Score 1 for Matthew
Guest
|
Post by Score 1 for Matthew on Jun 25, 2003 11:35:47 GMT -6
FAIRFAX, Virginia (AP) -- A teenager who shot his parents to death as his sister listened helplessly on the phone has pleaded guilty to murder and weapons charges.
Attorneys for Joshua P. Cooke, 19, had planned to argue that their client confused right and wrong because he thought he was living in the virtual reality of the 1999 movie "The Matrix."
On Tuesday, Cooke admitted gunning down his parents inside their Fairfax County home on February 17. His sister, Tiffany Cooke, 19, was speaking to her father from Pennsylvania when she heard the shots.
After the shootings, Joshua Cooke hung up the phone and called 911, telling the operator, "I just shot my parents. I just blew them away with a shotgun."
The bodies of Paul Cooke, 51, and his wife, Margaret Ruffin Cooke, 56, were found inside the home. Paul Cooke was the son of Paul P. Cooke, former president of D.C. Teachers College, now the University of the District of Columbia.
Joshua Cooke faces a maximum 20 years to life on the two murder counts. He is due to be sentenced on August 7.
|
|
matthew from outside
Guest
|
Post by matthew from outside on Jun 25, 2003 12:20:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by bueller007 on Jun 25, 2003 12:32:05 GMT -6
FAIRFAX, Virginia (AP) -- A teenager who shot his parents to death as his sister listened helplessly on the phone has pleaded guilty to murder and weapons charges. Attorneys for Joshua P. Cooke, 19, had planned to argue that their client confused right and wrong because he thought he was living in the virtual reality of the 1999 movie "The Matrix." On Tuesday, Cooke admitted gunning down his parents inside their Fairfax County home on February 17. His sister, Tiffany Cooke, 19, was speaking to her father from Pennsylvania when she heard the shots. After the shootings, Joshua Cooke hung up the phone and called 911, telling the operator, "I just shot my parents. I just blew them away with a shotgun." The bodies of Paul Cooke, 51, and his wife, Margaret Ruffin Cooke, 56, were found inside the home. Paul Cooke was the son of Paul P. Cooke, former president of D.C. Teachers College, now the University of the District of Columbia. Joshua Cooke faces a maximum 20 years to life on the two murder counts. He is due to be sentenced on August 7. I don't think this really belongs in the DP forum, but I'll bite anyway. I'm going to state something in the words of Chris Rock. I'm sure that all of the pros and most of the antis will agree with me on this one. With regards to the Columbine murders: "Everybody wants to know what the kids was listening to. What kinda music was they listening to? What kinda movies was they watching? Who gives a *f---* what they was watching?! What ever happened to CRAZY?" Why do people feel the need to blame murders and crime on movies, music, art, Democratic politics, Republican politics, etc.? There were plenty of murders before any one of these things existed. People just do it to further their own cause. They use the death of another person as a stepping stone to get what they want. It's disgusting, really. First of all, by blaming anything or anyone other than the murderer, you remove blame from him/her. Further, the argument doesn't hold water for the following reasons (The first one is a theory I propose, the rest are facts): 1) a) Legally, a person is not culpable for their actions if it was an act of insanity. In the legal sense, insanity refers to the inability to distinguish between "right" and "wrong". b) The act of murder is one that is, in general, condemned by all humans. In the moral and legal sense, it is "wrong" and we expect all people to be able to recognize this. c) A person watching a film in which people are killed should be able to recognize that what he/she sees on the screen is "wrong". If they do, they will not reproduce these actions. If they do not, they may reproduce these actions, however, if they do, they are clearly unable to distinguish between right and wrong. d) Therefore, they are legally, and probably clinically, insane, and were so at the time that they watched the film. e) They are clearly not the basis on which one would wish to make such an analysis. 2) By condemning culture such as films, the VAST majority of viewers who do not go on to kill someone is ignored. This is a simple example of the fundamental scientific error of observational selection or "counting the hits, and forgetting the misses". It's an extreme example, as well, since the number of misses is FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR greater than the number of hits. 3) Committing another fundamental scientific error: "Confusion of causation and correlation". Yes, people who commit violent crimes may tend to watch violent movies, but are violent people drawn to violent movies or do violent movies cause people to become violent? Occam's Razor, and common sense, tell us that the former is almost certainly fact. The latter remains to be seen. 4) By assuming that the mere act of watching a film BEFORE a violent crime occurs has caused the violent crime to occur (with no substantiating proof of causation), one commits the fundamental scientific error of "post hoc, ergo proper hoc" or "it happened after, therefore it was caused by". With some hyperbole, it is as nonsensical as arguing that brushing your teeth in the morning caused you to get hit by a bus in the afternoon. 5) Committing YET ANOTHER fundamental scientific error by relying on the statistics of small numbers. Just because there are a few individuals who have committed such crimes does not mean that the trend holds true for the population as a whole. For example, it is a fact that approximately one out of every five people on Earth is Chinese. You may argue that this is not true because you know 100 people and none of them are Chinese. Small numbers don't work for scientific proof. 6) My oh my...Who would figure...YET ANOTHER fundamental scientific error by misunderstanding the nature of statistics. Please provide evidence that the rate of murder that is purportedly caused by watching violent films is greater than the rate of murder that is not caused by watching violent films. Indeed, I would wager that it is not. The large majority of murders, I would wager, occur during other crimes, or due to personal vendettas. Some of the most horrible murder sprees have no association with art, film, etc. (Jack the Ripper, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, The Green River killer, Richard Ramirez (the only connection they found between him and AC/DC was a ball cap), etc.) If the few CRAZY PEOPLE who got their "inspiration" from art had not seen violent works, they would have drawn it from elsewhere, i.e. voices in their head, a COMPLETE REINTERPRETATION to the lyrics of the Beatles song "Helter Skelter", etc. Perhaps if people like you would place the blame where it belongs -- ON THE MURDERERS -- rather than on the films they watched, we would be able to get them some mental help and do some real good. Thank you SCIENCE and CARL SAGAN for bringing clarity to my life. Thank you ART for bringing joy to my life. -- Added later -- Oh yeah, and this is the claim of the lawyer...You don't think lawyers LIE to get their clients off the hook?! I recall at one point, a lawyer invented "The Twinkie Defense" stating that his client was "crazy from eating too much junk food". This idiotic suggestion worked, and that was the dawn of a new era in criminal defence. Since then, lawyers have been inventing all kinds of excuses, just for THE SOLE PURPOSE of getting reasonable doubt, which is all that is required for the jury to return "not guilty". www.ohnonews.com/twinkie.html |
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Jun 26, 2003 6:45:13 GMT -6
Excellent post René - couldn't agree more. I'm going to state something in the words of Chris Rock. I'm sure that all of the pros and most of the antis will agree with me on this one. With regards to the Columbine murders: "Everybody wants to know what the kids was listening to. What kinda music was they listening to? What kinda movies was they watching? Who gives a *f---* what they was watching?! What ever happened to CRAZY?" Why do people feel the need to blame murders and crime on movies, music, art, Democratic politics, Republican politics, etc.? There were plenty of murders before any one of these things existed. People just do it to further their own cause. They use the death of another person as a stepping stone to get what they want. It's disgusting, really. First of all, by blaming anything or anyone other than the murderer, you remove blame from him/her. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2003 15:27:43 GMT -6
I don't think this really belongs in the DP forum, but I'll bite anyway. I'm going to state something in the words of Chris Rock. I'm sure that all of the pros and most of the antis will agree with me on this one. With regards to the Columbine murders: "Everybody wants to know what the kids was listening to. What kinda music was they listening to? What kinda movies was they watching? Who gives a *f---* what they was watching?! What ever happened to CRAZY?" Why do people feel the need to blame murders and crime on movies, music, art, Democratic politics, Republican politics, etc.? There were plenty of murders before any one of these things existed. People just do it to further their own cause. They use the death of another person as a stepping stone to get what they want. It's disgusting, really. First of all, by blaming anything or anyone other than the murderer, you remove blame from him/her. Further, the argument doesn't hold water for the following reasons (The first one is a theory I propose, the rest are facts): 1) a) Legally, a person is not culpable for their actions if it was an act of insanity. In the legal sense, insanity refers to the inability to distinguish between "right" and "wrong". b) The act of murder is one that is, in general, condemned by all humans. In the moral and legal sense, it is "wrong" and we expect all people to be able to recognize this. c) A person watching a film in which people are killed should be able to recognize that what he/she sees on the screen is "wrong". If they do, they will not reproduce these actions. If they do not, they may reproduce these actions, however, if they do, they are clearly unable to distinguish between right and wrong. d) Therefore, they are legally, and probably clinically, insane, and were so at the time that they watched the film. e) They are clearly not the basis on which one would wish to make such an analysis. 2) By condemning culture such as films, the VAST majority of viewers who do not go on to kill someone is ignored. This is a simple example of the fundamental scientific error of observational selection or "counting the hits, and forgetting the misses". It's an extreme example, as well, since the number of misses is FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR greater than the number of hits. 3) Committing another fundamental scientific error: "Confusion of causation and correlation". Yes, people who commit violent crimes may tend to watch violent movies, but are violent people drawn to violent movies or do violent movies cause people to become violent? Occam's Razor, and common sense, tell us that the former is almost certainly fact. The latter remains to be seen. 4) By assuming that the mere act of watching a film BEFORE a violent crime occurs has caused the violent crime to occur (with no substantiating proof of causation), one commits the fundamental scientific error of "post hoc, ergo proper hoc" or "it happened after, therefore it was caused by". With some hyperbole, it is as nonsensical as arguing that brushing your teeth in the morning caused you to get hit by a bus in the afternoon. 5) Committing YET ANOTHER fundamental scientific error by relying on the statistics of small numbers. Just because there are a few individuals who have committed such crimes does not mean that the trend holds true for the population as a whole. For example, it is a fact that approximately one out of every five people on Earth is Chinese. You may argue that this is not true because you know 100 people and none of them are Chinese. Small numbers don't work for scientific proof. 6) My oh my...Who would figure...YET ANOTHER fundamental scientific error by misunderstanding the nature of statistics. Please provide evidence that the rate of murder that is purportedly caused by watching violent films is greater than the rate of murder that is not caused by watching violent films. Indeed, I would wager that it is not. The large majority of murders, I would wager, occur during other crimes, or due to personal vendettas. Some of the most horrible murder sprees have no association with art, film, etc. (Jack the Ripper, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, The Green River killer, Richard Ramirez (the only connection they found between him and AC/DC was a ball cap), etc.) If the few CRAZY PEOPLE who got their "inspiration" from art had not seen violent works, they would have drawn it from elsewhere, i.e. voices in their head, a COMPLETE REINTERPRETATION to the lyrics of the Beatles song "Helter Skelter", etc. Perhaps if people like you would place the blame where it belongs -- ON THE MURDERERS -- rather than on the films they watched, we would be able to get them some mental help and do some real good. Thank you SCIENCE and CARL SAGAN for bringing clarity to my life. Thank you ART for bringing joy to my life. -- Added later -- Oh yeah, and this is the claim of the lawyer...You don't think lawyers LIE to get their clients off the hook?! I recall at one point, a lawyer invented "The Twinkie Defense" stating that his client was "crazy from eating too much junk food". This idiotic suggestion worked, and that was the dawn of a new era in criminal defence. Since then, lawyers have been inventing all kinds of excuses, just for THE SOLE PURPOSE of getting reasonable doubt, which is all that is required for the jury to return "not guilty". www.ohnonews.com/twinkie.htmlas your most liberal hard core anti would say, WHAT`S YOUR POINT,OR WHAT DOES THIS PROVE,OR A WITTY SAYING PROVES NOTHING(FORGET ABOUT IF IT HAS ANY SUBSTANCE TO THE SAYING)OR,THIS IS BASED ON MYTH AND NOT FACT,OR ETC. by the way i loved it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2003 10:10:58 GMT -6
as your most liberal hard core anti would say, WHAT`S YOUR POINT,OR WHAT DOES THIS PROVE,OR A WITTY SAYING PROVES NOTHING(FORGET ABOUT IF IT HAS ANY SUBSTANCE TO THE SAYING)OR,THIS IS BASED ON MYTH AND NOT FACT,OR ETC. by the way i loved it. Darren, in fact a witty saying proves nothing at all, simply because there are always witty sayings for both sides. This has nothing to do with hardcore liberalism, unless you have a witty saying that proves the opposite, of course. I doubt you have many witty sayings at all, though. |
|
|
|
Post by matthew outside on Jun 29, 2003 2:07:38 GMT -6
Uncle Blam Warns you folks...stop the Yada, Yada talk and watch out ! its Uncle Blam Reagan .....!!!  Uncle Blam WARNS You ! ....well people, I got shot full of holes as a swiss-cheese thanks to a moron inspired by the film slop-masters.....despite all my hundreds of body-guards, the CIA, FBI, armoured limousines, Air-Force One, etc, et .........if they couldn't help me .....who can help you......its BLAM...BLAM for you as well ! stop all the correlation and causation factors yada...yada.....and watch your step, I'm the only Leader in World History to have had an assasination attempt because of Films & Arts ! --------------------------- Accused: Your Honor, I broke King Sennacherib's skull with an iron club because his rule was very cruel and Assyria was on the verge of anarchy. Judge: Hmmm....Prosecution, present the evidence please............... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accused: Your Honor, we stabbed Julius Caesar becuase his foreign policy was weakening Rome Judge: Hmmm....Prosecution, present the evidence please............... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accused: Your Honor, I shot Richard the LionHeart with a cross-bow because his soldiers had destroyed our town and killed many members of my family. Judge: Hmmm....Prosecution, present the evidence please............... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accused: Your Honor, I shot the Arch-Duke because the Astro-Hungarian Empire was persecuting Serbs and supressing Serbia Judge: Hmmm....Prosecution, present the evidence please............... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accused: Your Honor, I shot Mahatma Gandhi because he preached peace and tolerance between all religions in India Judge: Hmmm....Prosecution, present the evidence please............... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accused: Your Honor, I shot Martin Luther King because he wanted equality and freedom for all races Judge: Hmmm....Prosecution, present the evidence please............... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accused: Your Honor, I shot President Anwar Sadat because he made peace between Egypt and Israel Judge: Hmmm....Prosecution, present the evidence please............... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accused: Your Honor, I shot the Pope because he preached tolerance between all faiths and peoples Judge: Hmmm....Prosecution, present the evidence please............... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accused: Your Honor, I shot Prime Minster Yitzhak Rabin because he made peace between the Palestinians and Israel Judge: Hmmm....Prosecution, present the evidence please............... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accused: Your Honor, I shot President Reagan to impress an actress who was ignoring my advances..... glug...glurk......swoon.....CRASH !!!!! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
Post by bueller007 on Jul 2, 2003 16:35:02 GMT -6
Uncle Blam Warns you folks...stop the Yada, Yada talk and watch out ! its Uncle Blam Reagan .....!!! Uncle Blam WARNS You ! ....well people, I got shot full of holes as a swiss-cheese thanks to a moron inspired by the film slop-masters.....despite all my hundreds of body-guards, the CIA, FBI, armoured limousines, Air-Force One, etc, et .........if they couldn't help me .....who can help you......its BLAM...BLAM for you as well ! stop all the correlation and causation factors yada...yada.....and watch your step, I'm the only Leader in World History to have had an assasination attempt because of Films & Arts ! Yes, thanks for making my case for me. One leader out of many thousands of leaders has had an assassination attempt because of the arts. It sounds to me like you just poked a giant hole in your own argument. And please stop replying to me with rhetorical nonsense such as this. State your case in scientific terms. Facts and the relevant sources (from a reliable publication) are always welcome. If you hate art so much, you should at least be grounded in science, lest you earn the title of King Ignoramus. You know, for someone who hates art so much, you sure do a lot of Photoshop work to design pictures that supposedly, in some way only beknownst to you, make your case. Be careful, or this might be construed as art! You are like the David Lynch of debate. What you do only makes sense to you, and more and more of your twisted character is revealed everytime you do something. I guess the only difference is that David Lynch has a very aesthetic eye, whereas you appear to be blind. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2003 11:13:33 GMT -6
ho ho ho....Art that does not involve naked Women as its main subject seems tolerable (which is the main topic it seems) !
Reagan...Actor.....Leader of his Cuntry.......shot in his own Country which has the biggest Film Industry in History........due to Films...co-incidence ? ha ha ho ho !!
|
|
|
|
Post by bueller007 on Jul 5, 2003 11:41:08 GMT -6
ho ho ho....Art that does not involve naked Women as its main subject seems tolerable (which is the main topic it seems) ! Reagan...Actor.....Leader of his *deleted*ry.......shot in his own Country which has the biggest Film Industry in History........due to Films...co-incidence ? ha ha ho ho !! Naked women, not unlike clothed women, are beautiful. Most artists are men, and most men love women, thus, it is not surprising that they focus on the lovely female form in their art. Jodie Foster has never appeared nude. Please attempt to form a logical and rational argument when you speak to me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2003 11:05:14 GMT -6
ho ho....she did appear in one film topless..he he... women taking clothes off is SCIENTIFICALLY an invitation to sex........ART is ART-ificial, just an invention by humans..... vulgar Art should have a punishment = murder according to the ancient Laws of Mesopotamia (which also first stated that killing was wrong) ps: those who like to draw and paint naked women also have killed the largest numbers of people in history...coincidence ? ---------- Hitler killed the Jews not because he was angered by the influence of Jewish Society on German Values & Culture as he most probably did not know the diffrence between the Talmud and a Taco, but because he felt that he was failed his admission to the Vienna Art Academy in 1909 by the Jews who were working in the Academy. Shortly after his failure in the entrance exams he wrote to a friend "I'm sure the World lost much by their failure to make me an Artist, or does fate spare me for something else.......?" In Mien Kampf he writes, "I left the Jew ridden & decaying city of Vienna in disgust". Of course if he had been selected for admission, he would have been very happy working with the Jews in the Academy and might even have migrated to Hollywood later and become a famous Film Director in some big Jewish owned Film company like MGM Studios...... .........or Nero did not exterminate the Christians in Rome because he felt that Roman Values were being corrupted by Christian ideals, but because he wanted a scapegoat to put the blame on after setting fire to Rome to create the largest monumental Artwork in History. And certainly, both loved undressed Women.......the Fuhrer like to paint naked Women, while Nero like to see lots of naked dancing girls gyrate for him. www.hitler.org/artwww.hitler.org/art/nudes/ |
|
|
|
Post by marcuskrc on Aug 4, 2003 10:52:15 GMT -6
ho ho....she did appear in one film topless..he he... women taking clothes off is SCIENTIFICALLY an invitation to sex........ART is ART-ificial, just an invention by humans..... vulgar Art should have a punishment = murder according to the ancient Laws of Mesopotamia (which also first stated that killing was wrong) ps: those who like to draw and paint naked women also have killed the largest numbers of people in history...coincidence ? ---------- Hitler killed the Jews not because he was angered by the influence of Jewish Society on German Values & Culture as he most probably did not know the diffrence between the Talmud and a Taco, but because he felt that he was failed his admission to the Vienna Art Academy in 1909 by the Jews who were working in the Academy. Shortly after his failure in the entrance exams he wrote to a friend "I'm sure the World lost much by their failure to make me an Artist, or does fate spare me for something else.......?" In Mien Kampf he writes, "I left the Jew ridden & decaying city of Vienna in disgust". Of course if he had been selected for admission, he would have been very happy working with the Jews in the Academy and might even have migrated to Hollywood later and become a famous Film Director in some big Jewish owned Film company like MGM Studios...... .........or Nero did not exterminate the Christians in Rome because he felt that Roman Values were being corrupted by Christian ideals, but because he wanted a scapegoat to put the blame on after setting fire to Rome to create the largest monumental Artwork in History. And certainly, both loved undressed Women.......the Fuhrer like to paint naked Women, while Nero like to see lots of naked dancing girls gyrate for him. www.hitler.org/artwww.hitler.org/art/nudes/Excuse me Matthew, but you and reality should get to know each other one of these days.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
