This one comes from somethign called "The Lookout" (meaning that I have CONDEMNED AT&T/Yahoo "News" featuured articles today from "The Daily Beast", "The Envoy" and "The Lookout", and some of you DOUBT that yous should boycott AT&T and Yahoo--the names of the "sources" alone are enough):
"Suspected Army Shooter's Defense May Be That Army Missed Warning Signs"
Can you get any more INCOMPETENT and DISHONEST than this. First, the headline itself says that it is SPECUALATION (anti-American and anti-military specutalitoiion). No facts, but the mainstream media is totaly uninterested in FACTS. You know that. What the "defense" "may" do is NOT NEWS. But todya's "journalism" is not about "news". It is about AGENDA and total incompetence.
Yes, I said INCOMOPETENCE. In my previous life, as I have said, I was a Texas Lawyer for more than 30 years. It is true that I was not a "criminal lawyer,", and only defended a few accused criminals on an apointed basis. However, I did office with one of the primary criminal attorneys in El Paso for a number of years, and I am hardly unfamiliar with criminal law (or elementary common sense). No, it is NOT-I repeat NOT--a "defense" to murder (under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or any other system of which I am aware) that an EMPLOYER (in this case, the United States Army) "failed to see the warning signs". That MIGHT be the basis of an ATTACK on the United States Army (which was much more at fault with the Ft. Hood shooter: where were the media speculative articles on this "defense" then????) Note, by the way, the wrong use of 'suspected" here (as CNN and the rest of the media today try to CONVICT a person in in the media for the killing of Trayvon Martin--makng a MOCKERY of this hhypocritical insistence on "alleged" and "susppected" in caces where the words are simply not ture). In this case, the SHOOTER (no claim of mistaken identity) is ACCUSED of MURDER. He IS the shooter. He is NOT the "suspected" shooter. But who expects facts, as I stated, from a media that is incompetetn and dishoenst (not even understanding the concepts here).
It is a DEFENSE to murder (depending somewhat on the jurisdiciton) that a person was legally "not responssible" for the killing because the killer was legally insane at the time of the murder. Whehter the army "missed" s"signs" of that insnaity--the same signs that may have existed in THOUSANDS of soldiers who did NOT kill a log of civilians in a killing spree--is NOT "prof" of legal insanity. It is NO EXCUSE for the KILLER. The ONLY excuses for the kilelr are things like insanity, self-defense, or that he did not do the killing (not, as stated, an issue).
This is absurd, incompetent stuff with an agenda. Is it a "defense" if a Yahoo employee comes and kills me because Yaho m"missed" signs of his virulent hatred and insanity. I know. It is a "singn" of my own megalomaniia that a Yahoo emplyee is used as an example of a person who mayu have developed an unreasoning hatred toward me becaues of my campaign against Yahoo (totally justififed on my part, by the way). But that is not the pont. YAHOO may be morallyl "at fault" for not trying to "help" an empllyee showing "signs" of mental instability, but it si NOT A DEFENSE to murder. It is NOT EVEN EVIDENCE, in and of itself, of "legal insanity". The only RELEVANT FACTS on legal insanity are the conduct and state of mind of the ACCUSED--not the "oversight" of the United Sates Armyh.
The more I think about THIS article (not to mention the others I have mentioned on this blog today), the angrier I get. This is RIDICULOUS stuff. It is inexcusable. It is incompetnet. It is agenda driven. And it really is anti-Aemrican and anti-military.
If you have any common sense at all, and "journalists" do not, you do not need legal training. How couuyld it POSSIBLY be a "defesne" to MURDER that the accused was not STOPPED by others? It cannot be. The most you can say about this particular LIE is that someone may be floating a "trial ballooon"/intimidation threat that the United States Army should make a "plea deal" to avoid being "embarrassed" at a tril. That is NOT a "defense". That is-at best--an attempt at EXTORTION.
As I have previuosly said, I do NOT give "journalists" a pass. These are NOT "good people". These are LOUSY HUMAN BEINGS--evil huyman beings (talking about the "journalists" here, an dnot the killer). There is just no excuse for this kind of stuff, and contempt is the least you should feel for these "journalists".
I am again feeling that I have made a mistake by REPRESSING my real feelings. It is one of my main faults. I jsut hold my real feelings abut "journalists" inside, rather than letting them out. Of course, you may well decide this is really a case of my old "sarcasm disease" recurring. It is true that I have been told that there is no cure for that disease, and that it will recur throughout my life (no matter what "treatment" I receive). Is "sarcasm disease" a "defense" for murder? Well, there is just as much reason to think it is as there is to think that it is a "defense" to murder that the Army "missed" "warning signs" that you are a muuderer!!!!
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).