It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Two American Killings and a Creeping Paranoia"

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
www.esquire.com...


There are two stories at the top of the news about people who shot other people to death. There are no obvious similarities between the two events. There are nothing but similarities between how the stories are being told to those of us trying to make sense out of the world.



The first is that of Staff Sergeant Robert Bales, the shooter in Afghanistan. The second is George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch vigilante who gunned down a 17 year old boy.

Bales was spirited away to Fort Leavenworth, we didn't even know his name for days. His family was moved onto a base Washington for their own safety.

Zimmerman was not charged for the killing of Trayvon Martin as he claimed self-defense against the unarmed teenager. His violent past was kept from Martin's family.

The article asserts that the common denominator between these to cases is sympathy for the perpetrators and a disregard for the victims that is rooted in a culture of paranoia.


You can see the enveloping ambiguity in both cases begin to soften the edges of the actual events, so as to make them easier to live with. There's a creeping paranoia at the roots of both events. For Bales, it was another trip into a war zone where the lines between friend and foe were utterly blurred, and the search for someone to blame. For Zimmerman, it was the fear of crime that seems to have seeped into that neighborhood like foul water up from the earth, its source the very real economic dislocation abroad in the land, and the search for someone to blame. Someone who "seemed" to the professionally paranoid to be on drugs. Someone who "seemed" to the professionally paranoid to be "looking at" people's houses. Bales and Zimmerman are already halfway to being, if not victims, then people just like the rest of us who simply "snapped" due to circumstances we can all understand, if not excuse. There, but for the grace of god, and all that...

...we are a people too violent with each other, too ready to reach for the gun, and all too prepared to go out hunting for the Other who steals our dreams and our futures and our barbecue grills.


Why has the government in both cases protected the shooter? Is this the type of society we want? Is this the natural outcome of the growing Police State, protecting vigilantes?

Is there a paranoid undercurrent running through our society? Do we see trouble in every situation because life in the 21st century is so desperate and tenuous? Do we blame those who are simply different from us for our our seemingly out of control society?




posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by KillerQueen
 


The Government is not protecting Bales...they are actively prosecuting him in a court of law. How that turns out remains to be seen.

As for the Florida shooting, Florida law states that a person who feels that they are threatened are entitled to self-defense. And the law is looking into that case as well.

Once again, we'll have to wait to see how it turns out.

There are always two sides to a story.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Bales was a callous sociopath from the get-go, hope they throw the book at him.

The Florida incident will have to be monitored closely, for I fear that it will end in the further trampling of states rights by the federal government.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
i think its all just a distraction from obummers executive order crap. also that dude in florida in no way can claim self defense since he basically stalked that kid and against police orders not to get out of his car. And then assaulted that kid, he is the one that was protecting himself, not the pos wanna be "im not good enough to be a real cop" douch bag. thank got for that by the way imagine that guy with a badge! just from his 911 call you could tell he was itching for some action. funny thing is i get caught with a dime bag i get immediately cuffed and brought down to the station, charged probation random drug test the work! but claim yourself to be the all might neighborhood watch guy and you can shoot who ever you want no questions, breathalyzer,drug test about it just go on your merry way. excellent police work.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by KillerQueen
 


The Government is not protecting Bales...they are actively prosecuting him in a court of law. How that turns out remains to be seen.

As for the Florida shooting, Florida law states that a person who feels that they are threatened are entitled to self-defense. And the law is looking into that case as well.

Once again, we'll have to wait to see how it turns out.

There are always two sides to a story.


What right do they have? Bales didn't commit crimes against the United States, so what can they REALLY charge him with? Being MIA for a few hours?

His crimes were against the Afghans, not the US.

And with Zimmerman, he was told NOT to follow the KID and did it anyway, and ended up killing him. He wasn't entitled to # but handcuffs...

Amazing how you seem to give a slight pass to a murderer, and an excuse for those who are harboring, or protecting both of them.
edit on 20-3-2012 by My.mind.is.mine because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by My.mind.is.mine
 


I give no pass for murder, and in both of these cases it does appear to be just that. But we have laws that must be reckoned with as well.

In Bales case, he broke the Rules and Regulations (IE: Laws) of the UCMJ. And must be tried by a military tribunal. Chances are good that he'll get the death penalty...life at a minimum.

Until the court rules, all we have is our own opinions on the matter and conjecture.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


In Bales case he went off base, without orders, and murdered 16 civilians in cold blood. It's not like they are mobile and he just flipped out. His crimes had nothing to do with the military, other then they're the reason he was there. Give him to the Afghans....



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


In Bales case he went off base, without orders, and murdered 16 civilians in cold blood. It's not like they are mobile and he just flipped out. His crimes had nothing to do with the military, other then they're the reason he was there. Give him to the Afghans....


Pure emotional and simplistic thinking, which would also set a precedent that would have unknown consequenses.

By your thinking, I could enact my own form of punishment upon OWS protesters who I believe are hurting my business, or willingly hurt police who are trying to enforce the laws upon said protesters.

It's a slippery slope when you discard rational thought in regards to justice.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


In Bales case he went off base, without orders, and murdered 16 civilians in cold blood. It's not like they are mobile and he just flipped out. His crimes had nothing to do with the military, other then they're the reason he was there. Give him to the Afghans....


Regardless of him going off base and acting on his own accord, he still belongs to the military and is still accountable for ALL actions he does while off duty and off base. Ever hear the term GI ?? "government issued" he is government property....

That is why he is in military custody and not let lose to the Afgans.....being turned over to them would cause a security nightmare....since he probably knows classified info and so on....


edit on March 20th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


In Bales case he went off base, without orders, and murdered 16 civilians in cold blood. It's not like they are mobile and he just flipped out. His crimes had nothing to do with the military, other then they're the reason he was there. Give him to the Afghans....


Pure emotional and simplistic thinking, which would also set a precedent that would have unknown consequenses.

By your thinking, I could enact my own form of punishment upon OWS protesters who I believe are hurting my business, or willingly hurt police who are trying to enforce the laws upon said protesters.

It's a slippery slope when you discard rational thought in regards to justice.


MY thinking is simplistic, yet you compare the hurting of your business, IN America by AMERICANS comparable to an American murdering 9 children and 7 adults, and then setting them on fire in AFGHANISTAN........ hmmmmmmm



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


In Bales case he went off base, without orders, and murdered 16 civilians in cold blood. It's not like they are mobile and he just flipped out. His crimes had nothing to do with the military, other then they're the reason he was there. Give him to the Afghans....


Regardless of him going off base and acting on his own accord, he still belongs to the military and is still accountable for ALL actions he does while off duty and off base. Ever hear the term GI ?? "government issued" he is government property....

That is why he is in military custody and not let lose to the Afgans.....being turned over to them would cause a security nightmare....since he probably knows classified info and so on....


edit on March 20th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)


Classified info? They'd give him the death penalty, the end. They've already said that..



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by My.mind.is.mine
 


I am just saying that convicting without a trial opens the door to all sorts of unintended consequenses...such as lynching.

Which in my mind you propose.

People must face their day in court when accused. They are then either convicted or exonerated. Regardless of how people personnally feel, the verdict must stand.

I'm not defending the guy, but the system...as flawed as it is.

As a aside, since this is a conspiracy site, who to say he wasn't driven to do this through some type of conditioning? To further a agenda of some sort? He does say that he does not remember doing these things
edit on 20-3-2012 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by KillerQueen
www.esquire.com...





...we are a people too violent with each other, too ready to reach for the gun, and all too prepared to go out hunting for the Other who steals our dreams and our futures and our barbecue grills.


Why has the government in both cases protected the shooter?
I gave up trying to understand the government's thought processes. Blind justice has left the building. Self-important bureaucrats have taken her seat.

Is this the type of society we want? No.

Is this the natural outcome of the growing Police State, protecting vigilantes?
I disagree on this point. The actual job of the police/justice system is to protect a defendant in the interest of that person being tried fairly in a court of law. So the police are doing their jobs, rather than throwing the vigilantes in a big steaming pile of mob justice.

Is there a paranoid undercurrent running through our society?
Hell yes there is. Every waking moment media tells us that we aren't doing "IT" like we should: We are too fat, our wieners are too small or they don't get hard enough. Our boobs aren't big or perky enough. We don't make enough, we don't give enough. Our clothes are common, our cars too old.
Someone...on a billboard, TV or radio is doing it right, and they are mocking us. They have bright shiny teeth, hot young things hanging on their arm. They have it all.
We have been legislated into a corner, afraid to piss in the woods or think anything that might offend. Life has become an overstressed, credit-drowned nightmare of self-doubt and doublethink. All we worry about is what others might think or do in response to us living our lives.
All that repression is going to come out somewhere. So your neighbor's dog craps on your lawn and you immediately think, "That SOB let his dog sh*t on my lawn! I'll show him!"


Do we see trouble in every situation because life in the 21st century is so desperate and tenuous?
Yeah, I think despair and depression clouds our perceptions of the world around us.

Do we blame those who are simply different from us for our our seemingly out of control society?
I think people are feeling more and more need to blame someone for the world. Bank of America takes your home but in reality you are impotent to blame any one person. We are ruled by faceless systems designed to shrug off personal accountability to the citizen/consumer.
When a situation comes up where you can actually put the blame on a real live person...well these two stories are probably a good indication of where all the frustration and repression go.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by KillerQueen
 


The Government is not protecting Bales...they are actively prosecuting him in a court of law. How that turns out remains to be seen.


Yes they are prosecuting him. However, all you have to do is turn on the TV to see the spin: He's a family man, he's a great guy, he's got financial worries, he was injured in combat, he did multiple tours, he doesn't remember...yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah. Plus there was a HUGE delay in releasing his name until after he was securely on US soil and his family had been sequestered. Where are the considerations for the victim's families? If an Afghan had done the same to troops over there, there would be no end to the negative characterizations.


Same thing with the FL case. If Trayvon Martin had shot George Zimmerman, he would have been arrested asap, not released on bail and certainly prosecuted to the full extent of the law. As it is, they did a drug screen on him - a dead guy without a gun -but not Zimmerman and Zimmerman walked.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
The big difference is Zimmerman acted within the law AS IT IS WRITTEN.If you don't like it change the law.Just because tadpole was trespassing on his way home from having cookies and milk doesn't relieve him from his responsibility from what he APPEARED to Z to be.If he had of stayed on the sidewalks he'd be having more chocolate chips right now instead if being wormfood



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
The big difference is Zimmerman acted within the law AS IT IS WRITTEN.If you don't like it change the law.Just because tadpole was trespassing on his way home from having cookies and milk doesn't relieve him from his responsibility from what he APPEARED to Z to be.If he had of stayed on the sidewalks he'd be having more chocolate chips right now instead if being wormfood


You deserve to be slapped, hard as hell.......

Zimmerman was told NOT to get out of his truck and follow the teen, but he did anyway. All of this "within the law" went out the door right then...

Not to mention nobody said anything about him trespassing...



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Bullypulpit
 


Despite your trollish efforts, this thread isn't about the particulars of each crime. It's about how the government and the media have handled it. It's about how we make excuses for people. But you are making a point in support of the spin by making racially tinged excuses for Zimmerman. Because yeah, it's a crime to be young, black and walking around in paranoid America.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Cripes people. Please read the OP.
Take your OT crap elsewhere.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by My.mind.is.mine
 


Told by a dispatcher who has no power to do anything but advise so anything a phone operator said is moot..once Mr Zimmerman felt threatened he was within his rights under existing law to shoot and since no one here was there no one can say if he was afraid or not...like it or not



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
The big difference is Zimmerman acted within the law AS IT IS WRITTEN.If you don't like it change the law.Just because tadpole was trespassing on his way home from having cookies and milk doesn't relieve him from his responsibility from what he APPEARED to Z to be.If he had of stayed on the sidewalks he'd be having more chocolate chips right now instead if being wormfood


You deserve to be slapped, hard as hell.......

Zimmerman was told NOT to get out of his truck and follow the teen, but he did anyway. All of this "within the law" went out the door right then...

Not to mention nobody said anything about him trespassing...
Resorting to threats of violence as a remedy for frustration is a typical response for the weak of mind and the mentally challenged ...the dispatcher(who has no legal authority to tell anyone what to do) actually said"you don't need to do that"(get out)big difference especially on a legal argument.as for slapping me..well..



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join