Should the media be showing this guys "manifesto"?

No. At this time they have a right to publish it or bury it as they see fit. You have no right to tell them they HAVE to show it.
Click to expand...

Do I asertain a hint of facism. You are incorrect sir. I have every right to demand full disclosure (unless you can make a case for national security).
 
It is NBC's right to show it, but I won't be watching. The guy was a sick ****, and he did this for noterity. I sure as hell won't help any further by viewing it. I already seen enough in his dumb notes and plays on The Smoking Gun's site.
 
It's human nature. They've GOT to show it. Ever drive past a really bloody car wreck? You ALWAYS turn to see. You KNOW it's not anything you want to see, but you HAVE to look. It's human nature. Same thing here. Justice would better be served to simply forget this nut-bag ever existed, and for us to never read his "manifesto." But, that's not how it works. We've got to look. We are curious creatures by nature.

Concerning the News, it would be morally presumptuous for the news channels to dictate what we are allowed to see, and what we aren't. They owe us the right to see the "manifesto" if we want to. At the same time, I don't appreciate the news channels plastering this thing up all over everywhere, FORCING us to see it. It seems I can't look anywhere without seeing something about this guy's "manifesto," and that I don't like. I'd like to have the choice, and I would appreciate it if my choices weren't simply just, "Read the manifesto, or don't attempt to look up any news anywhere."

Tough situation...
 
In his rant he mentions Eric and Dylan obviously referring to the other celebrity killers that he was competing or empathizing with.
A South Korean man from Virginia could only developed this type of relationship with two barely adolescent kids from Colorado through the media orgy that surrounded their actions
He also could not have killed so many people in so short a time with with little or no real resistance without a gun

So which do we choose to ban information or guns, the same case can be made against each
 
Do I asertain a hint of facism. You are incorrect sir. I have every right to demand full disclosure (unless you can make a case for national security).
Click to expand...

I already made the security issue case. The publicity we give these animals incites others to do the same. Nuts who would otherwise in a fit of depresion kill sinmply themselves are using the media to make their death into a national event by bringing as many people along as possible.

Assisting these killers in becoming media stars is the same as acting as an accomplice.

I know people are curious and fascinated, that does not make it right. If the sick public must have their questions answerred then actually do some real study on the subject. The major media is not about real reasons, it is about sensation.
 
You confuse media with government. That is not a case for national security.

I know people are curious and fascinated, that does not make it right.
Click to expand...

Mind your own latency. You have no right to interfere with my collection of information, nor decide what's right or wrong (no does the media or government). Your righteousness is duly noted, sir.

The strength of the United States is not the gold at Fort Knox or the weapons of mass destruction that we have, but the sum total of the education and the character of our people. - Pell

You underestimate us.
 
Even if we accept as a fact the somewhat dubious proposition that the motivation for such horrific events as the VT murders is the desire for celebrity, I am still unwilling to accept that our liberties of speech and of the press be curtailed in an effort to prevent the repetition of such events.

One of the consequences of a free society is that some few individuals will not exercise their freedoms responsibly. Instead, they will exploit their liberty to perform the most despicable acts imaginable. I am unwilling to surrender my liberty in an effort to protect myself, or others, from such evil men. A free society will always be vulnerable to the plans of such men.

Those precious lives lost in this horrible event, or any similar future event, can not be redeemed by surrendering our liberties. A great many people have fallen so that we might live as a free people, and not all of them where in uniform or killed in war.

Best Regards,
Richard
 
If we have always had violent games and movies, always had nuts, and always had guns then why do we now have this increase in ramapge shooters?

We never made the rampage shooter a celebrity before!
Click to expand...

How do we know this? Some simple statistics should be able to prove this. Killers always have been celebrity. Look at Bonnie and Clyde, or the many mobster killing during the prohibition era. Instead of on television they were on the front pages of newspaper.

I am willing to bet that there is the same percentage of "rampage killers" then as there is now.

I cannot however say what I say is fact, as I do not know. I also don't believe that it can be proven. I am sure there are many incidents that were buried in the past in the small town newspapers that never made it to the big cities.
 
I have not said the name, picture and even manifesto must be kept entirely secret. Let it be put into texts on the subject for those who seriously want to study the matter. It is not under lock and key, you do not even have to pay for it, simply request the text from your local library.

Just get rid of the fame!!!

You may think me rightous, I contend I am simply right.

You say I have no right to interfere with your collection of information. I do not have the right but the US Governemnt certainly does. You are not allowed to see the names of sexual assualt victims in many places. You are not allowed to see secure governmental information if not cleared and required. You can not see who the jury is on television or in print for many trials. There are many ways your "right to collect information" (strange, I do not see that in my copy of the COTUS) is limited. Based on those examples your claim to an inviolate "right to collect information" is null and void.

Perhaps you could reveal to me the wonders you would be able to perform for society by having this nuts face and name on the cover of Time? When the next one comes along with the goal of getting his fame at the cost of 30+ innocents will your imagined right to collect information have done anything to help them?

That many Americans have the desire to se ethe bloodstains at the accident they pass is not a noble thing. Human curiosity is a fact and in this case a weakness in that it subverts the logical policy that should be followed. The reason for a representative governemt is so that a smaller group of enlightenned individuals can make a decision for the masses. I will do everything I can to see the make the right decision here.
 
That those who would cry out in anger against negotiating with terrorists or paying a ransom would so willingly do business with the perpetrators of these rampage killings (supporting the wide broadcast of their names, faces and manifestos) amazes me.

The only deifference giving in to a terrorist and aiding the rampage killer in gaining fame is the rampage killer knew the deal was struck when he first pulled the trigger.
 
Just get rid of the fame!!!
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing fame and infamy, like the three amigos.

I have zero issue with publishing this stuff. In this day and age, it is entirely possible to do that without the MSM.. see youtube, myspace, digg, etc. . .

As far as I can tell, they show an incoherent babbling. Hardly the stuff to motivate others.

2 things: a) It is the act that others see and copy (as in this guys reference to Columbine), not any manifesto, and you can't keep those details from getting out b) Like it or not, this type of behavior is merely a tiny tiny percentage of life.. using it to limit my rights makes about zero sense. More people died in car accidents on Monday than at VT. Sound callus? Well, I contest that in the grand scheme of things, incidents like this take over too large of importance than they should.
 
and now the airwaves are buzzing with the stories of how he was bullied

The last thing the MSM needs to do is make this whack-job look like a victim

If NBC is gonna give him his 15 minutes (try days) of fame then they should also make it clear that he was a sick twisted coward ....not some kind of martyr

I swear that if I hear him referred to as troubled I will :barf:
 
I contest that they copy the act because of the effects, not because of the act itself.

The effect is Fame (to them fame, to us infamy). The act is something horrible with a high body count. Schools seem to be the target of choice but we have also seen shopping malls. Nothing brings out the media coverage like a high bodycount at a school.
 
I swear that if I hear him referred to as troubled I will
Click to expand...

Is "troubled" (beset by problems or conflict) inaccurate, or do you feel it connotes too much sympathy?

Nothing I have seen shows people being sympathetic, only using that phrase to describe where they think he should have been identified and treated.

Thinking there was a problem with the system and that he shouldn't have been allowed in the position he was in doesn't take away from his culpability.
 
Nothing I have seen shows people being sympathetic, only using that phrase to describe where they think he should have been identified and treated.
Click to expand...
I am indeed seeing that very thing (sympathy) already starting to surface. I will quote my own post from earlier.
The only thing that has made me sick so far is a woman I saw on the news tonight saying that because he "did not get the help he needed" this tragedy came to pass. It made me ill to see someone try to turn this piece of filth from the madman he was into a victim. He was not a victim. He was an unbalanced person who was a threat to himself and society. He was a mad dog and nothing more.
Click to expand...
 
No.

Its brutally obvious that the non-stop media coverage only inspires more of these incidents. This lunatic was obviously inspired by the Columbine killers as he called them martyrs in his video. This madman perpertrated this act in order to get his message out. Thanks to NBC, he succeeded. Now this will just keep happening and happening because psychos know that this is the way they can have their message heard by the nation and the world.
 
He was a mad dog and nothing more.
Click to expand...

And yet I still cried at the end of Old Yeller.

I don't think he took a sane course of action. I can empathize though, and understand that he perceived that he was under intense pressure. That is no way means that I condone what he did.

What people are trying to do is "explain" these actions. Unfortunately, do to the inherent problems of communications between sanity and insanity, those of us that are on the sane side of the fence will forever find our questions go unanswered.

I could easily take to firm position that he cracked and leave it at that. It doesn't take anything away from me to go through the exercise of trying to determine how someone gets into that state.
 
Is "troubled" (beset by problems or conflict) inaccurate, or do you feel it connotes too much sympathy?

Nothing I have seen shows people being sympathetic, only using that phrase to describe where they think he should have been identified and treated.

Thinking there was a problem with the system and that he shouldn't have been allowed in the position he was in doesn't take away from his culpability.
Click to expand...

I've already heard some statements (as PBP pointed out) that bordered on the sympathetic...but none that I think intend to excuse what he did or relieve him of any responsibility.

I think this attitude comes largely from a desire to keep the issue "simple." He can be either reviled or sympathized with, but not both. He can either be "troubled" or responsible for his actions, but not both. When in reality none of these are mutually exclusive.

I think the kid had problems. I suspect those problems started before he ever got to VA Tech. I think that along the way there were several opportunities where society could have identified and treated those problems, forcibly if necessary. Had that happened, perhaps 32 people would be alive. This doesn't take any of the ultimate responsibility for his own actions off of him...it just means that it's useful to try and understand what, in his twisted mind, led him to these actions so that maybe there's some chance that sometime in the future we could prevent somebody else from doing the same.

Not for their good, but for everybody else's.

I could easily take to firm position that he cracked and leave it at that. It doesn't take anything away from me to go through the exercise of trying to determine how someone gets into that state.
Click to expand...

Exactly. He may have been little more than a "mad dog" at the end, but at some point in the past this kid was a human being...and I think it's in our best interests to at least try to figure out what, if anything, sparked that transition.
 
and now the airwaves are buzzing with the stories of how he was bullied

The last thing the MSM needs to do is make this whack-job look like a victim

If NBC is gonna give him his 15 minutes (try days) of fame then they should also make it clear that he was a sick twisted coward ....not some kind of martyr

I swear that if I hear him referred to as troubled I will
Click to expand...
So you don't think a decade and a half of bullying could cause a person to do something like this? You don't think traumatic experiences can make someone sick and twisted? Yeah, perhaps he was just wired badly, perhaps his parents treated him terribly, perhaps he was fondled by his priest, perhaps he was bullied. But pretending that he was "evil" and there were no causes for this event are exactly what lead to more in the future.

No one is trying to justify what he did but it's very important that we learn why he did it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top