Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on June 3, 2013 at 7:52am

See this post from Active Trans:

http://www.thechainlink.org/forum/topics/bobby-cann-killed-by-ryne-...

Marion said:

Also, when is the court date? Someone in this thread said mid-July, but in the news article it says next Monday..?

Permalink Reply by Adam Herstein on June 3, 2013 at 7:57am

The individual committed the crime. HE alone is to blame for his actions.

chicagoBikes said:

Blame the action, drunk driving; not the individual. That's what the courts have come to recognize, he will be punished for drunk driving, not being a bad person. 

Permalink Reply by Davo on June 3, 2013 at 7:59am

He may be a great person, I don't know that but there is a possibility of that. But the person made the action (driving drunk at 730pm on a wednesday) and that was a horrible decision. I blame the person for that the same way I blame the person who pulled a trigger or the Priest that did the horrible thing to the minor. The Person is to blame not the action. Where is personal accountability? I guess not anywhere in your worldview.

"In the same vein- I'm sure you're all anti-gun; however in that case you'd like to blame the implement with which violence was committed, not the individual. 

Blame the action, drunk driving; not the individual. That's what the courts have come to recognize, he will be punished for drunk driving, not being a bad person. 

Permalink Reply by Bez on June 3, 2013 at 8:03am

In the same post, you both said that he is responsible for his decision to drink and drive and said that we should blame the action and not the person.  You do realize that these 2 things are nearly the opposite of each other, right?  

You keep pointing out how he is suffering and will continue to do so.  To that I respond:  GOOD.  It's as if you expect us to feel sorry for wittle Ryne and his poor feewings getting hurted because people are villifying him for being an irresponsible asshat.  Again, GOOD, suffer for what you have done.

You seem to have the kind of cognitive dissonance normally seen in cult members.

chicagoBikes said:

Correct -- the legal system has a more developed resolution of crime and punishment, thank GOD.

Everyone's posts here do not reflect that; you all are attacking his character so viciously, absolutely on par with having murdered him in cold blood.

There's a big gap between villify and victim -- I'm certainly not suggesting, in any way, that he is a victim in that incident. I am not arguing that he isn't completely at fault for the decision he made to drink & drive. He is.

But understand how very deeply he is suffering and will continue to suffer for it.

I don't see the purpose or rationale in castigating him as a person. Yes, his actions were completely despicable --rip them apart all you like. I couldn't agree more that drunk driving is one of the worst choices a person can make -- totally inexcusable. 

Here's the problem with what you all are advocating in your lynch mob:

You're suggesting that this happened because Ryne is horrible person. And what percentage of the population do you believe is inherently evil, like Ryne, apparently? Do you suggest we divert our efforts from curbing drunk driving to seeking out these evil people in our society to modify their souls as a preventative measure from something like this happening?

I can't really see that being effective (or at all plausible). 

In the same vein- I'm sure you're all anti-gun; however in that case you'd like to blame the implement with which violence was committed, not the individual. 

Blame the action, drunk driving; not the individual. That's what the courts have come to recognize, he will be punished for drunk driving, not being a bad person. 

I think we should all follow suit. 

Adam Herstein (5.5 mi) said:

Of course he didn't decide to kill someone. That's why he is not being charged with murder. There are, however, plenty of reasons to vilify him. He is NOT the victim here. He made the choice to get drunk and go for a drive and he will pay for his actions.

chicagoBikes said:

I am absolutely NOT defending his actions. But I am defending him.

He is not a bad person, he is not a murderer. There is no reason to villainize him, individually; though I'm sure they'll make a prime example of him, he'll bear the punishment for a crime that is probably one of the most ubiquitous of all.

This is turning into a Salem witch hunt--would you be satisfied if the strung him & burned him at the steak? We've evolved since then, we don't do that anymore--catch up to the rest of us.

Permalink Reply by Christine (5.0) on June 3, 2013 at 8:16am

Sweety, you are singing an old tune.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZzYyCJbU7I

When a felon's not engaged in his employment
Or maturing his felonious little plan
His capacity for innocent enjoyment
Is just as great as any honest man
Our feelings we with difficulty smother
When constabulary duties to be done
Taking one consideration with another
A policeman's lot is not a happy one
When constabulary duties to be done, to be done
A policeman's lot is not a happy one

When the enterprising burglar's not a-burgling
When the cutthroat isn't occupied in crime
He loves to hear the little brook a-gurgling
And listen to the merry village chime
When the coster's finished jumping on his mother
He loves to lie a-basking in the sun
Taking one consideration with another
A policeman's lot is not a happy one
When constabulary duties to be done, to be done
A policeman's lot is not a happy one

That was written... how many decades ago?  It's from the comedic operetta The Pirates of Penzance by Gilbert and Sullivan.

By this point, I don't know what you are advocating, or suggesting that we advocate.  You seem to be saying that we shouldn't turn into a lynch mob.  But strangely, I haven't seen anyone suggest we grab some rope and storm the cell in which he's being held.  All I see is people strategizing to make sure that justice is properly served.

Additionally, I haven't heard anyone (pro-gun or anti-gun) blame guns and absolve gunners for gun violence.  If there were fewer guns for people to murder with, perhaps there would be fewer people capable of deciding to commit gun related murder.  In the same vein, if there were fewer cars, perhaps there would be fewer instances of vehicular homicides.  But that's utterly beside today's point.  If Hamel's car had spontaneously combusted, and taken out Bobby with it, I would not blame Hamel.  That is not what happened.  He made a deliberate choice.  It had deadly consequences.  I don't care if he spent his weekends nursing kittens and donating money to orphanages. 

Finally, I would like to echo everyone else who has been stating that drunk driving is not normal behavior.  It is not normal, it is not acceptable, and you need to rethink your life habits.

chicagoBikes said:

Correct -- the legal system has a more developed resolution of crime and punishment, thank GOD.

Everyone's posts here do not reflect that; you all are attacking his character so viciously, absolutely on par with having murdered him in cold blood.

There's a big gap between villify and victim -- I'm certainly not suggesting, in any way, that he is a victim in that incident. I am not arguing that he isn't completely at fault for the decision he made to drink & drive. He is.

But understand how very deeply he is suffering and will continue to suffer for it.

I don't see the purpose or rationale in castigating him as a person. Yes, his actions were completely despicable --rip them apart all you like. I couldn't agree more that drunk driving is one of the worst choices a person can make -- totally inexcusable. 

Here's the problem with what you all are advocating in your lynch mob:

You're suggesting that this happened because Ryne is horrible person. And what percentage of the population do you believe is inherently evil, like Ryne, apparently? Do you suggest we divert our efforts from curbing drunk driving to seeking out these evil people in our society to modify their souls as a preventative measure from something like this happening?

I can't really see that being effective (or at all plausible). 

In the same vein- I'm sure you're all anti-gun; however in that case you'd like to blame the implement with which violence was committed, not the individual. 

Blame the action, drunk driving; not the individual. That's what the courts have come to recognize, he will be punished for drunk driving, not being a bad person. 

I think we should all follow suit. 

Permalink Reply by Adam Herstein on June 3, 2013 at 8:49am

chicagoBikes said:

Wow. This has completely flooded my inbox. I have a job, I can't waste anymore time pontificating with you people on the merit of hating someone for an unintentional crime. Not to mention being emotionally exhausted from defending my statement against your whole crew. I will say, you are an accomplished group of passionately hateful & vindictive advocates. You're doing an excellent job of ostracizing yourselves as a group from the rest of society & and diluting your message with disproportionate vitriol. I can't tell you how glad I will be to leave this discussion & group, as I'm sure you will be. If your objective is to exclude divergent points of view and you believe that to be a productive avenue towards any sort of positive progress, I'd say mission accomplished.

Permalink Reply by Apie (11) on June 3, 2013 at 8:50am

That's the thing..is drunk driving unintentional?

Permalink Reply by Adam Herstein on June 3, 2013 at 8:51am

Drunk driving is not unintentional. I think she is confusing "unintentional" with "innocent".

Permalink Reply by Crazy David 84 Furlongs on June 3, 2013 at 8:55am

Actually, drunk driving is NOT unintentional under most situations.   Now if I held you down, poured bourbon down your throat, placed you in a car and put it in gear down a winding coast road, that would not be "intentional".   It would also not be intentional if you thought you were drinking water (assuming you can get around the fact that you voluntarily got behind the wheel) But in just about every other situation, you took the drink voluntarily and that makes the act "intentional".   

Apie (10.6) said:

That's the thing..is drunk driving unintentional?

Permalink Reply by Christine (5.0) on June 3, 2013 at 8:59am

Pontificate: express one’s opinions in a way considered annoyingly pompous and dogmatic.

lolololol.

Don't worry guys, despite not spending much time among their kind, I think I can translate asshole.

Wow.  I'm totally shocked by how many people think I'm wrong.  I'd like to demonstrate that I have some sort of worth to society by mentioning that I have a job, and incorrectly using a fancy word I learned in high school.  I will probably kill someone while drunk driving someday, and I really hope people won't hate me, for either the action, or the lack of remorse that I will feel because drunk driving murders are total accidents that NOBODY can control or stop.  It takes a lot of effort to remain this pig headed and blind to all the rational arguments you guys are presenting, and it has rendered me exhausted.  You kids are bullies who just don't understand how hard it is to party and then drive home despite the haters.  You are doing a great job of making real party people feel excluded from this community, with your idiotic belief that drunk driving is wrong, and that drunk drivers should be held accountable for their actions.  Why can't you dispassionately agree with me over the dead body of your friend?  You are all meanies who like to exclude those who engage totally normal acts of reckless endangerment.  I can't wait to get back to my homies and commiserate with them about how a bunch of internet lame-o's don't condone our jackass lifestyle.

chicagoBikes said:

Wow. This has completely flooded my inbox. I have a job, I can't waste anymore time pontificating with you people on the merit of hating someone for an unintentional crime. Not to mention being emotionally exhausted from defending my statement against your whole crew. I will say, you are an accomplished group of passionately hateful & vindictive advocates. You're doing an excellent job of ostracizing yourselves as a group from the rest of society & and diluting your message with disproportionate vitriol. I can't tell you how glad I will be to leave this discussion & group, as I'm sure you will be. If your objective is to exclude divergent points of view and you believe that to be a productive avenue towards any sort of positive progress, I'd say mission accomplished.

Permalink Reply by ID on June 3, 2013 at 9:03am

chicagoBikes said:

Wow. This has completely flooded my inbox. I have a job, I can't waste anymore time pontificating with you people on the merit of hating someone for an unintentional crime. Not to mention being emotionally exhausted from defending my statement against your whole crew. I will say, you are an accomplished group of passionately hateful & vindictive advocates. You're doing an excellent job of ostracizing yourselves as a group from the rest of society & and diluting your message with disproportionate vitriol. I can't tell you how glad I will be to leave this discussion & group, as I'm sure you will be. If your objective is to exclude divergent points of view and you believe that to be a productive avenue towards any sort of positive progress, I'd say mission accomplished.

Permalink Reply by Duppie on June 3, 2013 at 9:06am

Did Ms. Chicagobikes just pick up her toys and leave the sandbox? Too bad. I enjoyed her brainfarts incoherent ramblings. But she at least lasted longer than her alter ego, "Nick".

I am curious to see who comes out the woodwork next.

I am going to bet that whoever it is, this person will post a number of rambling replies, and then all of a sudden remember that they have a job to do, and leave....

chicagoBikes said:

Wow. This has completely flooded my inbox. I have a job, I can't waste anymore time pontificating with you people on the merit of hating someone for an unintentional crime. Not to mention being emotionally exhausted from defending my statement against your whole crew. I will say, you are an accomplished group of passionately hateful & vindictive advocates. You're doing an excellent job of ostracizing yourselves as a group from the rest of society & and diluting your message with disproportionate vitriol. I can't tell you how glad I will be to leave this discussion & group, as I'm sure you will be. If your objective is to exclude divergent points of view and you believe that to be a productive avenue towards any sort of positive progress, I'd say mission accomplished.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page