Sheriff says Atlanta shooting suspect was “fed up” and had a “really bad day”

[zzizzer]

I appreciate that there's a thread on this topic already, but I wanted to highlight and talk about this particular response to it if possible somehow.

A man literally drove around carefully to different places to murder women, over and over again. He killed eight women and shot more. In response a US official actually said these sympathetic words out loud about him.

So once again, we have someone defending a man for snapping and going on a murderous rampage against women. We see this over and over in the media ("he was such a quiet guy, he was always friendly and nice, this came out of the blue, he snapped because she left him").

Murderers aren't pure monsters of course, and we don't need to pretend they're all super villains all the time to all people. But this guy in particular clearly fetishised and abused and hated women. This wasn't some random spur of the moment accident. So why the defence?

I don't even know what my point is here except a level of incoherent fury.
www.revolt.tv/2021/3/17/22336400/sheriff-says-atlanta-shooter-bad-day

This is a quote from the same article:

"He apparently has an issue, what he considers a sex addiction, and sees these locations as... a temptation for him that he wanted to eliminate.”"

So he was only trying to help himself get better. That should be applauded

Apparently the Sherrif that said that has a history on social media of posting racist stuff against Asians, so I’m honestly not surprised.

Police in the US also have a history of downplaying the severity of crimes of white men - didn’t they take another mass shooter to custody via McDonald’s once?

Also when you look at the stats of domestic violence within US police families it’s no wonder they downplay it further when it turns out that they “only” targeted women.

What could be more natural? On those days when a bottle of wine with dinner ir a half litre of chocolate ice cream won’t cut it, taking a gun an slaughtering exploited women is the obvious next step.

I mean, they were only women. It’s not as if he shot actual people with hopes and dreams and families and friends or anything.

Next time I pass the chocolate shop I’m thinking of lobbing in a grenade - I can’t control myself around a block of peanut praline and it’s clearly their fault.

The only person who should defend him is his lawyer - it is important that even the most prolific murderer has a lawyer to defend him. The police must be impartial and stick to the facts of the case. Statement like this show a bias that will be reflected in the case put before the court.

Also he didn’t just carefully shoot women, he targeted women of a specific race. He was both a hateful misogynist and a racist.

In the reportage in the US there is a certain smirking about ‘Asian spas’ as if, if you work in these and possibly engage in prostitution (I have no way of knowing if these women did or did not- it seems at least some of them were just front of house), then your life is worth even less than that of the usual Asian woman and worth mocking after your death. As if then you don’t have families, dreams, loves and grieving loved ones.

In the reportage in the US there is a certain smirking about ‘Asian spas’ as if, if you work in these and possibly engage in prostitution (I have no way of knowing if these women did or did not- it seems at least some of them were just front of house), then your life is worth even less than that of the usual Asian woman and worth mocking after your death. As if then you don’t have families, dreams, loves and grieving loved ones.

I think this is quite common when a male serial killer targets women perceived to be prostitutes. It happened with both the Yorkshire Ripper case and the Ipswich murders in the U.K. They are seen as the wrong kind of victim.

If a woman is fed up and having a bad day they are called all kinds of names if she as much as dares to voice this. A man? A man shoots women dead and he gets a pat on the head with a "there, there"

Yes, this is the type of crime that should have intersectionality champions all over it - racism and sexism are stamped all over it. Instead, they're "not sure" if there's a race angle on it, and only a few mean old feminists are pointing out the obvious misogyny (which includes viewing women working in the sex trade - willingly or otherwise - as less than human).

(Just realised my previous post isn't clear. The people who aren't sure if there's a racism angle aren't intersectionality champions, it's US law enforcement. Media across the board is ignoring the woman angle, though.)

Our government should be making its views on gun control to the US administration at every opportunity. I would support those in the US House or Senate who vote against any extension of the very limited US gun control being denied entry into the UK.

Agree that the only defence should come from a lawyer.

Yes, this is the type of crime that should have intersectionality champions all over it - racism and sexism are stamped all over it.

Quite.

@StringyPotatoes

This is a quote from the same article:

"He apparently has an issue, what he considers a sex addiction, and sees these locations as... a temptation for him that he wanted to eliminate.”"

So he was only trying to help himself get better. That should be applauded

Yes those evil temptresses.

@windymillertheecowarrior

Our government should be making its views on gun control to the US administration at every opportunity. I would support those in the US House or Senate who vote against any extension of the very limited US gun control being denied entry into the UK.

Agree that the only defence should come from a lawyer.

I hadn't realised until this week but 25 years ago our esteemed PM was very much against gun control. I'm not sure he would have much interest in pushing against the US laws.

Triple whammy because the victims were “only”

1. Women
2. Non-white women
3. Alleged prostitutes who were non-white women

The sadness, anger and revulsion against the murders should be the same as if committed against any human. But alas, no...

I see in the papers a man who set fire to his partner and tried to kill her with their child in the house at the time, has been let of jail as he was drunk and it was out of character, and is a 'good person and a good father'.

No, he's neither a good person nor a good father. It's delusional to pretend that someone who sets another human being on fire can still be a 'good person'.

I'm not having a great day today, but will probably manage not to destroy anyone else's life because of it, or to leave them with lifelong trauma while expressing myself.

The only conclusion one can draw is that to the sheriff 'beardy bastard sex addict having a bad day' was a person to be empathised with and his victims were just not real people. They were nothings, collateral damage, non-white women working in the sex trade, human flotsam.

It makes one incandescent with rage.

@StringyPotatoes

This is a quote from the same article:

"He apparently has an issue, what he considers a sex addiction, and sees these locations as... a temptation for him that he wanted to eliminate.”"

So he was only trying to help himself get better. That should be applauded

Totally understandable. I have similar issues with biscuits.

At the heart of it, I can't help wondering if most men have just idly fantasised about murdering everyone (especially all the gobby women in their lives) in their darker moments, and therefore can excuse it more easily?

(And yes that's just a pondering not a solid researched accusation before anyone asks!)