Two US TV journalists shot dead on air

[kaylagrl]

Applauds Kayla!!!

Thank you,Im just so sick of the liberal culture and PC nonsense. We are where we are because no one wants to take responsibility for anything. There is always someone or something to blame.It drives me crazy.There's more sympathy for the perpetrator than the victims.Its sick and Im sick of it.Ok,getting off the soap box now and getting some breakfast.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Anger is an awful thing if it is left unresolved. Flanagan proved that yesterday, and made it clear in his "manifesto" -- it was really more of a lengthy, out-of-control, vindictive, self-centered rant (and he called it a "suicide note") -- to ABC News that " ... my anger has been building steadily...I’ve been a human powder keg for a while…just waiting to go BOOM!!!!"

Omni is right in saying that "for all we know" he suffered from a mental illness, but he overlooks the fact that anyone who lets anger build to the point that he becomes homicidal is not being a responsible citizen, mentally ill or not.

Another thing that strikes me is how Flanagan deflected everything. Nothing was ever his fault, whether from his days at WDBJ, or the fact he hasn't been able to get a job since. In fact, his excuses are familiar.

"I'm Black." "I'm gay." "I'm a victim of [alternately and/or simultaneously] ... discrimination ... hate ... sexual harassment ... bullying." Anyone who has that many excuses knows he has problems but is refusing to look inward to find answers. Instead, they are preferring to blame others, because if they blame themselves, they are left with no alternatives, as they believe they cannot change. But the reality is, they refuse to try.

It is a tragedy he killed these two young, promising professionals and wounded the subject of their interview. it is also a tragedy that he took the cowards' way out and took his own life. But then again, with Virginia the third-leading state in executions behind Texas and Missouri, essentially he performed the state's duty and saved them a lot of money in the process.

That may sound harsh -- particularly to Omni -- but reality is reality. Our sympathies, our prayers, our compassion, can be spread out among all four victims, and should be. Nonetheless,Flanagan didn't have to take this route. He refused to seek help, take responsibility for himself, and as a result, two are dead because of his anger, and another recovering from a gunshot wound fired in that anger. And he himself is dead.

There is no redemption in any of it. This heartbreak was all so completely unnecessary.

 

[Omni]

While you can pity a wasted life I cannot understand why this day in age everything has to be a disease.This man stocked and murdered two innocent people in cold blood.Then he posted the murder on twitter and facebook bragging on what he had done.This is not a mental illness,its evil,its demonic.I wish people would stop making excuses for the murders and focusing on them more than the victims. This man was a coward and he was evil.Stop making excuses.

By the very definition, insanity is extreme irrationality. This man was extremely irrational; no rational person would do what he did. That's not an excuse for him, it's a fact regarding the nature of his actions. I feel sadness for the victims, I also don't think railing mindlessly on the killer is productive.

Where is forgiveness? Where is the hope? For him,there is none.He allowed satan to take over his life.He walked away from grace and chose his path.The Bible talks about giving people over to a reprobate mind.So there is only justice left,which he is now receiving.A life for a life. He made the choice,no one made it for him.

Christians who say they shouldnt judge use that verse as a catch all and an excuse.It's twisted and misused.This man killed two innocent people in cold blood.Thats a fact,that is not judging.God has already judged murder as wrong.It annoys me that people use the judge not verse to allow any kind of sin,excuse it away.That is a false gospel.

I don't think you know the difference between excusing someone, and looking for reasons for someone's behaviour beyond some irrational, judgemental bloodlust.

Its nonsense to compare the want for justice for a cold blooded murder to the murderers bloodlust. That is pure nonsense.It is you who needs to grow up.If you were the family of the slain you'd want to see justice done.And the fact that he killed himself instead of living to have bleeding hearts give him a slap on the wrist and let him go,yes Id say justice was done.He stocked and killed two people,they will never marry,have children,have a future.He took that from them.He was evil,call it what it is!

He could have been admitted to a psychiatric facility and been studied. Then we'd learn something from this. Like, perhaps, what we can do to prevent it happening to other innocent families in future. But it seems enough for you that he's dead. Well what happens when the next guy decides to go out and kill a lot of innocent people? Is it enough that he gets the death penalty? And the next? And the next? How many innocent people need to die because nobody wants to look at things like this with an honest, rational desire to find out why it happens and how it can be prevented in future?

You know why this will keep happening? Because we are so PC today we cant call sin sin.No one is evil,just ill.

You think that in all the instances of shootings of innocents in the US in the past twenty years, any of the killers have given a turd about the definitions of sin?? They don't CARE!! They get access to guns with lax gun laws, they go out and kill people, then they get railed on by people who can't do anything else; people who think unfettered access to weapons is a right, but who take no responsibility for creating the conditions in which such a man like this is able to murder and kill at his whim. When was the last time someone went out and spree killed in Ireland??

Hitler would have loved this PC generation.He wasn't pure evil he was just mentally ill.

"Pure evil" is a concept of judgement. That's all. It provides no solutions to situations like this. These events will keep happening, and people like you will keep shouting "kill him back". Great.

Its the go to excuse for everything today.No one is responsible for anything they do.They couldnt help it,they were sick.Ridiculous! He was well enough to stock these two people,he was well enough to plan their murders,he was well enough to patently wait before shooting them on live tv and he was well enough to post the sick,evil deed on social media and brag on it.

He was "well" enough to do those things?? Do you really think any of what you've just described is healthy, or well? Those are not the actions of a mentally healthy person, any of them.

all it what is it EVIL! Stop focusing on the murderer and focus on the victims.He's gone to his reward.He took a path that led to death,sin is death.

I can focus on whatever I like. And what I'm focusing on is to do something to change the circumstances that lead to things like this happening in the first place. Shouting for the man's head isn't a solution, it's an idiotic, irrational, self-righteous gesture. Any person can snap. Anybody. It takes certain conditions, and some people are more stable than others, but given a certain progression of events, the shooter could have been you. You could be sane right up until the point that you aren't, you could go out, you could buy a gun, and you could do something horrible to innocent people.

Obviously this man wasn't always like that. He had a stable, decent-paying job. He was a normal member of society. So what happened? Why wasn't it seen? Who missed it? Was there any time during the lead up to this atrocity that by putting new implementations in place, might have saved the lives of these two innocent people? Those are the questions I ask.

If you want to do something for the victims families, then get off your white throne, take a bloody social responsibility for these events and make an effort to put in place changes that may prevent them in future.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Obviously this man wasn't always like that.

Don't be so sure about that.

Gunman who killed 2 former colleagues had long history of erratic workplace behavior

The disgruntled former television reporter who murdered two of his former colleagues during a live interview Wednesday morning had a long history of erratic behavior at various workplaces, including acting aggressively toward co-workers and claiming racism was behind uncomplimentary evaluations.

Flanagan, who reported under the name Bryce Williams, was hired by WDBJ, based in Roanoke, Va., in March 2012. He only lasted 11 months at the station, and The Roanoke Times reported that his outbursts alienated and terrified co-workers.

"He quickly gathered a reputation as someone who was difficult to work with," station president and general manager Jeff Marks told reporters Wednesday. Justin McLeod, a former WDBJ reporter, told the paper that Flanagan "had anger management issues that went beyond anger management."

All the photographers at the station refused to work with him because he accused them all of being "racists." He allegedly threatened other station employees to the point they all were frightened of him and felt uncomfortable and ill-at-ease around him. He wore an Obama campaign button to work, a clear violation of the impartiality clause of his contract.

When he was fired, he refused to leave, telling the news director "you're going to have to call the [expletive] police, 'cause I'm not moving!" Such chronic, volatile anger is indicative, in fact, of a man who had always been like that. See my previous post (#62) regarding unresolved anger.

He had a stable, decent-paying job. He was a normal member of society.

Given all that is being written about him, I can't imagine a basis for your saying this, other than sheer speculation on your part.

So what happened? Why wasn't it seen? Who missed it? Was there any time during the lead up to this atrocity that by putting new implementations in place, might have saved the lives of these two innocent people? Those are the questions I ask.

The answers have been provided in countless media postings and stories over the last twelve hours or so. Your assumptions are based in a lack of knowledge that, apparently, the rest of us have.

He happened to himself, it was seen, and no one missed it. He was constantly told he needed to address his anger issues, and his news director even made an appointment with the station's EAP provider, offering the station's help in providing him the help he obviously needed. He refused to go.

If you want to do something for the victims families, then get off your white throne, take a bloody social responsibility for these events and make an effort to put in place changes that may prevent them in future.

Ah, the liberal whine raises it's ugly head! "It's our fault!' B/S!!

Flanagan was responsible for his own anger, his own life's problems, his own self-hate, and even when he refused to take responsibility or action to get help, even after he had alienated most of his fellow employees and his supervisors, they still tried to help him and he refused it. It isn't "our fault," and it's time silly whines like that are met with the push-back they deserve.

 

[Omni]

Anger is an awful thing if it is left unresolved. Flanagan proved that yesterday, and made it clear in his "manifesto" -- it was really more of a lengthy, out-of-control, vindictive, self-centered rant (and he called it a "suicide note") -- to ABC News that " ... my anger has been building steadily...I’ve been a human powder keg for a while…just waiting to go BOOM!!!!"

Omni is right in saying that "for all we know" he suffered from a mental illness, but he overlooks the fact that anyone who lets anger build to the point that he becomes homicidal is not being a responsible citizen, mentally ill or not.

I'm not overlooking that fact; I agree with that fact. It's quite obvious. Responsible citizens don't kill people. Murderers aren't responsible citizens. Obviously the man felt unable to be a responsible citizen. Why did he feel unable to be a responsible citizen? What changed, from his being responsible, to loosing touch with reality? Why wasn't it seen? What conditions were necessary for him to become as deranged and irresponsible as he became? And is there anything about the whole situation that can be changed next time?

Would it be beneficial, for instance, for dismissed employees to get more help and support in finding another job? Could mental health services for employees help prevent situations like this in future? And where did he get his guns? Was his license old? Would it be beneficial for gun license holders to renew their licenses in more frequent intervals?

This isn't, by any stretch, the first time this has happened. And it keeps happening. Man gets disgruntled, man shuts himself out from the world, man's psyche breaks, man gets guns, man kills several innocent people. There's a clear pattern in these gun crimes, and steps must be taken to do more to identify or prevent potential threats like this in future.

Another thing that strikes me is how Flanagan deflected everything. Nothing was ever his fault, whether from his days at WDBJ, or the fact he hasn't been able to get a job since. In fact, his excuses are familiar.

"I'm Black." "I'm gay." "I'm a victim of [alternately and/or simultaneously] ... discrimination ... hate ... sexual harassment ... bullying." Anyone who has that many excuses knows he has problems but is refusing to look inward to find answers. Instead, they are preferring to blame others, because if they blame themselves, they are left with no alternatives, as they believe they cannot change. But the reality is, they refuse to try.

Yes, the man felt victimized, alone, disenfranchised, angry, resentful. These feelings festered, and he didn't do much to prevent them festering. That's not an excuse for him. Shoulda woulda coulda. But again, that's a pattern in these shootings. So what can be done differently? Can we implement any social or legal policies that might help prevent cases like this?

It is a tragedy he killed these two young, promising professionals and wounded the subject of their interview. it is also a tragedy that he took the cowards' way out and took his own life. But then again, with Virginia the third-leading state in executions behind Texas and Missouri, essentially he performed the state's duty and saved them a lot of money in the process.

That may sound harsh -- particularly to Omni -- but reality is reality. Our sympathies, our prayers, our compassion, can be spread out among all four victims, and should be. Nonetheless,Flanagan didn't have to take this route. He refused to seek help, take responsibility for himself, and as a result, two are dead because of his anger, and another recovering from a gunshot wound fired in that anger. And he himself is dead.

There is no redemption in any of it. This heartbreak was all so completely unnecessary.

I agree. It's tragic, unnecessary, and sad. But that's not enough. It's not enough to bow our heads and hope for the best. Something needs to change.

 

[Omni]

Don't be so sure about that.

All the photographers at the station refused to work with him because he accused them all of being "racists." He allegedly threatened other station employees to the point they all were frightened of him and felt uncomfortable and ill-at-ease around him. He wore an Obama campaign button to work, a clear violation of the impartiality clause of his contract.

When he was fired, he refused to leave, telling the news director "you're going to have to call the [expletive] police, 'cause I'm not moving!" Such chronic, volatile anger is indicative, in fact, of a man who had always been like that. See my previous post (#62) regarding unresolved anger.

Given all that is being written about him, I can't imagine a basis for your saying this, other than sheer speculation on your part.

The answers have been provided in countless media postings and stories over the last twelve hours or so. Your assumptions are based in a lack of knowledge that, apparently, the rest of us have.

He happened to himself, it was seen, and no one missed it. He was constantly told he needed to address his anger issues, and his news director even made an appointment with the station's EAP provider, offering the station's help in providing him the help he obviously needed. He refused to go.

Ah, the liberal whine raises it's ugly head! "It's our fault!' B/S!!

Flanagan was responsible for his own anger, his own life's problems, his own self-hate, and even when he refused to take responsibility or action to get help, even after he had alienated most of his fellow employees and his supervisors, they still tried to help him and he refused it. It isn't "our fault," and it's time silly whines like that are met with the push-back they deserve.

So you're telling me he's responsible for being born in Virginia? I dont' think he asked to be. You think there's no connection between Virginia's social views on being gay, the southern social issues faced by blacks, and this man's feelings?

There's a reason why a tolerant, gun-strict country like Germany faces far less violent crime relative to population, than a place like Virginia.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

I'm not overlooking that fact; I agree with that fact. It's quite obvious. Responsible citizens don't kill people. Murderers aren't responsible citizens. Obviously the man felt unable to be a responsible citizen. Why did he feel unable to be a responsible citizen? What changed, from his being responsible, to loosing touch with reality? Why wasn't it seen? What conditions were necessary for him to become as deranged and irresponsible as he became? And is there anything about the whole situation that can be changed next time?

You ask this question, again, as though it is society's fault. That is the common whine from the politically correct and "socially responsible" today. That thought-line is total hogwash.

The ugly truth is, no one is free to blame anyone but themselves for the shortcomings of their behavior, personality, and cognitive processes. Everyone is responsible for themselves. There is no force of societal will, no irresistible malevolent power, no sinister input, that made Vester Flanagan a cold-blooded murderer. He made that choice. He refused the help. He acquired the gun. He went to the shopping mall. He pulled the trigger.

Would it be beneficial, for instance, for dismissed employees to get more help and support in finding another job? Could mental health services for employees help prevent situations like this in future?

Again, offered and refused.

And where did he get his guns? Was his license old? Would it be beneficial for gun license holders to renew their licenses in more frequent intervals?

Obviously those things need to be addressed, for men and women such as Flanagan who have no ability to be introspective, to be self-aware, to evaluate their own mental state. No one actually has that ability to the point they can avoid bad decisions. Some have less ability, and as a result, make even worse decisions. Flanagan apparently didn't have any ability at all, and made the worst decisions possible. That's on him. Not society.

This isn't, by any stretch, the first time this has happened. And it keeps happening. Man gets disgruntled, man shuts himself out from the world, man's psyche breaks, man gets guns, man kills several innocent people. There's a clear pattern in these gun crimes, and steps must be taken to do more to identify or prevent potential threats like this in the future.

Background checks that probe into the mental health of individual gun license applicants run afoul of HIPAA laws in the U.S. Medical/mental health information is totally private, no one else's business. It is far more critical to protect that information than it is to invade privacy for a gun, or any other license. Even flagging an individual as having mental health issues without exposing what kind of issue that may have been, is a violation of that privacy. You're asking for something that is impossible to grant.

Yes, the man felt victimized, alone, disenfranchised, angry, resentful. These feelings festered, and he didn't do much to prevent them festering. That's not an excuse for him. Shoulda woulda coulda. But again, that's a pattern in these shootings. So what can be done differently? Can we implement any social or legal policies that might help prevent cases like this?

Without violating individuals' privacy rights, no. The right of the individual to privacy regarding medical/mental health records is inviolable. The right of the public to a reasonable assurance of safety is also inviolable. We have the rhetorical "irresistible force and immovable object" confronting one another. You tell me how to resolve that.

I agree. It's tragic, unnecessary, and sad. But that's not enough. It's not enough to bow our heads and hope for the best. Something needs to change.

When you come up with a way to satisfy both demands, let me know. It will be a breakthrough.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

So you're telling me he's responsible for being born in Virginia? I dont' think he asked to be. You think there's no connection between Virginia's social views on being gay, the southern social issues faced by blacks, and this man's feelings?

Society is not responsible for an individual's feelings. That's where you make the mistake of political correctness.

There's a reason why a tolerant, gun-strict country like Germany faces far less violent crime relative to population, than a place like Virginia.

"Tolerant" does not mean affirming anything. It means "putting up with." There's a huge difference. I can "put up with" an angry jerk and treat him with love. That's not to say I am affirming his anger or his jerkiness. That's to say I put up with it in love to the end of gaining his respect so I can help him. I refuse to affirm a behavior that is not Christlike, nor biblically founded. But I can still "put up with" it to the same end.

 

[JustAnotherUser]

Keep in mind, too, that the vast majority classified as mentally ill do not pose a threat to society. It's believed 3 - 4% of the US population with an illness are those who are posed as a threat, and that's usually on the more severe end of illnesses and should be in institutions. We can only blame society to a certain extent for the actions of individuals who are a threat. Unfortunately, we also live in a culture where people's motives are due to being victimized instead of having them owe up to their mistakes, then people would think twice before committing certain crimes if they see what punishment can be given instead of being left off the hook.

We could go in a circle to point fingers, but in the end it is the shooter's fault. He took himself out because he knew that he had been caught and would remain life in prison if not given the death penalty.

 

[Omni]

You ask this question, again, as though it is society's fault. That is the common whine from the politically correct and "socially responsible" today. That thought-line is total hogwash.

The ugly truth is, no one is free to blame anyone but themselves for the shortcomings of their behavior, personality, and cognitive processes. Everyone is responsible for themselves. There is no force of societal will, no irresistible malevolent power, no sinister input, that made Vester Flanagan a cold-blooded murderer. He made that choice. He refused the help. He acquired the gun. He went to the shopping mall. He pulled the trigger.

Again, offered and refused.

Obviously those things need to be addressed, for men and women such as Flanagan who have no ability to be introspective, to be self-aware, to evaluate their own mental state. No one actually has that ability to the point they can avoid bad decisions. Some have less ability, and as a result, make even worse decisions. Flanagan apparently didn't have any ability at all, and made the worst decisions possible. That's on him. Not society.

Background checks that probe into the mental health of individual gun license applicants run afoul of HIPAA laws in the U.S. Medical/mental health information is totally private, no one else's business. It is far more critical to protect that information than it is to invade privacy for a gun, or any other license. Even flagging an individual as having mental health issues is a violation of that privacy. You're asking for somehting that is impossible to grant.

Without violating individuals' privacy rights, no. The right of the individual to privacy regarding medical/mental health records is inviolable. The right of the public to a reasonable assurance of safety is also inviolable. We have the rhetorical "irresistible force and immovable object" confronting one another. You tell me how to resolve that.

When you come up with a way to satisfy both demands, let me know. It will be a breakthrough.

Why can't the government implement a policy where applying for a gun license requires a sign off from a medical professional after a psyche assessment? If it was handled by a centralized, government licensing bureau, it might work thus: you could go to apply for a gun license, and the guy at the licensing office gives you the forms. You fill in the forms, bring the forms to your doctor, and undergo a short psychiatric assessment for mental stability. The doctor gives you a sheet of paper with the insignia and stamp of the doctor's surgery, to show their accreditation, with a signature. You send the signed sheet off to the licensing bureau and get your license through the post.

If you don't get the signature, you don't get the gun.

It circumvents the problems you mention by not taking the citizens medical records by force. The applicant consents to the mental assessment and the giving over of the signed doctor's note to the licensing bureau, of his own volition. There's also a way to frame it legally:

The US constitution states "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

It could be argued that since the people are the arbiters of the free state, and the militia is there for the security of that state, that giving guns to mentally unfit people contradicts the requirement for the militia to be well-regulated, because mentally ill gun-owners pose a fundamental security risk, thus allowing them to own guns is contradictory to protecting the responsible, mentally stable people of the free state. The risk of members of the free state being murdered, if mentally ill citizens are allowed guns, is bad regulation of the public militia.

 

[Omni]

Society is not responsible for an individual's feelings. That's where you make the mistake of political correctness.

"Tolerant" does not mean affirming anything. It means "putting up with." There's a huge difference. I can "put up with" an angry jerk and treat him with love. That's not to say I am affirming his anger or his jerkiness. That's to say I put up with it in love to the end of gaining his respect so I can help him. I refuse to affirm a behavior that is not Christlike, nor biblically founded. But I can still "put up with" it to the same end.

You're missing the point. Germany are tolerant of blacks, socially. They're tolerant of gays, socially. They accept the right of individuals to make their own life choices, and its evident in their social and legal precedents. As a result of allowing citizens to be who they wish to be, you remove a lot of factors that exacerbate a resentment towards the society in which one lives.

It is precisely because Germany allow gay people to be gay people, and precisely because there is not much of a race issue, that people who are gay or black feel little resentment towards the rest of their society.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

You're missing the point.

I disagree. Your solution for "tolerance" is illogical, as illustrated by the rest of this paragraph.

Germany are tolerant of blacks, socially. They're tolerant of gays, socially. They accept the right of individuals to make their own life choices, and its evident in their social and legal precedents. As a result of allowing citizens to be who they wish to be, you remove a lot of factors that exacerbate a resentment towards the society in which one lives.

Those aren't choices a "society" can make without imposing civil or criminal sanctions that are morally and most likely legally unacceptable. You impose society's will on individuals. That's thought control. You are attempting to legislate opinion, making some unacceptable and others acceptable. That's repugnant to most Americans, and God help us, will never happen here.

It is precisely because Germany allow gay people to be gay people, and precisely because there is not much of a race issue, that people who are gay or black feel little resentment towards the rest of their society.

No one in the U.S. prevents anybody from being anything. The fact our government is moving in the direction of Germany and forcing a minority opinion of morality on the majority is anathema to our heritage and history, very likely unconstitutional despite the Supreme Court having claimed they are within constitutional guidelines in doing so.

Most of us here in the U.S. are far more concerned for our future under political correctness than we are about whether our neighbor is gay or not. We could care less about the latter. We are on the alert to prevent continued moves in the direction of the former.

 

[kaylagrl]

By the very definition, insanity is extreme irrationality. This man was extremely irrational; no rational person would do what he did. That's not an excuse for him, it's a fact regarding the nature of his actions. I feel sadness for the victims, I also don't think railing mindlessly on the killer is productive.





I don't think you know the difference between excusing someone, and looking for reasons for someone's behaviour beyond some irrational, judgemental bloodlust.



He could have been admitted to a psychiatric facility and been studied. Then we'd learn something from this. Like, perhaps, what we can do to prevent it happening to other innocent families in future. But it seems enough for you that he's dead. Well what happens when the next guy decides to go out and kill a lot of innocent people? Is it enough that he gets the death penalty? And the next? And the next? How many innocent people need to die because nobody wants to look at things like this with an honest, rational desire to find out why it happens and how it can be prevented in future?



You think that in all the instances of shootings of innocents in the US in the past twenty years, any of the killers have given a turd about the definitions of sin?? They don't CARE!! They get access to guns with lax gun laws, they go out and kill people, then they get railed on by people who can't do anything else; people who think unfettered access to weapons is a right, but who take no responsibility for creating the conditions in which such a man like this is able to murder and kill at his whim. When was the last time someone went out and spree killed in Ireland??



"Pure evil" is a concept of judgement. That's all. It provides no solutions to situations like this. These events will keep happening, and people like you will keep shouting "kill him back". Great.




He was "well" enough to do those things?? Do you really think any of what you've just described is healthy, or well? Those are not the actions of a mentally healthy person, any of them.



I can focus on whatever I like. And what I'm focusing on is to do something to change the circumstances that lead to things like this happening in the first place. Shouting for the man's head isn't a solution, it's an idiotic, irrational, self-righteous gesture. Any person can snap. Anybody. It takes certain conditions, and some people are more stable than others, but given a certain progression of events, the shooter could have been you. You could be sane right up until the point that you aren't, you could go out, you could buy a gun, and you could do something horrible to innocent people.

Obviously this man wasn't always like that. He had a stable, decent-paying job. He was a normal member of society. So what happened? Why wasn't it seen? Who missed it? Was there any time during the lead up to this atrocity that by putting new implementations in place, might have saved the lives of these two innocent people? Those are the questions I ask.

If you want to do something for the victims families, then get off your white throne, take a bloody social responsibility for these events and make an effort to put in place changes that may prevent them in future.

Quote "By the very definition, insanity is extreme irrationality. This man was extremely irrational; no rational person would do what he did. That's not an excuse for him, it's a fact regarding the nature of his actions. I feel sadness for the victims, I also don't think railing mindlessly on the killer is productive."

He wasn't irrational.He was very rational.He didnt suddenly pick up a rock and bludgeon people to death.He plotted,stocked,planned and waited. He knew every detail down to posting the murder on social media.He was evil.No one is railing on the murderer.How many murders have we looked into their past,asked "why" endlessly,asked them why,their family and friends why.Why,why,why? Because evil overtakes people,lust,greed,revenge.But far left liberals want a disease for it.They want a reason other then evil,demonic.They want to rationalize evil.You cant.We havent found one reason looking into these people past to stop the next person from murdering.Why did Cain kill Abel? The first murder recorded in the Bible? Vengeance,jealousy.Simple.No disease,evil,period.


Quote "I don't think you know the difference between excusing someone, and looking for reasons for someone's behaviour beyond some irrational, judgemental bloodlust."

Gimme a break,really. How much have we studied these people?! Carving up bodies,rapes,muders,young women chained in a basement. The horrendous,horrific things that have been done.God sees their blood,it cries to Him from the ground.He sees those last moments begging for life,screaming in pain,the last breath of life.I tell you God has judged these people already. It has nothing to do with bloodlust,it has to do with something the Bible calls "righteous indignation" Def."Righteous anger is typically a reactive emotion of anger over perceived mistreatment, insult, or malice. It is akin to what is called the sense of injustice. "

Quote "He could have been admitted to a psychiatric facility and been studied. Then we'd learn something from this. Like, perhaps, what we can do to prevent it happening to other innocent families in future. "

Seriously?! Where has this worked?! Do you listen to the news? I'll save you the bother,he was evil.He let his self pity fester until he murdered two innocent people.There,mystery solved,for free.

Quote "But it seems enough for you that he's dead."

You better believe it.An eye for and eye.Its a pity he wasted his life but he had free will and he chose to murder two people.Justice demands a price be paid.Jesus pays that price but he took his own path,now he has chosen sin and that leads to death.

Quote "Well what happens when the next guy decides to go out and kill a lot of innocent people? Is it enough that he gets the death penalty? And the next? And the next? How many innocent people need to die because nobody wants to look at things like this with an honest, rational desire to find out why it happens and how it can be prevented in future?"

Murder has happened since the beginning of time.You can study motives till the end of time,not going to help. From Jack the Ripper to Son of Sam to the Boston bomber,study them all and you will find a common thread,evil. I see you are not a Christian so you believe differently because you have to.But a Christian believes we are born in sin,sin is our nature.The only redemption from sin is Christ. Why do they do what they do? Because sin is their nature,they allow evil,greed,lust,jealousy to overtake them.That is what the murder did.


Quote "You think that in all the instances of shootings of innocents in the US in the past twenty years, any of the killers have given a turd about the definitions of sin?? They don't CARE!! They get access to guns with lax gun laws, they go out and kill people, then they get railed on by people who can't do anything else; people who think unfettered access to weapons is a right, but who take no responsibility for creating the conditions in which such a man like this is able to murder and kill at his whim. When was the last time someone went out and spree killed in Ireland??"

According to stats the states with the most gun control see the most tragedies.Now I wonder why that is? The US has a totally different system then other countries.Im Canadian,raised in the country and lived there till I was in my thirties.The US was founded on the right to bear arms.These other countries were not.All you are doing by toughening gun laws is taking guns from people who are honest and good citizens.Do you think these evil,criminal people are going to give up their guns? Who is going to take guns from them? Look at the war on drugs and tell me how we're going to gets guns from criminals and protect innocent citizens.Do you not think they'll find another way? They will.

Quote""Pure evil" is a concept of judgement. That's all. It provides no solutions to situations like this. These events will keep happening, and people like you will keep shouting "kill him back". Great."

Yes! Evil is a judgement!! Gods judgement! And they will be punished.Would have studied Hitler? What do you think you would have learned that would have stopped Osama? What solution are you looking for? Actually there is a solution,but you'd deny it. God is the only solution.But people have free will.If your family was murdered would you not want justice? No? Ok,do you think you have a right to take that from others? To see justice done? What about the family where the daughters and wife were raped,tied to the beds and burned to death? How would you feel? Do you have a right to tell them how to feel? I dont think so.

Quote" He was "well" enough to do those things?? Do you really think any of what you've just described is healthy, or well? Those are not the actions of a mentally healthy person, any of them.'

They are the actions of an evil person.No I dont think he was insane and didnt know what he was doing.He plotted,he planned,he knew. Justice would be served for him to receive the death penalty had he lived.To say everyone that commits crime is mentally ill is ridiculous.Now days there is no responsibility for anything.He had a bad childhood,his parents divorced,he was picked on.Give me a break! He knew what he was doing,he was guilty and he was evil.No study needed.

Quote " And what I'm focusing on is to do something to change the circumstances that lead to things like this happening in the first place."

Like I said,murder has happened since the beginning of time.No solution,no magic pill has stopped one murder.In fact crime and murder has increased.A Christian understands its a need for God that has created this.Do all the studies you want,it wont stop the evil in mens hearts.Only God can do that.

Quote"Shouting for the man's head isn't a solution, it's an idiotic, irrational, self-righteous gesture."

Justice isnt irrational,it isnt self righteous.When you take a life you forfeit your own. These lives were lost.They will never see a sunset,never hug a loved one,never have children,never marry,never fulfill a dream. Dont call me self righteous for calling for justice.He carelessly snuffed out their lives.He should suffer the same loss that he caused.

Quote" Any person can snap. Anybody. It takes certain conditions, and some people are more stable than others, but given a certain progression of events, the shooter could have been you."

So now we're all guilty as he is and we're all potential murders,is that it? Wow you'll go a long way to justify what this guy did wont you? No, I couldnt have been the shooter.For a couple reasons but I'll give just one...I believe in a righteous God,an unbiased and completely just God and I know that I would receive worse punishment from Him then anything anyone on this earth could dole out. People have suffered horrible things and never went out and murdered two innocent people.Frankly your excuses for this guy are getting ridiculous now.


Quote "Obviously this man wasn't always like that. He had a stable, decent-paying job. He was a normal member of society. So what happened? Why wasn't it seen? Who missed it? Was there any time during the lead up to this atrocity that by putting new implementations in place, might have saved the lives of these two innocent people? Those are the questions I ask."

Apparently he was like that.He was fired from other jobs because no one was able to work with him,at least thats what was said on the news yesterday.They said he was a disgruntled worker but it had been two years since he had worked there.What could you implement to stop that? How could you know two years later he would murder two people? When does the responsibility become his?! Does it ever?


Quote "If you want to do something for the victims families, then get off your white throne, take a bloody social responsibility for these events and make an effort to put in place changes that may prevent them in future."

Now who's being judgmental? What white throne are you talking about? smh You want to help the victims? Stop making excuses for murderers. Stop with the PC nonsense.Make people take responsibility for their actions. Call a spade a spade and admit to evil.Now they are wanting employers to find new job placements for people they fire so they dont come back and murder all their co-workers. Have you ever?! Where does responsibility come in? Do you just get to blame everyone all your life and murder anyone you think is working against you? Anyone who's made fun of you,called you a name? We have so many delusional,entitled,selfish people out there.They dont get it.You're not entitled to a cushy life.People may not like you,you may get fired,you may get divorced,the love of your life may not be attracted to you,you may lose your home,you cant go out and murder people because life is working for you the way you want it too.Grow up and take responsibility for your life and for pity sake parents stop lying to these kids by making them think a little hardship is going to kill them! Stop coddling and giving a gold star for no accomplishments.Maybe,just maybe we'll stop some of these self centered,self indulgent, care only about number one "adults" that are walking around out there.Stop the PC junk already! You choose actions,you choose the consequences.End of story.

 

[kaylagrl]

I disagree. Your solution for "tolerance" is illogical, as illustrated by the rest of this paragraph.

Those aren't choices a "society" can make without imposing civil or criminal sanctions that are morally and most likely legally unacceptable. You impose society's will on individuals. That's thought control. You are attempting to legislate opinion, making some unacceptable and others acceptable. That's repugnant to most Americans, and God help us, will never happen here.

No one in the U.S. prevents anybody from being anything. The fact our government is moving in the direction of Germany and forcing a minority opinion of morality on the majority is anathema to our heritage and history, very likely unconstitutional despite the Supreme Court having claimed they are within constitutional guidelines in doing so.

Most of us here in the U.S. are far more concerned for our future under political correctness than we are about whether our neighbor is gay or not. We could care less about the latter. We are on the alert to prevent continued moves in the direction of the former.

Well I should have saved my breath and left you answer.You're doing a far better job with a lot more patience then I have.Got to give you a pat on the back for that!

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Why can't the government implement a policy where applying for a gun license requires a sign off from a medical professional after a psyche assessment?

Because that is still a violation of our HIPAA laws.

If it was handled by a centralized, government licensing bureau, it might work thus: you could go to apply for a gun license, and the guy at the licensing office gives you the forms. You fill in the forms, bring the forms to your doctor, and undergo a short psychiatric assessment for mental stability. The doctor gives you a sheet of paper with the insignia and stamp of the doctor's surgery, to show their accreditation, with a signature. You send the signed sheet off to the licensing bureau and get your license through the post.

If you don't get the signature, you don't get the gun.

yeah, just what we want, another "centralized government bureau" -- one that violates your health privacy rights to boot. Great idea. Not.

It circumvents the problems you mention by not taking the citizens medical records by force.

I didn't mention "force." Our laws prevent a person's private medical/mental health records from being transmitted to anyone other than another medical provider or the patient's/client's insurance company.

The applicant consents to the mental assessment and the giving over of the signed doctor's note to the licensing bureau, of his own volition. There's also a way to frame it legally:

The US constitution states "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

It could be argued that since the people are the arbiters of the free state, and the militia is there for the security of that state, that giving guns to mentally unfit people contradicts the requirement for the militia to be well-regulated, because mentally ill gun-owners pose a fundamental security risk, thus allowing them to own guns is contradictory to protecting the responsible, mentally stable people of the free state. The risk of members of the free state being murdered, if mentally ill citizens are allowed guns, is bad regulation of the public militia.

I have to admit, that's a strong argument, and the applicant giving his consent is the exception to HIPAA and to CFR 42 Part 2, the addiction treatment law that is even stringent than HIPAA. Nonetheless, there are major concerns here, because it would mean transmitting medical records to non-medical entities.

We already have problems with ER and EMS personnel, police officers, and insurance clerks not realizing that CFR 42 Part 2 information cannot be included in regular medical records because addictions treatment records are never to be revealed short of personal, one-on-one consent by the former treatment client. Dual consent, in other words, which is to say every time their health record is transmitted, it is required that the transmitting agency contact the client and again get consent to share.

I have no confidence a centralized government bureaucracy can be trusted with that kind of information, since it is apparent we can't even trust our medical personnel, first responders, and insurance clerks (who should know better!) to handle it properly.

 

[AllanSnackbar]

I'm certainly no conspiracy whack job, but something doesn't sit right with this video.

He unloads 3 or 4 times as point blank range. She doesn't recoil apart from the shock of the noise and then is able to run off?

I know nothing about guns I'll admit, bit should her body have reacted differently to being shot at being close range like that?

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

I'm certainly no conspiracy whack job, but something doesn't sit right with this video.

He unloads 3 or 4 times as point blank range. She doesn't recoil apart from the shock of the noise and then is able to run off?

I know nothing about guns I'll admit, bit should her body have reacted differently to being shot at being close range like that?

According to what police have said, with the circumspection it deserves, she was hit by three of those first four shots. She wasn't running. She was falling, and nearly dead on her feet. Either the first or the second shot caused what was likely the fatal head wound.

 

[JustAnotherUser]

I'm certainly no conspiracy whack job, but something doesn't sit right with this video.

He unloads 3 or 4 times as point blank range. She doesn't recoil apart from the shock of the noise and then is able to run off?

I know nothing about guns I'll admit, bit should her body have reacted differently to being shot at being close range like that?

If you look closely at the first round, the bullet seemed not very far from the woman's backside which may have impacted on the reaction received the minute it happened. The reason why they may not have noticed was because as the reporter, her main focus was supposed to be on the person she's interviewing. When she did look over for a split second, the man who released the video of his recording didn't have his gun put out until she looked back at the interviewee. The cameraman had his back completely turned to record and the interviewee remained her focus on the interviewer.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Inside Vester Lee Flanagan's life

Vester Lee Flanagan, the crazed gunman who executed on live morning TV two local journalists who worked at his former station, was told before being fired by the station to seek help for possible mental health issues -- then lingered in Roanoke, Va., for more than two years, living in a squalor amid publicity photos of himself, porn and sex toys.

Vester Lee Flanagan, 41, who went by the professional name Bryce Williams, was ordered by his bosses at local TV station WDBJ to seek help for his frequent problems with coworkers, according to a July 30, 2012 company memo obtained by The Guardian.

"You are required to contact Health Advocate, the employee assistance program," the memo, from then-station director Dan Dennison, said. Williams was given four days to make the call. "This is a mandatory referral requiring your compliance. Failure to comply will result in termination of employment."

Even with measures in place that comply with HIPAA, CFR 42 Part 2, and the public's right to a safe community, it would be hard to keep someone from getting a gun due to mental illness for which he never seeks professional help, the requisite for the existence a record of mental illness.

 

[royalscot]

What you are saying is against what the Bible teaches.I assume you are Catholic. A person cannot be saved after death,we have to make our choice while still here on earth.

you assume wrong, if you dont understand ,what has already been posted. dont speculate. and by your choice, you saved your self, is this what your saying.

.9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
Romans 14: Do Not Pass Judgment on One Another