The Meaning of the Hasan Shooting

[RetiredGySgt]

I'll be interested to see what comes out of the investigation, any associated inquiries, any medical or other examinations of the defendant and of course evidence produced at any trial. Until then we're all speculating.

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?

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'll be interested to see what comes out of the investigation, any associated inquiries, any medical or other examinations of the defendant and of course evidence produced at any trial. Until then we're all speculating.

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?

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.

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

 

[Diuretic]

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?

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.

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

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

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.

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

 

[Diuretic]

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[chanel]

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.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

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.

 

[CurveLight]

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?

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 course is 12 hours of classroom time.......I consider that a short class.

But look at how Crowley lied his ass off to cover himself. In one interview he said he had no idea who Gates was.


"I was not aware of who Professor Gates was."
Gates' Arresting Officer Teaches Racial Profiling Class - Boston News Story - WCVB Boston





But in a later interview he said he knew it would bring "unwanted attention."

"In an interview with WHDH-TV in Boston, Crowley admitted he knew arresting Gates would be controversial, but that the professor's alleged misbehavior left him with no choice in handcuffing him for disorderly conduct.

"I really didn't want to have to take such a drastic action because I knew it was going to bring a certain amount of attention, unwanted attention, on me. Nonetheless, that's how far Professor Gates pushed it and provoked and just wouldn't stop," Crowley said."
CBS News Mobile The He Said, He Said Saga in Cambridge


Fucking liar all the way.

 

[Amanda]

An enormous pile of swiss cheese thinking, psychos like Hasan exist everywhere in all cultures and all societies, but they do not define any essential element of humanity especially over time. Hasan is that horrible combination of religious fanatic and grievance obsessed lunatic. Given a large population they are rare but there, given the right situation they act out their evil. Advertise for them I'm sure you'll find many.

Interesting piece on evil.

Philip Zimbardo shows how people become monsters ... or heroes | Video on TED.com

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?

Not sure what that means Ang, you wanna just ask your question in layman's terms?