Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Colorado Nightclub Shooter is a (Nominal) Member of the Church


Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/8/2022 at 6:55 PM, bsjkki said:

Looks like they dropped charges because the family was not cooperating.  It seems a case could have been made without cooperating victims but I’m not a lawyer. 
From the case file. 

F31EC665-A1B7-4035-A53D-A1362163A0F5.jpeg

8E41C0DC-57ED-4B20-A711-4DB15713EC05.jpeg

Yep, this Anderson Aldrich suuuure sounds like an ardent devotee / aficionado / enthusiast of the words of Elder Jeffrey R. Holland.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
  • 6 months later...

I listened to an interview with the prosecutor of this case. He just secured a guilty plea and five life sentences for the shooter and it was clear this was a hate crime. The defendants claim of being non binary was a hospital bed claim. The shooter had neo Nazi ties and had a plethora of web postings that made this clear. There was a discussion about how the bar is so low with these claims, that a defendant can claim this attempting some advantage legally but the prosecutors found no evidence the claim was true.

Link to comment

Another interesting fact. The shooter never got his guns back after charges were dropped on his first case.  Obtained the handgun from his mom, who had purchased it some time before this. Built the rifle from ‘parts.’ No red flag order would have prevented shooting. I still don’t understand what went wrong with the first case. This guy should not have been free.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

The defendants claim of being non binary was a hospital bed claim. The shooter had neo Nazi ties and had a plethora of web postings that made this clear. There was a discussion about how the bar is so low with these claims, that a defendant can claim this attempting some advantage legally but the prosecutors found no evidence the claim was true.

"Hospital bed claim"?  I don't know what that means.   I know this is a thing:

 

aldrichcourtdoc.PNG 

Someone will have to help me out here.  The alphabet-friendly crowd out there has been quite firm on respecting people's pronouns.  As soon as anyone, even a child, feels like a different gender and adopts new pronouns that fit that gender, parents/teachers/doctors/friends/church/the law/everyone must respect the child's new pronouns.  Choosing to ignore or disrespect someone's preferred pronouns, according to endless sources, is not only an act of oppression but can also be considered an act of violence.

Am I now being told something different?  Are there exceptions to such claims?  Could someone list the exceptions, and the principles upon which they are based?  Is it as easy as "It's ok to disrespect a person's use of pronouns unless they provide evidence that goes along with the claim"?

Edited by LoudmouthMormon
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

"Hospital bed claim"

That was when the claim was made and communicated to his lawyers and made public by his lawyers. I'm sure the fact a 'hate' crime gives this federal jurisdiction that still includes the death penalty (which Colorado has done away with) doesn't have anything to do with it. Did you know in Colorado, because of their new death penalty stance, mass murderers must be given bond? I did not know that until today when two prosecutors were discussing the issue. I am wary of the death penalty due to the fallibilities within our justice system but having to give a bond option to a school shooter or mass murderer doesn't seem right. 

*Pronouns must be respected even if all the evidence points to the claim being hogwash. Some common sense must return to the judicial system while evil doers are gaming this system.

Edited by bsjkki
Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Kinda like not using Mormon any longer but The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Lot more of the alphabet used in the above bold than in LGBTQIA2+, which is the longest version I have seen so far iirc (at least 17 unique letters in the Church’s full name).

Even the apparent longest version is easier to type out than the Church’s name or even the url of the church’s website (I loved “LDS.org” :) ):  LGBTQQIP2SA

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Calm said:

 (I loved (“LDS.org” :) )

The Church still owns that domain name, lds.org, and will automatically translate lds.org/foobar to chuchofjesuschirist.org/foobar.

So, one can still use lds.org to access chuch website content quickly.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Nofear said:

The Church still owns that domain name, lds.org, and will automatically translate lds.org/foobar to chuchofjesuschirist.org/foobar.

So, one can still use lds.org to access chuch website content quickly.

Yes, I know. But it’s not the official one.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, california boy said:

like the crowd Christ hung out with, those that were rejected by "society".

Oh, please. Christ hung out with sinners so as to lead them to repentance, not to legitimize their sins. 

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sounds like the Pharisees are getting offended. 

LOL! Let's agree to call each other Pharisee, then.

But you know very well that Christ did not condone sin, and that what I wrote was correct. The woman taken in adultery was not told "Just do you," but was admonished to "sin no more." As was everyone else in similar situations.

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

LOL! Let's agree to call each other Pharisee, then.

But you know very well that Christ did not condone sin, and that what I wrote was correct. The woman taken in adultery was not told "Just do you," but was admonished to "sin no more." As was everyone else in similar situations.

A couple of things. We know very little about Christs life. There are no surviving first hand accounts, and the accounts recorded in the Bible do not speak with univocality. 
 

That said, Jesus - according to the Bible - absolutely condoned sin. Sin as defined by the religious leaders of his day. He healed on the sabbath and broke sabbath day laws in other ways. So just because you call something sin does not make it so. 
 

A final point, there was one group Jesus condemned above all others. A group that called others sinners. A group that thought they spoke for God. That was the group Jesus did not hang out with and condemned ruthlessly. 

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A couple of things. We know very little about Christs life. There are no surviving first hand accounts, and the accounts recorded in the Bible do not speak with univocality. 
 

That said, Jesus - according to the Bible - absolutely condoned sin. Sin as defined by the religious leaders of his day. He healed on the sabbath and broke sabbath day laws in other ways. So just because you call something sin does not make it so. 
 

A final point, there was one group Jesus condemned above all others. A group that called others sinners. A group that thought they spoke for God. That was the group Jesus did not hang out with and condemned ruthlessly. 

So, you deftly avoid recognizing what the scriptures say by expressing doubt that scriptures say anything truthful. Who is Jesus? Did he even exist? If he existed, did he even say anything?

Your reading of the New Testament is quite unusual. Jesus lived according to the Law of Moses, and called out the Pharisees for going beyond the Law into their own interpretations of it.

As to your final point, Jesus did not condemn those who called others sinners. He condemned those who judge unrighteously. And then he set up a group of 12 men who ran things according to how Jesus wanted them to run them. He conferred with them for 40 days after his resurrection to give them instruction about how to do it. 

But if you don't believe Jesus is the Son of God, was resurrected, and sits on Father's right hand, the scriptures can mean whatever you want them to mean, I guess. Have at it!

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

the scriptures can mean whatever you want them to mean

With respect, that's the status among believers. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations. Add in Judaism and Islam, and you will have quite the range of belief on any particular question. An appeal to the bible establishes nothing. 

For me I take the bible narratives at face value. Written individually by people who didn't know Jesus. Each has its own unique agenda and point of view. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A couple of things. We know very little about Christs life. There are no surviving first hand accounts, and the accounts recorded in the Bible do not speak with univocality. 
 

That said, Jesus - according to the Bible - absolutely condoned sin. Sin as defined by the religious leaders of his day. He healed on the sabbath and broke sabbath day laws in other ways. So just because you call something sin does not make it so. 
 

A final point, there was one group Jesus condemned above all others. A group that called others sinners. A group that thought they spoke for God. That was the group Jesus did not hang out with and condemned ruthlessly. 

So, Jesus did not condone any sins as He defined them while condoning some sins as defined by the Pharisees: the devil is in the specifics and contexts. I'm not sure what you mean by "hang out," but there was certainly plenty of interaction with Pharisees ("that said" about the Biblical accounts noted above).

Even the multitude was capable of this distinction (e.g., Matthew 23):

1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2 Saying, The ascribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ bseat:

3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

[and so on through verse 39].

Link to comment
On 6/27/2023 at 4:16 PM, california boy said:

FYI. LGBT is perfectly fine.  Gladd added LGBTQ as the official acronym to identify the community.  Now is that so hard??

 And just like the term Mormon.  Is it so hard to just ask the person what they prefer to be called?????  Or are you claiming that because some have started using a term you aren't used to using, you can ignore their wishes.  Kinda like not using Mormon any longer but The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Please believe me when I state I meant no disrespect.  

Please also believe me when I have personally, directly, and I'm not making this up, been asked to use 4 different variations on the acronym.  One of them, a leader in the Diversity Allies group of which I'm a member, found the "A" to be offensive, (LGBTQIA and LGBTQIA+, etc.)  I was told the A stood for "ally", and was offensive because it represented cis colonization of the acronym.   I didn't think it was my place to correct this queer-identifying individual (sorry, I'm not sure of the preferred pronouns), that I had learned previously from the LGBTQIA+ group, that they liked the A, and were totally comfortable with it either standing for 'ally' or 'asexual'. 

I honestly haven't heard LGBT since the late 2010's.  Not since the Q-slur gained widespread reclamation.  I mean, good for y'all.  "Mormon" is a reclaimed slur too.  

Anyway, it may seem like I'm being facetious or sarcastic or dismissive here, but honestly, I'm not.  I've put in a lot of effort in the last three years to expand my cultural understanding, and I've learned what could be termed several 'dialects' of English spoken by LGBTQ folk, allies, millennials, progressives, and even a few who are still ok with the term 'woke'.

So please understand that I've done my homework when I point out that this:

On 6/27/2023 at 8:48 AM, bsjkki said:

The shooter never got his guns back after charges were dropped on his first case.  Obtained the handgun from his mom, who had purchased it some time before this. Built the rifle from ‘parts.’ No red flag order would have prevented shooting. I still don’t understand what went wrong with the first case. This guy should not have been free.

and this:

On 6/27/2023 at 12:27 PM, bsjkki said:

*Pronouns must be respected even if all the evidence points to the claim being hogwash.

Cannot both be said by the same person unproblematically.  One contradicts the other.  I'm not summoning @bsjkki to answer for the discrepancy, but I am pointing out as folks who aren't me go about changing language, sometimes they're doing it in confusing, contradictory, and problematic ways. 

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Please believe me when I state I meant no disrespect.  

Please also believe me when I have personally, directly, and I'm not making this up, been asked to use 4 different variations on the acronym.  One of them, a leader in the Diversity Allies group of which I'm a member, found the "A" to be offensive, (LGBTQIA and LGBTQIA+, etc.)  I was told the A stood for "ally", and was offensive because it represented cis colonization of the acronym.   I didn't think it was my place to correct this queer-identifying individual (sorry, I'm not sure of the preferred pronouns), that I had learned previously from the LGBTQIA+ group, that they liked the A, and were totally comfortable with it either standing for 'ally' or 'asexual'. 

I honestly haven't heard LGBT since the late 2010's.  Not since the Q-slur gained widespread reclamation.  I mean, good for y'all.  "Mormon" is a reclaimed slur too.  

Anyway, it may seem like I'm being facetious or sarcastic or dismissive here, but honestly, I'm not.  I've put in a lot of effort in the last three years to expand my cultural understanding, and I've learned what could be termed several 'dialects' of English spoken by LGBTQ folk, allies, millennials, progressives, and even a few who are still ok with the term 'woke'.

So please understand that I've done my homework when I point out that this:

and this:

Cannot both be said by the same person unproblematically.  One contradicts the other.  I'm not summoning @bsjkki to answer for the discrepancy, but I am pointing out as folks who aren't me go about changing language, sometimes they're doing it in confusing, contradictory, and problematic ways. 

Are you complaining because I used ‘he.’ My second statement was describing the current state of orthodoxy. My personal opinion is if the claims have no evidence and were used in a vain attempt to escape federal hate crime charges,  common sense, for me will win out. So, I used ‘he.’ That is not politically correct. 
I generally try to not misgender but can’t say I don’t slip up at times. I also try not to use ‘Mormon’ but slip up at times. It is difficult to change decades of language norms. 

Link to comment
On 6/27/2023 at 6:51 PM, california boy said:

That would probably be more respectful than calling it the "alphabet-friendly crowd." It is not that hard, but the desire to be respectful has to be there.

Imma go and tell this story to my buddies I know in that community personally. I'll ask them what they think about me getting called out for using the phrase "alphabet friendly crowd", and ask them what they think.  I'm guessing they'll continue to be fine with my use of that phrase, because I've been using it around them for a year, and they seem to like it just fine.  But if I remember, I'll come back to this thread and let 'ya know what they say.

Edited by LoudmouthMormon
Link to comment
2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Are you complaining because I used ‘he.’ My second statement was describing the current state of orthodoxy. My personal opinion is if the claims have no evidence and were used in a vain attempt to escape federal hate crime charges,  common sense, for me will win out. So, I used ‘he.’ That is not politically correct. 
I generally try to not misgender but can’t say I don’t slip up at times. I also try not to use ‘Mormon’ but slip up at times. It is difficult to change decades of language norms. 

I'm not complaining.  I'm pointing out that you are saying two things that can't both be true at the same time.  You call the shooter "he" and "guy".  You say pronouns must be respected. 

Mx. Aldrich identifies as nonbinary, and uses they/them pronouns.   So, if Aldrich is a he/guy like you call him, then why do you go on to say pronouns must be respected?   If pronouns must be respected, why do you refer to the nonbinary Mx. Aldrich as "he" and "guy"?

You either are going to call Aldrich a guy, or you think pronouns must be respected.  You can't do both and remain intellectually consistent. 

Can you?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I'm not complaining.  I'm pointing out that you are saying two things that can't both be true at the same time.  You call the shooter "he" and "guy".  You say pronouns must be respected. 

Mx. Aldrich identifies as nonbinary, and uses they/them pronouns.   So, if Aldrich is a he/guy like you call him, then why do you go on to say pronouns must be respected?   If pronouns must be respected, why do you refer to the nonbinary Mx. Aldrich as "he" and "guy"?

You either are going to call Aldrich a guy, or you think pronouns must be respected.  You can't do both and remain intellectually consistent. 

Can you?

In the press, police reports, the legal system, they ‘must’ be respected.
 

I, personally, don’t think they ‘must’ be respected in this case but in general, I would try. I think you misunderstood me. 
 

I don’t get your point. My referencing him as a ‘he’ is politically incorrect. Are you going to doxx me and call me a transphobe? Some would.
 
 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...