Thistle 09.02.2011 19:12 |
See what manners can get you! link |
The Real Wizard 09.02.2011 23:48 |
The unemployment rate is at 9%, yet they have trillions of dollars to spend on wars before they can take care of their own citizens. Welcome to America in 2011, where robbery is the last resort for guys like this. |
Thistle 10.02.2011 05:29 |
Sir GH wrote: The unemployment rate is at 9%, yet they have trillions of dollars to spend on wars before they can take care of their own citizens. Welcome to America in 2011, where robbery is the last resort for guys like this. ============================================================================================ Spot on. It really is sad, but oh so true. Not just for the USA, but here in the UK too (although unemployment is higher). I actually couldn't help but feel for the guy - and the shopkeeper was so gracious about it, it was touching. The guy does have previous for it though, but the way he said "if I get back on my feet, I'll bring it back to you" would have brought a tear to a glass eye. |
GratefulFan 10.02.2011 08:33 |
'Guys like this'? As in guys with a record that includes fraud, who rob gas stations while on probation for bank robbery? The polite guy routine is as likely to be a tool of a 65 year old main to gain cooperation as it is to be anything else. I find myself with some curiousity about how old his hungry kids are as well. At best, it's about what this guys wants to think about himself. Because he's certainly not thinking about his victims in any meaningful way. |
user name 10.02.2011 11:41 |
Seriously, it looks like some of you guys need to pull the wool out from over your eyes. link "In 2003, Hess pleaded guilty to robbery after he was arrested in connection with a string of heists." "The Seattle man had quit his job at a Starbucks in Madison Park before Christmas, and he was sure his unemployment benefits would dry up any day, according to charges filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle." Also, he more likely than not has no children (or family), as I have heard from multiple (albeit unverified) sources. It's rather silly to give an armed robber the benefit of the doubt in any scenario, no matter how "polite" (I guess you must have missed that part about the robbery) he is. He is presumptively a deplorable, amoral degenerate unless it has been proven that there are mitigating circumstances that may or may not at least partially excuse his actions - however, we shouldn't make up these circumstances for him. Furthermore, while armed robbery is perhaps the "last resort," that doesn't excuse skipping every other resort before the last. For us to even consider whether armed robbery is even somewhat excusable - for us to consider that this felon is not a deplorable, amoral degenerate - he must not have forgone any employment opportunities, no matter how undesirable. He must have attempted to sell or pawn off all of his possessions that are not absolutely necessary for survival. He must have explored and attempted to procure welfare, and failed. He must have explored and attempted to otherwise seek the benefits of the generosity of others (e.g., panhandling), and failed. He must have explored and attempted nonviolent means of theft, and failed. Furthermore, the lives of his loved ones must be immediately threatened, and he must have genuinely been acting exclusively in their favor. And he must not take any more than the bare minimum that he needs. In short, not only must the robbery be absolutely necessary, not only must the robbery be limited to that which is absolutely necessary, but he must have explored every other possible opportunity conceivable before actively infringing upon the rights of others. |
Amazon 10.02.2011 11:54 |
While I don't agree with user name (kinda like having password as your password :P) that the robber is a 'deplorable, amoral degenerate', I do agree that we shouldn't act as if he is doing what he is doing because he has no choice. No matter his situation, it does not justify his threatening someone with a loaded gun. |
The Real Wizard 10.02.2011 13:06 |
Hmm, why is it always that people who aren't destitute are the first to judge those who are destitute? Everyone seems to be an expert on everything they don't understand.. |
lifetimefanofqueen 10.02.2011 13:38 |
he obviously didnt want to be violant because he saw the old lady who beat up the robbers in the streets on TV |
Sebastian 11.02.2011 07:50 |
> Everyone seems to be an expert on everything they don't understand.. It's called humanity. Want some proof? Pick any thread on this forum. |
GratefulFan 12.02.2011 23:51 |
Sir GH wrote: Everyone seems to be an expert on everything they don't understand.. ================================== You mean like weaving a whole fairytale around an armed robber because he said please and thank-you? Google is full of polite thief stories. Of course good people can do bad things, and it's not enough to point out that not every person who finds themselves chronically short of cash resorts to sticking up banks and gas stations. That said, we can have as much empathy for this guy as a person as we like, but as a society we still have to deal with his behaviour as criminal. I think people are a bit too willing to romanticize felony robbery. |
-fatty- 2850 13.02.2011 08:15 |
It could so easily gone the other way had the store-keeper not handed over the cash. "I'm really sorry about this but I'm going to have to put some bullets in your body. You might want to put your fingers in your ears as this gun is a tad on the loud side." BLAM, BLAM,BLAM! "I'm so sorry that I had to shoot in the chest just then. I sincerely hope that you survive your wounds and make a full recovery." fatty. |
Amazon 15.02.2011 04:29 |
Sir GH wrote: "Hmm, why is it always that people who aren't destitute are the first to judge those who are destitute?" Please, it's not about judging anyone, although I should point out that you do your fair bit of judging. It is about how no matter how poor one may be, it does not justify pointing a gun at someone. This guy didn't just rob a house; he pointed a (presumably) loaded gun at someone. Nothing justifies that, and perhaps instead of bemoaning the fact that some people do not consider this guy to be a victim, maybe you can think about the real victim? That is the guy who had a gun pointed at him. What if this guy said no? Would the polite robber be so polite? How would the guy be coping with the fact that he was robbed at gun point? What this robber did was terrible, and his being destitute can certainly be brought up as a mitigating factor in the sentencing hearing, however I do not believe that it can in any way be used to justify or explain away what this guy did. "Everyone seems to be an expert on everything they don't understand.." You don't know what we do or do not understand. Regardless, it's irrelevent; the robber committed a serious crime. BTW, I could say the same to you. You seem to be an expert on armed robbery yet presumably you've never been a victim of one. |
The Real Wizard 15.02.2011 10:07 |
Amazon wrote: BTW, I could say the same to you. You seem to be an expert on armed robbery yet presumably you've never been a victim of one. ==================================== Right, so I'm not going to assume that every human being in this world would react the same to being robbed. Maybe this clerk had a shred of humanity too, and knew the guy wasn't going to pull the trigger. |
Amazon 15.02.2011 11:46 |
Sir GH wrote:"Right, so I'm not going to assume that every human being in this world would react the same to being robbed. Maybe this clerk had a shred of humanity too, and knew the guy wasn't going to pull the trigger." Incredible. You actually think that if someone points a gun at you, and you don't know if they are going to pull the trigger, you don't have a 'shred of humanity'? That is so ignorant it's not funny. For someone who has never been a victim of an armed robbery, that you would actually judge the victim and suggest that if he was afraid for his life (a natural reaction BTW) he does not have humanity, is incredible. This is truly taking arrogance and blindness to an entirely different level. You're right, BTW. Not every human being would react the same way to being robbed. But no matter how they might react, it does not justify robbing them. If the robber had any shred of humanity, he wouldn't have gone into a store and pointed a gun at someone. Robbing someone, in this way, doesn't simply take money from them. It also, in many cases, traumatizes them. But what would you care? Afterall, the victim had to know that the robber wouldn't actually pull the trigger; if the victim had refused, the robber was just going to apologise and walk away with the unfired gun. |
Sebastian 16.02.2011 05:36 |
I don't know what the hell is going on this year, but I actually agree with Amazon. Armed robbery is not a game. It's serious business with serious consequences, even if it doesn't end in homicide. There's some sort of balance between being an extremist 'he who steals a pen from work deserves the chair and has to burn in hell for eternity' and 'well... he's suffered a lot, the government's done this and that, he's been "forced" to do what he did'. Because if you look at things like that, every single thief, hitman, gangster, rapist, genocide or off-pitch singer has a valid Freudian excuse for whatever they do. What if the person who got robbed (who was completely innocent, BTW) gets so traumatised he starts beating his wife? I'm sure that's OK, since he suffered a lot. And then his wife mistreats their kids because she needs to give vent to the anger and frustration she feels. And the kids become bullies. And one of the kids they bully winds up committing suicide, thus enabling their parents and loved ones to seek and destroy the bullies, one of which had a baby, who then grows up with all sorts of fears and becomes an underachiever, compulsive liar and outcast. And then, one day, he or she goes to a shop and robs it with a gun... but that's alright, as he/she went through a lot! |
The Real Wizard 16.02.2011 13:37 |
Amazon wrote: For someone who has never been a victim of an armed robbery, that you would actually judge the victim and suggest that if he was afraid for his life (a natural reaction BTW) he does not have humanity, is incredible. ================ Where exactly did I imply that it was not possible for the clerk to have a composite of the two reactions, inner and/or outer? In the past, I said "I am not a monotheist," and you chose to assume that meant "I am an atheist." And today, you translated my last post as "The clerk cannot both have humanity and be afraid." Honestly, you need to take a step back and think before you write, and quit making assumptions about what others are thinking. You could have asked for clarification of what my thinking was, but instead you chose to see black and white and assume that I could only fathom one or the other. I think it'd be best if you stopped responding to anything I write here, and I'll do the same for you. We can co-exist, but you should not be turning threads that involve many people into flame wars. This is just plain silly. |
Amazon 16.02.2011 16:19 |
Sir GH wrote: "Where exactly did I imply that it was not possible for the clerk to have a composite of the two reactions, inner and/or outer?" I can only go by what you write, and if you only write one or two sentences, you can't blame me for misinterpreting you. What you said was pretty clear, but if you have a problem with my interpretation, then explain to me why my interpretation was incorrect. Regardless, don't blame me when you should have made it clearer. "In the past, I said "I am not a monotheist," and you chose to assume that meant "I am an atheist." " No comment. I am not going to enter those discussions again. "And today, you translated my last post as "The clerk cannot both have humanity and be afraid." " You wrote 'right, so I'm not going to assume that every human being in this world would react the same to being robbed. Maybe this clerk had a shred of humanity too, and knew the guy wasn't going to pull the trigger.' Which is all you wrote. How else am I meant to interpret that? You know, instead of blaming me for misinterpreting you, perhaps you could ask youself why did I do so? You should have made yourself clearer, as it's not my responsibility to read your mind. "Honestly, you need to take a step back and think before you write, and quit making assumptions about what others are thinking." Excuse me? You are giving me advice? This is ridiculous! I don't need any advice from you on thinking before I write and on making assumptions about other people. When it comes to those two things, you are the pot calling the kettle black! "You could have asked for clarification of what my thinking was, but instead you chose to see black and white and assume that I could only fathom one or the other." Actually, I don't see things in black and white. That's your area. I simply don't think, in this case, that being destitute is an excuse for pointing a loaded gun in someone's face. As for asking for a clarification, no, it's not my responsibility to do so. I do so in some cases, but I am not obligated to do so. You made a post, and if you don't want people to misinterpret you, you should have been worded it differently, or expanded upon your thoughts. However I 'choose' to see the world (which is not in black + white) is irrelevent. You can't just write a couple of sentences, and then blame the reader because they weren't able to read your mind and misinterpreted you. "I think it'd be best if you stopped responding to anything I write here, and I'll do the same for you." Nobody is forcing you to respond to me. I tend to respond to whichever posts I feel inclined to repond to, but if you want to ignore me, then go right ahead. "We can co-exist, but you should not be turning threads that involve many people into flame wars. This is just plain silly." No, you do not get to blame me. Somebody is turning this into a flame war, however it is not me. The fact that you not only don't respond to the meat of my posts, but also only respond to me, suggests it is YOU who is turning this into a flame war, and for you to think that I am is more than silly. It is absurd! To be perfectly honest, I don't know if I will be responding to many of your future posts. The religion discussion, the vegatarianism discussion, as well as a couple of other ones, have shown that attempting to have discussions with you, where I have a different opinion, is a terrible idea. |
The Real Wizard 16.02.2011 18:02 |
Amazon wrote: "You made a post, and if you don't want people to misinterpret you, you should have been worded it differently, or expanded upon your thoughts." ========================== I don't owe you or anyone at this forum a damn thing. What is it with people and their sense of entitlement these days? I'm expressing myself as I feel fit, not as someone else feels I should. If you don't like the extent of which someone expresses themselves, then that's your problem. On a lighter note, methinks you're taking this forum business a wee bit too seriously. |
Amazon 16.02.2011 18:23 |
Sir GH wrote: "I don't owe you or anyone at this forum a damn thing." Incredible. You blame me for 'misinterpreting' you, which is not my problem or fault at all, and when I suggest that you take measures to correct it, you throw out this "I don't owe you or anyone at this forum a damn thing" crap! BTW, two can play this game. In your previous post you said "You could have asked for clarification of what my thinking was", well my response is I don't owe you or anyone at this forum a damn thing! "What is it with people and their sense of entitlement these days?" I agree. In what possible world do you honestly think that you are entitled to my seeking a clarification from you?!!! Furthermore, in what possible world do you think you are entitled to blame/criticise people for misinterpreting you, which is not their fault in the slightest?!!! Finally, what makes you think that you are entitled to give others advice on thinking before they write and making assumptions about other people? You are so hypocritical it's not funny! "I'm expressing myself as I feel fit, not as someone else feels I should.' Then don't blame other people if they misinterpret you! "If you don't like the extent of which someone expresses themselves, then that's your problem." Similarly, if you don't like that I misinterpreted you, then that's your problem. "On a lighter note, methinks you're taking this forum business a wee bit too seriously." If this was real life, I would strangle you. After this pathetic post of yours, in which you started with the 'damn thing' BS, you are telling me that I'm taking this too seriously?! GH, have a look in the mirror and get over yourself! You are an absolute hypocrite and you have no self-awareness at all. Pathetic! |
The Real Wizard 16.02.2011 18:33 |
Amazon wrote: "you have no self-awareness at all." Once again judging a person's overall psyche based on posts on a forum. Well done. "If this was real life, I would strangle you." Resorting to threats? Wait, I'm the one who takes forums too seriously. My mistake.. |
Amazon 16.02.2011 18:40 |
Sir GH wrote: "Once again judging a person's overall psyche based on posts on a forum. Well done." Based on your posts to me, I am in an absolute position to judge you, and I do not see any self-awareness from you at all. BTW, I'm not judging your 'overall psyche based on posts on a forum', I'm judging the complete lack of self-awareness you display in our 'discussions'. This may shock you, but there is actually a difference. "Resorting to threats?" Have a read of your post, and perhaps you will get a sense of why it is so infuriating. If you honestly were surprised that I would make a comment like that (and to call it a threat is an absolute joke), then you are either a troll or you lack all awareness of how to engage in a civilised discussion. "Wait, I'm the one who takes forums too seriously. My mistake.." Yes, you are. Who was it who went off the rails with the 'I don't owe you or anyone at this forum a damn thing' BS? |
Gregsynth 16.02.2011 20:10 |
Not to interrupt the conversation, but I noticed something odd about the robbery: When the guy was robbing the store, he had his gun out (like most robbers), but he wasn't really pointing it at the clerk. It looked like he was just keeping it in site (so the clerk could see it), but it seems different than most other gun robberies (where the criminal would point it right in your face). |
Sebastian 16.02.2011 21:51 |
I take back what I wrote earlier (about me agreeing with Amazon, not about me disagreeing with Bob). We've all got different views on this matter, and we've all got the right to express what we think about it without having to offend each other. BTW, I owe a huge apology to every forum member who's had to read page after page of my own arguments with other members. Seeing Bob and Amazon today made me realise how uncomfortable it is for those who are not involved in the row, maybe even more than for those who are. |
Gregsynth 16.02.2011 22:03 |
Sebastian wrote: I take back what I wrote earlier (about me agreeing with Amazon, not about me disagreeing with Bob). We've all got different views on this matter, and we've all got the right to express what we think about it without having to offend each other. BTW, I owe a huge apology to every forum member who's had to read page after page of my own arguments with other members. Seeing Bob and Amazon today made me realise how uncomfortable it is for those who are not involved in the row, maybe even more than for those who are. ====== Respect points for that post. |
Amazon 17.02.2011 03:44 |
Gregsynth wrote: "Not to interrupt the conversation, but I noticed something odd about the robbery: When the guy was robbing the store, he had his gun out (like most robbers), but he wasn't really pointing it at the clerk. It looked like he was just keeping it in site (so the clerk could see it), but it seems different than most other gun robberies (where the criminal would point it right in your face)." That's true, however I wonder what would have happened if the clerk had said no. However even if he was not going to use it, he still brought it to intimidate the clerk. That kind of intimidation can be extremely traumatic. |
GratefulFan 17.02.2011 12:27 |
Gregsynth wrote: When the guy was robbing the store, he had his gun out (like most robbers), but he wasn't really pointing it at the clerk. It looked like he was just keeping it in site (so the clerk could see it), but it seems different than most other gun robberies (where the criminal would point it right in your face). ======================================= Again, the net is full of armed robberies where the gun is not pointed in somebody's face. Perhaps that's done to conceal the crime in progress, or perhaps it's because the robber is not really capable of gun violence in the end. So what. We're not discussing a crime of murder, attempted murder or aggravated assault with a weapon. We're discussing armed robbery. In a strange way this kind of 'polite' robbery has extra layer of irritating cowardice that a straight up in your face robbery lacks. He wants to hold a gun on you, he wants your money, but he wants you to think he's a real nice guy. These kinds of criminals invariably have old, often long, small time criminal histories and a trail of previous victims. I forget who said 'dishonesty, cowardice and duplicity are never impulsive', but it's true. I'm sure most of these complex souls are completely redeemable humans beings, but until they stop robbing people at gunpoint as a life management strategy, they will continue to create innocent victims and volatile and unpredictable situations to which society has to respond. |
GratefulFan 17.02.2011 12:32 |
Sir GH wrote: Once again judging a person's overall psyche based on posts on a forum. Well done. ========================== Without in any way intending to attach myself to Amazon's diagnosis, you don't think long time participants on a forum can have a pretty strong sense of each other? I mean you've said over 11,000 things. Many, many of those things are going to have been revealing in one way or another. |
The Real Wizard 17.02.2011 14:47 |
Very good point. But said diagnosis is a skewed interpretation of a very select few things I've said. Amazon thinks I'm a jerk, and I think Amazon is a jerk. In real life, neither are likely true. |
GratefulFan 17.02.2011 17:27 |
Sorry - I should have been more clear that I was thinking about your statement entirely out of the context of your e-fight, though your point is well taken. I just thought it was a bit of a misstatement to too greatly minimize the information embedded in and behind the written word. I just find the subject kind of generally interesting. |
john bodega 18.02.2011 01:19 |
It is a bit of a double-ended pointy stick, I think. One can go as far as saying "this is just the internet, you don't really know me". And yet, in a forum like this one, we're actually totally capable of cultivating whatever image of ourselves that we want to. I learned this the hard way when that idiot Nester started following me from thread to thread complaining about things I'd said. "I wasn't being serious", I complained; but how was he to know? On the point of Amazon thinking Bob's a jerk, or vice versa; there is the possibility that this isn't just a breakdown in communication, or two people 'not really knowing each other'. They might genuinely feel that way if they'd met in person and been stuck talking to each other at a party. These things happen. I've been stuck talking with enough university students to know this painfully well. |
GratefulFan 18.02.2011 14:03 |
Zebonka12 wrote: It is a bit of a double-ended pointy stick, I think. One can go as far as saying "this is just the internet, you don't really know me". And yet, in a forum like this one, we're actually totally capable of cultivating whatever image of ourselves that we want to. I learned this the hard way when that idiot Nester started following me from thread to thread complaining about things I'd said. "I wasn't being serious", I complained; but how was he to know? On the point of Amazon thinking Bob's a jerk, or vice versa; there is the possibility that this isn't just a breakdown in communication, or two people 'not really knowing each other'. They might genuinely feel that way if they'd met in person and been stuck talking to each other at a party. These things happen. I've been stuck talking with enough university students to know this painfully well. ========================== I think of forum participation as the rough equivalent of the kind of communication that goes on at a pub or coffee shop between a bunch of regulars and semi-regulars loosely bound by some common interest. Laughing, arguing, commiserating, learning from each other etc. I expect most people are guided by what is essentially a pretty straight forward social impulse fairly consistently whether it's in person or on the internet. If you're motivated to cultivate an overly narrow or false image of yourself, you're probably going to be motivated to do it across social situations, and I don't think most or even many people are. Of course I'm not intending to minimize the very particular communication we have or the very particular information we glean face to face, or to imply that online interactions are the same as being in someone's physical presence, but it's worth noting that real life impressions can have their own way of obscuring information too. If you were tasked with putting together a Queenzone (or some other forum you participate in) dinner and pub night for yourself and say seven others, with the goal of putting together people who would find each other interesting and fun and for whom the conversation and laughter would flow, do you not think you could do that with a fair degree of eventual accuracy? I think you could. Continuing to forcibly volunteer Bob & Amazon (thanks guys!) for these points, I doubt they would have had precisely that argument in person. There are strong motivations and instincts not to be yelling and snarking and insulting each other face to face, and there are non verbal cues that likely would have softened and reshaped the exchange to at least some degree. But with those filters gone, did we necessarily get something wildly inaccurate? Honestly in this case my guess is we just got a snappy short cut to the fact that fundamentally these are two people who don't have enough common ground and affinity to enjoy extensive interaction. We all have those. There's not much practical difference to hanging out around somebody for a year and figuring that out, or figuring it out in a few weeks, or a few days, or even a few posts on a discussion forum. |
john bodega 19.06.2011 00:33 |
"If you were tasked with putting together a Queenzone (or some other forum you participate in) dinner and pub night for yourself and say seven others" That's very simple - it'd be a dinner for 2 (3, tops) and I'd give the wrong address to the other names on the list. |
catqueen 19.06.2011 03:40 |
GratefulFan wrote I think of forum participation as the rough equivalent of the kind of communication that goes on at a pub or coffee shop between a bunch of regulars and semi-regulars loosely bound by some common interest. Laughing, arguing, commiserating, learning from each other etc. In sociology a few years ago, the teacher said people refer to the internet as 'the new coffee house.' Some theorist said it, but i cant remember who. :D |
catqueen 19.06.2011 03:41 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "If you were tasked with putting together a Queenzone (or some other forum you participate in) dinner and pub night for yourself and say seven others" That's very simple - it'd be a dinner for 2 (3, tops) and I'd give the wrong address to the other names on the list. hahahahahahahaha |