PDA

View Full Version : Maryland Shootings



James Boba Fettfield
10-03-2002, 05:19 PM
It is events like these that make me wonder if Thoreau was right when he discussed men being naturally good and naturally evil.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/South/10/03/maryland.shootings/index.html

QLD
10-03-2002, 05:35 PM
Yeah, I heard about these this afternoon. It is quite disturbing. I mean, what motivates someone to go out and just randomly kill people? Sheesh.

2-1B
10-03-2002, 05:38 PM
Absolutely sickening. :cry:

James Boba Fettfield
10-03-2002, 07:02 PM
What bothers me is the idea that these people were shot while fueling their vehicles, mowing their own lawn, etc. Shows that no place on this earth can truely be considered safe anymore.

JediTricks
10-03-2002, 07:27 PM
I don't subscribe to the notions that some people are "born bad and there's nothing you can do about it", but this is pretty sick - something is very wrong in the brains of anybody who would do something like this.

Darth Sidious
10-03-2002, 08:36 PM
It urinatees me off, that's all I have to say about it. Some people suck. :mad: ...Wow...This is a strange place for me to reach my 666th post...

Beast
10-03-2002, 08:42 PM
Disgusting, purely disgusting. It's stories like this that make you realize how much the world is in the carpool lane headed straight to hell. Hopefully these sick bastards screw up, and end up getting shot to death by their next target. Jail is to good for them, chalk these sickos up for the death penalty if they are caught. :mad: :(

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

James Boba Fettfield
10-03-2002, 09:05 PM
It is almost as if these people want to show that they can hurt people anywhere. Why kill people in such an open area? A post office, two gas stations, outside a supermarket, a person's own yard? I do not tolerate murderers at all. But this disturbs me knowing these people are seemingly targeting people in their normal everyday routines of life.

Lowly Bantha Cleaner
10-03-2002, 09:08 PM
People we tend to think are naturally good, but as we can see, naturally evil, as well as a lot of other things. It is unfortunate that there needs to be an event like this to display it.

I think this showcases a number of things that are wrong with society. It shows how messed up people can be and how easy it is for them to take their problems out on other people by simply getting a gun and shooting up a bunch of innocent bystanders. Our society seems to suffer from a "road rage" control problem. We don't tend to think about the consequences of our actions, and instead, we let our anger and desires, rather than logic and reason dictate our actions. We punch the computer if we are frustrated with it, if we have a bad day, we yell at the poor people who are getting our fast food, we blame the teacher for our bad grades, and not ourselves, etc. It's time for us to take responsibility for our actions and learn some serious anger management.

James Boba Fettfield
10-03-2002, 09:20 PM
This case has piqued my interest more than most murder cases do. I want to know what possessed the person/persons to do this? Are they striking out on the rich in response to their own status of wealth? That does not sound like the motive that would fit a case of this odd nature. I feel that there is something more behind this shooting? I strongly want to know the reasons behind the said actions. I feel this case goes beyond rage/revenge/insane people.

Lord Malakite
10-03-2002, 10:39 PM
I've heard of worse. Like the guy who ordered a pizza then killed the delivery man at the spur of the moment just because at that instant he wondered what it felt like to kill a man.

James Boba Fettfield
10-03-2002, 11:24 PM
Killing one pizza man is bad, but gunning 5 people down within a 15 hour span is another.

Lord Malakite
10-04-2002, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by James Boba Fettfield
Killing one pizza man is bad, but gunning 5 people down within a 15 hour span is another.
I meant motivation wise it is worse.

jjreason
10-04-2002, 03:29 AM
They might be trying to commit suicide in a really sensational way. Every year police shootings occur in firearms standoffs only to find a suicide note later indicating the shooter wanted to go out like that. Really dangerous, because the person in that mindframe really feels they have nothing to lose. I hope they can get these people contained as soon and as safely as possible.

bigbarada
10-04-2002, 03:43 AM
People are born evil, it is the job of parents to mold them into civilized human beings. Nowadays though, many parents are too busy with their careers and personal goals to worry about their own children. It's the selfishness of many parents today that is causing young people to be so out of control. Just like that man in the South who was beaten to death by a gang of young kids, one was only ten years old, another was only 14.

Then there was the teenage boy who raped a girl from his school, murdered her, then cut off her fingertips with wire cutters to hide the evidence. This happened near my hometown here.

I would estimate a 70% chance that the perpetrators of this crime are young boys.

It's a sick society we live in and proof that our form of civilization is not civilized at all.

Beast
10-04-2002, 04:00 AM
People can't be born evil, they are a blank slate that is later influenced and grow thru their experiences. Most of what happens in the first 2 years of life become the main building blocks for what they become in life.

Trust me, if I was born evil I would be a hate filled, racist, total arsehole right now thanks to the people that raised me. Thankfully Star Wars influenced me and taught me morals early enough in life and led me away from what I would have become. My other brother isn't as lucky as I, in that regard.

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

bigbarada
10-04-2002, 04:12 AM
People are born evil in the sense that all they care about is themselves. I heard it put one way, "our society is under seige by a continuous wave of barbarians bent on destruction, our first line is defense is good parenting."

jjreason
10-04-2002, 04:23 AM
The "nature vs. nurture" debate has been argued for quite a while, by many brilliant psychologists. There's tons of support for both sides of the argument. Personally, I feel there's room for both sides to exist at once. Certain traits may be born into a person, only to remain dormant OR be brought to the surface of the personality - the difference being the stimuli imparted upon the youngling (eg The son of a rapist MIGHT be more likely to rape if he is victimized or a witness to victimization during his cognitive formation).

I deal with a lot of bad kids who have seemingly good parents, and lots of smart, beautiful kids come from less than desirable homes. There is no easy or certain answer to this riddle, only millions of examples to support BOTH sides.

scruffziller
10-04-2002, 08:38 AM
The frightening thing is that there are alot of vicious crimes going on all the time but don't really get reported to the masses.

Jedi Drew
10-04-2002, 09:49 AM
That does suck bad about what happened in Maryland. I guess it's just another example that there are alot of sicko's out there and you just "Have to watch your back Jack" :crazed: :crazed:

The Overlord Returns
10-04-2002, 10:29 AM
Hmmm....I find it amazing that people here seem to know that this person is "evil".

He's most likely suffering from mental illness along the lines of the Long Island shooter. OR. has it occurred to anyone that this is some sort of underworld hit?

at any rate...........why don't you get that there constitution out and scribble over the "right to bear arms" section?

Beast
10-04-2002, 11:42 AM
Ya know what's funny about the constitution, the fact that people use that "right to bear arms" argument all the time, but they never include the entire quote.

"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."

A well regulated militia, not just a blanket statement of everyone having the right to bear arms. And then, don't forget this lil excerpt from Art. II, Sect. II of the US Constitution:

"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States, ..."

Add in this little quote from Art. I, Sect. 8 as well, and you end up with proof that the founding fathers never intended for it to allow just anyone to bear arms.

"The Congress shall have the power ... To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

The Overlord Returns
10-04-2002, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Ya know what's funny about the constitution, the fact that people use that "right to bear arms" argument all the time, but they never include the entire quote.

"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."

A well regulated militia, not just a blanket statement of everyone having the right to bear arms. And then, don't forget this lil excerpt from Art. II, Sect. II of the US Constitution:

"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States, ..."

Add in this little quote from Art. I, Sect. 8 as well, and you end up with proof that the founding fathers never intended for it to allow just anyone to bear arms.

"The Congress shall have the power ... To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

That has to be the single best use of the constitution I have seen in a while JJB.

Bottom line.....you folks need some gun control...and fast.

Jedi Clint
10-04-2002, 01:13 PM
We have gun control laws. I think they need to be better enforced. There is no law forbidding ordinary citizens from owning fire-arms. Nor should there be. You can't legislate the desire to murder out of every single human being. If an individual really wants to kill in cold blood, then legal access to a fire-arm and or gun legislation isn't going to stop them.

There is also more than one interpretation of the "right to bear arms". The first part of the amendment refers to the "militia". The second part referees to "the people". It doesn't say "those people". If it did, perhaps there would be less argument over it's intentions.

The Overlord Returns
10-04-2002, 01:23 PM
Actually, that was meant to read "more" gun control. My typing mistake


You know, this argument that "If they didn't use a gun, they'd use something else" is rather ridiculous.

The reason guns are so often used in murder is the distance of it. It's a cowards weapon. UYou can stand 20 feet away and tense your finger and someone is dead. You do not have to walk up to them and plunge a knife through their skin, or repeatedly bash them over the head with a baseball bat. In many cases like this, take away the gun, you would often take away the crime.

I'll reference the Long Island Train shooting, for instance.

The man pulls out a gun, and in about 2 minutes has killed 6 people, and brutally injured 30 others ( my numbers are fuzzy, but that's a close tally). Does ANYONE think for a moment that if that killer had not had access to a gun this would have happened? Even if he had enough desire to use a knife, the death toll could NEVER have been as high. More likely, he would have lunged at one person, and then would have been restrained by others.

Using guns is an easy way to commit murder without feeling the consequences of what you've done. Take away the guns, you'll take away a vast majority of your violent deaths.



side note: for those that wish to use guns for hunting purposes. Tough. If you really want to slaughter an animal for sport, go out, wrestle it, and kill it with your bare hands.......then again, most of them wouldn't hunt if they had to do it that way.

Jedi Clint
10-04-2002, 02:25 PM
What "more" gun control laws do you suggest?

This?

"take away the guns"

Obviously you mean to take them away from everyone in the U.S. ..... but you can correct me if I have misinterpreted your meaning. How would one go about this? With internal legislation? Could it be guaranteed that the "mentally ill" or "evil" people of this country would never have access to said weapons? By force (the government against the people)? If they must be taken by force, doesn't that mean that someone would still have access to them? Should they (those that took the guns) voluntarily be expected to destroy their weapons after ridding this country of everyone else's? What if they choose not to? What if they exhibit signs of mental illness? Who will take their guns? What about the rest of the world? Should we build a wall around our country to prevent guns from passing our borders? What if someone is able to create their own equally devastating weapon after all the guns are gone? Sick of the hypothetical questions yet?

My point is that the "evil" of guns (and man's ability to create weapons of equal or greater potency) exists whether you propose to take them from law-abiding citizens (the vast majority of American gun owners) or not.

If outsiders view Americans as mentally ill, gun wielding savages, I can live with that, especially if they consider taking our country by force.

I don't hunt for sport, but I'm pretty sure that those who do would prefer to use a bow and arrow rather than wrestle their prey to the ground. Just a guess.

Perhaps there are more reasonable suggestions for changes to our gun control policy or the way we enforce it.

The Overlord Returns
10-04-2002, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
What "more" gun control laws do you suggest?

This?

"take away the guns"

Obviously you mean to take them away from everyone in the U.S. ..... but you can correct me if I have misinterpreted your meaning. How would one go about this? With internal legislation? Could it be guaranteed that the "mentally ill" or "evil" people of this country would never have access to said weapons? By force (the government against the people)? If they must be taken by force, doesn't that mean that someone would still have access to them? Should they (those that took the guns) voluntarily be expected to destroy their weapons after ridding this country of everyone else's? What if they choose not to? What if they exhibit signs of mental illness? Who will take their guns? What about the rest of the world? Should we build a wall around our country to prevent guns from passing our borders? What if someone is able to create their own equally devastating weapon after all the guns are gone? Sick of the hypothetical questions yet?

My point is that the "evil" of guns (and man's ability to create weapons of equal or greater potency) exists whether you propose to take them from law-abiding citizens (the vast majority of American gun owners) or not.

If outsiders view Americans as mentally ill, gun wielding savages, I can live with that, especially if they consider taking our country by force.

I don't hunt for sport, but I'm pretty sure that those who do would prefer to use a bow and arrow rather than wrestle their prey to the ground. Just a guess.

Perhaps there are more reasonable suggestions for changes to our gun control policy or the way we enforce it.

First and foremost, you seem to be getting a bit more upset about this than I ever possibly could. If I've some how offended you personally, my apologies....


Now.

You've gone ahead and misquoted me right off the bat. The "Take away the guns" line was meant in context of the example. If every formerly law abiding citizen who ended up taking a gun and blowing someones head off had not had access to said gun in the first place, 90% of these killers would never kill.


I also don't propose any guarantees. No system is perfect, and ofcourse there will always be cracks. But lets face it, countries with more lenient gun control policies face a higher violent crime rate. Thats fact.

And who called you mentally ill, gun wielding savages? Certainly not me, so please, no words in my mouth.

As for the hunting line, well, hunting is a pet peeve of mine. People getting there kicks from taking down animals from 50 yards away are @$$es....IMO.

Beast
10-04-2002, 03:06 PM
I don't have a problem with hunting, as long as it's done for the meat. Eat what you kill, and I have no problems at all. There is a huge difference between hunting for sport, and hunting for food. And a small note, so that I don't look totally pro hunting. You don't need a semi-automatic weapon for hunting. What's next, a bazooka? :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Jedi Clint
10-04-2002, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns


First and foremost, you seem to be getting a bit more upset about this than I ever possibly could. If I've some how offended you personally, my apologies....


Now.

You've gone ahead and misquoted me right off the bat. The "Take away the guns" line was meant in context of the example. If every formerly law abiding citizen who ended up taking a gun and blowing someones head off had not had access to said gun in the first place, 90% of these killers would never kill.


I also don't propose any guarantees. No system is perfect, and ofcourse there will always be cracks. But lets face it, countries with more lenient gun control policies face a higher violent crime rate. Thats fact.

And who called you mentally ill, gun wielding savages? Certainly not me, so please, no words in my mouth.

As for the hunting line, well, hunting is a pet peeve of mine. People getting there kicks from taking down animals from 50 yards away are @$$es....IMO.

I did not say you called us "mentally ill, gun wielding savages". It was an unsolicited response. Sorry for the confusion. I assure you that I am not upset about this. I engaged you in discussion. Please don't take offense. I am not sure how I misquoted you. I understand your premise. Are you suggesting that ALL those who use a gun to commit a crime were formerly law abiding citizens who had the right to possess a fire arm? That seems more like the exception than the rule.


Originally posted by JarJarBinks
I don't have a problem with hunting, as long as it's done for the meat. Eat what you kill, and I have no problems at all. There is a huge difference between hunting for sport, and hunting for food. And a small note, so that I don't look totally pro hunting. You don't need a semi-automatic weapon for hunting. What's next, a bazooka? :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

I agree with you for the most part JJB. The DNR uses hunters to help control the population of certain species, and I have no problem with that either. If it keeps a population healthy and under control, how is that bad?

Beast
10-04-2002, 03:35 PM
Exactly JC, what is more cruel to the animals. Hunting them for food, or allowing them to starve to death because the population is out of control. This is a bit off the original thread topic, but people have short attention spans now adays anyway. ;) :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

The Overlord Returns
10-04-2002, 03:41 PM
if I'm wrong correct me, but what animal population in its natural environment is out of control and in danger of starving?

Beast
10-04-2002, 03:48 PM
The deer population is one that is in real danger of starving, due to the wolf and other predatory animals being killed by ignorent people. So from that mistake, we get led into the fact that the circle of life is being interfered with by humans, allowing the deer population to get out of control, and leading them to starve. My friend knows more about this then I, I will see if they will make a comment. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

The Overlord Returns
10-04-2002, 03:54 PM
So human screw uppery is now the reason we should hunt. To save animals from us....


that's sort of what I thought the case would be.

Beast
10-04-2002, 04:03 PM
Yeah, it's messed up. But still a nicer and less cruel option then letting them starve to death. Besides, do you think that that cow that your hamburger is made out of wanted to have that spike shot thru his skull and to be ground up into ground beef?

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

The Overlord Returns
10-04-2002, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Yeah, it's messed up. But still a nicer and less cruel option then letting them starve to death. Besides, do you think that that cow that your hamburger is made out of wanted to have that spike shot thru his skull and to be ground up into ground beef?

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

I'll just direct that back to the difference between killing for food, and killing for sport.

Cows, chickens, fish are all harvested for our consumption. Don't get me wrong, I understand and accept the food chain. And , IF someone needs to hunt FOR FOOD. More power to them. The majority of hunters aren't doing so, and we know that. They're hunting for no other reason than some trophy, or to say they hunt the big bucks. Deer meat isn't an industry. Nor is wolf, moose, bear or horse (well, except maybe in france);)

Besides, red meat is bad for you;) (as he lights a cigarette and drinks a beer)

Beast
10-04-2002, 04:16 PM
Ahh, so that explains it. I'm very in touch with what you could consider my animal side. I care alot about animals, but I realize that they eat each other. So why shouldn't I, who am in touch with my inner animal, enjoy eating other animals.

It's just like what Mufasa explains to Simba in Lion King. It's the Circle of Life my friend, and we are all a part of it. Besides, how do you know that vegtables don't object to you eating them. Just because they can't scream? ;) :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

The Overlord Returns
10-04-2002, 04:19 PM
lol....that wasn't me................I've edited in my actual post.

Hyena SteelJaw
10-04-2002, 04:24 PM
I'll start this off by saying that YES, I AM a gun-toting redneck. Now that we have that out of the way...

On the whole hunting thing. Yes, the Cirlce of Life mumbo-jumbo from everyone's favorite Disney animated film is, in a way, true. Nature has a very, very fine balance between predator and prey. This balance is called the food chain. Plants grow from the soil, small animals and even larger ones eat the plants, the predators eat the plant-eaters and finally the predators die. Their bodies decompose, fertalize the plants, and voila! You've got more plants for the plant eaters. And so on, and so forth.

Now, let's remove the predators from this chain. Suddenly the herbivores only have to fear disease and old age, and perhaps harsh winters. The new relative safety promotes more breeding, and the population skyrockets. Now, you've got to be asking 'How can this be bad?'. Well, it's bad because soon there's more herbivores than avalible plants in which to eat. They begin to die off, and become ill from malnutrition. Well, certainly they would level themselves out, right? Wrong. The predators remove the ill, the weak, and the genetically defficiant from the heards, and therefore leave only the strong to breed. But there are no predators, so the inferior animals are infecting the entire stock with weak genetics. Soon the entire population falters and is wiped out.

Whoo, kinna sucks, doesn't it?

This is a very real problem that we're facing right now because of the 200+ years that we've spent killing off the predatory species. On land and water we've gone out of our way to exterminate things we see as 'dangerous' or a threat to our 'way of life'. Farmers killed millions of wolves, bears, cougars, coyotes and other creatures to protect livestock, and because they were afraid of being attacked. Thousands of sharks per day are pulled from the ocean because of 'commercial value' and the fact people don't care about something that's so inherently evil in their eyes. Big cats are killed for fur and sport, leaving holes all over the world's ecosystems. And thusforth the herbivore populations rise. They start to weaken. If we don't try to remove at least some of the population from certain areas they'll destroy th land, and themselves. And we're doing a right-fine job of destroying this planet ourselves. We don't need help.

So that, in a nutshell, is why hunting is now a necessary thing. If we hadn't wiped the predators out in so many areas fearing them threats and competition, we wouldn't be in this tangle.

My two cents... Well, perhaps closer to a buck-fifty.

Beast
10-04-2002, 04:27 PM
What is different about an animal raised for us to eat, and an animal that runs free. They still have feelings, they still can feel pain. The animals that are raised are actually alot less healthy most of the time. And do you realise how they raise veal cows, trust me, hunting is a hell of alot more humane.

And I wouldn't say that the majority of hunters don't hunt for food. While myself, I'm not much of a hunter but I have dear friends that are. They actually taught me a few things, I used to think exactly like you do.

Red meat isn't as bad as some people claim, as long as you eat the proper amounts and don't overdo it. I haven't had alot of those animals, but I know people that have. They say that it's very very good. Though I don't know anyone that eats wolf. :)

BTW, Thanks for coming and putting in your two daktaries, my friend. You make the point a hell of alot better then I could about these things. Hyena there is one of the people that opened my eyes about these sort of things. And remeber, if god didn't want us to hunt, he wouldn't have made the animals so tasty. ;) :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

The Overlord Returns
10-04-2002, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Hyena SteelJaw
I'll start this off by saying that YES, I AM a gun-toting redneck. Now that we have that out of the way...

On the whole hunting thing. Yes, the Cirlce of Life mumbo-jumbo from everyone's favorite Disney animated film is, in a way, true. Nature has a very, very fine balance between predator and prey. This balance is called the food chain. Plants grow from the soil, small animals and even larger ones eat the plants, the predators eat the plant-eaters and finally the predators die. Their bodies decompose, fertalize the plants, and voila! You've got more plants for the plant eaters. And so on, and so forth.

Now, let's remove the predators from this chain. Suddenly the herbivores only have to fear disease and old age, and perhaps harsh winters. The new relative safety promotes more breeding, and the population skyrockets. Now, you've got to be asking 'How can this be bad?'. Well, it's bad because soon there's more herbivores than avalible plants in which to eat. They begin to die off, and become ill from malnutrition. Well, certainly they would level themselves out, right? Wrong. The predators remove the ill, the weak, and the genetically defficiant from the heards, and therefore leave only the strong to breed. But there are no predators, so the inferior animals are infecting the entire stock with weak genetics. Soon the entire population falters and is wiped out.

Whoo, kinna sucks, doesn't it?

This is a very real problem that we're facing right now because of the 200+ years that we've spent killing off the predatory species. On land and water we've gone out of our way to exterminate things we see as 'dangerous' or a threat to our 'way of life'. Farmers killed millions of wolves, bears, cougars, coyotes and other creatures to protect livestock, and because they were afraid of being attacked. Thousands of sharks per day are pulled from the ocean because of 'commercial value' and the fact people don't care about something that's so inherently evil in their eyes. Big cats are killed for fur and sport, leaving holes all over the world's ecosystems. And thusforth the herbivore populations rise. They start to weaken. If we don't try to remove at least some of the population from certain areas they'll destroy th land, and themselves. And we're doing a right-fine job of destroying this planet ourselves. We don't need help.

So that, in a nutshell, is why hunting is now a necessary thing. If we hadn't wiped the predators out in so many areas fearing them threats and competition, we wouldn't be in this tangle.

My two cents... Well, perhaps closer to a buck-fifty.

Actually, I'll edit that out, as it came off snarkier than I had intended....

While EVERYTHING you just stated is absolutely true, and I agree with you on it, I don't by this "noble" act on why we NEED to hunt herbivorus(sp?) animals. I'm still seeing sport hunters with trophies, or people eating deer meat because they want to try it. We've got cow and chicken......isn't that enough?

James Boba Fettfield
10-04-2002, 04:36 PM
I do not believe gun laws could have prevented this. Whether or not the government tells us it is illegal, there will always be a way to get your hands on it. Drugs have proven that point in America. Besides, why are the tools being blamed when it is the individual abusing it? Storefronts got smashed by baseball bats in Cincinnati during the riots a year ago. Should we ban baseball bats? The individual is to blame. Gun laws are just a way of the government trying to tell the public that we tried all we can do within the law to prevent such happenings.

The Overlord Returns
10-04-2002, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
What is different about an animal raised for us to eat, and an animal that runs free. They still have feelings, they still can feel pain. The animals that are raised are actually alot less healthy most of the time. And do you realise how they raise veal cows, trust me, hunting is a hell of alot more humane.

And I wouldn't say that the majority of hunters don't hunt for food. While myself, I'm not much of a hunter but I have dear friends that are. They actually taught me a few things, I used to think exactly like you do.

Red meat isn't as bad as some people claim, as long as you eat the proper amounts and don't overdo it. I haven't had alot of those animals, but I know people that have. They say that it's very very good. Though I don't know anyone that eats wolf. :)

BTW, Thanks for coming and putting in your two daktaries, my friend. You make the point a hell of alot better then I could about these things. Hyena there is one of the people that opened my eyes about these sort of things. And remeber, if god didn't want us to hunt, he wouldn't have made the animals so tasty. ;) :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Yes, I realize how they raise veal cows. That's why I refuse to eat veal. I also don't eat red meat, for several reasons. It is tasty, but there are just too many reasons NOT to eat it.

Red Meat is not naturally digestable by humans. Essentially this is why it takes us longer to digest than most of our other food sources. The same thing with the Milk we drink. The calcium in milk, the main f'ing reason we're supposed to drink the damn stuff, is useless to human bones. We're the only animal that drinks another animals milk.....what does that tell you?

when I say hunt for food...I mean HAVE to hunt for food. Killing a deer because you want to eat deer meat is not a necessity.


I enjoyed your friends observations as well.....but gods got nothing to do with it. Nor did he make the animals tasty, naturally........

Beast
10-04-2002, 04:43 PM
T.O.R., would it make you feel better if they actually started raising deer for food? Most hunters after trophey's still eat the meat. Or they donate the meat to soup kitchens and food banks, where it goes on to do even more good by feeding the poor. It's not like they are lopping the head off the deer, and leaving the carcass in the wild. Why do you think they tie the whole carcass to the top of the truck when they come home. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

James Boba Fettfield
10-04-2002, 04:44 PM
We're also the only animals to use others organs to help extend our lives if our own organs are failing. Saying that we do something different or like other animals is not a good argument.

The Overlord Returns
10-04-2002, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
T.O.R., would it make you feel better if they actually started raising deer for food? Most hunters after trophey's still eat the meat. Or they donate the meat to soup kitchens and food banks, where it goes on to do even more good by feeding the poor. It's not like they are lopping the head off the deer, and leaving the carcass in the wild. Why do you think they tie the whole carcass to the top of the truck when they come home. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

No it wouldn't. It's completely unnecessary considering the massive amount of Cows being bred for food as it stands.

The Overlord Returns
10-04-2002, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by James Boba Fettfield
We're also the only animals to use others organs to help extend our lives if our own organs are failing. Saying that we do something different or like other animals is not a good argument.

we do that because we're advanced and have the ability to do so.

we also wouldn't need to if our own bodies were healthier (lights a smoke);)

We get nothing from milk that we can't get elsewhere in greater, purer levels. Thats all I'm saying.

Hyena SteelJaw
10-04-2002, 04:54 PM
While EVERYTHING you just stated is absolutely true, and I agree with you on it, I don't by this "noble" act on why we NEED to hunt herbivorus(sp?) animals. I'm still seeing sport hunters with trophies, or people eating deer meat because they want to try it. We've got cow and chicken......isn't that enough?


T.O.R.- We don't need to hunt herbivores to survive, no. We need to thin the heards for the long-time survival of the species. Since we removed the natural custodians of this position. Granted we don't always do it right by thinning out the weak or sick, but still it's helping some. JarJar is right, that a lot of hunters do donate the meat, and only poachers really do damage by just killing for a trophey. Most of your tried and true hunters are conservationists as well. I know I am. I fight tooth and nail to protect the birds I hunt.


I do not believe gun laws could have prevented this. Whether or not the government tells us it is illegal, there will always be a way to get your hands on it. Drugs have proven that point in America. Besides, why are the tools being blamed when it is the individual abusing it? Storefronts got smashed by baseball bats in Cincinnati during the riots a year ago. Should we ban baseball bats? The individual is to blame. Gun laws are just a way of the government trying to tell the public that we tried all we can do within the law to prevent such happenings.

Right on! You hit the nail on the head, my friend. Outlaw freedom and only the outlaws will be free.

James Boba Fettfield
10-04-2002, 04:59 PM
I know it. Things like this really push me. People are always saying we need more controls and restrictions. Why am I being punished because some yokels do not know how to properly use something? In the end the government can become the greatest enemy to the individual and actions like those in Maryland only provoke the governmental machine with the gun banning lobbyists to their cause. Respect the individual's right to freedom, punish those who abuse their rights.

The Overlord Returns
10-04-2002, 05:00 PM
Hyena....I'm definitely seeing your point. While I question the ethics of hunters, it's clear your not falling into the examples I've given. I do disagree with hunting on the whole, but thats just me.

As for gun laws, they're a tricky subject, not one with an easy answer.

I'll stick by earlier points. There are enough instances in history of violence due to gun use where, were the gun not available, the crime would not have occurred. It's a lot harder to stomach beating a persons brains in with a bat than it is to pull a trigger 30 feet away.

Hyena SteelJaw
10-04-2002, 05:09 PM
I'll stick by earlier points. There are enough instances in history of violence due to gun use where, were the gun not available, the crime would not have occurred. It's a lot harder to stomach beating a persons brains in with a bat than it is to pull a trigger 30 feet away.

Ah, how true, how true... But like James Boba said, bringing down more restrictions and punishments is just going to hurt the innocents. Instead of stricker gun control I think we should fight for stricter criminal punishments. If prisons weren't so hospitible some people might think twice before commiting crimes. Besides, where would this lead? Would it become illegal to approach another person because a fist can be used as a weapon? Knives would have to be outlawed, as well. It's just not going to work.

Lowly Bantha Cleaner
10-05-2002, 10:09 PM
I generally agree that gun control laws are not the end all of gun violence in this country. People who have a burning desire to get a gun will get one at all costs. The Brady Bill however was a step in the right direction because it outlawed a number of semiautomatic weapons that have no place in our society. As many of you have mentioned before, hunters need no such weapons as those to hunt down their prey. There is no true sport in killing a defenseless animal with semiautomatic weapons (for a real thrill I say arm the animals with guns, let's see how fun it is to hunt now) (; . The one glaring omission of that law was the gun show loophole. Basically the law helped to establish background checks on gun buyers, meaning that after one's record was cleared by the government, they could buy a gun. These take, I believe, five days to go through. However, this law does not prevent someone from obtaining a gun through gun shows. I believe the girl who bought guns for the Columbine killers got her guns through a gun show.

And for those who argue that more guns = less crime, I say which place would be safer? A country with 10,000 guns or a place with 10 million? I don't believe the argument that if enough people have guns 'fear' will keep crime in order, nor the statistics that are taken out of context that show that countries with stricter gun laws have higher crime rates than those who don't.

Dar' Argol
10-05-2002, 11:34 PM
To quote Robin Williams:

The NRA states that as a hunter you are allowed to carry and use armor piercing bullets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .WHY????? Is there one really big deer in a bullet proff vest out there going, "I'm ready for your butt!!!"

We do need to get this thread back on track though. I heard that the 6th killing in DC has been connected and that they are looking into a similar shooting in VA now. There is no connection between these poor souls except that they are random. This is indeed a sad, sick event.

I see everyone saying about "ppl being born evil" and mental illness . . . . . but what about a serial killer??? When was the last time there was a serial killer??? Before my time I believe. And just because there hasn't been one in a while does not mean they 3will never come back. I know how disturbing and sick this can be to talk about a serial killer, but I'm trying to rationalize why someone would do this, trying to figure it out.

They are also saying that the killer is taking the shot from a long distance, and that he is a skilled shooter. I think I remember reading that they say it was a .223 caliber rifle being used.

On the whole being born Evil thing . . . . . .. sigh. I have a little girl. She will be 2 in 22 days. There is no way she was "born Evil". All children are born as a blank slat as JJB stated. In the first 18 months, their brains soak up soooo much information within that time and also their personality is formed then. Well, at least the basics of their personality. It is up to the parents to nurture and love them and show them rights from wrongs. But as someone else stated, some parents are too career drivin to care. Then they should not have been parents, IMO. Other factors that could change a childs personalities is extreme tramua, abuse, or chemical imbalanses in the brain that are not caught. The factors that cause someone to commit Evil actions are wide and varied. But I really do not believe that ppl are "born evil".

I really hpe that they can find some leads in this case and catch the person responsible for these deaths. I hope it happens soon so no other families will have to suffer. And to those of you in these areas, I wish you safety and wellness. Please be very careful. OI nor anyone else here would want to lose anyone tho this, no matter who you are. Be well:D

Nexu
10-06-2002, 12:41 AM
There was only one person who was not born a sinner.

Beast
10-06-2002, 12:49 AM
No offense to anyone's beliefs. But please, not that "original sin" stuff. So let me get this straight. If a baby dies at the time of birth, before they can be baptized, they are going to go to hell? :rolleyes: :p

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Nexu
10-06-2002, 12:52 AM
No.

Dar' Argol
10-06-2002, 12:54 AM
Nexu, no one was talking sin, we're talking Evil. And not evil as in sin. I'm talking malitious intent, torment, and general evil things. This is not going to turn into a religous debate. We are talking about the sad events happening in Maryland.

Tycho
10-06-2002, 01:46 PM
EVIL:

Let's define evil for a moment. I don't believe any person is born evil. I also don't believe most people who do evil things are inherently evil.

I don't believe in anything religious or supernatural. Let's talk about things in logical cause-and-effect relationships.

But I will start with the young, like BigBarada said: "children are born caring only about themselves." It is a survival trait. They instinctively know that they want things, and that obtaining these things make them happier, and they learn that they have to do something to get them: cry, eat, excrete, rest. They learn they like to be clean. This is so they don't attract disease - but they don't understand the reasons, at least 28 years before they could possibly get a medical degree.

But some are nurtured by parents or people they meet in society that teach them to care for others, and cooperate to get needs met. If they don't, they continue to associate taking extreme measures like crying, throwing things, having tantrums, etc. to get their wants met. They don't learn to understand the process or the value of patience. It's an easy step to get into shooting people regardless of whether this makes sense in obtaining what you need. It's an act of an outcry for help from someone too unable to approach others, or too cynical and jaded to believe they can get aide.

Think about crimes with guns. If you use a gun to rob a bank, you are logically calculating a way to get money through the quickest process and least amount of lag time. Welfare forms take longer than a bank robbery I'd guess. But you have a goal with something of value to obtain with your criminal actions: money.

If you just randomly shoot people, "to see what it feels like to take a life," you obviously value life (and the lives of others) very little. The thought process feels like this: "My life means so little to me, that if I will be shot for my crimes, or imprisoned, etc., it is so pathetic that it makes me angry. Why do other people get to be happy? I don't. That makes me angry. I'm going to hurt people and make them keep on hurting so they can learn what it feels like to live a life like I do!" The actions are evil of the person who kills in this manner. It is cold, calculating regardless of the fact that no specific victim(s) are specified when the killer first loads the gun. The killer will have to settle for whoever gets in front of him. But the motivation isn't evil. It is a cry demanding happiness, comforting relationships, help.

I would not think my life (in the face of death or imprisonment) is forfeit were it important for me to spend time with someone: a parent, teacher, counselor, police psychologist, who cared about me and showed me alternatives to living the life of emotional unfullfillment I had become fed up with. There's the need for society to take care of every individual right there. We don't teach secular caring for others under the broad umbrella that we are all Americans, or all just people. You do it because your church tells you that you'll go to heaven, or because community service work is required for graduation or the advancement of your political career. Or you do it for money. The killer will return to his original plan once he realizes that the counselor is paid to care. He needs to be guided into other meaningful relationships before he gets to this point. Investing the mentally injured into caring for more who are mentally, financially, or environmentally injured - in a supervised manner - will give them cause to continue their own healing process as they become important to someone else.

When you have nothing to lose and you choose a killer's game, these could be your thoughts:

"I wonder if it feels like Star Wars - blasting everything - until the police come and it's like the stormtroopers breaching the detention cell on the Death Star. How long can I hold them off?"

The killer objectifies the victims, including the police, as mere targets for their anger and rebellion. That's why the stormtroopers were really masked and the officers you could recognize said things in sneering, prejudiced manners. The police protecting us in society have families, hopes and dreams, and things they look forward to when they're not on duty. They don't want to gun down another pitiful person that they find there's no way to help. They are forced into helping others by alleviating the danger of the killer that is just as much a victim. Society IS at fault, but an outburst SPOKEN at a community meeting is a much better way to get attention than an illegal and clearly inappropriate threat of violence - or worse, the actual act. Sometimes, like at Columbine High School, this seems to be the last resort to get attention. The killers were right in that they were victims. The quarterback jock-types had no right to judge the "gothic death rock" crowd or the video gamer group as being worth less than the athletes were, etc. If they exemplified their beliefs by teasing, than the "geeks" needed to gain courage to stand up to them, or at least try tactics that were legal before resorting to violence. I have no knowledge if they reported their distress to councilors before opening fire. However, their peers that were their friends did not report their distress. It seems that how involved "a friend" was willing to get, was not enough.

Others kill because they want to express themselves and learn:


"How long can I get away with this?"

or

"Can I make it as confusing as possible? No one understands me. I'll kill random people for no reason. Let them try and understand that! It'll take them longer to catch me and my killings are as meaningless as my own life - and just as confusing as I feel."

This is like an artist - someone who creates something out of other material that resembles a feeling they had in themselves. A random killer is an artist who creates the fear, confusion, frustration, and crisis intensification they feel in their own panic to escape their unfulfilling lives.

There are people very different from you in this world. They do not believe what you believe, nor however important you think those beliefs are. They do not like what you like: StarWars, toy collecting, etc. They may not make the best friends because you have less common ground to reach them on. But they are not worthless. You can make a difference to someone else's child. Because no matter if they are even older than you are, they are someone else's child - and we have too many children in this world.

I leave off with saying that's why I'm pro-choice. If a parent isn't going to nurture their own child, yet couldn't bring themselves to give a baby they brought into this world up for adoption, a morning after pill or an early 1st trimester abortion is paramount to not only population control, but criminal population control and maximumization of happiness per capita of the human population that lives around them. It's still killing - but flushing one not-yet-human life away before it takes more human life with it - seems like a better idea than saying "every life is precious" but then not exemplifying it by not reaching out to others who seem evil or bent on causing misery because they are miserable, themselves. They only take their murderous actions on because they do not understand how to meet their social needs.

When I transferred high schools after my freshman year because my family split up and I moved to a community I didn't feel like I belonged in, I could have gone on a shooting spree at my high school. I thought I'd feel like Han Solo blasting away his enemies - the demons that come to torture him. But Han had real military targets actually trained to do this to him. That is why Han is not evil. I watched Star Wars and decided that I didn't want to be the bad guy. I didn't shoot anyone at my high school. I never took a gun away from home to even have that option.

But I am Eric Harris.
I am Dylan Kliebold.
I am Charles "Andy" Williams
and I am Jason Hoffman (was that his name?)

and I am the killer that wanders around Maryland crying for help, having gone too far to turn back now - just playing out the game until it's over in one fatal confrontation.

I understand them all. I give you two choices:

Take your love and wrap it around my gunhand, holding it in yours.

Or take my bullets.

I am everyone else you have ever known.

Decide how you will treat me, and think about how I will react.

The Overlord Returns
10-07-2002, 10:55 AM
BTW Dar'Argol..............in response to yuor question about the last serial killer.............technically Jeffery Dahmer is a serial Killer. I am not sure how old you are, but I'll assume that took place in your lifetime.

Also, there was Paul Bernardo here in Canada. More recently, in B.C. a murder spree of epic proportions is unfurling on a farm where it looks like more than 60 prostitutes and drug addicts from the vancouver area have been killed, there bodies seem to keep popping up every day in various areas of this farm. It may turn out to be the worst serial killer case in North American history.

The Overlord Returns
10-07-2002, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Nexu
There was only one person who was not born a sinner.

Thanks for noticing, pal!

Jedi Master Silas
10-07-2002, 03:34 PM
I dont think people are "natural born killers" but what the heck possesses some one to kill in such a bold, calculated manner? I know I get mad when someone cuts me off and I get road rage and I may want to shake the living heck out of them but to kill with no reason?

JON9000
10-07-2002, 09:10 PM
We live in a violent culture. We love it in the movies, video games, and music. We even have an image of a man being executed (or at least his death instrument) as the primary symbol of our predominant religion. I believe violence is innate. Watching it allows us to get it out of our system in a vicarious way- and it feels, dare I say, good.

It is the ugliest part of who we are. This guy in Maryland is twisted, no doubt. But the message of our culture, at least the implicit one, is that when things get rough, Chuck Connors grabs his trusty rifle.

As for eating meat- I love it, and I was born with incisors. Too bad we were not made to chew cud!

As for gun control, I am torn. A well armed and educated populace is the best defense against a tyrant. I suppose it all come down to being responsible for your own actions, and when this bozo is caught, he will answer for it in one way or another.

Exhaust Port
10-08-2002, 12:10 AM
I figure that if the gun laws limited everyone to black powdered weapons that our history of mass shootings would immediately stop. The process of measuring your powder, pouring it into the barrel, tapping in your ball and wading, setting the ball onto the powder, priming your firing mechanism, aiming, firing and having to do all that again just to shoot at someone would stop anyone from hitting more than one person. Heck if smokeless powered was outlawed no one could see any target after firing once allowing for others to run for cover.

Rather than outlaw guns, perhaps we should concentrate on making the whole shooting process so combersome that it deters anyone from trying. :)

Dar' Argol
10-08-2002, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
BTW Dar'Argol..............in response to yuor question about the last serial killer.............technically Jeffery Dahmer is a serial Killer. I am not sure how old you are, but I'll assume that took place in your lifetime.

Also, there was Paul Bernardo here in Canada. More recently, in B.C. a murder spree of epic proportions is unfurling on a farm where it looks like more than 60 prostitutes and drug addicts from the vancouver area have been killed, there bodies seem to keep popping up every day in various areas of this farm. It may turn out to be the worst serial killer case in North American history.

I didn't think Dahmer was a Serial Killer. I was sitting there thinking about it later and I remembered the Zodiac Killer.

I makes me totaly sick and I really feel that this person should be tortured instead of gettign a quick and painless death via a Judges sentence. I was sickened to hear yesterday that a 13 yr old boy was shot. The last I heard he had damage to his Speen and stomache, underwent surgery, and was in critical but stable condition. They need to find this person and fast!

JON9000
10-21-2002, 11:27 PM
Alright I give htis bozo about 5 days. He is doing this because he gets off on the recognition, and he just won't be able to carry on without finally letting everyone know who it is that is causing them to live in fear.

In related news, INTERPOL has warned the US of a French Army deserter loose in North America. I wonder if there is a connection?

Tycho
10-22-2002, 01:59 AM
He's an idiot if he gives himself up and starts taunting the police with clues. Do you know what they'll do to him?

And they can triangulate his position with cell phone calls or pay phone calls and find out who this guy is and get names and photographs that way.

The trial will be sensationalized more than David Westerfield's.

He should not be leaving notes or tarot cards, they can fingerprint that stuff. They can check serial numbers on some game cards, or even on the paper he might use.

They also can trace bank accounts or even cash-money he might be demanding. There was some leak that money was involved. What's he trying to do? Channel real blood-money to the terrorist cause? Does he like the irony of making us pay him to stop the deaths only so that the money can be used to cause more deaths?

If he wants money for personal use, than he's even more idiotic. What's he going to use some money for? More bullets? Don't you have to have a gun license to buy ammo? Probably getting that stuff on the black market anyway - less chance of being traced. So do you really think this guy has a gun license? He might - or might've once learned to shoot with one. But you know, I'm a pretty good shot myself. Expert marksman? Huh! I could probably tie him in a shooting contest - save for the fact that it'd be safer if I just shot THIS guy instead. If there's a pair of them, they're probably taking turns.

Like I said, they're idiots if they talk. You don't make political statements this way. You destroy any public empathy.

If these guys are thrill-seekers, I understand that. I don't condone it, but I understand that. But that'll be their downfall, too. It's just too easy for them. They have to leave the police clues to give themselves a good chase. I hope they catch them before Halloween, since if they are thrill-seekers, and if they're American, that'll be a bloody day for them, as it'll just be way too tempting for some would-be terrorist-without-a-cause.

Sad but true, but I'd be surprised if I didn't understand these guys.

And by the way, a lot of you here understand them, too. As Star Wars fans you get a special rush out of gun play and a great shot. When Zam Wessel aimed her rifle towards Obi-Wan Kenobi, in your heart you wanted it to be a good shot, because if she hit some building over 5 feet away from him, how exciting would that be? The killer instinct is in all of us. I think I like analyzing criminal behavior because I'm interested to see if it could be a crime one could get away with, or if our law enforcement (and judicial system - if they get caught) are as efficient as we hope. What new laws need to be created to prevent this? Are there any? When will someone copy-cat this crime. I mean all the snipings are in the Maryland area. Wouldn't it confuse the heck out of authorities if some crazy dude in Idaho started blowing people away? First they'd have to figure out if it was the same person. Meanwhile, which one would have the higher death count? It starts to get riskier when you are trying to out-do the competition and still not get caught? Just like the next school-shooter having to out-do Columbine...

Finally, as someone interested in politics, if this guy or these guys have some kind of agenda, it'll be really interesting to learn if they were sincerely devoted to it. Because what kind of agenda can be served by this type of behavior? What can they possibly accomplish?

They could run out of ammunition.

They could run out of a thrill factor in this. It'll be nothing new unless they can taunt the public with this and get a name or recognition for this. In other words, they could get bored.

They could run out of money (I mean does this guy work a regular job and say "I'm just going out for a cigarette for a few minutes."

They could sacrafice their life with their families (if they have any).

They could be caught, tried, and executed - (if they don't know that in most states, a death-sentence to execution time would take an average of 15 years and a lot of meetings with lawyers they'll wish they'd already shot).

They could be suicidal and waiting for "death by cop" and get pretty impatient for it. As I think there's still a disvalue to "death by stupidity" even in the suicidal-psychopath's handbook. They want to be killed as the ultimate villain - the mastermind killer - not the idiot who botched up and missed going out in a blaze of glory versus being pulled over because of an illegal U-turn, when suddenly, "they're discovered!"

I don't know how this one will play out. But they're risking everything they've got, and they're ruining everything the families of their innocent victims have, and meanwhile that minority is making all the sacrafices while it sure is a risk-free way of entertaining us. Sad but true.

If it weren't, you'd all be enthusiastically posting in some thread that describes how grass grows. :D

OK, I'm ready for all of your "I'm an innocent, God-obeying, good-guy who never has these thoughts" now.

Let the hypocrites posts' begin:

derek
10-24-2002, 07:29 PM
.
Alright I give htis bozo about 5 days. He is doing this because he gets off on the recognition, and he just won't be able to carry on without finally letting everyone know who it is that is causing them to live in fear

good call Jon9000.:)


after all the speculation by so-called experts, saying how intelligent the "D.C. Sniper" was, man, what idiots these two turds turned out to be. i say "idiots" because, just like the unabomber, their own stupidity is what led to their capture. they just had to brag about their deeds.

i guess the myth of the intelligent criminal is just that, a myth. i'm glad these idiots are off the street, but i wish they had been killed resisting arrest.:evil: i can't believe they found them sleeping in their car even after a police A.P.B. had been sent out

Hasbro'sBountyHunter
10-24-2002, 07:59 PM
I'm so glad they've been apprehended. It's been a frustrating 3 weeks for my school. All festivities at my school have been postponed too long- Homecoming, games and other school events. After being on a code blue for 2 weeks, it's a big releif to know that you're not living in fear. I applaud the law enforcement and the couragous acts of the public for getting these two.

Tycho
10-25-2002, 04:25 AM
Actually, I'm sure they were stupid with the mistake they made - but I'm not sure their clues they left was the stupid part.

The "check out Montgomery" might be the only stupid clue - unless they were dumb enough to leave fingerprints on the tarot cards or note, or whatever - and it's hard or inconvenient to write with gloves on.

But sleeping in their car at a rest stop makes anyone look suspicious. I admit, that's what rest-stops are for, but if I had to use one, I WOULD want the cops to pull up and check on me because those stops are not the safest places to sleep I'm sure. But not everyone can afford a hotel on a long-distance trip. I have a friend who's still in college, and him and his girlfriend used rest stops to sleep during their drive through California all the way up to Canada, basically for economic reasons and so they weren't a danger to themselves or anyone else on the road. However, if I had to sleep at one of those and a cop woke me up just to make sure I was alive and not in danger (or need of gas, oil, sparkplugs, etc), I'd be grateful - then go back to sleep.

Autos are not that hard to break into, so you're not necessarily safe from lunatics or homicidal carjackers (aren't they lunatics anyway?) if you're asleep at these rest stops.

Now just because there are two men sleeping there, doesn't mean they are guilty. But the kid had to taunt authorities about Montgomery...didn't he?:rolleyes:

It would be interesting to know what the cops were on to BEFORE that clue was left, but we won't find that out until the sure-to-be-sensationalized trial.

But let's say you're going to disappear and go on this killing spree. Unless you really live somewhere deserted to begin with, aren't your neighbors going to report you missing?

And did these guys ever have a white van? Or was that just a really false lead? Or a trick by authorities to make the killers think they were safe in a blue car?