SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a case straight out of CSI, CNN reports that police are searching for the man suspected in the gruesome slayings of the Savopoulos family and their housekeeper, after his DNA was purportedly found on a pizza crust at the scene of the quadruple murders:
They discovered his DNA on the crust of a Domino's pizza -- one of two delivered to the Savopoulos home May 14 as the family was held hostage inside -- a source familiar with the investigation said.
The pizza apparently was paid for with cash left in an envelope on the porch: "The next morning, Savvas Savopoulos's personal assistant dropped off a package containing $40,000 in cash at the home, according to the officials and police documents."
The bodies of Savopoulos, along with his wife, Amy, their 10-year-old son Philip and the family's housekeeper, Veralicia Figueroa, were discovered the afternoon of May 14 after firefighters responded to reports of a fire.
D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier says the killings are likely not a random crime and police have issued an arrest warrant for the 34-year-old Daron Dylon Wint, who is described as 5'7 and 155 lbs and might also go by the name "Steffon." He apparently used to work at American Iron Works, where Savvas Savopoulos was CEO and president. The neighborhood is home to numerous embassies and diplomatic mansions as well as the official residence of Vice President Joe Biden and his wife. "Right now you have just about every law enforcement officer across the country aware of his open warrant and are looking for him," says Lanier. "I think even his family has made pleas for him to turn himself in."
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday May 22 2015, @02:59PM
I can't help but think there was some essential element of jealousy in the degree of brutality here. A more rational criminal would know the police look a lot harder for multiple murderers than robbers. In other news, it pays to be armed at all times, even inside your own home. Too bad DC doesn't believe in liberty.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @04:31PM
> In other news, it pays to be armed at all times, even inside your own home.
That's mood affiliation if I've ever seen it. One case where it might have helped, we really don't know because the details of what happened in the house are mostly unknown, compared to the 21,000+ suicides [cdc.gov] per year and ~50 accidental killings of children [washingtonpost.com] under the age of 13.
Might as well argue that this case of a 2-year old killing his mother in walmart [cbsnews.com] proves the opposite.
Liberty!!!
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday May 22 2015, @06:00PM
We have a right to commit suicide, do we not?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Friday May 22 2015, @06:43PM
Not according to a lot of people. They like to say that anyone who doesn't want to live is mentally unstable and has to be protected from themselves. So many cowards are so afraid of death that they can't accept that someone would want to choose to die as they please. Not everyone has a life worth living, and life isn't worth anything in the first place.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday May 22 2015, @11:05PM
I had that opinion before too. The catch is that sometimes people have a really bad time. But they recover and feel alright. And in hindsight they are grateful for being prevented from killing themselves. Of course this isn't the case always.
(and it's kind of weird that the state may kill people, but people may not kill themselves if they lack the physical ability)
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday May 22 2015, @08:43PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @08:44PM
> We have a right to commit suicide, do we not?
It depends on the circumstances.
Is the attempt made with clarity of thought or clouded by depression?
Only about 10% of failed suicide attempts are followed up by a successful suicide. Even if we assume that the eventual successful suicide was made with clarity of thought, that means roughly 90% of attempted suicides were not. So even the most pro-suicide evaluation would put 19,000 of those gun suicides as made in error.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Friday May 22 2015, @06:32PM
Out of curiosity, are you as vocal about the Mood Affiliation fallacy in the wake of mass shootings at movie theaters and schools? It's just as wrong for gun control advocates to ride the mood of a tragedy to justify stricter gun laws as it is for gun ownership proponents to ride the mood of a home invasion report to justify gun ownership for home defense. Of course, by pointing this out I'm committing a fallacy of my own, [wikipedia.org] so I'll take this comment in a different direction.
I find the commentary on suicide to be inconsistent. On the one hand, there are vocal advocates for assisted suicide on the basis of "dignified death" and advocacy of self-determination. There are also many vocal advocates for gun control, seemingly in the same demographic, who loudly proclaim that firearm suicide statistics are proof that guns should be outlawed. Is the right to choose the time and manner of ones own mortality important or not? If so, what relevance does the method have? Why are the firearm suicides special compared to the others accomplished by suffocation or poisoning? [cdc.gov] (see last column for ranked totals, suicide by suffocation/poisoning are 6/7 in the cause of death rankings) Is the gun suicide somehow more dead than the others?
Also, some perspective is needed. The 21000+ firearm suicides you quoted are only .8% of the ~2.6 million total deaths that occurred in 2013. Accidental firearm deaths for all age groups totaled only 505, or ~0.02%. Motor vehicle accidents (35,369), accidental poisoning (38,851), and Diabetes (75,578) each caused more deaths than firearm suicides. Where is the outrage for them? Why is the mother in your last link demonized, but parents who don't secure their dangerous household chemicals in a locked cabinet given a pass?
Here's my take on the situation:
It's not the government's job to keep me safe.
It's not my job to keep you safe.
It's my job to keep myself and my family safe.
It's your job to keep yourself and your family safe.
If I through action or inaction cause harm, there are laws to punish me for the harm I inflict. Prior restrictions on my actions based on the fear that I may make a choice you don't approve of are inappropriate, just as government prior restraints on speech are inappropriate. And in the cases of speech and the bearing of arms, both types of prior restraint are unconstitutional.
Note: data taken from the CDC deaths data for 2013, [cdc.gov] see link to "Deaths: Final Data for 2013, table 10" for the 1.5MB PDF
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @09:00PM
> Out of curiosity, are you as vocal about the Mood Affiliation fallacy in the wake of mass shootings at movie theaters and schools?
I am much more vocal about those, they are so rare as to be useless for drawing conclusions.
Here I have made been one post rebutting a completely baseless conclusion, that is just one post less than not being vocal at all.
> I find the commentary on suicide to be inconsistent.
That's probably because your analysis is superficial. The right to die after careful deliberation made with full clarity of thought is not the same as having a really bad couple of months that reaches a temporary nadir and is often further depressed by drug or alcohol use.
> Is the gun suicide somehow more dead than the others?
Yes, it is. Guns suicides are far more fatal so there are less second chances to change your mind. Since roughly 90% of suicide survivors go on to live a normal lifespan, that's 90% of gun suicides made in error.
> Also, some perspective is needed.
That's the fallacy of relative privation.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:36PM
I am much more vocal about those, they are so rare as to be useless for drawing conclusions.
I'm going to call baloney on this assertion. After every gun-related tragedy the anti-gun crowd immediately starts calling for more restrictions on gun sales, mandatory registration of all firearms, etc. The occurrences may be rare, but the pattern is nearly invariant. In contrast, in my experience it's rare that gun advocates are heard using a specific, recent home invasion tragedy as rationale for increasing gun availability. Regardless, I'll be watching to see AC comments regarding Mood Affiliation fallacy the next time we talk about gun control following a mass shooting, I hope it'll be you.
The right to die after careful deliberation made with full clarity of thought is not the same as having a really bad couple of months that reaches a temporary nadir and is often further depressed by drug or alcohol use.
I agree that they're different. On what basis do you judge that one is better than the other? The use of alcohol is not illegal, are you implying that it is morally wrong? How do you propose that society distinguish between the two cases of deliberate thought vs impulse?
Since roughly 90% of suicide survivors go on to live a normal lifespan, that's 90% of gun suicides made in error.
Again, you are judging for someone else the appropriateness of their actions. More specifically, you are condoning prior restraint on a legal activity (gun ownership) on the basis that it may lead to an action that you disapprove of. This is unreasonable on its face, and unconstitutional (i.e. illegal) in the case of gun control.
. . . fallacy of relative privation.
Nice try, but I haven't committed that fallacy. Other causes of preventable deaths and the lengths we're willing to go to prevent them are directly relevant here (unlike, say, starvation of children in Africa, deforestation of rainforests, terrorism, etc). Before you advocate unconstitutional restraints on legal activities you should consider whether such actions would be reasonable in other circumstances where a similar problem is being solved. If the remedies are unreasonable in other, similar, cases that result in more deaths, then they are unreasonable in the lesser case as well.
I'll also note that you decided to commit the fallacy of argumentum ad logicam instead of addressing my final points. There is, rightly, a high burden placed upon those who advocate prior restraints on constitutionally protected rights. The statistical possibility of someone making a poor decision is not sufficient reason to deny an entire state or nation's people of their rights.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @08:41PM
> I'm going to call baloney on this assertion
Wishful thinking on your part. Like I said, it only takes one such post to be "just as vocal." Even if I had never said a word before, the fact that I said it just now means its equal.
> . On what basis do you judge that one is better than the other?
Srsly?
You are now arguing that decisions made with impaired judgment are the equal of those made unimpaired.
At this point you are so far off in the weeds that I really can't argue with that.
> starvation of children in Africa
You have utterly failed to understand that fallacy. The fact you even mentioned starving children in africa shows your complete lack of comprehension. All forest, no trees. If you were arguing about starvation in the US then holding up starving children in africa would be apropos of the fallacy of relative privation. What's relative to gun deaths? Other kinds of deaths. Get it?
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:37AM
Wishful thinking on your part. Like I said, it only takes one such post to be "just as vocal." Even if I had never said a word before, the fact that I said it just now means its equal.
C'mon, I was throwing you a bone on this one; are you having so much fun being contrary that you have to recast the meaning of your own words just to disagree with me? Regardless, you misunderstood me; I have no way of verifying whether you call out Nany Pelosi for opportunistic lawmaking or not (you're posting anonymous, after all). I was calling baloney on the "they are so rare as to be useless for drawing conclusions". Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying, can you clarify please?
You are now arguing that decisions made with impaired judgment are the equal of those made unimpaired.
At this point you are so far off in the weeds that I really can't argue with that.
That's fine, you don't have a leg to stand on anyhow. How do you determine the difference, legally, as an outside observer, between
1) someone who made a rational unimpaired decision to end their own life with dignity then drank a bottle of whiskey to build up the courage and
2) someone who made an irrational decision after having drunk the bottle of whiskey?
Would you propose government assistance with the requirement of a mental health evaluation? Dr. Kevorkian would be pleased, I'm sure. Or perhaps chronic, terminal pain ranks higher in your estimation than chronic mental distress/depression, making one legitimate and the other not. Those suffering from mental anguish might take offense to your opinion.
All I hear you saying is "suicide is wrong" (which I don't actually disagree with). How you extend that to "no-one should own guns" is where I have the biggest problem with your logic, and you so far have not even started to address the arguments I've made on that subject.
You have utterly failed to understand that fallacy. The fact you even mentioned starving children in africa shows your complete lack of comprehension.
Huh, I thought I'd done my homework on that one. The "starving children in Africa" bit was taken directly from the Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] on the topic. I like Bo Bennet's explanation better, though. [logicallyfallacious.com] I think I can see where your accusation comes from, seeing that I led with the total number of deaths in the US for 2013; if that's where I'd stopped you would certainly be right.
Regardless of which reference you choose, I'm not discounting the evils of gun suicide by saying "children in Africa are starving, so a few suicides in the US are meaningless"; neither am I saying "it would be better if no one died from accidental firearm discharge, so 505 deaths a year is unacceptable". Both of those actually are examples of argument to relative privation, and the second one seems to be your argument.
What I did do was compare one cause of preventable death (suicide by gun in the US) to other causes of preventable death in the US (motor vehicle accidents, accidental poisoning, diabetes, suicide suffocation, suicide poisoning) and ask why firearm deaths require special, unconstitutional remedies whereas the others do not? You have not yet answered this question, preferring to argue that I'm committing various logical fallacies.
I'll even clarify the issue, conceding that the top 10 causes of death in the US are all of approximately equal scale. That should take care of the relative privation issue (I hope). Explain, please, why asserting only one of those causes of death requires a remedy that is unconstitutional is not a case of the Special Pleading fallacy. So that I'm clear on this I'll point out that the general case is "laws shouldn't violate the constitution", and that I know you didn't explicitly state that firearms are a special case. I am asserting that you implied it when you brought out the death statistics on gun suicide and the anecdote about the 2-yo shooting his mom in Wal-Mart.
I'm willing to admit, however, that I picked this fight. If you're not actually in favor of gun control legislation as a remedy for firearm suicide then I'm arguing with the wrong person and I'll let it drop with my apologies.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Friday May 22 2015, @04:43PM
In other news, it pays to be armed at all times, even inside your own home. Too bad DC doesn't believe in liberty.
Well, the City may not, but the Federal Courts do.
In District of Columbia v. Heller [oyez.org] the Supreme Court struck down the District's ban on handgun ownership, effectively legalizing the ownership and use of a pistol for home defense. I'm not hot on the registration requirement, but District residents for sure are now at liberty to defend their homes.
More recently (Palmer v. D.C.), [thehill.com] Federal courts struck down the District's ban on public carry.
The current legal battlefield there is the "may issue" wording of the District's licensing law; in the ongoing case of Wrenn v. D.C. [reason.com] the District has already been ordered to cease denying license to carry on the basis of demonstrated need. (i.o.w., previously applicants had to show need for the license before it was issued, per the judge's order this is an unreasonable requirement and is struck down)
I'm watching these cases hopefully, since they are setting legal precedent that will bring sanity to the rest of the states' laws. If the Wrenn case finishes as it is currently going, the rest of the "restrictive May-Issue" states will likely have their laws judicially amended as well.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin