6 ms·

What? This kid murdered an innocent person in anger. It starts, and it ends there. Whether it was collateral damage, or how angry the kid was, is irrelevant. I

by zo1 12y ago

What? This kid murdered an innocent person in anger. It starts, and it ends there. Whether it was collateral damage, or how angry the kid was, is irrelevant. It's like saying: you know, there's all these fat people that are constantly abused and get run-around by pretty girls. They are suffering so bad, it's not hard to understand their level of outrage when one of them raped a woman. Seriously, violence against innocents can never be justified. No matter the rational behind it. And by defending them and their actions, we're just giving them credence and making them think their anger and actions are "not their fault".

jahnu 12y ago
Causes or context for violent acts can be understood and taken into account when considering the act. Thankfully, most judicial systems do this.
- zo1 12y ago
  Taken into account? Please elaborate... What sorts of things/causes/context can justify or play-down the severity of violent actions, in your view?
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    Duress. Lies/false information. Or even premeditated vs. crime of passion, which is well established in our legal system. Or, how about that ?Italian? guy who hired thugs to kidnap his daughter's killer and extradite him to face trial
  - zo1 12y ago
    HN users are down-modding legitimate questions to spark debate? Interesting.
    - salemh 12y ago
      I up-voted your parent comment, because it was a semi-legitimate question (semi, because the GP comment you made was a bit wild/out of context). However, asking the forum 'why' or playing a role of down-vote brigading is frowned on. Just make your points :)
  - jahnu 12y ago
    Easiest to understand would be crimes of passion. Someone who kills without pre-meditation is usually considered to have committed a lesser crime than someone who planned it. Then you have more complex situations. Killing an intruder in your home for example. The details are crucial to understanding if it's justified or not. Even more complex are the rules of engagement in war. Was the bombing of Dresden justified, etc. Every society grades and judges violent acts in context.
  - EliRivers 12y ago
    You mean "mitigating factors"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitigating_factor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitigating_factor Where are you from, if I may ask? They're a very well established part of the legal system in lots of places.
PhasmaFelis 12y ago
You'd like the world to be black and white, heroes and villains. It's not that simple. Sometimes there aren't any good guys. What does it say to you that the father of the innocent victim blames the system first and the killer second?
- zo1 12y ago
  It's not about heroes and villains. It's about right and wrong. You're more than welcome to fill in the blanks between right and wrong with mushy grey area, however, some of us have higher moral standards and don't deem actions less wrong if the aggressor was "angered", or "ill". "What does it say to you that the father of the innocent victim blames the system first and the killer second?" It gives credence to my points. It shows the level to which people have been brainwashed/tricked into thinking that violence is "ok as long as there is some reason". This individual was able to justify and excuse a person violently murdering their loved one due to whatever circumstance. Rather than just calling it senseless violence and coincidence, and holding the violent individual at fault. At the end of the day. Someone chose to take another person's life. And all these people are pretending that's okay, or "less wrong". Circumstance, or not, this person made a willing choice and decision to take another person's life, to end it, forever. I hope everyone here let's that sink in, before they try talk about "mitigating factors".
x0x0 12y ago
Conflating facing a severe and painful disease [1] while being repeatedly dicked around by the medical system through a combination of incompetence and greed with an entitled asshole who rapes a woman because he feels like he's, well, entitled to have sex with people he finds attractive is pretty stupid. As was explained in the article, the murderer had endured a painful illness, a misdiagnosis, used his grandparents' life savings and borrowed money for treatment, traveled some distance, had treatment interrupted, was blown off again by the medical system, and snapped. Of course it doesn't justify murder, but it is quit different than, for example, a premeditated murder over money. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankylosing_spondylitis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankylosing_spondylitis
- zo1 12y ago
  He felt entitled to retribution. The fact that he was "dicked" around by medical individuals over a more serious matter does not nullify the comparison, here are the details of the two scenarios: In both scenarios the victim's were not directly to blame. In both scenarios a larger group of people "dicked" around the aggressor. And in both scenarios (one hypothetical) the violent actions are being downplayed, or justified because of some sort of indirect harm towards the aggressor. This backlash just shows how easy it is for people to conflate the issues involved. It is in essence justifying violence against innocent individuals, and frankly, it's sickening. "Of course it doesn't justify murder, but it is quit different than, for example, a premeditated murder over money." Murder is murder, I don't see the distinction here. You can't go ahead and say murder isn't so bad if the aggressor was "having a bad hair day", or any other trivial issue. If you want to say that this individual was justified in his act of killing because he was in danger and was forced to do so, or was defending himself, then fine that's a different issue.
davidgerard 12y ago
>It's like saying: you know, there's all these fat people that are constantly abused and get run-around by pretty girls. They are suffering so bad, it's not hard to understand their level of outrage when one of them raped a woman. That you think this is a sensible comparison says much more about you than anything to do with the case at hand.
- zo1 12y ago
  Oh and what would that be? Other than I don't condone violence of any sort against an innocent, no matter how "mitigating" or "angered" the person is.

by zo1 12y ago

jahnu 12y ago

Causes or context for violent acts can be understood and taken into account when considering the act. Thankfully, most judicial systems do this.

zo1 12y ago
Taken into account? Please elaborate... What sorts of things/causes/context can justify or play-down the severity of violent actions, in your view?
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Duress. Lies/false information. Or even premeditated vs. crime of passion, which is well established in our legal system. Or, how about that ?Italian? guy who hired thugs to kidnap his daughter's killer and extradite him to face trial
- zo1 12y ago
  HN users are down-modding legitimate questions to spark debate? Interesting.
  - salemh 12y ago
    I up-voted your parent comment, because it was a semi-legitimate question (semi, because the GP comment you made was a bit wild/out of context). However, asking the forum 'why' or playing a role of down-vote brigading is frowned on. Just make your points :)
- jahnu 12y ago
  Easiest to understand would be crimes of passion. Someone who kills without pre-meditation is usually considered to have committed a lesser crime than someone who planned it. Then you have more complex situations. Killing an intruder in your home for example. The details are crucial to understanding if it's justified or not. Even more complex are the rules of engagement in war. Was the bombing of Dresden justified, etc. Every society grades and judges violent acts in context.
- EliRivers 12y ago
  You mean "mitigating factors"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitigating_factor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitigating_factor Where are you from, if I may ask? They're a very well established part of the legal system in lots of places.

PhasmaFelis 12y ago

You'd like the world to be black and white, heroes and villains. It's not that simple. Sometimes there aren't any good guys. What does it say to you that the father of the innocent victim blames the system first and the killer second?

zo1 12y ago
It's not about heroes and villains. It's about right and wrong. You're more than welcome to fill in the blanks between right and wrong with mushy grey area, however, some of us have higher moral standards and don't deem actions less wrong if the aggressor was "angered", or "ill". "What does it say to you that the father of the innocent victim blames the system first and the killer second?" It gives credence to my points. It shows the level to which people have been brainwashed/tricked into thinking that violence is "ok as long as there is some reason". This individual was able to justify and excuse a person violently murdering their loved one due to whatever circumstance. Rather than just calling it senseless violence and coincidence, and holding the violent individual at fault. At the end of the day. Someone chose to take another person's life. And all these people are pretending that's okay, or "less wrong". Circumstance, or not, this person made a willing choice and decision to take another person's life, to end it, forever. I hope everyone here let's that sink in, before they try talk about "mitigating factors".

x0x0 12y ago

Conflating facing a severe and painful disease [1] while being repeatedly dicked around by the medical system through a combination of incompetence and greed with an entitled asshole who rapes a woman because he feels like he's, well, entitled to have sex with people he finds attractive is pretty stupid. As was explained in the article, the murderer had endured a painful illness, a misdiagnosis, used his grandparents' life savings and borrowed money for treatment, traveled some distance, had treatment interrupted, was blown off again by the medical system, and snapped. Of course it doesn't justify murder, but it is quit different than, for example, a premeditated murder over money. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankylosing_spondylitis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankylosing_spondylitis

zo1 12y ago
He felt entitled to retribution. The fact that he was "dicked" around by medical individuals over a more serious matter does not nullify the comparison, here are the details of the two scenarios: In both scenarios the victim's were not directly to blame. In both scenarios a larger group of people "dicked" around the aggressor. And in both scenarios (one hypothetical) the violent actions are being downplayed, or justified because of some sort of indirect harm towards the aggressor. This backlash just shows how easy it is for people to conflate the issues involved. It is in essence justifying violence against innocent individuals, and frankly, it's sickening. "Of course it doesn't justify murder, but it is quit different than, for example, a premeditated murder over money." Murder is murder, I don't see the distinction here. You can't go ahead and say murder isn't so bad if the aggressor was "having a bad hair day", or any other trivial issue. If you want to say that this individual was justified in his act of killing because he was in danger and was forced to do so, or was defending himself, then fine that's a different issue.

davidgerard 12y ago

>It's like saying: you know, there's all these fat people that are constantly abused and get run-around by pretty girls. They are suffering so bad, it's not hard to understand their level of outrage when one of them raped a woman. That you think this is a sensible comparison says much more about you than anything to do with the case at hand.

zo1 12y ago
Oh and what would that be? Other than I don't condone violence of any sort against an innocent, no matter how "mitigating" or "angered" the person is.