Wrestler Chris Benoit and family found dead in their home

[RakEx]

lost my post

[Creeps]

I guess you could say I'm a cynic, but I prefer the term "realist".

There's nothing ignorant about my statements. Murder is against the law. Maybe you should reread my post and concentrate real hard (could be difficult for you, I know) on the part where I said I don't agree with a lot of American standards. Are you seriously going to argue with me about a murder suicide being right or wrong? You need to learn to pick your battles, because this is an argument you won't win. If you think you can justify a murder suicide because of stress, drug abuse and an altered mental state, you need more help than Benoit did.

[RakEx]

I'm sure a lawyer would have proved without a shadow of a doubt, that Benoit could not make those decisions in his mindset at that time.

[Intense]

In a cause and effect way, I can say yeah sure it's 100% his fault because he decided to wrestle and exposed himself to injury which may have eventually contributed to his mental state which led to this murder/ suicide. I'm not saying he isn't responsible, I'm just saying you can't judge his character from this act. Especially since by the suicide I would assume he was still either batshit insane or showed some form of remorse for what he did.

Yes, I think I could. I can say that he didnt fufill his responsibility to his family to seek help. I can say that he used those painkillers as a crutch due to a failed marriage. A lot of conclusions can be drawn. I will not be victimizing this guy though. Adults are responsible for their actions, and I can concede that *maybe* he isnt responsible for the murder itself in the sense that he lost it, but the events leading up to and causing them ARE his fault.

[MF Perm]

I guess you could say I'm a cynic, but I prefer the term "realist".

There's nothing ignorant about my statements. Murder is against the law. Maybe you should reread my post and concentrate real hard (could be difficult for you, I know) on the part where I said I don't agree with a lot of American standards. Are you seriously going to argue with me about a murder suicide being right or wrong? You need to learn to pick your battles, because this is an argument you won't win. If you think you can justify a murder suicide because of stress, drug abuse and an altered mental state, you need more help than Benoit did.

You might to go back and reread all of my posts letter by letter ( could be difficult for you I know, you missed the opportunity three times now before replying ) and determine exactly what I'm talking about.

You sound like a moron disputing something I never said or an idea I never implied right about your first post ago.

But if you want to get back to being civil I'll spell it out clearly for you, then you can go back and double check it for reference.


I said the act itself was despicable comma murder is bad period The point I am making is against the judgement of a persons entire character based on an act period



God forbid you lose your shit someday for some reason and kill people. Then because you're tied to this board and it gets to us people are saying how terrible of a person you are.

DON'T WORRY THOUGH, I'LL STILL DEFEND YOU

[Intense]

I'm sure a lawyer would have proved without a shadow of a doubt, that Benoit could not make those decisions in his mindset at that time.

Thats easy to prove, just get an expert witness who will say this. But, you can argue that he neglected and put himself in that position, still making it his fault. Maybe to a lesser degree, but he would be held accountable. He is not the victim, his son is.

[MF Perm]

In a cause and effect way, I can say yeah sure it's 100% his fault because he decided to wrestle and exposed himself to injury which may have eventually contributed to his mental state which led to this murder/ suicide. I'm not saying he isn't responsible, I'm just saying you can't judge his character from this act. Especially since by the suicide I would assume he was still either batshit insane or showed some form of remorse for what he did.

Yes, I think I could. I can say that he didnt fufill his responsibility to his family to seek help. I can say that he used those painkillers as a crutch due to a failed marriage. A lot of conclusions can be drawn. I will not be victimizing this guy though. Adults are responsible for their actions, and I can concede that *maybe* he isnt responsible for the murder itself in the sense that he lost it, but the events leading up to and causing them ARE his fault.

Which is a point I conceded to you. There are several levels besides the competing, including the drugs which lead up to it being his fault. I said it in what you quoted, and again I am agreeing with you completely.

Now if he did all of that in advance knowing down the road he would commit this specific act, fuck yes he's a piece of shit scumbag and deserved to die. But he didn't did he? So I'm going to reserve judgment on his character because of my knowledge of one act. And one step further I'm not going to condemn him or call him names and opine to what I think he deserves.

That's a bit different from victimizing him or justifying his acts.

[archibaldcrane]

Everyone needs to have that moral compass - the capacity to make correct choices. This guy lost his, and did something really fucking evil. Whether he lost it via drugs, stress, brain damage, whatever, he lost it. And when you lose your moral compass, I'm sorry, but you become evil. Insanity from brain damage or steroids or whatever other batshit theories we are proposing to try to make sense of this might help us understand how he lost his sense of right and wrong, but that doesn't mean he didn't become evil. I don't care if you see the world as black and white or a million shades of lighter and darker grey - once you murder your wife (after a history of domestic abuse), and especially once you smother your innocent 7-year-old son, you are on the black side of that scale, whether it's the scale of shades of grey or black and white.

He murdered a 7-year-old. That's not a "bad day". That's not "oh, he was going through a really hard spot in his life right now". That's an evil motherfucker.

[RakEx]

I'm sure a lawyer would have proved without a shadow of a doubt, that Benoit could not make those decisions in his mindset at that time.

Thats easy to prove, just get an expert witness who will say this. But, you can argue that he neglected and put himself in that position, still making it his fault. Maybe to a lesser degree, but he would be held accountable. He is not the victim, his son is.

Can we agree that he would not be convicted of murder, most likely?

[Tyche]

You kill your wife and kids, you are seriously messed up in the head and you aren't a good person.

This is the kind of mentality I'm talking about. If you're messed up in the head, you aren't a good person. It's this kind of ignorance that creates 99% of the problems we face in the world.

I'm not saying this is how you think, but it's the same line of reasoning that racists think "such and such race" is inferior, or that TG and homosexuals are deviants and have psychological issues.


Good is a subjective word. Sure it's your opinion, but it would present alot of force in the world if it were an educated one.

My opinion isn't educated and you are drawing comparisions between a rational opinion and a racist? If I think someone who murders their wife and a kid and has a history of abuse/threats is a horrible person, then I have a justifiable opinion. Racism is never justifiable. Draw better parallels before you rip apart my opinion. There seems to be this notion that if one can achieve a remarkable amount of good deeds and be a great humanitarian, that they should be perceived as such no matter what. Absolutely not true. Like I stated, I could care less how many good things he done for others, or his attitude toward others, what he done, if he done it how the reports are stating, he deserves to burn in hell forever, and I'm not even a religous person >.>

[Elmer the Pointy]

MF Perm and Septimus are intelligent people.

[MF Perm]

I'm sure a lawyer would have proved without a shadow of a doubt, that Benoit could not make those decisions in his mindset at that time.

Thats easy to prove, just get an expert witness who will say this. But, you can argue that he neglected and put himself in that position, still making it his fault. Maybe to a lesser degree, but he would be held accountable. He is not the victim, his son is.

Can we agree that he would not be convicted of murder, most likely?

I doubt it. Law is relative and it would take more to prove he was crazy when he did it, than to prove he was not - to a jury of 12.

Defense would need loads of experts on several different fields and that still may not be enough. And since Johnny Cochrane is dead, I don't think he'd stand a chance in hell in a courtroom.

[Intense]

Putting his career in the spotlight aside. Anyone with a search engine can bring up articles of people going crazy off roids and painkillers. You cant just take them and assume everything will be honkey dorey. The first sign of trouble, he should have gone and sought help, its well known what these things are capable of.

I noticed you mentioned certain things, but that doesnt explain it away, and if you werent trying to explain it away, what were you hoping to accomplish by stating those things? I'm confused.

I used the word "victimizing" prematurly I think though.

[Intense]

I doubt it. Law is relative and it would take more to prove he was crazy when he did it, than to prove he was not - to a jury of 12.

Defense would need loads of experts on several different fields and that still may not be enough. And since Johnny Cochrane is dead, I don't think he'd stand a chance in hell in a courtroom.

Jury of 12 in a case where the defendent is a celebrity is bullshit though.

[MF Perm]

Putting his career in the spotlight aside. Anyone with a search engine can bring up articles of people going crazy off roids and painkillers. You cant just take them and assume everything will be honkey dorey. The first sign of trouble, he should have gone and sought help, its well known what these things are capable of.

I noticed you mentioned certain things, but that doesnt explain it away, and if you werent trying to explain it away, what were you hoping to accomplish by stating those things? I'm confused.

I used the word "victimizing" prematurly I think though.

Maybe I should just define my stance in abstract terms. I don't think that people are inherently "evil." I don't think a bad decision or act makes someone a bad person. There are situations within and out of our grasp that shape who we are and what we do.

I don't think we should condemn a persons character - which in this case spanned what, 40 years-ish? - based on one act. That's all I'm saying.


I tried to carefully point that out before I started, I knew this was going to be uphill, but I probably didn't explain myself well enough since people are jumping on this issue like I'm defending the guy for murder or saying it was ok because he might have been crazy. Edit: Which is not what I'm saying or trying to justify.


Does that make sense to everyone?

[Intense]

You should word your shit better, were about to burn your ass at the stake.

EDIT: You said some things that I can argue, but I'm sure other people will do it more eloquently. So I wont.

[RakEx]

I doubt it. Law is relative and it would take more to prove he was crazy when he did it, than to prove he was not - to a jury of 12.

Defense would need loads of experts on several different fields and that still may not be enough. And since Johnny Cochrane is dead, I don't think he'd stand a chance in hell in a courtroom.

Jury of 12 in a case where the defendent is a celebrity is bullshit though.

Celebrity status aside. I still don't think he gets convicted with life in prison or death, in any state in the country. Too many mitigating factors most of which would be nuerological and he would be in a high security mental prison for a long time.

[MF Perm]

You should word your shit better, were about to burn your ass at the stake.

EDIT: You said some things that I can argue, but I'm sure other people will do it more eloquently. So I wont.

lol

[Intense]

I doubt it. Law is relative and it would take more to prove he was crazy when he did it, than to prove he was not - to a jury of 12.

Defense would need loads of experts on several different fields and that still may not be enough. And since Johnny Cochrane is dead, I don't think he'd stand a chance in hell in a courtroom.

Jury of 12 in a case where the defendent is a celebrity is bullshit though.

Celebrity status aside. I still don't think he gets convicted with life in prison or death, in any state in the country. Too many mitigating factors most of which would be nuerological and he would be in a high security mental prison for a long time.

He would still pay his debt to society though.

[Mysterio]

in conclusion,

Chris Benoit had serious problems which obviously culminated at this point. Whether or not he was a "good" or "bad" person can only really be defined by those who knew him, and judging by some of those tributes it would seem he was respected by many people. I am sure there is many things which contributed to this happening(drug use would be one). So lets be realistic here, he offed his wife and child, nothing excuses that. If he had just taken his own life, and not the lives of others this would be a seriously different debate.