Federal Judge Finds USAF Responsible For Texas Church Massacre - Page 2

**44 AMP** · July 17, 2021, 03:19 PM

We have a deeply imbedded belief in this country that, when something bad happens, someone is responsible, and that, someone should compensate (pay) the victims (or surviving family, etc) for their suffering.

And, when the individual actually responsible cannot pay (as often they are dead) that someone else still must be responsible, and they must pay.

They go down a list of all parties involved in any degree, looking for the ones with the deepest pockets and claim they are responsible and so should pay.

Actual moral and ethical responsibility for the act seems to take a back seat, or even be ignored in the pursuit of "making someone pay".

Is this true 100% of the time? No. Is it true some (or even most) of the time? sure looks like it to me.

Likewise we have a popular idea that we should know what a person is going to do, based on what they have done. In my mind, this is a bit stupid, and fails entirely to account for the concept of free will.

Why is it that we are constantly told NOT to judge future performance of a stock based on its past, and we are often told not to judge members of certain groups based on the behavior of SOME members of the group, yet we are expected to "know" what an individual is going to do, and act on that, and are somehow responsible for his actions, if we do not???

I forget who said it (or when) but "the mind of man is as trackless as a bog at midnight" is an apt statement.

Even the mental health professionals can only judge an individual by what that person TELLS them, in addition to what they actually do.

SO, anyone who is a good enough liar, and who has not yet committed a crime can pass any check, test, or interview. We all are, "innocent until proven guilty" are we not???
(actually not, but we're supposed to be...

)

Another (small) point to consider when asking "why isn't the wife to blame for not telling the authorities" is the fact that she is the wife /ex-wife and generally speaking the authorities consider the word of an ex to be potentially biased.

And, then there is also the risk of legal consequences from "false accusations" and false statements. One may "know" he's a bad guy, nd you may "know" that sooner or later he's going to do something criminal. BUT, where's the proof?? And, if they haven't done it YET, they MAY never do it, and you may be open to charges for accusing them "falsely".

This does matter when one is talking really serious stuff. Its human nature to CYA, so going out on a limb about something without concrete proof is fairly rare. It is my understanding that some "mental health professional" didn't classify the Virginia Tech murderer as dangerous (prior to the killing spree) due to the risks to their professional standing if they were wrong.

This may or may not be true, but if true its a common human failing, and while understandable, I don't think its forgivable.

10-96 · July 17, 2021, 04:08 PM

Does anyone know if the Army opened it's pockets for the MAJ Nidal Hasan shooting at Ft. Hood?

I agree, Americans have been conditioned to expect somebody to pay and not just be held guilty.

**Aguila Blanca** · July 17, 2021, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10-96

Does anyone know if the Army opened it's pockets for the MAJ Nidal Hasan shooting at Ft. Hood?

I agree, Americans have been conditioned to expect somebody to pay and not just be held guilty.

I don't know if the Army paid anyone. I don't even know if any of the victims or their survivors sued the Army. But I'm not seeing the parallel. The Air Force had a statutory duty to report the shooter to the NICS system and they failed to carry out that duty.

What statutory duty did the Army fail to carry out in the case of Major Hasan?

**44 AMP** · July 17, 2021, 09:01 PM

Quote:

What statutory duty did the Army fail to carry out in the case of Major Hasan?

In my opinion (and not a legal one) the duty the Army failed was failing to Court Marshal the SOB for "conduct unbecoming" well before he went on a killing spree. (and or failure to repair, disobeying orders. and any other charges that could be brought)

This is, of course, a much different situation than the Air Force failing in its legal administrative responsibility to share information with the appropriate criminal agencies, not just once or twice but a significant systemic failure.

So, I would agree that what the Air Force failed to do was a significant contributing factor, and, for that, they have a responsibility, but, personally, I don't think assigning them a percentage to pay of any damages sought is the right thing to do.

ATN082268 · July 17, 2021, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

So, I would agree that what the Air Force failed to do was a significant contributing factor, and, for that, they have a responsibility, but, personally, I don't think assigning them a percentage to pay of any damages sought is the right thing to do.

Shouldn't the ones doing the shooting be responsible for their actions or does big pockets determine that?

**Spats McGee** · July 19, 2021, 06:31 AM

Let's save the Ft. Hood shooting / Maj. Hasan case for its own thread.

July 17, 2021, 03:19 PM	#26
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,832	We have a deeply imbedded belief in this country that, when something bad happens, someone is responsible, and that, someone should compensate (pay) the victims (or surviving family, etc) for their suffering. And, when the individual actually responsible cannot pay (as often they are dead) that someone else still must be responsible, and they must pay. They go down a list of all parties involved in any degree, looking for the ones with the deepest pockets and claim they are responsible and so should pay. Actual moral and ethical responsibility for the act seems to take a back seat, or even be ignored in the pursuit of "making someone pay". Is this true 100% of the time? No. Is it true some (or even most) of the time? sure looks like it to me. Likewise we have a popular idea that we should know what a person is going to do, based on what they have done. In my mind, this is a bit stupid, and fails entirely to account for the concept of free will. Why is it that we are constantly told NOT to judge future performance of a stock based on its past, and we are often told not to judge members of certain groups based on the behavior of SOME members of the group, yet we are expected to "know" what an individual is going to do, and act on that, and are somehow responsible for his actions, if we do not??? I forget who said it (or when) but "the mind of man is as trackless as a bog at midnight" is an apt statement. Even the mental health professionals can only judge an individual by what that person TELLS them, in addition to what they actually do. SO, anyone who is a good enough liar, and who has not yet committed a crime can pass any check, test, or interview. We all are, "innocent until proven guilty" are we not??? (actually not, but we're supposed to be...) Another (small) point to consider when asking "why isn't the wife to blame for not telling the authorities" is the fact that she is the wife /ex-wife and generally speaking the authorities consider the word of an ex to be potentially biased. And, then there is also the risk of legal consequences from "false accusations" and false statements. One may "know" he's a bad guy, nd you may "know" that sooner or later he's going to do something criminal. BUT, where's the proof?? And, if they haven't done it YET, they MAY never do it, and you may be open to charges for accusing them "falsely". This does matter when one is talking really serious stuff. Its human nature to CYA, so going out on a limb about something without concrete proof is fairly rare. It is my understanding that some "mental health professional" didn't classify the Virginia Tech murderer as dangerous (prior to the killing spree) due to the risks to their professional standing if they were wrong. This may or may not be true, but if true its a common human failing, and while understandable, I don't think its forgivable. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

July 17, 2021, 04:08 PM	#27
10-96 Senior Member Join Date: October 19, 2005 Location: Tx Panhandle Territory Posts: 4,159	Does anyone know if the Army opened it's pockets for the MAJ Nidal Hasan shooting at Ft. Hood? I agree, Americans have been conditioned to expect somebody to pay and not just be held guilty. __________________ Rednecks... Keeping the woods critter-free since March 2, 1836. (TX Independence Day) I suspect a thing or two... because I've seen a thing or two.

July 19, 2021, 06:31 AM	#31
Spats McGee Staff Join Date: July 28, 2010 Location: Arkansas Posts: 8,821	Let's save the Ft. Hood shooting / Maj. Hasan case for its own thread. __________________ I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.