The general decline in standards today

[scottyrocks]

Places like McDonald's made a significant contribution to the breakdown in civility we see in society now.

I remember going out to restaurants when I was a kid in the 60s. What kids were there were quiet.

Now take a 'restaurant' specifically aimed at kids, make it all colorful and appealing, and then add the deal-breaker: a playground. This was the beginning of the end of child-civility in eating establishments. The playground essentially told parents and their children that is okay to go around running, yelling , and screaming in an eating establishment.

Unfortunately, many parents, and of course the kids, are unable or unwilling to differentiate between a McDonald's and just about any other indoor public place.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Yup. In the future, all the world will be presided over by Chucky Cheese.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Would that have been legal? Not every state has a "stand your ground" law.

Nothing to do with a 'stand your ground law'....but simple 'self defense'. The whole purpose of carrying a weapon. To protect yourself and other innocents from an armed aggressive intruder. When someone is shooting everyone around him it makes perfect sense that he should be stopped by any means possible...and by 'anyone' able. Is this really 'in question'?

 

[sheeplady]

I think the parents who just saw their babies' heads get blown off in their laps by an assault rifle are feeling lousy enough already, and immediately telling them that their choice of movies was inappropriate doesn't sit well with me. We might have lost a lot of moral values in the last hundred years, but I hope the value of rubbing salt in the wounds of victims after a tragedy wasn't one of them.

This is obviously not the first time that someone has observed a child being taken to an inappropriate level movies- this thread is ripe with examples. You can be critical of a social trend (and no one here has specifically mentioned any parent who lost their child or suggested it was somehow their fault because of their choice of movies) without being disrespectful of the victims of such a tragedy or incident. For instance, we certainly can criticize a war without automatically being disrespectful of those who lost their lives in that war. We can similarly discuss what should be different at our schools, our homes, and our towns and cities when a tragedy happens without placing blame at the victims' feet. Having a national discussion on what we consider appropriate viewing content for children could be one of the good things that comes out of this tragedy.

The imagery you suggest by the words "babies' heads blown off" is offensive not only to the parents, but also to the poor children that you refer to. It's really not a respectful way to talk about murder victims. It is not appropriate.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Nothing to do with a 'stand your ground law'....but simple 'self defense'. The whole purpose of carrying a weapon. To protect yourself and other innocents from an armed aggressive intruder. When someone is shooting everyone around him it makes perfect sense that he should be stopped by any means possible...and by 'anyone' able. Is this really 'in question'?

By me, no. Legally, yes. Each state has its own legalities of self-defense.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

This is obviously not the first time that someone has observed a child being taken to an inappropriate level movies- this thread is ripe with examples. You can be critical of a social trend (and no one here has specifically mentioned any parent who lost their child or suggested it was somehow their fault because of their choice of movies) without being disrespectful of the victims of such a tragedy or incident. For instance, we certainly can criticize a war without automatically being disrespectful of those who lost their lives in that war. We can similarly discuss what should be different at our schools, our homes, and our towns and cities when a tragedy happens without placing blame at the victims' feet. Having a national discussion on what we consider appropriate viewing content for children could be one of the good things that comes out of this tragedy.

The imagery you suggest by the words "babies' heads blown off" is offensive not only to the parents, but also to the poor children that you refer to. It's really not a respectful way to talk about murder victims. It is not appropriate.

Agreed!

 

[HoosierDaddy]

This is obviously not the first time that someone has observed a child being taken to an inappropriate level movies- this thread is ripe with examples. You can be critical of a social trend (and no one here has specifically mentioned any parent who lost their child or suggested it was somehow their fault because of their choice of movies) without being disrespectful of the victims of such a tragedy or incident. For instance, we certainly can criticize a war without automatically being disrespectful of those who lost their lives in that war. We can similarly discuss what should be different at our schools, our homes, and our towns and cities when a tragedy happens without placing blame at the victims' feet. Having a national discussion on what we consider appropriate viewing content for children could be one of the good things that comes out of this tragedy.

The imagery you suggest by the words "babies' heads blown off" is offensive not only to the parents, but also to the poor children that you refer to. It's really not a respectful way to talk about murder victims. It is not appropriate.

I don't think either discussion or remarks are really appropriate right now. It just happened...and victims are at the height of shock and misery...but we are being saturated with repeated 24 hr coverage as news media just can't get enough to repeat and over analyze any aspect to outdo the other channel. Blame shifts and spreads out,of course,to include any special interest who can also 'use' this tragedy.
There is plenty of time later to suggest what might have 'caused' this to happen and pass around 'fault'. However..as sure as I'm sitting here..there will be almost immediate steps suggested that will not..in any way..curtail or prevent this from happening again. Fact is...you can't...but only be prepared to defend for when it does happen again..whether in a Mall...McDonalds...movie theater..or on the street. Sounds harsh..but these incidents are really just that 'on the spot' suprising..quick..cruel. Someting YOU may need to personally handle...or not.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Nothing to do with a 'stand your ground law'....but simple 'self defense'. The whole purpose of carrying a weapon. To protect yourself and other innocents from an armed aggressive intruder. When someone is shooting everyone around him it makes perfect sense that he should be stopped by any means possible...and by 'anyone' able. Is this really 'in question'?

If it's not questionable and legal, why would some states opt to enact "Stand Your Ground" laws?

 

[TomS]

Would that have been legal? Not every state has a "stand your ground" law.

I may be incorrect, but I offer you the following: There is currently no statutory provision anywhere in the U.S. that does not allow a person to defend themselves from imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm; a person committing murder would certianly constitute such a threat. There may be a requirement for a private citizen to *retreat* from the aforementioned threat, but that is only when it is reasonably safe to do so; This is the *stand your ground* concept which you mentioned. Frankly, I am professionaly unaware of a set of circumstances where defending ones self, or a third party, from certain murder (as in these circumstances) would not be condoned by any state judicial branch of government. Having said that, and it is just my very humble .02, I would rather be tried by twelve, than allow a another innocent person, a loved one, or myself, to be carried by six. See my point?
Best,
Tom

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I may be incorrect, but I offer you the following: There is currently no statutory provision anywhere in the U.S. that does not allow a person to defend themselves from imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm; a person committing murder would certianly constitute such a threat. There may be a requirement for a private citizen to *retreat* from the aforementioned threat, but that is only when it is reasonably safe to do so; This is the *stand your ground* concept which you mentioned. Frankly, I am professionaly unaware of a set of circumstances where defending ones self, or a third party, from certain murder (as in these circumstances) would not be condoned by any state judicial branch of government. Having said that, and it is just my very humble .02, I would rather be tried by twelve, than allow a another innocent person, a loved one, or myself, to be carried by six. See my point?
Best,
Tom

Thank you and of course I see your point. I'm with you. I just didn't know if the courts would be, too.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

If it's not questionable and legal, why would some states opt to enact "Stand Your Ground" laws?

Stand your ground laws has to do with a life threatening scenario where the aggressor may not be armed with a lethal weapon...but whos intent may be to threaten your life by his actions alone. I suppose some states feel that this is too sketchy to enact or support.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Stand your ground laws has to do with a life threatening scenario where the aggressor may not be armed with a lethal weapon...but whos intent may be to threaten your life by his actions alone. I suppose some states feel that this is too sketchy to enact or support.

Thanks for clarifying that for me.

 

[TomS]

Thank you and of course I see your point. I'm with you. I just didn't know if the courts would be, too.

Hi PSG...

Unfortunately, I believe we have entered a new era. One in which decent people must settle in advance how they will manage such situations. As for me, I've already settled the mattered. I will never, ever, allow another person to face evil alone... even if doing so disadvantages me (think arrest, trial, possible conviction here). But that's a personal choice.

Best,
Tom

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Hi PSG...

Unfortunately, I believe we have entered a new era. One in which decent people must settle in advance how they will manage such situations. As for me, I've already settled the mattered. I will never, ever, allow another person to face evil alone... even if doing so disadvantages me (think arrest, trial, possible conviction here). But that's a personal choice.

Best,
Tom

I want to thank you,Tom. Now that can make a difference.
HD

 

[scottyrocks]

I will never think twice about the ramifications of my actions when loved ones are in danger. I will do what is necessary for their safety, my own personal consequences be damned.

 

[sheeplady]

I don't think either discussion or remarks are really appropriate right now. It just happened...and victims are at the height of shock and misery...but we are being saturated with repeated 24 hr coverage as news media just can't get enough to repeat and over analyze any aspect to outdo the other channel. Blame shifts and spreads out,of course,to include any special interest who can also 'use' this tragedy.
There is plenty of time later to suggest what might have 'caused' this to happen and pass around 'fault'. However..as sure as I'm sitting here..there will be almost immediate steps suggested that will not..in any way..curtail or prevent this from happening again. Fact is...you can't...but only be prepared to defend for when it does happen again..whether in a Mall...McDonalds...movie theater..or on the street. Sounds harsh..but these incidents are really just that 'on the spot' suprising..quick..cruel. Someting YOU may need to personally handle...or not.

Anyone who has ever lived through a tragedy like this one knows that the survivors and families of the victims aren't watching the news right now. That is probably something that won't happen for months, even for the person who "recovers" fastest.

I teach disaster planning. Learning from tragedies like this is a large part of what I teach. While I agree with you that these things such as this are totally random, I disagree that we can't learn things from this tragedy. You can learn from events like these how to save lives; that is the utmost importance. We know from 9/11 that our 911 dispatchers need better information about large buildings. We know that our communication networks between agencies are poor. (I know an individual who is studying and implementing a plan on how to link law enforcement and other agencies together via communication devices, he is a retired police officer.) We know that often employees have no idea what to do in an emergency. We know all sorts of intricate details about designing buildings, designing our reaction systems, and saving lives that we never knew before.

Now is the time to reflect on such tragedies and what could be done in the future to save lives. Within a few months another tragedy will take it's place and we'll have learned nothing from this one if we ignore it. The greatest respect to those that have died that I can think of is if we learn something from this event that saves even one person's life in the future. I think that is a great gift to come of a tragedy, that we are able to save people in the future because of our thoughtful analysis.

 

[TomS]

I want to thank you,Tom. Now that can make a difference.
HD

Thanks, Sir...

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Anyone who has ever lived through a tragedy like this one knows that the survivors and families of the victims aren't watching the news right now. That is probably something that won't happen for months, even for the person who "recovers" fastest.

I teach disaster planning. Learning from tragedies like this is a large part of what I teach. While I agree with you that these things such as this are totally random, I disagree that we can't learn things from this tragedy. You can learn from events like these how to save lives; that is the utmost importance. We know from 9/11 that our 911 dispatchers need better information about large buildings. We know that our communication networks between agencies are poor. (I know an individual who is studying and implementing a plan on how to link law enforcement and other agencies together via communication devices, he is a retired police officer.) We know that often employees have no idea what to do in an emergency. We know all sorts of intricate details about designing buildings, designing our reaction systems, and saving lives that we never knew before.

Now is the time to reflect on such tragedies and what could be done in the future to save lives. Within a few months another tragedy will take it's place and we'll have learned nothing from this one if we ignore it. The greatest respect to those that have died that I can think of is if we learn something from this event that saves even one person's life in the future. I think that is a great gift to come of a tragedy, that we are able to save people in the future because of our thoughtful analysis.

The only thing that I can see that could save lives in this..and most other similar situations is: to have someone 'officially' stationed on scene with the utensiles to immediately take control of the situation. Since this won't and can't happen across the board..it seems that an unofficial source may be the only hope to actually help prevent or stop any sudden damage. Or else we can add more useless bureaucracies of only feel better pacification or senseless rules that only overburden freedoms and lead to more of it for our 'protection'.
I don't really see much serious 'learning' from this event on TV..panels or pundants...but just a rehash of groups that wish to 'use' this tragedy for their own interests. That is what's sad about this up to the minute..special news alert...talking head..callous coverage. It has become a tradition...
HD

 

[PrettySquareGal]

The only thing that I can see that could save lives in this..and most other similar situations is: to have someone 'officially' stationed on scene with the utensiles to immediately take control of the situation. Since this won't and can't happen across the board..it seems that an unofficial source may be the only hope to actually help prevent or stop any sudden damage. Or else we can add more useless bureaucracies of only feel better pacification or senseless rules that only overburden freedoms and lead to more of it for our 'protection'.
I don't really see much serious 'learning' from this event on TV..panels or pundants...but just a rehash of groups that wish to 'use' this tragedy for their own interests. That is what's sad about this up to the minute..special news alert...talking head..callous coverage. It has become a tradition...
HD

Or we, as a society, can start an open discussion about how we can make a difference on an individual level and collectively.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Or we, as a society, can start an open discussion about how we can make a difference on an individual level and collectively.

True...but I think many/most would rather someone else take the responsibility/action to proctect them no matter how affective/inaffective it might actually be. Sorry that I may seem one of little faith in my neighbor...but I've noticed alot of runaround and skirting the real issue especially when it's done collectively..and usually during the heat of the issue.