Obama has done it now - Nine Shot dead in church

[Derec]

Did I stutter?

No, but your question had no relationship to what I wrote. I did not dispute what the witnesses said (although in general I reserve the right to disbelieve claimed "lived experience" of anyone regardless of race because people are often dishonest or mistaken), I just pointed out that these statements were not released until many hours after the shooting.

Why did he shoot them?

Because he is an evil racist fuck. What does that have to do with my question?

 

[bilby]

he then took out a gun and shot 9 people to death and he reloaded five times to do it.

It might get dismissed as insensitive but I think it's a fair question: why didn't they overpower him while he was reloading?

Because reality is surprisingly unlike TV and movies in more ways than most people seem to be aware of.

I'm wondering why they didn't all escape into the ventilation system while his back was turned.

 

[TV and credit cards]

It might get dismissed as insensitive but I think it's a fair question: why didn't they overpower him while he was reloading?

Because reality is surprisingly unlike TV and movies in more ways than most people seem to be aware of.

I'm wondering why they didn't all escape into the ventilation system while his back was turned.

The natural reaction is to plead for your life. To appeal to the individual's sense of compassion. But you are worlds apart from where this guy is mentally. So often, it's just too much to ask the average person to go into a kill or be killed mentality. It's not in their nature to do so.
They should have, assuming it was possible and I'm supposing it was. Just as a young girl should kick, scream, and bite an attacker because appealing to his better side isn't going to work.

You're worried about making this guy madder at you? Fuck! He's killing you.

 

[Derec]

Because reality is surprisingly unlike TV and movies in more ways than most people seem to be aware of.

If it was (certain kind of) movies he would not have to reload in the first place. Please tell me what is unrealistic about what I wrote?
It's not like it never happened. And even if you fail you at least tried rather than meekly let yourself be shot.
Seattle Pacific University Shooting: Student, Others Overpower Gunman Who Killed 1, Injured 3

I'm wondering why they didn't all escape into the ventilation system while his back was turned.

 

[arkirk]

If the preacher and the elderly ladies he killed had only had their trusty sten guns on hand, this story world play out differently. Let's get real about this. It is completely unreasonable to expect these people to be able to defend themselves from a guy with a large caliber pistol. This 21 year old piece of shit actually sat and let these people trust him then blew them away. He is the perfect description of first degree murder...especially the malice aforethought part.

 

[Derec]

Because it isn't that hard to attract women,

It's actually virtually impossible for some people. You need looks, money and "game", whatever that is.

and far easier to scare them off with a negative attitude.

I have no trouble believing that.

Not knowing your situation here is a short list of things you can do right now:

My situation is that I have given up on dating several years ago after enduring rejection after rejection in the first 30 years of my life. Occasionally I will slip up and start crushing on some woman (way out of my league of course) I meet but I have to talk myself down from doing something stupid like asking her out.

1) Dress nice and clean yourself up. Learn the actual rules of dressing which means fit, color and style (NOT fashion): http://www.styleforum.net/f/5/classic-menswear <-- It's men who love to talk about clothes, but they can teach you a lot about the rules of looking good. You are getting older right? Get a good distinguished look.

Actually that sounds pretty horrid. Even their "street wear and denim" section is all about designer labels and coordinated outfits. I am more "cargo shorts and sneakers" type of guy this time of year. When I wear jeans I only care they fit comfortably rather than stylishly.

2) Be interesting. Do interesting things. I'm not saying go out and BASE jump off the freedom tower, but make sure you are mixing it up and trying and learning new things.

By that do you mean do things that interest me or things that interest women?

3) Be passionate about something. Don't get scattered. Go out and do what you love to do with no regrets.

Good idea. Be busy enough that you have no time for women anyway.

4) Be decisive. Don't waffle. Ask a woman out and have a plan in mind (you can have a back-up). Don't get caught up in the "what do you want to do" mode.

For that to even be a problem I'd have to a) ask her out and b) she'd have to say yes.

5) Do not fear rejection and if you are rejected, don't take it personally. There are a million reasons that a woman will say no and they have nothing to do with you.

As I said, I have endured rejection after rejection in my earlier life. I have no intention of enduring more.

You might also benefit from books on charisma and seduction. Here are two I like:

It's not about me "benefiting. I am no longer in the game. My point was about people always denigrating people like me who have no "game" with women and link us with people like Roof, when for all we know he might have been a young Casanova or anything in between.

Now back to the OP.

Indeed.

 

[Derec]

If the preacher and the elderly ladies he killed had only had their trusty sten guns on hand, this story world play out differently.

I don't know who was shot first but there were younger people in the Bible study as well. And the preacher was 41 or so - not quite an old man.

Let's get real about this. It is completely unreasonable to expect these people to be able to defend themselves from a guy with a large caliber pistol.

According to the article he reloaded 5 times.

This 21 year old piece of shit actually sat and let these people trust him then blew them away. He is the perfect description of first degree murder...especially the malice aforethought part.

I am not disputing that part.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

he then took out a gun and shot 9 people to death and he reloaded five times to do it.

It might get dismissed as insensitive but I think it's a fair question: why didn't they overpower him while he was reloading?

Probably because they were thug lifers when they were younger, they used up all of their extra lives and only had the one while they were getting shot at.

What a stupid fucking question!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You don't need to take steps to publicize it for it to be terrorism--often the press provides all the publicity you need.

Hate crimes are committed because of the class the victim belonged to, not for gain or revenge. There is nothing about them that must be public or must be hidden.

Some hate crimes are also terrorism. Terrorism generally is a hate crime but not always--narco-terrorism has no hated group, it's just about being left alone to pursue their life of crime.

Loren, fall down.

In other words, you have no rebuttal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think you're making a mistake, but rather the word "terrorism" has been rampantly misused in recent years.

To me, the prime characteristic of terrorism is the attempt to instill fear in the target population.

True, he was only trying to be a spark to start a race war, he wasn't trying to scare anybody. So he is guilty of war crimes then, not terrorism.

Try to start a war isn't a war crime.

He's a simple murderer. I'll also agree with hate crime. Not terrorism, though.

 

[Ford]

He's a simple murderer.

I'm at a loss to understand why there are so many people working so hard to minimize this crime.

The guy walked into a church and killed nine defenseless human beings for no other reason than that they were black.

That's a bit more than simple murder.

In the famous "Boston Massacre" of 1770, five people were killed.

The famous "St. Valentines Day Massacre" in 1929 had seven fatalities.


But nine people gunned down in a church? Well that's just a simple murder. Nothing to see here, folks! Move along.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

True, he was only trying to be a spark to start a race war, he wasn't trying to scare anybody. So he is guilty of war crimes then, not terrorism.

Try to start a war isn't a war crime.

He's a simple murderer. I'll also agree with hate crime. Not terrorism, though.

He was trying to start a race war... that is a political goal.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Loren, fall down.

In other words, you have no rebuttal.

No, in those words just fall down. You have said nothing in a lot of words. Half of what you said, I and others have already said and what's left is word salad.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

No, but your question had no relationship to what I wrote. I did not dispute what the witnesses said (although in general I reserve the right to disbelieve claimed "lived experience" of anyone regardless of race because people are often dishonest or mistaken),

Except accused rapists and shooters of black people. You reserve to right to always give then the benefit of the doubt.

I just pointed out that these statements were not released until many hours after the shooting.

Why did he shoot them?

Because he is an evil racist fuck. What does that have to do with my question?

You question is a weak attempt at blaming the victims. My question is to keep you on topic, which you evidently don't want to deal with. Is the fact that an admitted racist committed a racist act so frightening to you and your "racism exist but never actually is applicable to any situation" mindset, that you can't even call a textbook racist act racist? Are you that scared? I mean, getting you to say what everybody else knew was like pulling teeth.

But if you are truly that ignorant, I'll answer it. Because the first response to being shot at is not let's rush the shooter but let's run, let's hide, let's get down and out of the way.

 

[Derec]

Except accused rapists and shooters of black people. You reserve to right to always give then the benefit of the doubt.

Nonsense. I give benefit of the doubt when it is warranted. For example, I do not give any benefit of the doubt to Roof.

You question is a weak attempt at blaming the victims.

No, it is not. It is a genuine question regarding a fact of the case.

My question is to keep you on topic, which you evidently don't want to deal with.

The topic is this particular shooting, which includes all details associated with it. Even if you do not want to discuss anything but calling Roof a racist. Which nobody disagrees with you on, by the way.

Is the fact that an admitted racist committed a racist act so frightening to you and your "racism exist but never actually is applicable to any situation" mindset, that you can't even call a textbook racist act racist?

I did call it racist. Several times. Yet you choose to ignore it. Presumably because I dare to talk about other aspects of this case.

Are you that scared? I mean, getting you to say what everybody else knew was like pulling teeth.

BS.

But if you are truly that ignorant, I'll answer it. Because the first response to being shot at is not let's rush the shooter but let's run, let's hide, let's get down and out of the way.

The natural response is "fight of flight". In this situation, a shooter in close quarters temporarily unable to shoot because he is reloading, fight would have been the better option.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If it was (certain kind of) movies he would not have to reload in the first place. Please tell me what is unrealistic about what I wrote?

Exactly as stated. The real world is NOT like action movies; you and your bible study are not going to simultaneously all discover your inner badass, rush the gun-toting lunatic and subdue him. It's not something you're going to be able to do UNLESS YOU HAVE PRACTICED DOING IT. Unless you have had some kind of drill where an instructor tells you all what to look for and you get to a point where you are all on the same page and know how to move together as a group to get the job done; unless you have a good sense of what the people next to you are going to do, how they're going to move, whether they're going for legs or arms, whether you grab the gun or they do, whether we're tackling him down or bear-hugging, or weather we're just throwing ourselves at this guy knowing that he can't shoot ALL of us.

There are certain kinds of people who can pull off that sort of coordinated group action spontaneously. Athletes on the same teams, for example, get to know each other's body language well enough that when one of them is going to do something, they can all tell and be ready. Military units train for HUNDREDS OF HOURS to get this kind of coordination down. Police departments train tactical units for this kind of thing because even regular police officers aren't completely qualified to do this in a close quarters combat situation.

So why exactly do you think nine old people in a Bible study would be able to pull that off? Actually, that's probably a rhetorical question since the answer is probably "too much teevee."

In this case the talk show host in question responded to racism with racism of his own, which is hardly helpful.

Exaggerated, hyperbolic, divisive. Yes. Of course, nine dead people at a Bible Study... that tends to press people's buttons.

Black people in particular.

We all grew up hearing the stories about all the people who marched, bled, fought and sometimes died so black people could rise up from being second-class citizens. The people who laid down their lives because they believed in the cause and the people who were had their lives taken just because someone else opposed it. One of those stories is Birmingham Alabama, September, 1963.

Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. Ted Kazcynski was a terrorist. Robert Chambliss and Thomas Blanton were terrorists; for that matter, the Ku Klux Klan was and is a terrorist organization.

Dylan Storm Roof is a terrorist. The media won't call him that and neither will the prosectors. He'll be treated as a criminal or a "tragic young man" and his actions will be explained and psychoanalyzed until it becomes part of some broader problem (mental health? Parenting? Gun control?). Maybe to a lot of people "trying to start a race war" seems like some completely crazed fantasy of a deranged individual. But it's not: the Klans waged open war against black people at large for almost a hundred years, and that's what Dylan wants to bring back. The "good old days" when you could lynch a nigger for being a nigger and everyone would understand; when blacks knew their place and knew better than mouth off to white people.

I WISH this was an isolated incident, but I know good and damn well it's not. There are a thousand people just like him who are reading his "confession" and nodding piously and thinking "If only I had the courage..." There is a large silent population of Americans who APPROVE of this action and are even convinced that they are an oppressed minority because it's every white person's good-given right to put blacks and mexicans and whatever else they call themselves in their proper place. Thinking the "librul media" is controlled by the blacks and the Jews and treats white people like they're part of the problem when black people commit all the crime and are draining the economy for the rest of us, so why SHOULDN'T we put them back in their proper place? Back in chains, or just get rid of them altogether? Wouldn't we all be better off?

And any second now, the Usual Suspects are going to drop a post on this board and helpfully explain to me how it's really BLACK people who are keeping racism alive...

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Nonsense. I give benefit of the doubt when it is warranted. For example, I do not give any benefit of the doubt to Roof.

You question is a weak attempt at blaming the victims.

No, it is not. It is a genuine question regarding a fact of the case.

My question is to keep you on topic, which you evidently don't want to deal with.

The topic is this particular shooting, which includes all details associated with it. Even if you do not want to discuss anything but calling Roof a racist. Which nobody disagrees with you on, by the way.

Is the fact that an admitted racist committed a racist act so frightening to you and your "racism exist but never actually is applicable to any situation" mindset, that you can't even call a textbook racist act racist?

I did call it racist. Several times. Yet you choose to ignore it. Presumably because I dare to talk about other aspects of this case.

Are you that scared? I mean, getting you to say what everybody else knew was like pulling teeth.

BS.

But if you are truly that ignorant, I'll answer it. Because the first response to being shot at is not let's rush the shooter but let's run, let's hide, let's get down and out of the way.

The natural response is "fight of flight". In this situation, a shooter in close quarters temporarily unable to shoot because he is reloading, fight would have been the better option.

Derec, the victims are not at fault. They made no wrong decisions. The shooter is evil and TOTALLY at fault for EVERYTHING wrong and evil that happened that night and so is anyone who tries to make this in any way the fault of nine dead people in a bible study on a Wednesday night in Charleston SC.

 

[Derec]

Derec, the victims are not at fault.

They were not at fault for the crime itself, but it is nevertheless a legitimate question whether they could have defended themselves better.

They made no wrong decisions.

One can be a victim, carry no guilt for the crime and still have made wrong decisions.

The shooter is evil and TOTALLY at fault for EVERYTHING wrong and evil that happened that night and so is anyone who tries to make this in any way the fault of nine dead people in a bible study on a Wednesday night in Charleston SC.

Asking questions about whether the victims could have done something to defend themselves does not imply they were at fault for the crime.

P.S.: The church service is on CNN right now. It's supposed to be a somber, tragic occasion. Couldn't the preacher man lay off the bombastic, over-the-top "black preacher" shtick just for one day in respect for the victims and adopt a more respectful one?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

They were not at fault for the crime itself, but it is nevertheless a legitimate question whether they could have defended themselves better.

To which the only legitimate answer is "Not without self-defense training."

They made no wrong decisions.

One can be a victim, carry no guilt for the crime and still have made wrong decisions.

Good to know. But they made no wrong decisions.

The church service is on CNN right now. It's supposed to be a somber, tragic occasion. Couldn't the preacher man lay off the bombastic, over-the-top "black preacher" shtick just for one day in respect for the victims and adopt a more respectful one?

Seeing how he is both black AND a preacher, what makes you think it's a shtick?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

They were not at fault for the crime itself, but it is nevertheless a legitimate question whether they could have defended themselves better.

They made no wrong decisions.

One can be a victim, carry no guilt for the crime and still have made wrong decisions.

The shooter is evil and TOTALLY at fault for EVERYTHING wrong and evil that happened that night and so is anyone who tries to make this in any way the fault of nine dead people in a bible study on a Wednesday night in Charleston SC.

Asking questions about whether the victims could have done something to defend themselves does not imply they were at fault for the crime.

P.S.: The church service is on CNN right now. It's supposed to be a somber, tragic occasion. Couldn't the preacher man lay off the bombastic, over-the-top "black preacher" shtick just for one day in respect for the victims and adopt a more respectful one?

Derec, fall down.

You don't get to tell black people to behave your way in their church. If you don't like it, change the channel.

And YOU of all people don't get to say shit about how to respect the Emmanuel Nine when you are the one saying they didn't know how to react to being shot at by a sociopath. How respectful do you think that is? Don't answer. it will just another wrong backassward thing that does no good.