The Trial of Eddie Ray Routh

[sirs]

As jury selection has completed, and the trial of suspected murderer to one of this nations American military heros, Chris Kyle, a couple of observations, before the trial swings into action

I'm not going to make any predictions, as its apparently a forgone conclusion that Routh killed Kyle, the issue is motive and "mental disposition" of Routh

As we have been discussing about how the military attempts to train those who want to join their ranks, often bringing up claims that its some form of degradation & humiliation, some folks are obviously able to handle it better than others.  Kyle went thru 4 tours, not just killing terrorists/insurgents, who could have killed exponentially more Americans & civlilians, Kyle had been shot himself, received multiple medal of honors, and after leaving the SEALS, embarked on saving still more of our soldiers, with his voluteering time and counsel

The Defense of Routh is apparently going to argue the PTSD led to insansity led to some spontanteous explosion of violence, that of course had the misfortune of taking Kyle's life.  Sounds "feasable".  But just how credible is such a scenario?  Upon my initial readings, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but Routh never was asigned to any unit that took any direct fire.  He never fired at any terrorists or insurgents, much less killed any.  He held some sort of security position at a swank and heavily fortified position, that apparently even included a pool.  From the little bits I've read so far, Routh was apparently sympathetic to the Iraqis' "plight".  Add to that that Kyle had a massive bounty on his head. 

The details haven't been made public yet, but this murder did take place in a rather remote location at the gun range, out of everyone else's sight.  Kyle and his friend, Chad Littlefield's bodies, weren't found until approx 2 hours after they had arrived at the range.  So, how much of this is PTSD vs ...... well, let's just say I'm not buying the PTSD line.

[Xavier_Onassis]

With your great knowledge of psychology, this is surely a piece of cake.

Just shooting a guy for the hell of it is a totally sane act.

[sirs]

Try reading a dictionary some time.  I might recommend starting with the word motive, and backtracking to context, both of which you completely ignored in my original post...as in I don't believe for a moment he simply shot Kyle "for the hell of it".  And yes, I do have a minor in psychology, thank you very much

[Xavier_Onassis]

Your line of reasoning is impeccable. The victim here had  sooooo  much more reason to have PTSD than the shooter that clearly PROVES that the shooter was perfectly sane and no doubt deserves the chair. This was clearly a competition, and the best guy did not "win", so there has to be some vengeance to set it all straight.
So bring on the gurney and the lethal injections.  Or maybe they will  bring back the firing squad. No need to hear any evidence, of course.

One gun nut kills another gun nut. There is something almost Biblical about that: he who lives by the gun, dies by the gun.

Maybe it was just an "accident".   But wait!  the shooter was a White guy!

[sirs]

Never claimed that Routh was "perfectly sane", whatever hell that's supposed to mean.  Anyone that murders someone else is defacto "not sane".  The issue becomes motive, and as I keep referencing, WE DON'T KNOW ALL THE DETAILS, so you can speculate deflective ridiculous hyperbole, all you want.  I'll just sit back and wait for the grown-ups to discuss this matter

[Xavier_Onassis]

I have not read anything about this trial or the incident. I just thought that your reasoning was defective, and thought I might point it out so you could get it looked at.

I agree that shooting people is not a sane act.

At the firing range, people are supposed to amuse themselves by putting holes in distant pieces of paper. Shooting other shooters is clearly not a reasonable act, like hijacking a rollercoaster car or going to the movies and wanking on the popcorn.

[sirs]

As you both haven't read anything, and have completely missed the conext in my remarks, your effort to claim defective reasoning is pretty much null and void, punctuated by all the irrelevant hyperbolic tangents, even throwing in race      Gads, I hope that knee didn't hit you in the chin with that knee-jerk response

Let us know when you want to join the adults in discussing this topic.  Here's a hint...shooting ranges are not nearly so much for "amusement" as they are in purpose...that purpose being to practice shooting accurately.  You would know that, if you happened to have an objective mindset, regarding firearms.  So we'll just have to put that aside, as that's not going to happen any time soon 

Here's another hint however, where as you had judged and condemned folks like Zimmerman, and the police officers in Missouri & NY, before 1 fact had been adjudicated, I haven't made any concrete judgements, because very few facts are known to the public.  So, my original premise is that what little I've seen & read so far, doesn't wash with a PTSD defense

[Xavier_Onassis]

Gun ranges are just pinball parlors for people who lack imagination and think they are hot snot, and enjoy thinking of themselves as dangerous.  Saying that they are somehow actually useful is just a justification for pissing away a lot of money, like the guy who buys a Porsche to hone his driving skills.

It really makes no difference to me what happens to Eddie. He probably needs some serious psychological treatment, but they will waste tons of money on lawyers instead. I have no say in his sentencing, so I do not feel any need whatever to have an opinion about whether he had or has PTSD.  Somehow, you seem to think that your opinion matters. Perhaps you should ask yourself why it should. Your opinion is just as irrelevant to the trial as mine.

Your comparing the victim with the shooter is entirely irrelevant to the case.

[sirs]

Gun ranges are just pinball parlors for people who lack imagination and think they are hot snot, and enjoy thinking of themselves as dangerous. 

See?  So precisely making my point.  Only someone THIS ignorant in firearms could come up with such an asinine conclusion.  How many gun ranges have you been to?  I can't tell you how many gun ranges I've been to, and not even 5% of those present demonstrated such a reckless, irresponsible, mindset, that you're describing as somehow predominant

Somehow, you seem to think that your opinion matters.

And yet again, getting it completely wrong.  My opinion is my opinion....credible as it is, but NOTHING MORE.  UNLESS I SUPPORT IT WITH FACTS, WHICH WHEN POSSIBLE, I DO.  I could care less what you think of my opinion.  What I "care about", in this, a debate forum, is discussing and debating opinions.  Not deal in mindless childish hyperbole that accomplishes squat.  If you don't want to sit at the adults' table to debate topics rationally & civilly, no one's putting a gun to your head.  Just sit there and keep demonstrating your overt ignorance, to topics such as these

And here's the kicker.....you could actually try and......*gasp*.....ask serious questions about firearms and what real "gun nuts" actually do, as it relates to safety in using firearms, and yet still not support people having them.  That way, you can at least interject disagreeing points with some form of rationality, minus the hyperbole.  But that might require actually considering other POV's, and ..... *gasp*....could alter your preconceived illogical conclusions.....so....perhaps best not.  Stick to what you do best

Your comparing the victim with the shooter is entirely irrelevant to the case.

It has to do directly with motive & mindset, so its completely relevant

[Plane]

I have no say in his sentencing, so I do not feel any need whatever to have an opinion about whether he had or has PTSD.  Somehow, you seem to think that your opinion matters. Perhaps you should ask yourself why it should. Your opinion is just as irrelevant to the trial as mine.

You  are tempting fate.

I have been called to serve on a jury of a murder trial.

It is a miserable way to spend two weeks.

It can happen to you.

So can being accused, so it is an important duty.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I got a jury duty call ten days ago. I have been called four times and served twice. I am planning a trip later this month, and so when I saw that I could be exempted because of my age, I checked the box. I have done my duty, and you are right, Plane, jury duty sucks. It is so totally perverted by lawyers and fools that I don't want to mess with it ever again.

[Plane]

  Juries are intended to serve justice and the public by making the people an important part of the process.

    It is an important duty, this is how we do have an interest in the process.

   No , it doesn't always have to be you, but it does always have to be someone.

     I was once called to the jury selection of a notorious crime. When the judge called for everyone who had signed a petition for the impeachment of the high court that had made this trial necessary, I stood , along with more than half of the room, I was so glad I had avoided that duty.

      But I knew that the jury must have been made up entirely of people who disagreed with me on the subject of justice and that petition.

   

[sirs]

Prosecution's opening statements

[Xavier_Onassis]

Jury selection is largely a farce.

A Trial by a jury of one's peers in England used to mean that the accused was tried by people from the same area, who knew the accused. Now they do the opposite and any knowledge of the crime disqualifies a person from the jury. The lawyers have far too much power to disqualify jurors. Where I served as a juror, they called up something like 400 people to serve on seven juries, and once the two lawyers disqualified all of us between them. It is like being informed or having any opinion was the kiss of death. One lawyer in a trial for malpractice asked the jury candidates if we had any bumperstickers on out cars. I said that I did, I had two: one was a reflector from Geico insurance, the other was from Amnesty International. He asked me why, and I explained that one was to keep my car from being rear ended when parked in the street, the other because I was against torture. These were enough to disqualify me, though I do not know which one was the one that affected his reasoning.

[sirs]

At the end of the day, the Jury knew, without a doubt that Routh knew what he did was wrong, knew he committed a heinous act, and now he will spend the rest of his life unable to murder another innocent human being, for the rest of his life