Really, I guess it's just me then...Once again i correct you... your POV is distorted . It is not encouraged !!!
And posts #37, 38, 39 & 40...oops!
Really, I guess it's just me then...Once again i correct you... your POV is distorted . It is not encouraged !!!
What is sad is that a mistake can sometimes have tragic consequenses. We all make mistakes. When they end in death that is always sad. Nobody is asking you to feel sorry for anybody but it is definetely sad that there sees to be an absense of empathy on your part for people that make mistakes. Or at least that is how your words came accross. Is that really what you meant? There are all sorts of circumstances that lead people to make choices that to those that do not know them well may seem stupid and risky. It is easy to judge those that we dont know. You think no one would care what happens to you? I doubt that very much. Perhaps that person jaywalking was in a hurry to pick up his/her child from school because a doctor's appointment ran late.... Maybe they just received a phone call that their brother was in an accident and the hospital was right accross the road.... "deserving" to die for breaking a rule seems harsh. THe passenger of a drunk driver may not have known the driver was drunk....I don't think too many people will care what happens to me. You certainly won't from your tone.
If you get hit while using a crosswalk, that's tragic and the police can do something about it. You took efforts to cross in the right place. If you're jaywalking, that's another story. You're on your own there unless the car takes off. Then it's hit and run and the police can do something about that part. You want me to feel sorry for a kid that knew there were cars out there and chose to cross anyway despite what he/she had been taught? Sounds like a stupid kid to me.
Flying isn't dangerous. It's safer than driving. A person who choses to use an airline is not involving himself or herself in a high risk lifestyle.
This thread is about the Surrey Hockey Mom murder, a tragic case of an innocent woman who was in the wrong place at the wrong time who had no affiliation with her killer and no warning that she was going to be entering into a dangerous situation. Her killer is still on the loose and will likely kill another innocent person again. I don't know why that doesn't concern you, but the other murder does.
IMHO the bolded sentence above typifies an attitude that is part of the reason for much of the violence we still see in Western societies. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what kind of sob stories about their sad lives the violent criminals spin once they've been caught. The cold hard truth is that every single one of them made a deliberate choice to use criminal violence as a tool to attain their personal goals. And at that point, no sir, they absolutely and positively are not "victims as well"...I do feel for the family and friends of this woman. The circumstances in this case is very different then the Jan 1 case, and the two do not compare in any way.
The Jan 1 case is tragic on more levels from what we know of the lady's background...how and why she got to where she was is part of the story.
In the Surrey woman's case, when we find out about the killer, it will perhaps change the circumstances from which we view this killing. In many of these cases the killer is a victim as well, and there is a sad story behind his nor her life.
What amazes me the most, is how lights weren't maintained, how the facility wasn't properly managed considering it was a 'known' area...it seems to me there are a lot of other folks with some blood on their hands for recognizing the potential of danger, but not doing anything.
Not to mention a police station that has bankers hours....
Surrey also doesn't have enough officers to police the city. Vancouver and Surrey are almost the same size. Vancouver has 1,400 officers. Surrey has 650 officers.It's a tragic loss of life. The sad thing is, not a damn thing will be done to make that area safe. That arena has always been dark and contains some seriously shady people who are hanging out and doing drug transactions near the entrance of the arena. Then they either head towards the back of the arena towards the library or they hop on the bus at the depot across the street. It's been this way for at least 25 years.
He must as he probably just got blacklisted from all the SP's.ound:
I think you forgot to bold the sentence you were referring too. Nonetheless, I do think I wasn't clear in my comments. First, I am as red neck as they come, not some lefty with a "oh it was his upbringing, that's why he did this.."...but at the same time there is always another story behind the story, that changes how we view the situation. In other words the problem is much larger then we care to admit.IMHO the bolded sentence above typifies an attitude that is part of the reason for much of the violence we still see in Western societies. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what kind of sob stories about their sad lives the violent criminals spin once they've been caught. The cold hard truth is that every single one of them made a deliberate choice to use criminal violence as a tool to attain their personal goals. And at that point, no sir, they absolutely and positively are not "victims as well"...
thats what i wanted to know ...seems to me she should have been inside watching her kid! makes me think there might be a little more to the storyi'm just being curious here - but has anybody said what she was doing waiting OUTSIDE the arena for the game to end?
maybe she went outside for a smoke? man, that would be a major bummer...thats what i wanted to know ...seems to me she should have been inside watching her kid! makes me think there might be a little more to the story
If you dont like hockey then dont watch it ,Of course violence is encouraged in hockey and the entire concept that fighting is needed in order to police opposing players from using their sticks or taking liberties is ridiculous. Referees and league commitment is what is required to cut violence out of hockey. There are many tough, high contact sports where officials have a very high level of control of all players and all but eliminate much of the extraneous violence that is so prevalent in hockey.
Look at rugby for one. If a player is caught throwing a single punch or for dirty play he is sin-binned for 10 minutes - a very large penalty. Referees will red-card players if anything gets even remotely close to the violence that seems to be accepted in hockey - and that team plays a man down the entire remainder of the match (never mind that the player will likely have a league hearing to determine if further suspensions are required). And if a referee doesn't catch the offense during play he is still subject to video review and later suspensions.
If a guy has a history of violent play he is likely to get a lengthy ban if not kicked out of their union.
The result is that it is rare to see fighting in rugby and the sport for the most part is played extremely tough but gentlemanly.
Players who made careers out of fighting in the NHL wouldn't last 1/2 a season in a sport like rugby nor would shit disturbers like Marchand or Cooke last.
And to say that violence is "needed" or else the game is ruined? The best hockey to watch is Olympic and international hockey and you almost never see that kind of violence.
If I want to see fighting for sport I'll watch professional MMA or boxing where the participants at least having some skill. Violence in hockey is what ruins the sport - it doesn't make it (never mind that hockey brawls are ridiculous bad displays of fighting prowess as well)
would be interesting to see what the budgets are for the two cities?Surrey also doesn't have enough officers to police the city. Vancouver and Surrey are almost the same size. Vancouver has 1,400 officers. Surrey has 650 officers.






