Comments on: Faces of Evil

By: Harold

Harold — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:49:52 +0000

I have sympathy with Advo’s point – if the system did not reward frivolous suits, then people would not bring them.

It is possible that the theatre was grossly at fault. The doctor may have been dangerously cavalier in his prescribing habits. There needs to be a forum to test these possibilities. It seems that the forum currenltly available is unable to distinguish between real and imagined causes. Or possibly it is the media that mis-represents the position, leading people to think they have a chance to win when in fact the courts will reject any such nonsense.

By: Advo

Advo — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 19:07:46 +0000

I think the more interesting issue here is: Why is the guy suing in the first place?
If the US justice system was efficient, obviously frivolous lawsuits such as this one wouldn’t even get filed, because the possibility of profiting from them would be zero.

At the heart of the problem are the amateur juries – the outcome of any trial decided by amateurs with neither training nor experience is inherently unpredictable and often only marginally influenced by the law and the facts of the case.

And so there is a small but existant risk of a huge award in cases such as this, which require an expensive defense and often result in completely unjustified settlements.

By: Steve Landsburg

Steve Landsburg — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:11:04 +0000

Bob Apjok Jr.:

As a private business they have the option, but it is then fair to say they share some liability by not allowing you to protect yourself.

If they have the option to forbid weapons, why shouldn’t they have the option to reject this liability (as a condition of your entering the theater)?

By: Bob Apjok Jr

Bob Apjok Jr — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:31:03 +0000

if the theatre has a “no weapons policy” then they do in fact take on the responsibility of your protection by denying your 2nd amendment rights. As a private business they have the option, but it is then fair to say they share some liability by not allowing you to protect yourself.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:35:57 +0000

Are you responsible for the construct of your brain? If so, how? And if so, why would anyone choose to construct their brain to be a butcher instead of a volunteer in a soup kitchen? Because they are evil? Why would they choose to be evil?

I hate paraphrasing him over and over again but as Harris says, if it was discovered that Holmes had a brain tumour located in the exact spot that stimulates psyocpathic violent behaviour and inhibits compassion, would you feel differently about how he should be treated? And if we knew that removing the tumour would remove any future similar tendencies, wouldn’t we just give him the surgery, keep a watch on him but let him go (or at the very least remove execution in the spectrum of available reactions)?

A brain tumour is a special case of the brain make up. Some people are unfortunately victims of their own minds. In the end, we all are.

By: Tristan

Tristan — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:18:08 +0000

While it doesn’t excuse it, you left out the mitigating fact that the civilian had his friend shot next to him and that this prompted the lawsuit. Again, doesn’t make him right, but it makes it more understandable.

By: Krishnan

Krishnan — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:15:46 +0000

Oh, I forgot to add – “it is someone else’s fault is a corollary of the theorem “You cannot take credit for anything, because someone else did it”

By: Krishnan

Krishnan — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:14:29 +0000

“But James Holmes was not responsible, so he cannot be sued. He had a bad teacher, bad parents, bad doctor, bad school, bad friends”.

“James Holmes’ teachers cannot be sued – because they had bad teachers, bad parents, bad doctors, bad schools, bad friends”

“James Holmes’ physicians cannot be sued because they had bad
teachers, bad parents, bad doctors, bad schools”

In short, according to someone who is very intelligent and smart and has solved all of the world’s problems – Nothing is anyone’s fault – and you have to go back to the earliest humans and their environment – and THEN you will find that THEY are not responsible.

Case closed.

By: Michael Rulle

Michael Rulle — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:18:47 +0000

I agree with Steve’s use of the word evil—-and it does tip to the left side of the page—-but Brown’s opportunism is grotesque.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:57:23 +0000

When did I say not to punish them? I clearly stated that even execution might be an option did I not?

The dissemination of information influences states of the mind that receives them. It’s the essence of communication. Someone gives you a compelling argument, you almost have no option but to accept it.

Someone gives you what sounds like trash and you will no doubt reject it. Where is the choice?