It's a knife, not super powers. I assure you that people have stopped knife attacks without everyone else dying before. If the guy was ludicrously well-built or everyone on the bus was elderly, that's one thing, but statistically I'm betting that two or three people could've easily brought the guy down.
I'm glad you can assess the tactical situation so surely despite not being there and apparently being rather ignorant on many if not most of the details. What you think could and/or should have happened may not have been a viable option. So why don't we stow the righteous indignation for at least a few posts, yea?
The giant freakin' elephant in the room would be where no one really cared as much about the guy as about staying out of harm's way themselves.
I'm really glad you're here to judge the actions of scared people after the fact despite, again, not having been there and knowing little about the situation. Surprise, panic and fear can be overwhelming even when you care about the assaulted passenger.
I'd wager that at least one surviving passenger is going through some rather extreme guilt about not having done more despite the plausibility that there may not have been much that could have been done.
So please, don't spout off nonsense about how much who cared about what when you have no idea what the situation was like and what they felt in that moment.
I know that this is difficult for some misanthropes to understand, but simply because you lack integrity and morals, don't presume that everyone else does.
Please.
Are you ****ing kidding me? Is this always how you treat people who disagree with you or is it just a recent thing? Either way, I'm getting tired of you insulting people through the guise of moral disgust.
Well, I don't know about carrying laws, but I do know that there are more guns per household in Canada than in the US.
Source? Like Stormblind, I know few if any households with guns. Though anecdotal that may be, I think you'll find your statistic really only means there are are relatively low number of Canadian homes with guns. They just have a lot of guns.
Also, this is a pointless tangent, obviously no one on board had a gun. So why does it matter how many guns there are per household in Canada versus America?
Damn, y'think? Though I doubt, knowing you, that the harshness will stop here.
It's somewhat understandable that people revert to their worst, selfish instincts in that situation. What isn't understandable, however, is why no one wants to point out that that's exactly what it is.
Most people who take Greyhound are usually asleep by that hour anyway. A few are yakking on cell phones or listening to ipods, but mostly are exhausted and frankly asleep. I always sleep through the last 8-10 hours of the trip so if some psycho wanker with a giant knife started stabbing me, I doubt I would be able to anticipate it.
Anyway, the idea that it's okay for "lawful citizens" to carry guns on board, but not knives, is very cockeyed. Sure, we can all sit here after the fact and say "if this bus were in Texas, someone woulda shot him instead of letting him stab the guy to ribbons" but it could have gone in an equally wrong direction. Suppose it were in Texas, and instead of ganking the guy, the murderer just pulled out a semiautomatic and emptied an entire clip into the kid? If you're asleep in the seat just ahead, you won't have any more time to react than if you'd never heard the attack at all.
Perhaps reading more into the subject then those two links would be appropriate. I read the article on this yesterday in the Globe & Mail, and there were 2 people who *DID* try to stop the guy with the knife, but by the time they were in any position to do anything, the victim had already suffered a great deal of wounds to his neck and chest, and died mere moments after that.
Again, People *DID* try to stop him, but they simply couldnt react in time since the victim had a dozen stab wounds by the time anyone realized what was going on.
Everything else is basically a repetition of this point, so, in order;
1) If reading two reports on the subject doesn't convey adequate knowledge of a scenario, that's the fault of the reporters, not the audience.
2) I went back and read several other articles on Globe and Mail and haven't found one that mentions the two attempted rescuers. You'd think that this would make good news, so this is surprising. Perhaps you're simply mistaken.
3) This would actually be irrelevant to normative statements. It's still right if they intervened, despite insinuations that only superlatively heroic beings with the strength of Hercules and the speed of Mercury should try to help others, and it's still wrong if they didn't, and further wrong to praise people for failing to act.
@ElricJ: Perhaps. In that case, if we're going to discuss preventive measures, a more reasonable one might be to begin teaching adequate self-defense in school, so that random civilians can at least be expected to take down a hijacker with a box-cutter or a psycho with a bfk.
I'm glad you can assess the tactical situation so surely despite not being there and apparently being rather ignorant on many if not most of the details. What you think could and/or should have happened may not have been a viable option. So why don't we stow the righteous indignation for at least a few posts, yea?
There are two options in life; either we make certain assumptions, or we walk around formless and nameless, without thought or opinion to call our own. It's certainly possible that after reading a few articles, I'm unaware of some drastic facts on the scene that alter the nature of the conflict, but this is unlikely. We form opinions with the information we have at hand, so stow your own righteous indignation at my righteous indignation. I might have information you don't, mightn't I?
I'm really glad you're here to judge the actions of scared people after the fact despite, again, not having been there and knowing little about the situation. Surprise, panic and fear can be overwhelming even when you care about the assaulted passenger.
Hence "understandable". Hardly admirable or heroic, and certainly less than what we should aspire to. It's understandable that people turned against Jewish or Communist neighbors under Nazi rule. It's not something to be condoned, however. I'd use a Dark Knight comparison, but I don't want to have to use spoiler tags. Suffice it to say; stop being on Heath Ledger's side. Human beings are capable of more.
Source? Like Stormblind, I know few if any households with guns. Though anecdotal that may be, I think you'll find your statistic really only means there are are relatively low number of Canadian homes with guns. They just have a lot of guns.
Ah, looked it up. It was a bad statistic. Canada has more than Europe but still significantly less than the US. I'm fairly certain it was from a terrible Michael Moore video.
Damn, y'think? Though I doubt, knowing you, that the harshness will stop here.
Please stop insulting people in the guise of modding, kthnxbye.
Here's an idea, and I want to see how it strikes peoples' fancy; Maybe we need more righteous indignation. Maybe, in a society where "You say I'm a ***** like it's a bad thing" is the mantra of a generation, where people eat themselves to death without anyone saying a word, where the very idea of moral principles is exiled to silver screen heroes with super powers or billion-dollar suits of armor, where every form of social ****up, from cheating to child-ditching to child neglect is condoned or encouraged, people should act like their scruples matter worth a damn. Maybe people should be more outspoken when people fail to do the right thing. Maybe we shouldn't always tell our kids, "Well, you did your best", whether they did or not. Maybe people should have moral ambition, instead of wallowing in relativism and nihilism to justify anything they do. Maybe there should be unacceptable actions. Just a freakin' thought.
Since you have yet to produce it, I'm not going to assume you do.
Hence "understandable". Hardly admirable or heroic, and certainly less than what we should aspire to. It's understandable that people turned against Jewish or Communist neighbors under Nazi rule. It's not something to be condoned, however. I'd use a Dark Knight comparison, but I don't want to have to use spoiler tags. Suffice it to say; stop being on Heath Ledger's side. Human beings are capable of more.
Capable perhaps, but ought they be so harshly judged when human weakness keeps them from reaching your ideal?
Please stop insulting people in the guise of modding, kthnxbye.
In what way was what I said an insult? You yourself said you had been harsh. I merely agreed and said that harshness is something I've come to expect from your attitude, which is neither unreasonable nor insulting.
Here's an idea, and I want to see how it strikes peoples' fancy; Maybe we need more righteous indignation. Maybe, in a society where "You say I'm a ***** like it's a bad thing" is the mantra of a generation, where people eat themselves to death without anyone saying a word, where the very idea of moral principles is exiled to silver screen heroes with super powers or billion-dollar suits of armor, where every form of social ****up, from cheating to child-ditching to child neglect is condoned or encouraged, people should act like their scruples matter worth a damn. Maybe people should be more outspoken when people fail to do the right thing. Maybe we shouldn't always tell our kids, "Well, you did your best", whether they did or not. Maybe people should have moral ambition, instead of wallowing in relativism and nihilism to justify anything they do. Maybe there should be unacceptable actions. Just a freakin' thought.
So doing anything but the absolute ideal would be unacceptable?
"Any action that falls short of perfection is unacceptable" =/= "There are unacceptable actions"
That I need to point this out illustrates how far we've come as a society from the path of reason. Well, perhaps that's being unjustifiably kind to preceding generations, but the point remains that we're very far from a rational and moral worldview.
What boggles my mind is that you take the opposite view on the Gaymers' thread. Why is it justifiable to blame, or at least chastise, a victim for their actions that led, although they cannot justly be said to be at fault for, their own murder, but it's unreasonably harsh to say that bystandards that stood by and did nothing... stood by and did nothing? And that this is wrong? Are we basing our condemnations on a moral compass, or on who's still around to defend themselves or not?
"Any action that falls short of perfection is unacceptable" =/= "There are unacceptable actions"
Your ideal from what I can gather is that the acceptable action in any case is to do nothing less than the right thing. That we ought to aspire to be righteous and morally ambitious? Or am I mistaken?
That I need to point this out illustrates how far we've come as a society from the path of reason.
Some may see it that way.
What boggles my mind is that you take the opposite view on the Gaymers' thread.
What boggles my mind is that you think my view is the opposite. We both lay the blame on the murders in both events and we both acknowledge that mistakes were made by others in both cases (the transsexual and the bystanders, respectively). Where I think you're confused is that you think I condemned the transsexual because of her mistakes and not the bystanders for theirs (though that begs the question of if the bystanders here truly made a mistake), which isn't the case. You put words in my mouth and then told me to stop blaming the girl for getting herself murdered, even though I rather explicitly said that I don't blame her for her mistakes. I merely see them as unfortunate and probably avoidable.
But that's a dead horse I'm not about to beat again.
Why is it justifiable to blame, or at least chastise, a victim for their actions that led, although they cannot justly be said to be at fault for, their own murder, but it's unreasonably harsh to say that bystandards that stood by and did nothing... stood by and did nothing? And that this is wrong? Are we basing our condemnations on a moral compass, or on who's still around to defend themselves or not?
It's unreasonably harsh to fault the bystanders here because you're holding them to an unreasonable ideal. We don't know that there was anything (more) they could have reasonably done to prevent this murder or save the victim. So yes, I believe it to be unreasonably harsh to set unreasonably-high expectations for people in extreme situations and then judge them for not meeting those standards.
I think what it really boils down to is that you simply can't expect a sudden, tragic and extroadinary situation to trigger your everyday bus-goer into an extroadinary human being.
Blame it on the moral fabric of society or whatever, but thinking low on the general populace because they panicked while someone was beheaded in front of them seems really silly.
Then ask yourself why it's unreasonable to expect this of the average person, and, since I think it clearly would benefit society if we could expect it, ask what might be done differently. What's wrong with society that we can expect bystanders to remain bystanders in a frightening and horrible situation? Is there anything that can be done to stop this? While I support background checks and waiting periods and similar measures, I think ordinary citizens with a history of law-abiding ought to be encouraged, perhaps through tax incentives, to take some sort of civilian police course, similar to the idea the Black Panthers had back before they devolved into a quasi-gang, where ordinary citizens are given some basic rundowns on criminal law, their right to intervene, the use of hand-to-hand force, and, when necessary, the use of firearms, and be encouraged to carry a firearm with them at all times. In this way, ordinary citizens could be sort of a "police reserve", able to act in emergency or crisis situations for a small monthly compensation. Perhaps the attacker was extremely large of physically powerful, or space was very limited with people rushing off the bus; but a single person with a handgun would've been able to stop him.
I'm also aware of the argument where more weapons, in this way, would encourage more rampages, but I don't believe it. Historically, people tend to plan their rampages, even if suicidal, where they maintain complete control of the situation. Even a complete psycho doesn't like their blaze of glory being cut short because someone else had a weapon.
I wrote this up last night, but MTGS was timing out, so I couldn't post it then.
People are instructed to not get involved when these things happen. It's often just a bad idea as you don't know exactly what the person's up to, and it can muddy the whole thing for police officers in prosecution. For planned crime, the perpetrator may have friends waiting to jump anyone who tries to get in the way, or may have worse weapons at their disposal. In this situation, it's better for an able-bodied person to assist the elderly in getting away, and only directly act against the perp in defense of those people, or self.
I wouldn't call it "heroic," but it's sensible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
if anything would demoralize people senseless in this situation, I think the guy eating his victim would do it.
and to settle up on the Canadian gun thing, here's a link to what wikipedia has to say on the matter. granted, you have to take it with a grain of salt because it's wiki....
Uh, this whole story is really disturbing and what not.
But as for the passengers, they kinda held the attacker on the bus while police arrived. The driver also disabled the bus when the attacker tried to to drive away in it. No one read the article?
Uh, this whole story is really disturbing and what not.
But as for the passengers, they kinda held the attacker on the bus while police arrived. The driver also disabled the bus when the attacker tried to to drive away in it. No one read the article?
Start reading at the picture of the guy, they tried to check on the victim....
Doesn't that qualify for heroic? Instead of just running.
Also, I failed to read most of this thread since it seems to be pointless debate, really pointless.
Why is there EVEN a debate? its a bloody*no pun* news story. To debate a bunch of what ifs and what could of haves is as pointless as discussing "well if I could turn back time..."
Time to read another link and hit youtube for vids.
Why is there EVEN a debate? its a bloody*no pun* news story. To debate a bunch of what ifs and what could of haves is as pointless as discussing "well if I could turn back time..."
Time to read another link and hit youtube for vids.
Your absolutely right.
There is however a tape that an officer recorded that was leaked to the internet, I'm sure searching a bit could find it, not sure if it's audio or video, or both.
Start reading at the picture of the guy, they tried to check on the victim....
Doesn't that qualify for heroic? Instead of just running.
Mnnnhhhh... a little... in that it beats doing nothing. It's not what I'd qualify as heroic. This guy was heroic. These guys were heroic.
I didn't realize before, from the first few articles, that they went in to check on the guy with the psycho still on the bus, so that certainly changes my viewpoint somewhat. That's the right motivation. I think this is more of a case of people feeling disempowered rather than simply being callous and selfish. But then, as I noted, this should raise the question of how to empower people to act in that sort of situation, in order to protect others. I really do like the reserve-police idea.
Mnnnhhhh... a little... in that it beats doing nothing. It's not what I'd qualify as heroic. This guy was heroic. These guys were heroic.
I didn't realize before, from the first few articles, that they went in to check on the guy with the psycho still on the bus, so that certainly changes my viewpoint somewhat. That's the right motivation. I think this is more of a case of people feeling disempowered rather than simply being callous and selfish. But then, as I noted, this should raise the question of how to empower people to act in that sort of situation, in order to protect others. I really do like the reserve-police idea.
Are you serious? This is a news story, not a portal for debate on whether or not people should carry guns ,or what qualifies as heroism, etc. If I saw some random person decapitate another person, I'd be in a ****ed up state of mind. But then again using this news story to debate things is silly, it is what it is, nothing more.
And, subduing an attacker usually counts as heroism, because if that guy got off that bus, he could have potentially escaped, or killed more passengers that failed to run, but then maybe you'd have your heroism story of someone taking him out.
Oh and to be a hero you don't have to die in the process, as the two you mentioned did, being labeled a hero is usually a collective thought. Not to underscore the obviously selfless acts of the two individuals you mentioned.
But then again, anything I say your just going to use as another point to argue something. This is a sad event, and I feel for the victim's family, but demonizing it for the sake of argument is wrong.
Mnnnhhhh... a little... in that it beats doing nothing. It's not what I'd qualify as heroic. This guy was heroic. These guys were heroic.
I didn't realize before, from the first few articles, that they went in to check on the guy with the psycho still on the bus, so that certainly changes my viewpoint somewhat. That's the right motivation. I think this is more of a case of people feeling disempowered rather than simply being callous and selfish. But then, as I noted, this should raise the question of how to empower people to act in that sort of situation, in order to protect others. I really do like the reserve-police idea.
Knock the hell off with turning this BACK into a debate thread... You want to debate the hell out of this create a thread in IDK DEBATE! Or go back to the gaymers clan thread and debate this here. This is a news story thread and we careless about your what ifs and what could ofs. We want Facts and what DID happen and what WILL happen.
@ saph: meh, facts are for articles; opinions, speculation, and lively discussion are for WCT threads.
i get the feeling we're going to learn one of three things about this:
1) the killer has something physically and/or structurally wrong in his brain (tumor/aneurysm/etc.) that just began to impact him; or
2) the killer has a known mental issue that is being managed by meds, or he's been on random get-it-from-your-GP "mood-adjusters" for whatever reason*; or
3) the killer knew the guy who got stabbed up and (apparently) that guy done him REAL wrong.
#2 seems the most likely story to me.
@ TIBA: strapping young men like yourself who are willing to throw down with a psycho with a knife... usually own cars. i'm just saying. also, whether or not the human body is capable of surviving being stabbed, do you really want to become a statistic to save a guy who was, for all intents and purposes, dead already (and, thus, really didn't need saving)? if the victim was still alive, fine, but once the killer was in the act of decapitation, the smartest thing to do was to let him alone and protect those who needed protecting - the passengers off the bus. the police are trained to handle these situations - civilians are not. besides, the bus passengers stood a better chance fighting the guy off the bus. when was the last time you were on a greyhound? passengers would have had to fight him practically single-file, which puts them at a significant tactical disadvantage. they did the right thing. now, were he randomly stabbing people all over the bus (instead of focusing on a single victim), the disadvantages outweigh the real possibility that one would be getting stabbed anyway, and people would be more willing to "fight back."
one must pick and choose the battles they wish to fight.
* - i was nearly choked to death by one of my college roommates, who was an alcoholic on paxil; he just snapped one night and didn't stop assaulting me until i knocked him unconscious. fortunately, his only available weapon was a pen... which he DID try to stab me with.
Knock the hell off with turning this BACK into a debate thread... You want to debate the hell out of this create a thread in IDK DEBATE! Or go back to the gaymers clan thread and debate this here. This is a news story thread and we careless about your what ifs and what could ofs. We want Facts and what DID happen and what WILL happen.
Didn't you, like, say you were leaving 4eva? What happened to that?
What will happen is speculation, i.e., opinion, and it needs to be based on what did happen, so your argument isn't even internally sound. What you mean is you don't like that particular conclusion. Which is fine. But don't disguise disagreement as indignation where it's not warranted.
god of cyanide; I have taken a greyhound recently, and I do remember it being very cramped, but, expecting that several people were in decent enough shape, you could probably have a couple people swarm over the top of the seats. It would be very difficult, in all likelihood, however. What I'm interested in is that no one seems to really want to consider how to empower people so that in a future similar occurence, they'd have more options. The philosophy nowadays seems to be to rely on some regulation or law or committe of politicians to solve our problems for us, without our having to do anything at all.
Why?
No we don't. And apparently not.
I'm glad you can assess the tactical situation so surely despite not being there and apparently being rather ignorant on many if not most of the details. What you think could and/or should have happened may not have been a viable option. So why don't we stow the righteous indignation for at least a few posts, yea?
I'm really glad you're here to judge the actions of scared people after the fact despite, again, not having been there and knowing little about the situation. Surprise, panic and fear can be overwhelming even when you care about the assaulted passenger.
I'd wager that at least one surviving passenger is going through some rather extreme guilt about not having done more despite the plausibility that there may not have been much that could have been done.
So please, don't spout off nonsense about how much who cared about what when you have no idea what the situation was like and what they felt in that moment.
Are you ****ing kidding me? Is this always how you treat people who disagree with you or is it just a recent thing? Either way, I'm getting tired of you insulting people through the guise of moral disgust.
Source? Like Stormblind, I know few if any households with guns. Though anecdotal that may be, I think you'll find your statistic really only means there are are relatively low number of Canadian homes with guns. They just have a lot of guns.
Also, this is a pointless tangent, obviously no one on board had a gun. So why does it matter how many guns there are per household in Canada versus America?
Damn, y'think? Though I doubt, knowing you, that the harshness will stop here.
*sigh*
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Anyway, the idea that it's okay for "lawful citizens" to carry guns on board, but not knives, is very cockeyed. Sure, we can all sit here after the fact and say "if this bus were in Texas, someone woulda shot him instead of letting him stab the guy to ribbons" but it could have gone in an equally wrong direction. Suppose it were in Texas, and instead of ganking the guy, the murderer just pulled out a semiautomatic and emptied an entire clip into the kid? If you're asleep in the seat just ahead, you won't have any more time to react than if you'd never heard the attack at all.
1) If reading two reports on the subject doesn't convey adequate knowledge of a scenario, that's the fault of the reporters, not the audience.
2) I went back and read several other articles on Globe and Mail and haven't found one that mentions the two attempted rescuers. You'd think that this would make good news, so this is surprising. Perhaps you're simply mistaken.
3) This would actually be irrelevant to normative statements. It's still right if they intervened, despite insinuations that only superlatively heroic beings with the strength of Hercules and the speed of Mercury should try to help others, and it's still wrong if they didn't, and further wrong to praise people for failing to act.
@ElricJ: Perhaps. In that case, if we're going to discuss preventive measures, a more reasonable one might be to begin teaching adequate self-defense in school, so that random civilians can at least be expected to take down a hijacker with a box-cutter or a psycho with a bfk.
There are two options in life; either we make certain assumptions, or we walk around formless and nameless, without thought or opinion to call our own. It's certainly possible that after reading a few articles, I'm unaware of some drastic facts on the scene that alter the nature of the conflict, but this is unlikely. We form opinions with the information we have at hand, so stow your own righteous indignation at my righteous indignation. I might have information you don't, mightn't I?
Hence "understandable". Hardly admirable or heroic, and certainly less than what we should aspire to. It's understandable that people turned against Jewish or Communist neighbors under Nazi rule. It's not something to be condoned, however. I'd use a Dark Knight comparison, but I don't want to have to use spoiler tags. Suffice it to say; stop being on Heath Ledger's side. Human beings are capable of more.
Ah, looked it up. It was a bad statistic. Canada has more than Europe but still significantly less than the US. I'm fairly certain it was from a terrible Michael Moore video.
Please stop insulting people in the guise of modding, kthnxbye.
Here's an idea, and I want to see how it strikes peoples' fancy; Maybe we need more righteous indignation. Maybe, in a society where "You say I'm a ***** like it's a bad thing" is the mantra of a generation, where people eat themselves to death without anyone saying a word, where the very idea of moral principles is exiled to silver screen heroes with super powers or billion-dollar suits of armor, where every form of social ****up, from cheating to child-ditching to child neglect is condoned or encouraged, people should act like their scruples matter worth a damn. Maybe people should be more outspoken when people fail to do the right thing. Maybe we shouldn't always tell our kids, "Well, you did your best", whether they did or not. Maybe people should have moral ambition, instead of wallowing in relativism and nihilism to justify anything they do. Maybe there should be unacceptable actions. Just a freakin' thought.
Since you have yet to produce it, I'm not going to assume you do.
Capable perhaps, but ought they be so harshly judged when human weakness keeps them from reaching your ideal?
In what way was what I said an insult? You yourself said you had been harsh. I merely agreed and said that harshness is something I've come to expect from your attitude, which is neither unreasonable nor insulting.
So doing anything but the absolute ideal would be unacceptable?
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
That I need to point this out illustrates how far we've come as a society from the path of reason. Well, perhaps that's being unjustifiably kind to preceding generations, but the point remains that we're very far from a rational and moral worldview.
What boggles my mind is that you take the opposite view on the Gaymers' thread. Why is it justifiable to blame, or at least chastise, a victim for their actions that led, although they cannot justly be said to be at fault for, their own murder, but it's unreasonably harsh to say that bystandards that stood by and did nothing... stood by and did nothing? And that this is wrong? Are we basing our condemnations on a moral compass, or on who's still around to defend themselves or not?
Funnily enough, this is my view as well.
Your ideal from what I can gather is that the acceptable action in any case is to do nothing less than the right thing. That we ought to aspire to be righteous and morally ambitious? Or am I mistaken?
Some may see it that way.
What boggles my mind is that you think my view is the opposite. We both lay the blame on the murders in both events and we both acknowledge that mistakes were made by others in both cases (the transsexual and the bystanders, respectively). Where I think you're confused is that you think I condemned the transsexual because of her mistakes and not the bystanders for theirs (though that begs the question of if the bystanders here truly made a mistake), which isn't the case. You put words in my mouth and then told me to stop blaming the girl for getting herself murdered, even though I rather explicitly said that I don't blame her for her mistakes. I merely see them as unfortunate and probably avoidable.
But that's a dead horse I'm not about to beat again.
It's unreasonably harsh to fault the bystanders here because you're holding them to an unreasonable ideal. We don't know that there was anything (more) they could have reasonably done to prevent this murder or save the victim. So yes, I believe it to be unreasonably harsh to set unreasonably-high expectations for people in extreme situations and then judge them for not meeting those standards.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Blame it on the moral fabric of society or whatever, but thinking low on the general populace because they panicked while someone was beheaded in front of them seems really silly.
I'm also aware of the argument where more weapons, in this way, would encourage more rampages, but I don't believe it. Historically, people tend to plan their rampages, even if suicidal, where they maintain complete control of the situation. Even a complete psycho doesn't like their blaze of glory being cut short because someone else had a weapon.
People are instructed to not get involved when these things happen. It's often just a bad idea as you don't know exactly what the person's up to, and it can muddy the whole thing for police officers in prosecution. For planned crime, the perpetrator may have friends waiting to jump anyone who tries to get in the way, or may have worse weapons at their disposal. In this situation, it's better for an able-bodied person to assist the elderly in getting away, and only directly act against the perp in defense of those people, or self.
I wouldn't call it "heroic," but it's sensible.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080802/ap_on_re_ca/canada_bus_stabbing
if anything would demoralize people senseless in this situation, I think the guy eating his victim would do it.
and to settle up on the Canadian gun thing, here's a link to what wikipedia has to say on the matter. granted, you have to take it with a grain of salt because it's wiki....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada
Clan MTGSalivation :: Trade Thread
"In another life, in another dream,
By a different name,
Gave it all away for a memory and a quiet lie.
But I felt the face of a cold tonight,
Still don't know the score,
But I know the pain of leaving everything very far behind.
And if I could cry,
And if I could live,
What truth I did then take me there,
Heaven Goodbye."
-Heaven's Not Enough, by Steve Conte
But as for the passengers, they kinda held the attacker on the bus while police arrived. The driver also disabled the bus when the attacker tried to to drive away in it. No one read the article?
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/07/31/greyhound-transcanada.html
Start reading at the picture of the guy, they tried to check on the victim....
Doesn't that qualify for heroic? Instead of just running.
Also, I failed to read most of this thread since it seems to be pointless debate, really pointless.
Why is there EVEN a debate? its a bloody*no pun* news story. To debate a bunch of what ifs and what could of haves is as pointless as discussing "well if I could turn back time..."
Time to read another link and hit youtube for vids.
Your absolutely right.
There is however a tape that an officer recorded that was leaked to the internet, I'm sure searching a bit could find it, not sure if it's audio or video, or both.
Mnnnhhhh... a little... in that it beats doing nothing. It's not what I'd qualify as heroic. This guy was heroic. These guys were heroic.
I didn't realize before, from the first few articles, that they went in to check on the guy with the psycho still on the bus, so that certainly changes my viewpoint somewhat. That's the right motivation. I think this is more of a case of people feeling disempowered rather than simply being callous and selfish. But then, as I noted, this should raise the question of how to empower people to act in that sort of situation, in order to protect others. I really do like the reserve-police idea.
Are you serious? This is a news story, not a portal for debate on whether or not people should carry guns ,or what qualifies as heroism, etc. If I saw some random person decapitate another person, I'd be in a ****ed up state of mind. But then again using this news story to debate things is silly, it is what it is, nothing more.
And, subduing an attacker usually counts as heroism, because if that guy got off that bus, he could have potentially escaped, or killed more passengers that failed to run, but then maybe you'd have your heroism story of someone taking him out.
Oh and to be a hero you don't have to die in the process, as the two you mentioned did, being labeled a hero is usually a collective thought. Not to underscore the obviously selfless acts of the two individuals you mentioned.
But then again, anything I say your just going to use as another point to argue something. This is a sad event, and I feel for the victim's family, but demonizing it for the sake of argument is wrong.
Knock the hell off with turning this BACK into a debate thread... You want to debate the hell out of this create a thread in IDK DEBATE! Or go back to the gaymers clan thread and debate this here. This is a news story thread and we careless about your what ifs and what could ofs. We want Facts and what DID happen and what WILL happen.
i get the feeling we're going to learn one of three things about this:
1) the killer has something physically and/or structurally wrong in his brain (tumor/aneurysm/etc.) that just began to impact him; or
2) the killer has a known mental issue that is being managed by meds, or he's been on random get-it-from-your-GP "mood-adjusters" for whatever reason*; or
3) the killer knew the guy who got stabbed up and (apparently) that guy done him REAL wrong.
#2 seems the most likely story to me.
@ TIBA: strapping young men like yourself who are willing to throw down with a psycho with a knife... usually own cars. i'm just saying. also, whether or not the human body is capable of surviving being stabbed, do you really want to become a statistic to save a guy who was, for all intents and purposes, dead already (and, thus, really didn't need saving)? if the victim was still alive, fine, but once the killer was in the act of decapitation, the smartest thing to do was to let him alone and protect those who needed protecting - the passengers off the bus. the police are trained to handle these situations - civilians are not. besides, the bus passengers stood a better chance fighting the guy off the bus. when was the last time you were on a greyhound? passengers would have had to fight him practically single-file, which puts them at a significant tactical disadvantage. they did the right thing. now, were he randomly stabbing people all over the bus (instead of focusing on a single victim), the disadvantages outweigh the real possibility that one would be getting stabbed anyway, and people would be more willing to "fight back."
one must pick and choose the battles they wish to fight.
* - i was nearly choked to death by one of my college roommates, who was an alcoholic on paxil; he just snapped one night and didn't stop assaulting me until i knocked him unconscious. fortunately, his only available weapon was a pen... which he DID try to stab me with.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
Didn't you, like, say you were leaving 4eva? What happened to that?
What will happen is speculation, i.e., opinion, and it needs to be based on what did happen, so your argument isn't even internally sound. What you mean is you don't like that particular conclusion. Which is fine. But don't disguise disagreement as indignation where it's not warranted.
god of cyanide; I have taken a greyhound recently, and I do remember it being very cramped, but, expecting that several people were in decent enough shape, you could probably have a couple people swarm over the top of the seats. It would be very difficult, in all likelihood, however. What I'm interested in is that no one seems to really want to consider how to empower people so that in a future similar occurence, they'd have more options. The philosophy nowadays seems to be to rely on some regulation or law or committe of politicians to solve our problems for us, without our having to do anything at all.