibilty to have guidance with their children. Clearly these parents don't.

Sadly, anyone can breed.

Shanti0608 said:

Timmy84 said:

I watched one video discussing this and it said that the theater there imposed that no one should come in with masks or whatever. They don't seem to care about the welfare of KIDS AND BABIES but they tell you, a grown ass adult, to not wear a mask. Are you kidding me? That's a good policy there in the UK to not invite kids to theaters after midnight or even past their curfew, whatever that curfew is. Seems we've done forgotten about curfew here in the United States...

[Edited 7/27/12 8:26am]

I am an American and had no damn clue you could take children that young in to an adult movie. I looked on IMBD and the movie is classified as PG13 so I guess it is the parents responsibilty to have guidance with their children. Clearly these parents don't.

Sadly, anyone can breed.

Real true unfortunately.

Timmy84 said:

Shanti0608 said:

I am an American and had no damn clue you could take children that young in to an adult movie. I looked on IMBD and the movie is classified as PG13 so I guess it is the parents responsibilty to have guidance with their children. Clearly these parents don't.

Sadly, anyone can breed.

Real true unfortunately.

If they started telling Americans that they could not bring their kids to the movies they would complain that it is no longer a free country.

The UK has speed cameras, surveillance cameras on streets and much stricter gun laws and they don't complain and they seem to be much happier ppl that can go to the movies and not worry about someone shooting the place up.

We don't need gun control, we need PEOPLE CONTROL. And it's sad what happened to those people. I fucking love going to the movies, but I'll be DAMNED if something like this stops me from going. That's just what the our terrorist government wants. Shit like this happens, and it's sickeningly sensationalized in the media, and people get scared to go out and live their lives. Why is it that the criminal gets as much recognition as the victim now? Pretty soon, we'll stop hearing about all the people that died and their families and what not, and all the attention will be focused on the criminal, and his life, and his faith, and his family, then he'll get out of jail and be interviewed by Barbara Walters, then he'll get a book and a movie deal....criminals are the new celebrities. That's why people keep going off the wall and doing crazy shit.

Shanti0608 said:

Timmy84 said:

Real true unfortunately.

If they started telling Americans that they could not bring their kids to the movies they would complain that it is no longer a free country.

The UK has speed cameras, surveillance cameras on streets and much stricter gun laws and they don't complain and they seem to be much happier ppl that can go to the movies and not worry about someone shooting the place up.

Yeah I know. Guess damn if you do and damn if you don't.

What Scarlet is saying has a lot of merit. The media like's to make thing's like this a BIG DEAL... they want ot scare you. It's just like the shit with the bath salts and ''zombies''

The media wants to spend more fucking time showing the people who coward from there familes & the killer... instead of focusing on the people that died for others. Or hell just the people that died in general they got to show mofos like the guy here tbh until Princequick made this thread i never even heard of the guys that died for their girlfriends.

And it look's almost like this guy is forcing his tears for the camera

Lord... and the biggest thing of all.

The internet conspiracy people are saying this entire thing was staged... i mean i believe in some crazy shit.

But to think that this whole entire thing is just fake?

Man Who Abandons His Family = Bloody COWARD

then and now...

Gunsnhalen said:

What Scarlet is saying has a lot of merit. The media like's to make thing's like this a BIG DEAL... they want ot scare you. It's just like the shit with the bath salts and ''zombies''

The media wants to spend more fucking time showing the people who coward from there familes & the killer... instead of focusing on the people that died for others. Or hell just the people that died in general they got to show mofos like the guy here tbh until Princequick made this thread i never even heard of the guys that died for their girlfriends.

And it look's almost like this guy is forcing his tears for the camera

That's why I've turned off my TV a lot.

Timmy84 said:

Gunsnhalen said:

What Scarlet is saying has a lot of merit. The media like's to make thing's like this a BIG DEAL... they want ot scare you. It's just like the shit with the bath salts and ''zombies''

The media wants to spend more fucking time showing the people who coward from there familes & the killer... instead of focusing on the people that died for others. Or hell just the people that died in general they got to show mofos like the guy here tbh until Princequick made this thread i never even heard of the guys that died for their girlfriends.

And it look's almost like this guy is forcing his tears for the camera

That's why I've turned off my TV a lot.

I don't even turn it on. And people think I'M crazy

ScarletScandal said:

Timmy84 said:

That's why I've turned off my TV a lot.

I don't even turn it on. And people think I'M crazy

Sometimes my parents ask why I keep mine's off or wonder if it's something wrong with it, I just say "no I just don't have it on".

Timmy84 said:

ScarletScandal said:

I don't even turn it on. And people think I'M crazy

Sometimes my parents ask why I keep mine's off or wonder if it's something wrong with it, I just say "no I just don't have it on".

lol, my mother finally understood that I've made the transition to the digital world a long time ago: online TV, Blu-Ray/DVD on the computer, etc

Timmy84 said:

ScarletScandal said:

I don't even turn it on. And people think I'M crazy

Sometimes my parents ask why I keep mine's off or wonder if it's something wrong with it, I just say "no I just don't have it on".

GOOD. People don't understand the science behind television, and how it affects them, because they're so distracted with what's on there.

It's interesting to see the gender disparities that are apparent in this thread.