It is in england where we dont have easy access to guns.
Can you imagine the effect this would have on somebody who was put in a prison?
My older brother went to jail and he turned out fine. Obviously this doesnt go for everyone as there are different circumstances, but saying we should pity someone because he had a hard life is bs. It diminishes personal responsibility for his crimes, which are pretty terrible whatever way you look at them. My pity is reserved for the victims thank you very much.
I don't think they should be taken down, like Facebook says, they have know legitimate reason to remove them as there's no violation of the terms and service and secondly on the internet you're entitled to freedom of speech. I disagree with the websites but they can't be taken down.
I am however one for vengeance; and will always dig two graves whenever i set out on my course to gain vengeance. One for the enemy & one for myself.
He was a nutcase in the first place. As far as I'm aware he'd just got out of jail? Whatever he did before (Assault?) came back round and smacked him in the face.
Raoul Moat?
English guy. Came out of jail and his girlfriend was with another guy so he decided he'd shoot both his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend, and then a few days later he shot a police officer leaving him critically injured. At least, that's the story I've heard.
I think that Moat should be condemned for what he did which was a terrible thing. However, people are entitled to their own views and since the Facebook group is not directly offensive to any single person or group of people, the group should of stayed. But in some of posts on the groups page there are comments encouraging others to do the same as moat, that is to injure, kill and maim, which in my opinion is not acceptable therefore it is a good thing it was taken down.
That's a good point - it isn't directly targetting anybody as a victim. It's not like the page is called 'Screw the people Raoul shot lololz'. As long as it isn't targetting anybody in the hopes of ridiculing or otherwise slandering/harming them then I don't see the problem.
It's o.k. when there are holucast denial speaches in the UN, which is in NY, but when there is a group that does not belive the media in a site for stupid children, it's a problem
As long as it isn't targetting anybody in the hopes of ridiculing or otherwise slandering/harming them then I don't see the problem.
Id say they are indirectly harming the victims and their families by glorifying the shootings. Look at it this way, what if someone put up a group saying hitler or osama bin laden was a legend. Just because its bigging someone up doesnt mean it cant be offensive.
Youre missing the point. What im trying to say is that just because someone is making a 'this person is a legend' group doesnt mean that it isnt offensive. For example, if i made a group 'joseph mengele is a legend' group it would be offensive because he spent most of the war torturing jews in twisted medical experiments. Its still offensive, even if it isnt explicitly anti semitic.
Yes, I realize that but as well as being offensive to some people - he may have had qualities that others found amicable and wanted to celebrate (I feel sick saying that about Joseph Mengele).
he may have had qualities that others found amicable and wanted to celebrate (I feel sick saying that about Joseph Mengele).
Im not saying thts not true. Im just saying I shouldnt feel pity for someone like moat just because there are two sides to the story. There are two sides to the story for everything. Ive firmly chosen the anti moat side of it. To quote ron burgundy, 'agree to disagree'.
Meh, I'm firmly against the crimes that Raoul Moat commited - but, just as we can express our views, those who support Moats actions should be able to voice their views.
