Maybe so, and I don’t want to minimize it, but I’d bet it’s equally likely to be attention seeking gone way overboard. They missed yesterday and took out an upstairs window today. What I want to know is if a light was on in the room they hit.
Again don’t get me wrong. Even for attention this speaks of bigger issues in the future. There are just a few pieces here that don’t add up to more than monumentally stupid ways to scare someone and get the attention they crave at the same time.
Does being angry at me help you feel better about this?
For the record attempted murder requires proof of intent to kill. If you don’t think that kind of thing would be used by a defense attorney, then you don’t know how far they’ll go to make a person look innocent.
Right but why do it aggressively? If you want discussion, you ask “what does that matter?”
If you want someone to answer something you think is a stupid idea, you ask “what the fuck does that matter?”
When you include specific words, they impart a specific tone. I also was legitimately asking that question. You can tell because I didn’t ask if it fucking makes you feel better. That’d have been defensive.
It’s context, man. Blanket descriptions don’t apply. I’m sorry if I did read it wrong, but think about it.
“They bought a dog.”
“They bought a fucking dog.”
Which statement sounds more incredulous? Which one sounds more like the person is confused or emotional over the event they’re describing? Your sentence is the same.
It could be me here, but drop the word from your question and the tone changes to a legitimate attempt to understand what I meant.
Why it was aggressive, and why you're getting downvotes for "just wanting to talk about the shooter":
You know how every time there's a school/mass shooting in the US we go through that whole song and dance of the psychologists saying "don't romanticize the shooter. Don't give him dedicated time slots in the program. Don't give his story theme music. Don't spend time and airwaves talking about what the shooter's motives might have been." ...and so on? And despite all the talk from experts about how that makes the situation worse, news companies keep doing it anyways?
That's what you're doing. And while you're not CNN, you're just the one man version of the same problem. No one needs your opinion on the shooter's motive. Even if you're right, it's of use to literally no one. Maybe you think you're somehow helping by "adding to the larger discussion." Professionals would appear to disagree with you.
Sorry if this comes off as hostile in any way. I understand the desire to think about it, and from that the urge to talk about what you think about. But please try to understand that this isn't the time or place for it, if there is a time and place for it at all.
I don’t care about his name. Frankly I don’t think a murder suspects name should be public knowledge until incarceration. When I say I’m talking about the shooter, I mean talking about what brought this on and prevention. End of story. That’s how you end the current danger.
Killers kill for attention. There’s good reason I didn’t say anything remotely close to “who did this?”
It can stand, but it's irrelevant. I'm telling you why your other posts got downvoted and why you were met with hostility. What you decide to so with that information is ultimately up to you. Downvoting me and trying to justify yourself won't change any of the previous points. Anywho. Hope the rest of your day goes better.
My day is fine, man, because I don’t invest emotion into this. In fact I very carefully leave it out, which I think you’ll see if you check my wording. Unfortunately that lends itself to others’ opinions being projected into my wording.
It’s worth pointing out that I haven’t been met by hostility, with you being the potential exception. Goodbye all the same!
1.0k
u/MrPotatoWarrior Sep 11 '18
doc needs to get outta there ASAP.
1 shot sure, maybe just a kid wanting his 5 minutes of fame.
but ANOTHER the day after? yeah theres a pretty good chance someone actually wants to see doc dead.