Journalists shot, killed in Virginia during live shot

Again:

The whole construction is a response to the people who are adamant that Patrick Kane's accuser is making up the rape accusation to extort him.

She did everything such skeptics always demand that rape victims do:

• She left;
• She told someone;
• She went to the hospital;
• She told the police.

It's become a big meme here now: Dick the Misogynist. Because everyone inserts the parenthetical into the following, "I believe she believes she was raped (and I believe she is wrong)."

Vester Flanagan believed he was the victim of racism by Alison Parker and Adam Ward. The station said that they believe the accusations were fabricated. I suspect that Vester Flanagan believed they were true. Is that OK? Or do I accept that Parker and Ward, though they didn't deserve to die for it, were racists?

I don't know anything about the woman that is accusing Patrick Kane of rape. I don't know anything about Patrick Kane's side of the story.

I'd like to hear how some of you guys would phrase it. At least Creosote said, flat-out, "I think he did it."

But everyone else seems to be appalled at the idea that a woman could be mistaken - or crazy. It happens. It certainly happens more than 0 percent of the time. I'm not sure how far you guys want me to go with it. I went farther than most of you.

 

No. I did not. Any more than I enjoyed the expression on Jackie Kennedy's face and her husband struggling to breathe, then having his head blown off, which has been played thousands of times on documentaries. Again, why single out the Daily News? Name one person who hadn't seen the full video before that paper came out, or stills exactly like the ones they used for the paper. In the meantime, Miami, St. Louis and other papers ran photos of the cameraman's dead body.

 

Good for Greg Howard. The Supreme Court feels differently. It's not a "crutch." It's the law of the land, and we are obliged to follow it.

 

This.
You don't have to repeal the second Amendment. You just have to "amend" it. Hence, the word "amendment." And that was written at a time when guns were necessary just to walk from your home to school or church or the market, because a bear or two might be lurking. Or because the only way most people in that agrarian society were going to eat was to shoot an animal. The second amendment also was written at a time when it took three minutes to get off three shots. The weapon technology has far out-lived the usefulness of the second amendment.
Another argument I keep hearing is that if the guns are taken away, the government storm troopers will march in and put the country in martial law, or some such nonsense. Countries like England and Australia have had strict gun control for years. I don't see their police and military taking over.

 

I'm a person who hadn't seen the full video or still exactly like the ones they used for the paper.
I refused to because I don't get off on death porn.
I had a hard enough time watching the live broadcast and that essentially showed nothing. I didn't see the shooter's video because that's what he wanted and he can go fuck himself.
I also have never seen any of the beheading videos but, hey, guess what, I can somehow grasp the concept that beheadings are wrong without seeing it. It's amazing, huh?

 

Ray Rice got a standing ovation before we saw video. We all knew he punched his wife.

 

Potayto, potahto ... political process is the same. You have to get 38 states to ratify whatever you've proposed ... and that ain't gonna happen.

 

I acknowledge it is the "law of the land" and agree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of it. But I also think that it is an outdated and is a serious hindrance to any progress in curbing gun violence. I think repealing it or amending it would be a significant step toward limiting events like yesterday's.

 

I don't care what Vester Flanagan did or didn't want. I don't win because I don't give him "what he wanted."

I want Americans to understand the predicament that targets of gun violence are in. I want them to understand that there's often no way out. It's not "death porn." You don't see her die. She's running when it cuts off. But it illuminated things for me, and I came into it already opposed to more guns being the solution.

 

I'd argue the video led to a dramatic overreaction that, quite frankly, should have been the standard OP when the facts came out about what happened.
What I never understood about that whole thing was why it was seemingly OK that Rice knocked his wife out before the video came out and then, bam, the video comes out and people lose their shit. Looking back on it, Rice was pretty open and honest about the whole thing. Why does SEEING it happen suddenly make it such a terrible occurrence?

 

It's not realistic.

There needs to be less gun violence and less guns, but it needs to be done via indirect mechanisms.

 

I don't know.

But it does.

You say people don't need to see the Roanoke video to understand.

The Rice reaction tells me that they do.