Church shooter's "manifesto"

Church shooter's "manifesto" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

DedicatedDom40 -> Church shooter's "manifesto" (3/14/2009 3:18:36 PM)
This was the manifesto (suicide note that never was) written by the guy who shot up the Knoxville area church last July for being 'too liberal'. It was published last month in the Knoxville News Sentinel, and drew a bit of criticism from those on the extreme right who are naturally a bit defensive, and from others who were afraid of the creation of copycats. The editor did defend his position rather well. http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/021009church-manifesto.pdf Shortly after the tragedy, there was a story about how this guy consumed a good deal of "hate media", with the books of Savage, Hannity, and O'Reilly on his bookshelves at home. His manifesto also mentions Bernard Goldberg's book as well. http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/Jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/ I'm all for free speech, but this is pretty much an example of the hate media yelling "Fire! in a crowded theater, where innocent people ultimately end up being trampled to death. Free speech doesnt apply in this case. Its time for them to tone it down, on their own, preferably, but by force if necessary. The hard right was quick to paint this guy as a nut and a loon, but from his words, he appears to be non-religious, somewhat articulate with his thoughts, possessing anger control issues, and who simply absorbed too much one-sided hate media.

sirsholly -> RE: Church shooter's "manifesto" (3/14/2009 3:24:16 PM)
what purpose did releasing this manifesto serve, other than to stir the already steaming pot?

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Church shooter's "manifesto" (3/14/2009 3:36:28 PM)
quote: I'm all for free speech, but this is pretty much an example of the hate media yelling "Fire! in a crowded theater, where innocent people ultimately end up being trampled to death. Free speech doesnt apply in this case. Its time for them to tone it down, on their own, preferably, but by force if necessary. The hard right was quick to paint this guy as a nut and a loon, but from his words, he appears to be non-religious, somewhat articulate with his thoughts, possessing anger control issues, and who simply absorbed too much one-sided hate media. Ted Bundy claimed that Detective Magazines with cheesecake photos of women in bondage led him to brutally murder women. He called it porn; I guess we should ban those. Mark Essex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Essex was a former Black Panther and police found all sorts of left wing literature in his home after his rampage. I guess we should ban all subversive literature, and in your words "by force if necessary." Valerie Solanas shot Andy Warhol. She wrote the famous Scum Manifesto, which is still required reading in many Gender Studies classes (I read it in college.) I guess we should ban it. Mein Kampf is used by violent, racist groups to justify their hatred. I suppose we should go into every library in America and torch it.

FullCircle -> RE: Church shooter's "manifesto" (3/14/2009 3:47:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DedicatedDom40 The hard right was quick to paint this guy as a nut and a loon, but from his words, he appears to be non-religious, somewhat articulate with his thoughts, possessing anger control issues, and who simply absorbed too much one-sided hate media. People are responsible for their own actions to palm this off as being media manipulating his brain is an insult. Plenty of people out there are subject to the same influences, dissect a lemon to find it is bitter why?

4u2spoil -> RE: Church shooter's "manifesto" (3/14/2009 3:54:50 PM)
I think the anger control issues and accessibility to a gun are bigger concerns. Mental health really needs to be part of the criteria of owning a gun, not just for the owner but for anyone who may have access. It likely wouldn't stop the person from hurting someone, but it would lessen the impact. There was a school shooting in Germany recently where the shooter targeted women. The police said they found porn on his computer, but honestly, what teenaged boy doesn't have porn? Most don't use it as fuel for a rampage. As crazy as some of the tin-foil hat crowd on the extreme right sound, I think there has to be more going on with someone if they start plotting to kill people based on it.

kittinSol -> RE: Church shooter's "manifesto" (3/14/2009 3:55:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DedicatedDom40 The hard right was quick to paint this guy as a nut and a loon, but from his words, he appears to be non-religious, somewhat articulate with his thoughts, possessing anger control issues, and who simply absorbed too much one-sided hate media. In the spirit of freedom of information, this is why the public has the right to know what that man wrote just before committing his crimes.

FullCircle -> RE: Church shooter's "manifesto" (3/14/2009 4:06:53 PM)
I wouldn't stop people from reading his note but there is this common perception these days that you have to do extreme acts to get heard and publicising it just reinforces that.

kittinSol -> RE: Church shooter's "manifesto" (3/14/2009 4:11:38 PM)
Yes, but you can't have two weights and two measures. Either info is public, or it is not.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Church shooter's "manifesto" (3/14/2009 4:16:52 PM)
quote: I'm all for free speech, but this is pretty much an example of the hate media yelling "Fire! in a crowded theater, where innocent people ultimately end up being trampled to death. Free speech doesnt apply in this case. Its time for them to tone it down, on their own, preferably, but by force if necessary. ORIGINAL: DedicatedDom40 I have to disagree on this point DD. The right of the far right to speak their minds, no matter what we think of their words, is as important a right as ours is to speak our minds in opposition. Had they said "Go out, get a gun and shoot a Democrat", I would agree with you on the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy. However, this isn't the case. What they do is personally offensive to me, but it still falls into the realm of what is protected by the constitution and the concept of free speech. I can think of no circumstance, including this one, where having the government or other institutions force the curtailment of free speech isn't a hundred times more dangerous than anything someone might decide to say.

FullCircle -> RE: Church shooter's "manifesto" (3/14/2009 4:19:43 PM)
Information is public but not publicised. My birth certificate is public but not newsworthy. We need to reconsider what in this day and age rates as news because I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

rulemylife -> RE: Church shooter's "manifesto" (3/14/2009 4:20:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle People are responsible for their own actions to palm this off as being media manipulating his brain is an insult. Plenty of people out there are subject to the same influences, dissect a lemon to find it is bitter why? Maybe so, but his manifesto sounds eerily like the posts of some of our more ardent conservatives here.

kittinSol -> RE: Church shooter's "manifesto" (3/14/2009 4:25:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle Information is public but not publicised. My birth certificate is public but not newsworthy. We need to reconsider what in this day and age rates as news because I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Again... a lot of things aren't newsworthy in my opinion but still make their way through on the airwaves. My point is... who's going to deem what is and isn't newsworthy? I'm all for knowing what resides inside a nutter's mind. You have to know your enemy... unfortunately. As for free speech... I would be all for enforcing anti hate speech legislation here, but the first amendment is sacrosanct in America. Apparently.

FullCircle -> RE: Church shooter's "manifesto" (3/14/2009 4:26:30 PM)
I bet he had his own reasons that he can't even admit to so conveniently uses other excuses for his actions. You can read that manifesto and still not know what he was really doing it for. We even lie to ourselves sometimes in terms of justifying our actions.

kittinSol -> RE: Church shooter's "manifesto" (3/14/2009 4:37:42 PM)
Too true. Okay you win [8D] .

FullCircle -> RE: Church shooter's "manifesto" (3/14/2009 4:46:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol My point is... who's going to deem what is and isn't newsworthy? Editors are the people that do this and they are making the wrong choices according to my world view, is all I'm saying. quote: As for free speech... I would be all for enforcing anti hate speech legislation here, but the first amendment is sacrosanct in America. Apparently. They invented freedom we only knew imprisonment before the US came about.

FullCircle -> RE: Church shooter's "manifesto" (3/14/2009 4:48:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Too true. Okay you win [8D] . Not often I beat you but it feels good.

DomKen -> RE: Church shooter's "manifesto" (3/14/2009 5:16:12 PM)
I ahve always been a firm believer that more speech is always the answer to hate speech. I don't want anyone forced by the government to stay silent. However I do believe that this letter and the references inside it provide prima facie evidence for a wrongful death lawsuit against those who are named as inspirations in the letter. On another subject, have I missed somebody in the right wing media going after the UU church? His half page rant against the UU church seemed almost like it wasn't his own words. Was he quoting or paraphrasing someone?

DedicatedDom40 -> RE: Church shooter's "manifesto" (3/14/2009 5:31:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales I have to disagree on this point DD. The right of the far right to speak their minds, no matter what we think of their words, is as important a right as ours is to speak our minds in opposition. I see what you are saying, and I appreciate that. The only thing I will add is standing on a street corner speaking your mind is a bit different than being handed the megafone of a 24 hr cable news channel piped into hundreds of thousands of homes. There should be an element of responsibility that goes along with being handed a megafone of that magnitude. There is no responsibility coming from the people who hold the megafones today. Maybe the solution lies in victims suing the media outfits or book publishers or show sponsors when its traced back to them. Let the media company or the sponsors tame the asshole-ness. Free speech issues would disappear, because the megafone is privately owned. quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales Had they said "Go out, get a gun and shoot a Democrat", I would agree with you on the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy. Maybe not those exact words, but Im sure phrases like "If we eliminated all ....... in this country, things would be..." has been spoken before by a pundit or talk radio host.

BKSir -> RE: Church shooter's "manifesto" (3/14/2009 5:37:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle Information is public but not publicised. My birth certificate is public but not newsworthy. We need to reconsider what in this day and age rates as news because I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Again... a lot of things aren't newsworthy in my opinion but still make their way through on the airwaves. My point is... who's going to deem what is and isn't newsworthy? I'm all for knowing what resides inside a nutter's mind. You have to know your enemy... unfortunately. As for free speech... I would be all for enforcing anti hate speech legislation here, but the first amendment is sacrosanct in America. Apparently. I say again, the First Amendment is there not to protect the things we love, but the things we hate. Once one starts regulating that, even on the most honorable of reasons and with the best of intentions, where does it stop? Who is the one who decides what is okay and what isn't? Sure, there are tons of people out there that I wish weren't allowed to say what they do, but, they would wish the same for me I'm sure. What is entirely reasonable and rational to me, they would probably call 'dangerous and insane ramblings', and vice versa. I would love to regulate 'hate speech', but, what's hate to me and what's hate to someone else is probably quite different. So, it's a double edged sword, and difficult at best to decide what it is. As far as the manifesto, I don't understand why it was released, it was his personal writings, and, although I think we can all say conclusively that he wasn't quite right in the head, honestly, who cares? The biggest problem, I believe, is that 'news', such as it is, has become such a load of sensationalized crap that it's pathetic. If I wanted sensationalism, I'd turn on E! or something like that, which I don't. I want news. I want to know what happened, then move on to the next whatever else happened. There's enough going on in the world right now that there's no need to draw one thing out for very long, aside from ratings.

DedicatedDom40 -> RE: Church shooter's "manifesto" (3/14/2009 5:37:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou Ted Bundy claimed that Detective Magazines with cheesecake photos of women in bondage led him to brutally murder women. He called it porn; I guess we should ban those. Mark Essex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Essex was a former Black Panther and police found all sorts of left wing literature in his home after his rampage. I guess we should ban all subversive literature, and in your words "by force if necessary." Valerie Solanas shot Andy Warhol. She wrote the famous Scum Manifesto, which is still required reading in many Gender Studies classes (I read it in college.) I guess we should ban it. Mein Kampf is used by violent, racist groups to justify their hatred. I suppose we should go into every library in America and torch it. Good points all. Only difference I see is the magnification (internet, 24 hr news, constant tones) provided to the message thats being absorbed today is not quite the same as it was when these other events occurred. Different day and age, different tools magnifying the problem.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125