The Meaning of the Hasan Shooting

Is this REALLY your feeling? I think there are times when it is inappropriate to jump to conclusions. But sometimes you've got all the information you need right in front of you. I hate to quote a mainstreamer like Bill O'Reilly, but WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED?

I think we want to hide our head in the sand on this issue because we're essentially being shown the futility of the multiracial exercise.

There are other juicy examples as well, like the whole Professor Gates arrest incident (black Harvard professor v. white cop). I mean, if the multiracial society were going to work, you'd think that these two men would be the perfect conditions for that:

1. He's a black HARVARD PROFESSOR who STUDIES "multiculturalism" or whatever.
2. He's a highly respected police officer who did DIVERSITY TRAINING.
3. And there's a BLACK PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES in office.

And yet in ONE INCIDENT, all this careful preparation and planning BLOWS TO PIECES, torn asunder by the IMMUTABLE REALITY of racial and ethnic difference and conflict.

Back to Hasan. If anyone were to say that Muslim Palestinians could be successfully integrated into our Multi-Hued Empire of America, it would be him. We paid for his education. We gave him weapons. We gave him every reason to be proud of his country.

Yet it failed. He blew away 13 in the name of "Allah."

If you want to ascribe any of this to craziness, sure... how about, "the mental illness that is the multiracial belief?" It's a belief that, like the Earth at the center of the universe, just won't square with reality.

But, if you guys all insist that the multiracial society will work, can you give me a date and time when it's all going to come together?

__________________
They say "race does not exist." But at the same time, "diversity is our greatest strength."

Two issues conflated. Multiculturalism is one, the other is the defendant. I'm really not inclined to jump to conclusions about his guilt. Multiculturalism is another issue and frankly seizing on this incident as some sort of evidence that the social policies of multiculturalism have failed is a bit rich. Multiculturalism as a policy should be examined on its merits.

One thing I will say, like a criminal trial, all the evidence (allowing for exclusion and admissibility decisions occur in a criminal trial) on the policy should be examined and any preconceived ideas should be put aside.

It's human nature to be suspicious of others who are different from us, but overcoming human nature is the key to progress. The further we get away from the instincts of our ancestors the further we progress. We are able to reason, we should do so.

__________________
This computer has been drinking...not me.




The best foot goes forward.

I don't really have a problem with what you said, I just wish it was how the Left approached the same sort of tragedy when perpetrated by someone that calls themselves a Christian. It seems to me that quite a lot of the Left's rhetoric revolves around the idea that everyone should be treated fairly and equally, which is a nice thought, but when tested we often see that the Left can talk the talk but fails to walk the walk.

Concerning "the Left", are you a grievance obsessed lunatic?

You're clueless as usual. Crowley didn't do diversity training......he did a very short class a couple of times a year about racial profiling. In short he would say "Don't look at the black suspect as more dangerous than the white one."

But hey, in your sick mind you need to lie, twist, and exploit every possible incident to justify your disease. God forbid someone chokes for even a couple of seconds on a black and white cookie.....you'd say "See! Mixing colors is dangerous and life threatening!"

Crowley did more then a couple short classes a year dumb ass.

__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable
-Laurence J. Peters

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.
-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)

Are you saying you have doubts that Hasan is the shooter?

__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable
-Laurence J. Peters

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.
-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)

Im not holding doubts or certainties, I simply don't know for a fact because I wasn't there. But from what I have read there seems to be a lot of evidence to suggest that he shot those people. Now before you take off like a Saturn V that isn't me expressing doubt. To be able to express doubt with any conviction I'd have to be in possession of evidence or at least be in a position to weigh the evidence. I'm not, so I can't, therefore I can't doubt.

But I don't need to be Perry Mason to work out that while the actus reus may well be proven to the satisfactory standard the mens rea may - just may, hypothetical statement here - may not be met. And I don't have to be Hamilton Burger to know where the battleground is going to be.

Since any trial of the defendant will proceed from the premise that he is innocent unless and until he is proven guilty then it's necessary to not make assumptions of guilt. Not that our chatter no an internet forum will make a difference, it's just a principle to be observed.

__________________
This computer has been drinking...not me.




The best foot goes forward.

The evidence we HAVE is more then enough to state he did the shootings. Unless of course you think the security guard shot the wrong man? The only thing to establish is why and whether he is able to be found guilty of murder.

Unless you expect his defense to claim he was not the shooter this is not a point of argument based on what we already know. One does not need a trial to establish the basic fact that he did the shootings. The trial will determine if he is guilty of murder or not.

__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable
-Laurence J. Peters

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.
-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)

That's a pretty good summary. I have only to add that the trier of fact, a jury in this instance I would assume, must find if there is sufficient evidence to meet all the facts in issue. No doubt the defence will heed Sun Tzu, he who defends everything defends nothing. The key to the defence here isn't the acts observed and of which there will be plenty of direct and circumstantial evidence, the key is will the mens rea be made out? What exculpatory elements will be dug out?
You're right, the trial will determine whether or not he is guilty of murder.

__________________
This computer has been drinking...not me.




The best foot goes forward.

But the FACT he is the shooter is not in doubt.

__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable
-Laurence J. Peters

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.
-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)

It is until it's proven or conceded.

I'm not being ornery here and I take your point but a criminal trial is a different world from one most of us live in. It's almost an Alice in Wonderland situation.

I remember reading a paper once where the writer contrasted the civil law (as in European law descended from Roman Law) with the common law processes. In the civil law tradition, the best example I can come up with being France, the trial is an inquisitorial process looking for the actual truth. But in the common law tradition the trial is an accusatory process looking for procedural truth.

In the common law courtroom common sense is suspended and replaced by rules which, well so the theory has it, will reveal the truth if they are followed stringently.

One of the things we can't do in a common law courtroom in a criminal trial is to presume that the defendant is guilty. No-one can begin to suggest that. Instead we go through a ritual of presenting carefully filtered evidence that is put in place like a brick wall is put in place, piece by piece, so that, if the prosecution is successful, the defendant is presumed (beyond a reasonable doubt) to be guilty. If we can't get to that point of amassing sufficient admissible evidence for a jury to decided the defendant is guilty then that's it, game over.

The logic of the common law criminal trial is inference.

__________________
This computer has been drinking...not me.




The best foot goes forward.

Doesn't change the fact we KNOW for certain he is the shooter. Pretending otherwise is ridicules and stupid. I seriously doubt the defense will contend he is NOT the shooter.

Also Military Courts Martial work different from Civilian court rooms. For one the defense can not attack fellow officers in any manner. There will be no antics in a Military Court.

__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable
-Laurence J. Peters

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.
-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)

Defending and excusing terror and mass murder will be the downfall of the left. I've said this before. Moderate Dems will not want to be associated with lunatics and America haters. These ideologues can only blame themselves when the country turns far right. And I am not looking forward to that either.

__________________
“‘Sort of’ is such a harmless thing to say...it doesn’t really mean anything. But after certain things, sort of means everything. Like after ‘I love you’ or ‘You’re going to live’ or ‘It’s a boy.’

Demetri Martin

As I indicated before, the defence would be best employed working on what I can defend, not what's indefensible. Identity of an actor in a crime is always a fact in issue. However it would seem in this case that the defence would be better served conceding the identity of the actor and focusing on other aspects of the defence.

I don't know about "antics" in US civilian courts but I have to say I've never experienced it during cross-examination. To the contrary, the best cross-examiners and the ones guaranteed to make a witness sweat in my experience have been calm, controlled, courteous and extremely thorough. Remember they have to prove nothing, they only need to raise a reasonable doubt and their work is done. Histrionics are unnecessary.

__________________
This computer has been drinking...not me.




The best foot goes forward.