oldscratch - a lot less wordy than my post.
You need to teach me how to do that sometime.
Beer, and lots of it. you know dude, I actually try and get my posts wordier. I miss out on some of the subtler details some times.
And dude. LOL at your post
I’m moving this to Great Debates.
Wow! That’s two in one day that I’ve helped get here, who wants to bet I help three on their way to GD
Crunch, I saw a disturbing account on Australian TV of Richard Jewell’s situation. It seemed startlingly clear from it that not only was he quite innocent of wrong-doing, but that his life was ruined by the accusation and the way the media and the police handled it. His great offence seemed to be that he was overweight, not of cleancut appearance, and lived (I think) with his mother. But he was innocent, and I wouldn’t have known that except for a documentary that considered his situation with some sensitivity.
Now I realise that a half-remembered TV show isn’t exactly compelling evidence, but in Australia we lived through the Lindy Chamberlain story. A dingo DID get her baby, but the Northern Territory police and the australian media did all they could to make her seem guilty. Only the evidence that was found about two (?) years later succeeded in freeing her from prison.
And in nearby New Zealand, in the case of Arthur Allan Thomas, the police actually fabricated evidence against the man involved, and then, rather than admit it, the whole police force in the area went to amazing lengths to get him into jail.
I think there’s a case for not accepting the first story you hear, but waiting until evidence has been presented and examined. You are still unlikely to get the full picture through the daily media, but analysts with longer deadlines may well have a more valuable contribution to make.
And, I don’t like to seem ungracious or anything, but when ARE you guys going to do something about those crazy gun laws?
FWIW…
I think OJ was guilty as hell and was not convicted.
The justice system is for legalities and is needed toprotect us from the gov’t. While I do not advocate lynching this guy,(or any other extra-legal measure) I think it is OK to rant and rave about him.
This guy was planning on murdering kids. The fact that he was also a kid does not enter into this equation. He should never be allowed out of gov’t care for the rest of his life.
If he had actually killed the people, then I would agree with the prision wife statement:), but since we don’t know what his actions would have been, I think it is fair to put him away forever based on what I have heard.
(I am not advocating US putting him away, I know he needs a trial and a defense etc…etc…)
Rasa wrote:
Hey, yeah! I lived in south Sunnyvale from 1993 to 1995, about a block away from where Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road becomes De Anza Boulevard. De Anza College was the local, neighborhood college. Woo! Good to see the local boys getting some national press for a change. 
I beg to differ. I was attempting to speak of what were quite obviously his intentions and not his motivational patterns. It is more than a little clear that there was intent, opportunity and location available for this extensively planned out crime to occur.
The sole count of me analysing his motives is in the deduction that he was doing this strictly for noteriety’s sake. This observation comes from publically broadcasted mention of the complete absence of a specific target for the defendant’s hostility. Such indiscriminate homicidal tendencies ranks as one of the most repulsive propensities that an aspiring criminal can exhibit.
As to what happens to him in prison, you have merely heard my opinion (which is what this forum is for) and not a legal prescription. Wanton disregard for human welfare breeds the same, be it in myself or in the inmates (some of whom might have college age children) that may surround this little maggot one day.
I challenge any of you to place yourself in the shoes of a parent who lost a child at Columbine. This is the perspective that I maintain in this case. The evidence that has been collected so far, is so inflammatory and convincing that, if the police or other agencies had fabricated the least shred of it, this individual would be released immediately.
Quite simply, even if the defendant was not in proper and legal possession of the bombs and weapons he was photographed with, he still had a strict legal and moral obligation to report their existence to the authorities at the earliest possible opportunity. That he did not only serves to further solidify the case against this worm.
I have know people who have attended De Anza college, I have gone to concerts there and spent time on its grounds. The wish to do such mindless harm to so many almost disallows a finding of mental illness. Such diabolical planning demonstrates a degree of cunning and disemblance that could easily include a pretense of insanity. If he is convicted, I will be incapable of feeling any sympathy for the likes of deGuzman.
(Shall we discuss the machete attack on 6 kindergarten children that took place earlier today?)
OP: It is nearly impossible to imagine the motives for such an act. That anyone would do so strictly for the sake of notoriety (as all evidence points to in this case) goes beyond the realm of psychopathology and into the world of lunacy.
Um, in the first place, I think that “psychopathology” is the medical term for what’s colloquially called “lunacy.” In the second place, if we agree that this person seemed to be acting out of a desire for notoriety, and we agree that this is not a good thing…
…THEN WHY THE HELL ARE WE HELPING MAKE HIM MORE NOTORIOUS HERE ON A PUBLIC MESSAGE BOARD??!?
Ahem, 'scuse me for yelling. But I simply cannot fathom the reasoning of people who start public discussions (in Op-Ed columns or letters to the editor or anywhere else) to moan and wail about the terrible things people do in their thirst for publicity. If it weren’t for this sort of pruriently horrified nosy gossip drenching the national media and public discourse for weeks during the original Columbine case, this deGuzman guy would probably never have gotten sufficiently juiced up about it to attempt a “copycat” crime (assuming, with all due respect to the presumption of innocence, that he did in fact do so). If we don’t like people getting so excited about our slavering over horrible deeds that they decide to imitate them, why don’t we SHUT THE F*** UP AND QUIT ENCOURAGING THEM?
Whoops, yelling again: sorry. I will now proceed to take my own advice, so this will be the last you hear from me, at least, about this wretched subject in this or any other forum. I am greatly looking forward to my future silence on the topic, and I invite you all to join me in it.
Zen: Please explain why you think the appropriate societal reaction to an illegal act is to force the actor to suffer illegal acts.
Perhaps you haven’t noticed, Zen, but there is a concept known as “a fair trial” in this lovely state. There is also the concept of “responsible for one’s actions.”
Now, if DeGuzman is now, or was at the time, “not in control” of his faculties, then by definition, he is not responsible for the actions you cite.
The whole idea of the trial is to determine if:
(a) He knew what he was doing was illegal,
&
(b) He had control of his mental faculties when he did what he did.
If he did, then the jury, if they find him guilty, and the judge will decide his fate in the prison system from there.
If they find he was not in control of his mind, then, one hopes, the system will assign him to an appropriate care facility in which he will receive the treatment he needs.
FTR: I’m not thrilled that something like this just happened in California; however, I’m not about to participate in a lynching party. I prefer we use the system and the laws which make this state the best in the nation.
**If I were caught in the process of attempting such a crime I feel that I would deserve the same. Just MO, not a legal ruling.
**I have advocated nothing less.
I concur completely.
Zenster. Thanks.
& Yet another FTR: I love California!
It’s hard to argue with logic. Thanks for a cogent perspective Kimstu.
Fer cryin’ out loud, folks! It’s human nature to react with disbelief, amazement, astonishment, and what-have-you when you hear about something like the events in San Jose. I think there’s something wrong with you if you hear of such behavior and don’t have the urge to express disapproval.
It’s absurd that the OP, expressing amazement, confusion, and anger that someone could be capable of planning such a despicable act (and relief that it only proceeded as far as it did) would so quickly become the target of accusations of a lynch-mob mentality. It’s a little bit scary that many people’s first reaction to such an outburst isn’t along the lines of “Whoa, Zenster, this thing’s got you upset, hasn’t it. Wanna talk?”, but “You judgemental bastard! How dare you express an opinion about this event?”
How soon after the event did Zenster post the OP? Does Zenster know anyone who attends that campus? If something like that were to happen in my neighborhood, I know I would like to vent to someone about it. Sorry, but I happen to believe it’s compassionate to cut someone some emotional slack when they’re reacting emotionally (unless, of course, they present an immediate threat to themselves of someone else). Besides, I think it’s unreasonable to expect a private citizen to refrain from commenting on a news item because nobody’s been convicted yet.
Regarding the OP, I think it’s a good thing that the photoshop lady had the presence of mind to realize that something was wrong. I’m also glad they caught the guy. Of course, I suppose now I’ve said too much. After all, I expressed an opinion.
Horrors!
~~Baloo
Thank you Baloo. I wish I could have said it half as well as you just did.
Thanks, and no prob, Zen. Earth is a scary neighborhood sometimes. It gets even scarier when the neighbors are less interested in how you’re getting along than they are in making sure you’re not making noises they don’t want to hear.
~~Baloo
When I heard his funny-sounding name, I just KNEW he was guilty, guilty, guilty!
That’s right … I don’t trust people named “Al.”
Agreed. But I haven’t read anything here that could possibly be construed as support or approval for wanton terrorism, nihilistic destruction of human life, etc. Problem is, none of us know what was intended or who intended it. Against sin, murder and slaughter of strangers? Well, who isn’t? Express away…but could we get a few little details like investigation, proof and trial straight first?
**
Expressing amazement, confusion and anger…oh, hell, let’s toss in complete outrage too…isn’t the issue. Specifying the target of that amazement, etc. IS until a few little details like PROOF are established. The media reports are pretty damning thus far. Could be true or could just be convenient hysteria; it’s happened before. Could be the sucker is a stone-cold psychopath. Sure sounds damning so far. But the media is rushing to sell product–heat, sound and surface–not justice and certainly not nuance. We don’t know!
**
Bingo! The response was immediate, all right, but that doesn’t make it authoritative. Of COURSE revulsion is natural, and more so if it’s local and “my people” involved. But that doesn’t mean shutting off the brain.
**
Sorry, but I happen to believe that it’s perfectly natural for any decent person to feel disbelief, disgust, etc. when terrorism rears its ugly head. But I DON’T believe it absolves resonable, conscientious people from waiting to assign blame and pass sentence until a few little things like PROOF are established.
Emotional slack for emotional reaction? All very relative, you know. Everybody has 'em, but if Zenster had that kind of closer-than-usual attachment, it wasn’t made clear.
**
Riiiight. Pure martyrdom, you poor baby. The forlorn bravery of expressing an opinion right out there, by golly, where discussion and disagreement are so RARE!
Sheesh! Nobody is saying, “oh, gee, let’s encourage random slaughter. What a SWELL idea! Let’s condone senseless violence! I’d just love a piece of that!”
Restraint and reason aren’t passive, guys. They’re the very stones in the mill of the gods, grinding slowly but relentlessly and exceedingly fine.
Let the system work. Have feelings? Who doesn’t? Vent outrage by all means, if it makes you feel better. Are restraint and caution that hard to understand–or that undervalued?
Veb
Er, um, I’m sitting here thinking about all the times you hear about when the cops swoop down and arrest somebody for thinking about or possibly planning some malfeasance, and then have to hand all the stuff back and apologize. Do I need to go and find cites for that, or does everybody here know what I’m talking about? Just part of life in the 21st century.
I would also like to point out that just because he has bombs and something that might sound like a “forgive me for what I’m about to do” on tape, doesn’t mean he was gonna do what the gal in the photo shop evidently thought he was gonna do. This is why we have courts and stuff like that.
I don’t think they’ll be able to get a conviction for “planning to pull off a Columbine II”. I think the most they’ll get will be illegal possession of bombs.
And, Zenster, I’d like to point out that you don’t need bombs and guns to go postal.
Chicago Tribune link
Should the police start arresting people because they have machetes in their homes? How about if they take pictures of themselves, posing with their machetes? How about if they have a hate group website talking about killing people with machetes? How about if they make a tape that says, “Forgive me for what I’m about to do with this machete”?
Granted, a machete is not a bomb, but still…
I’m not sure a trial’s going to satisfy you. After all, convictions only require “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Your standard seems to be “I want 100% ironclad proof.” And even if he’s convicted, well, he might still claim that he’s innocent. Are you then going to rail against everyone who believes the conviction with None of us know?
**
Heh heh. This is ironic. The media you just took a cheap shot at is the same media that you’re presumably going to hear the verdict from and BELIEVE! If the media can’t report justice and nuance now, are they really going to learn in between now and the verdict?
**
Oh, come on – are you honestly trying to say that you NEVER proceed with less than complete information? You don’t ever use your intuition? You’ve never operated on insight? Every situation has to be spelled out for you in excruciating detail or you sit back and say We don’t know? I’m surprised you can function in this world.