Sometimes, crimes are terrible. Sometimes, they're just stupid. This feature will deal with the latter category. Each week, we will publish one (1) fake letter concerning the perpetration of one (1) real crime. The first week's entry concerns a cut-out cat left in the street to cause car accidents; future weeks will include addle-pated bank robbers, blundering vandals, and more. Check this space weekly. Inside the Criminal Mind...Sometimes There's Nothing.
- Read the first installment
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. Is there any proof that the identity of
ANDREW CUNANAN is from an unknown assasin
lineage similar to the JACKAL or the Russian
assasins who plagued the CZARIST REGIMES?
There was noted among them a bunch of whacked
off Orthodox priests who would skulk around
and violate religious by killing select persons
to mess up history and nobility relatives.
If I remember the televised documentary movie correctly in the late 1970s(but that is OH SO LONG AGO)it was indicated these 'assasins' were
similar to a GUN TOTING GRIGORY or the priest
depicted in MARTIN'S 'DRACULA' who results
a madness in the torturer that affects his own wife.
And the Smithsonian magazine has said the
'black hatted assasins' whose headgear resembled
hillbilly hats were FRIGHTFULLY ORIGINALLY PERSIAN!
Not claws of pedigreed felines.
Dorothea on the wall at 8:11PM on Apr 24th 2007
2. As a public safety professional whom has been working in the field for 17 years, I can say with certainty that the only counter to a person with a gun is another person with a gun. But whether you agree with Professor Wineset’s pro-gun views (or mine), it is clear that Emmanuel College’s firing of Professor Winset is inherently unfair. Setting aside for the moment that there are other disciplinary measures that could have been taken short of firing, the fact is that the college directed him to ‘engage his students regarding the subject but did not advise or direct him how--and more importantly how NOT-- to do so. The college Administration decided to have each member of the faculty address the issue with their students instead of scheduling an assembly wherein an ‘approved’ format could’ve been presented. At the very least, a sample ‘text’ could have been provided-but was not. As a result, the college should have known that each faculty member would address the subject differently (some better than others) and the college should accept the consequences of their own poor planning.
I would agree that had he taken it upon himself to engage his students in such a discussion that he must assume at least some of the risks inherent in such potentially controversial subject. I would also agree that had he either surprised his students with the subject matter or used in his demonstration a more realistic representation of a gun (than a marker) that it would have been so brutally insensitive as to fit the definition of, ‘offensive’.
If the professor failed at all, it was by not seeking advice from Administration as to how they wished the issue addressed. Myself, I would’ve sat in on the Psychology Professor’s discussion and taken my cues from that. The fact that Professor Winset did not indicates a strong possibility that the time did not permit it. Left to his own devices, he brought to the discussion his own prejudices and his understanding of the personal report he had with his students. Obviously, he was not far off the mark because one student picked up on the thread of his demonstration and ‘shot’ him to end his ‘massacre’.
I don’t believe putting young adults in touch with how fragile, thus precious, life really is a bad thing. As colleges have always been a forum for the open discussion of ideas in the pursuit of greater understanding, I can think of nothing more educational--indeed a profound breakthrough--in making young people believe that THEY can die.
It is this disbelief that I believe is in large part responsible for the high rate of fatalities in modern combat operations. Today, emergency medical technology has improved to the point where a soldier wounded in combat, who receives treatment within two hours of injury, has a 200% better chance of survival over his World War II counterpart. Yet, the per-capita injury or fatality rate is 50% percent higher. Why? Today’s soldier is better equipped, better trained…why does today’s soldier incur such a high rate of fatality? Age.
In World War II, the average age of the combat soldier was 25. By Vietnam, he was 19 and this is still the case today. If you took 100 people under the age of 20 and asked how many of them had lost a peer due to an accident or act of violence, fewer ten than would say ‘yes’. If you asked the same question of a group age 25 and over the answer will be thirty or more. Point is, by the time a person reaches age 25, they have experienced--and hopefully matured--enough to understand that THEY can die…not just the other guy! Okay, so, you might have one or two who, when confronted with this reality, become paranoid. That’s what psychologists are for--and, its still better than being dead. Most who come to understand the reality of life and death use this information to better their lives and act responsibly in order to preserve it. Isn’t that the point of higher education?
Keith J. Mohrhoff at 7:47AM on Apr 25th 2007
3. has anyone tried to get into the mind of the assassin George Bush, who single handedly ruined a once great country and killed over 100,000 people both American and Iraqi.
Tony at 1:58PM on May 11th 2007
4. Tony! Good to hear from you again. When did they let you out? Do you need someone to drive you to the store to pick up your medication? Because it sounds like you need it.
Rightwingconspiracy at 3:29PM on May 11th 2007
5. POOR TONY ! HE GOT OUT OF THE HOME AGAIN !!!
jackie at 3:04PM on May 12th 2007
6. POOR TONY ! BETTER GET HELP GUY !
jackie at 9:29PM on May 12th 2007
7. As I have always said since going through the academy, gun control is using two hands and hitting your target center mass in defense of yourself or another innocent victim. I believe that in places where guns are lawfully carried, like Texas, Arizona, and other equally smart states crime and death is lower because, whose going to walk up to a woman, or even a man and assualt or kill them if they don't know if that person is trained and armed.
I say the tree hugging jerks that want to take guns out of the hands of responsible citizens who use firearms for their personal defense should pack their stuff up and move to a state where the other tree huggers have done away with our 2nd Ammendment rights. For those of you that agree, I hope you train properly and get good at hitting center mass should it be you going home that day or night or the assailant. For the tree huggers, I would get a termination of internet service if I said what I think of any of you. And then, when one of your own are hurt or killed you buy guns or call upon us, or even worse, accuse us of not being effective enough under tight policy restrictions because we didn't make swiss cheese out of the jerk that just shot and killed your loved one before we could get the proper approval to use lethal force.
Once again for those of you that are impaired by hugging trees too much, gun control is using two hands and hitting your target center mass so he or she cannot hurt or kill you or your loved one. And for those of you that think lethal force is warranted but want to know why it takes 20 or more hits to bring someone down, lethal force is lethal force. One hole or fifty, when they don't stop shooting or drop the gun... it's game over, you shoot until the threat is neutralized. We don't have policies to shoot the gun out of their hand, hit their knee, shoulder or other body part. When it escalates to lethal force you have to implement that. Also, when the first round goes off and there are ten of you on scene you can't hear anything else anyhow. When the suspect needs to go down, everyone does the job and puts the suspect down until he/she is no longer a threat. Period! You are dispactched to the next life on a charge of living while stupid and threatening innocents around you. If all states allowed permits to carry, who's going to walk up to a woman and try and abduct or rape her if they don't know if she might pop him a new anal cavity in his forhead legally when her life is in danger. MANY CASES IN POINT. LOOK THEM UP ON THE NET. For those that agree, God speed and good luck to you in our increasingly violent society. For those of you who don't, you'll likely follow the example of the California politician who was major anti gun, that is until her family member was shot and killed. Now she has a permit and carries. Hmmmm, sounds like it takes some folks a little longer to get un-stupid than others. If it's a choice of whether I'm going home to my loved ones or the bad guy, you can be assured that as much as I train, the bad guy is going to have a wake and funeral very soon thereafter and I am going to tuck my loved ones into bed safe and secure.
Christopher at 5:39AM on May 13th 2007
8. I was recently pulled over for speeding and as Texas Law requires, I handed the officer my drivers license, insurance card, and concealed handgun license. He asked if I was carrying and I told no.
After returning from calling the information in, he told me how much he appreciated seeing the CHL and it told him that I was an upstanding citizen, otherwise, I wouldn't have it. He then said something that really surprised me. "It is our job to insure your right to have the license".
MLPatten15 at 6:23PM on Jul 15th 2007