TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- "Marine of the Year" opens fire on a crowd
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

"Marine of the Year" opens fire on a crowd

LAWRENCE, Mass. - A Lawrence man who was named ``Marine of the Year'' last month is charged with firing a shotgun at a crowd of revelers outside his second-floor apartment, wounding two people.
Thirty-three-year-old Daniel Cotnoir allegedly fired a bullet at the crowd only minutes after he called police to complain about the noise they were making as they left a nearby nightclub and restaurant early Saturday.
The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune reports that a 15-year-old girl and a 20-year-old man were injured by bullet fragments from the shooting.
Decorated Marine opened fire on noisy crowd

Daniel Cotnoir, who has been treated for post-war stress since serving in Iraq where he worked as a mortician preparing bodies of U.S. soldiers for burial, was accused by police of firing a shotgun from a window of his apartment in Lawrence into a group of revelers early Saturday after having complained to police about the noise.
US Marine pleads not guilty in nightclub shooting


Like somehow we are supposed to understand that this kind of behavior is ok coming from "The Marine of the Year".

Just where are those gun-control nuts now?

You mean to tell me it's not okay for people to own a gun to protect themselves from people like him who still think they are in the sand?

Please, gimme a friggin break.

nut jobs always make the perfect soldier.

Look at it this way:

If Iraq wasn't invaded that man would not be looking at an attempted murder trial. But since he is "Marine of the Year" I am sure Uncle Sam is pulling out all the stops to take care of one of it's new poster boys for post traumatic stress disorder.

wait wait wait, so youre saying the US shouldnt have gone to war because a nut job started shooting people possibly as a PTS effect???
why should anyone go to war then? why should anyone work in a postal office? pfft why dont we just stop having babies, after all some of them will end up being crazy murderes and rapists and the like.

quote:

Originally posted by Goashem wait wait wait, so youre saying the US shouldnt have gone to war because a nut job started shooting people possibly as a PTS effect???

Had there not been a war to come home from, this man would not be trying to kill civilians. Yes.

There are also stories of maimed GI's that no one seems to remember. Or even the nearly 2000 in combat deaths as well. All the result over a war built on lies.

quote:

why should anyone go to war then?

That's too broad to answer. Refine and ask again.

quote:

why should anyone work in a postal office?

Again too broad. This would involve statistics with work related shootings, if that's what you are implying.

quote:

pfft why dont we just stop having babies, after all some of them will end up being crazy murderes and rapists and the like.

Or make weird posts such as yours.

ok look this guy is obviously crazy, now he could have been crazy before he went to the war as well, but lets assume the war made him crazy. some peoples coping mechanism is not as good as others and these type of things occur. but you cant just stop fighting for what you believe in because a person goes crazy! besides people can go off like that not just from war, people working tedious jobs(like postal workers) and even kids in school went crazy and started shooting up the schools, but you dont suggest we should eliminate those institutions. what they should really do is have a better mental check up when recruiting soldiers and when releasing them.

I see you somehow assesed mental capacity by using the non-clinical term of "crazy".

No one is going to check any someones mental capacity before sending them off to war. They need bodies in those BDUs even if they are a bit shy of a full deck.

quote:

you cant just stop fighting for what you believe in because a person goes crazy!

No one said stop this war over one person. But maybe it should have never started before 2000 GI's and 30,000 civilians died over lies.

ummm no actually i believe they do have mental tests in addition to physical before people are recruited. and even though i havent been here for the pre-iraq war debate im sure its been done to death on these boards and i can assure you there were more reasons to go to iraq beyond WMD.

quote:

Originally posted by Goashem i can assure you there were more reasons to go to iraq beyond WMD.

I'm not new to this new invention called the internet. And don't pretend I know nothing.

I don't think you can assure me of anything:

First: It was over WMD's (none were found)
Second: Quell the insurgency (still fighting, still dying)
Third: Install a democracy (Depends on whether the second ends the third)
Fourth: Iran is sending arms to Iraq (What more reason to invade another country, if you believe this one I have a few bridges to sell, one on the Thames the other in Brooklyn)

omfg, why are you trying to make me seem like im attacking your intelligence? i did not imply anything with my remarks other than i dont want to get into a "why go to iraq" debate. there were many reasons to invade iraq (which you as said you are aware of), not necessarily used by the US government. for me personally it was assuring the safety of neighboring countries such as Israel. every time saddam would go on the television and promised to annihilate my country we had to rush to the nearest base to get our gas masks go to the supermarket stock up on canned food and get our windows and doors sealed, and live in fear of revisiting the gulf war for the next week or so. not fun.

Unless you have seen the face of war and experienced it first hand then STFU. I was involved in the first gulf war and the shite I saw would make your ass shite the bed. Yes some of the returning people come back from war pretty screwed up. Why do they?? Cause war is not like in the movies, its not like a fucking video game, the sounds, sights and the smell of war is something that will never leave me or the others. However, this behaivor should be dealt with swiftly. But most of you have no idea what it feels like to be in a real war. I still will never forget the smell of burning charred flesh or the smell of decaying bodies we found in Kuwait of the little kids that the Iraq Army threw in a hot 6x6 metal boxes just to punish thier parents.
THis poor Marine probrobly came back home with issues, but most of the time our goverment doesn't give a flip about them after they are used up.
Alot of people like to point out returning soldiers mistakes, but it is the goverment not the soldier that makes the decision were to go and who to fight. Pawns. So do not take it out on a poor soldier that has screwed up, it is not his fault. I seriously doubt that he wanted to kill someone, if he did, he would of. He made a bad decision and now he has to live with it.

Re: "Marine of the Year" opens fire on a crowd

quote:

Just where are those gun-control nuts now? You mean to tell me it's not okay for people to own a gun to protect themselves from people like him who still think they are in the sand? Please, gimme a friggin break.

I support owning a gun for self-defense, but the true meaning of the second amendment goes a lot deeper than defense against criminals.

There will be many gun control nuts who will say; "See, this Marine is yet another example of why we should ban all guns under civilian ownership!" I don't think this is the best argument in favor of owning guns (to defend against highly random nut jobs)...nor do I think it is at ALL a reason to ban guns.

But people who use guns illegally (as in this case) have to be held accountable...how accountable? I guess that depends on a lot of things, including his possible post-traumatic stress disorder. Like it or not, if it is a factor, it will be taken in to account, as it should be. But it should NOT be a "Get out of jail free" card by any means, not even close. There will be other factors too, like how bad were people injured, was his intent to injur, was he under the influence, etc...but if it is as bad as it appears, I doubt he'll get out of this with a wrist slap, as you imply.

I think jumping to the conclusion that all servicemen are bad and messed up because they served in a war that you're against is rather selfserving in terms of making an argument, no?

Re: Re: "Marine of the Year" opens fire on a crowd

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX Unless you have seen the face of war and experienced it first hand then STFU. I was involved in the first gulf war and the shite I saw would make your ass shite the bed. Yes some of the returning people come back from war pretty screwed up. Why do they?? Cause war is not like in the movies, its not like a fucking video game, the sounds, sights and the smell of war is something that will never leave me or the others.

As if this should be an excuse to unload on civilians.

The media gives the military a glossed over look. A catchy package insures someone will buy your product.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Mind control is either a good or bad tool depending on the result that you need: Want to quit smoking or make someone homicidal? Want to make someone buy your product or give away their liberties? Use mind control.

quote:

However, this behaivor should be dealt with swiftly. But most of you have no idea what it feels like to be in a real war. I still will never forget the smell of burning charred flesh or the smell of decaying bodies we found in Kuwait of the little kids that the Iraq Army threw in a hot 2x2 metal boxes just to punish thier parents. THis poor Marine probrobly came back home with issues, but most of the time our goverment doesn't give a flip about them after they are used up.

No reason for this Marine to be given the velvet glove treatment.

quote:

Alot of people like to point out returning soldiers mistakes, but it is the goverment not the soldier that makes the decision were to go and who to fight. Pawns. So do not take it out on a poor soldier that has screwed up, it is not his fault. I seriously doubt that he wanted to kill someone, if he did, he would of. He made a bad decision and now he has to live with it.

Let a jury decide his fate. He decided the fate of his neighbors already. Now let them decide his. The "woe is him" angle is not going to cut it.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco I think jumping to the conclusion that all servicemen are bad and messed up because they served in a war that you're against is rather selfserving in terms of making an argument, no?

People make decisions that they know bring consequences. This man knew he was going to be a killer in a war. No excuse for him.

I am not letting this one bad apple spoil the barrel though.

Re: "Marine of the Year" opens fire on a crowd

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Like somehow we are supposed to understand that this kind of behavior is ok coming from "The Marine of the Year". Just where are those gun-control nuts now? You mean to tell me it's not okay for people to own a gun to protect themselves from people like him who still think they are in the sand?

Wtf, I think you're actually making a case against yourself by bringing gun-control debate into this. So, we should have all guns for the eventuality we might have to protect ourselves from "marine of the year" nutjobs? What are the odds of this, even in an America full of traumatised people who went to war?

On the other hand, I think it makes more sense to ban guns so those nutjobs don't get so easily access to them.

Even then, if you got a gun to protect from this guy, what would you do, shoot back and kill him? Is that good for your country, have more guns so people can kill each other more easily? (I know this isn't exactly the deepest argument, but it's 2:43 AM here, can't organize my thoughts in a better way)

Mind you, I'm not debating at all the situation of this guy, I'm calling him "nutjob" but I'm sure the horrors he lived was the factors that messed him up..

Re: Re: "Marine of the Year" opens fire on a crowd

quote:

Originally posted by paranoik0 Is that good for your country, have more guns so people can kill each other more easily?

Well, not to turn this in to a gun debate, but more un-armed people have died at the hands their own governments throughout history then were EVER killed by a few "nutjobs" and armed criminals (think Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc...).

Given these stats, I'd rather take my chances at being a victim of random crime, versus one of genocide (hence, the true meaning of our 2nd Amedment is about protection from all aggressors, foreign OR domestic ).

Re: Re: Re: "Marine of the Year" opens fire on a crowd

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Well, not to turn this in to a gun debate, but more un-armed people have died at the hands their own governments throughout history then were EVER killed by a few "nutjobs" and armed criminals (think Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc...). Given these stats, I'd rather take my chances at being a victim of random crime, versus one of genocide (hence, the true meaning of our 2nd Amedment is about protection from all agressors, foreign OR domestic ).

Very well stated

1st: All of those who haven't smelled human (dried, rotting) blood, seen corpses w/o a head or worse (with head, but no face): STFU
this does funny things with yr head, I can tell u.
it is the responsability of yr government to prevent shite like this from happening.It looks like they have other priorities though. (like preparing (through media, shame on them) for another invasion.

any of you know that your governement passed a law (or how do you call that) to invade HOLLAND???? not recognising the international Tribunal in The Hague. (if your GI's would e.g. rape a innocent women in Irak, the would have to answer there... )
I'm waiting for the day that they invade us for another thing like weed or abortion....

I have only one thing to say: solve your own internal issues before (violantly) forcing your way of life to others. (who do not want it!!!)

as far as that marine is concerned... prepping corpses in Irak should be reason enough for psychiatric help when returned... but nooooo! this is a clean war, your GI's do not suffer. (and if they do: they're tough!!!) BARF!!! every war is ugly. every war has casualties on both sides...

as for the right to bear arms: please do.... (please, please, please DO!!!) if all loony's shoot eachother all wise will survive...

I have no intention of insulting anybody, but if I did:I'm NOT sorry
and for the rest of you...: talking (writing) abt it never killed anybody.... discussion creates great minds. (or was it the other way around...??? (i shouldn't smoke i/t morning:-))))
:-)

Re: Re: Re: "Marine of the Year" opens fire on a crowd

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Well, not to turn this in to a gun debate, but more un-armed people have died at the hands their own governments throughout history then were EVER killed by a few "nutjobs" and armed criminals (think Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc...). Given these stats, I'd rather take my chances at being a victim of random crime, versus one of genocide (hence, the true meaning of our 2nd Amedment is about protection from all aggressors, foreign OR domestic ).

So, you want a gun in case an Hitler-like dictator invades America and comes to kill you?

Re: Re: Re: Re: "Marine of the Year" opens fire on a crowd

quote:

Originally posted by paranoik0 So, you want a gun in case an Hitler-like dictator invades America and comes to kill you?

Invades or starts from within...all those on this board who are so afraid of GW becoming this would understand that I'd think.

Hey, I didn't write the Constitution, but that's what the 2nd Am. is about...if you've ever read up on it, you'd know. I also happen to agree with it. Anyone who thinks things like Dictatorships "can't happen here" is a moron with no appreciation for history, or our founding father's who understood this concept as they broke away from England's "Royal" Dictatorship.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Marine of the Year" opens fire on a crowd

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Invades or starts from within...all those on this board who are so afraid of GW becoming this would understand that I'd think. Hey, I didn't write the Constitution, but that's what the 2nd Am. is about...if you've ever read up on it, you'd know. I also happen to agree with it. Anyone who thinks things like Dictatorships "can't happen here" is a moron with no appreciation for history, or our founding father's who understood this concept as they broke away from England's "Royal" Dictatorship.

Ok, I would be worried too if i lived in America as the way Bush connects religion to the state freaks me out a bit. However, i can't really understand your logic, it feels too much paranoid. In the possibility of a massive turn over of the situation in America, Bush isn't going to come to your house to kill you personally. No dictator rules by himself, they need to have military power that backs them up. Owning a gun doesn't really give you any protection of yourself against big military power.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Marine of the Year" opens fire on a crowd

quote:

Originally posted by paranoik0 Owning a gun doesn't really give you any protection of yourself against big military power.

It's been proven throughout history that a small-armed populace can overcome a larger military.

U.S in Viet Nam, Soviets in Afgahnastan, the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising , etc...

In Switzerland, they have an assualt rifle in every home by law! Staying armed to the teeth is how they stay Nuetral...did anyone here just think that the world respects their nuetrality for no reason other than because they say they're neutral? No, it's because they back it up with arms!

You want to subject yourself to the law of averages throughout history which show that FAR more people are killed by their own governments than are ever killed by random armed criminals, then I wish you luck. Me, I'll stay armed, thanks.

He must've been looking for job security as a mortician...


[[[smoke]]]

\'the right to bear arms\' is a terrible blight on the US constitution. is why inalienable rights should never be placed in a largely static legal framework. the founding fathers could not possibly comprehend the advances in military technology that has occurred since.

whilst i am keen to visit the US and take advantage of your laws to go to a shooting range and play with some M4s, G-36s, 249s etc, im bloody glad australia has the tight restrictions on guns that it does. a fatal shooting here makes national headlines coz its a relatively rare event. id favour safety & security over the \'right\' to carry a gun any day.

but the US constitution has made it impossible to ever allow proper gun control, let alone enforce it and remove the thousands of weapons in criminal hands across the country.

quote:

...the founding fathers could not possibly comprehend the advances in military technology that has occurred since.

First off, see above post re: the right to bear arms.

Second off, it stands to reason that when the right to bear arms was written in to the Constitution, Flint-Lock rifles WERE the "advanced military technology" of the day. Civilans owned the same small arms as the military.

Today, a fully automaitc M-16 is not even legal to own by civilians (except by special license, and these are rare)...so right there, the right to bear arms has in fact, been infringed.

Tanks, Aircraft, Self-propelled grenades, rockets, hand grenades, and other weapons like these did not exist back then...and NO civilians today can own these weapons. So by definition, today's civilian "Militia", as it were, is no where near armed like our Founding Fathers were, relative to the military of today. To imply that a few civilians owning semi-automatic rifles with clips is somehow the same as a fully armed modern military is ludicrous.

Where you go wrong is in believing our liberal media's hype about the "rampant gun violence" in America. It's bullshit! You are MUCH more likely to die in car crashes and other, even MORE random accidents than you are by criminal mis-use of a gun.

What amazes me is how so many of you don't trust your governments, yet you're willing to turn over TOTAL CONTROL to them! And you say Americans are dumb for not wanting to do the same??

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN 'the right to bear arms' is a terrible blight on the US constitution. is why inalienable rights should never be placed in a largely static legal framework. the founding fathers could not possibly comprehend the advances in military technology that has occurred since.

So by this it means that you want to be a slave. One thing you're freely willing to give up is your natural sovereign rights.

quote:

whilst i am keen to visit the US and take advantage of your laws to go to a shooting range and play with some M4s, G-36s, 249s etc, im bloody glad australia has the tight restrictions on guns that it does. a fatal shooting here makes national headlines coz its a relatively rare event. id favour safety & security over the 'right' to carry a gun any day.

You can't have your cake and eat it too:

Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
Benjamin Franklin

News like that is made to scare you into turning in your neighbor and his gun. If it's on the tele it's there to convince you of something.

quote:

but the US constitution has made it impossible to ever allow proper gun control, let alone enforce it and remove the thousands of weapons in criminal hands across the country.

I guess that means we should throw it out along with the Bill of Rights Amendments I and II. While you're at it might as well rip up Amendment X:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It fails you to see that when the populace is unarmed the criminals are.

In the US there is some form of gun control, the reason I say that is in the 90's when drugs were readily available in every poor neighborhood, drug gangs had the most firepower. I used to hear the rata-tat-tat of Mac-10's, Tech-9's and even a AK-47 on a daily basis, thank God no one I know got caught in the crossfire.

The point is criminals will always be the ones with the guns in a gun controlled society.

To think that a gun-controlled society is a utopia...well then you're diluting yourself.

Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave
Frederick Douglass

The more you read and learn, the less your adversary will know
Sun Tzu

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill
Sun Tzu

Quite an experience to live in fear, isnt it? That's what it's like to be a slave.
From the film Blade Runner

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.