[eyc234]

Originally Posted by blueash

I am not amazed that people attack something being done when the victims were not just like you. Any problem with public dollars spent at the World Trade Center honoring the victims who just happened to be at the wrong place of work that morning?




How about the Memorial at the Oklahoma City site where a domestic terrorist hoping to inspire the overthrow of the government killed people who just were in the wrong place.

Lots of Federal, State and Local dollars spent at those sites, and so many more. No complaints from you about that? Oh, most of those victims weren't gay.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Interesting. Since the public money that went to something like that came from the tourism dollars collected from hotels, BECAUSE you moved out of Orlando you are more likely to have contributed to it.

Not unless he stayed in hotels.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Well gee, if these "tragedies" didn't keep happening over and over again, maybe we wouldn't have to keep reliving them.

They're not tragedies. It wasn't an unfortunate accident. It was an atrocious, hideous, hateful, intentional act of violence. And it keeps happening. Everyone who was affected directly by one of these incidents, lives with the risk of a new incident triggering the emotional turmoil they experienced the first time around.

So maybe if we could come up with solutions for a) stopping these incidents OR b) reducing the risk of them happening, then maybe there'd be fewer of them, and no one would have to relive anything at all.

We'll keep bringing it up, until we stop it from happening again.

Throughout history it happened, even with Cain and Able. It’s’ NEVER going to stop but hopefully can be controlled?

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

Not unless he stayed in hotels.

And he is more likely to have stayed in a hotel now that he doesn't live there.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

And he is more likely to have stayed in a hotel now that he doesn't live there.

Not if he don’t stay overnight. I’ve been here 9 years and have yet stayed in hotel in Orlando.

[oldtimes]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

Throughout history it happened, even with Cain and Able. It’s’ NEVER going to stop but hopefully can be controlled?

100% Correct. The only difference now is

There are billions more people

and

The media latches on to it and rides it to death

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Interesting. Since the public money that went to something like that came from the tourism dollars collected from hotels, BECAUSE you moved out of Orlando you are more likely to have contributed to it.

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

Not unless he stayed in hotels.

Originally Posted by Bill14564

And he is more likely to have stayed in a hotel now that he doesn't live there.

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

Not if he don’t stay overnight. I’ve been here 9 years and have yet stayed in hotel in Orlando.

You don't seem to be reading what you are replying to/arguing with.

I did not say that he has contributed to the effort.

I said it is MORE LIKELY that he contributed to the effort if he no longer lives in Orlando. Yes, that is because it is MORE LIKELY that he stayed in a hotel now that he no longer lives in Orlando.

You have not stayed in a hotel in Orlando in the nine years you have lived here. Good for you. I have stayed in Orlando hotels every year I have lived here (except 2020 - Covid). Either way, it is MORE LIKELY that someone who does not live in Orlando would stay in an Orlando hotel - not guaranteed, just MORE LIKELY.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Bail is not meant to keep an accused individual in jail and in fact, that is prohibited by the eighth amendment.

If there is an amount of cash that will ensure the accused comes back to his trial, set that amount as bail.

If there are conditions that will ensure the accused does not commit more crimes while awaiting trial, set those conditions as bail.

If there is good reason to believe the accused will flee or will commit more crimes then deny bail and keep him in jail.

The concept of bail should be used as intended, not as a shortcut to keeping the accused in jail.

WOW!!!! Somebody actually understands bail and the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Not a lot of that going around.

Bail simply is to let innocent people go free while guaranteeing that they will appear for trial. If you don't show you lose your money. So bail is set high enough that it is extremely unlikely you will flee, combined with ankle monitors and pulling passports as needed.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by oldtimes

It happens all too often. 18 people just got shot in Maine. Should we build a museum there too? Where is the cutoff? The World Trade Center were First Responders who went into that building with a good idea they were going to die.

Do you actually believe that the distress about the bombing of WTC was because about 400 responders died and would not have been a problem if only the 2200 civilians had died? My feeling is exactly the opposite. Civilians did not sign up to be in the line of fire. That does not mean I don't mourn the loss of the 400, but they chose a career fraught with risk of death from that career choice. I honor their devotion to service.

[Vermilion Villager]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I'm not sure public funds should be used either. But I have another pet peeve about how this monument is being described. While this mass shooting was a tragedy, I'm not sure that a monument should be erected to "honor" the victims. Honor the firefighters who rushed into the WTC on 9/11 and died. Honor the thousands that died on the beaches of Normandy defending our country. But "honor" people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? What "honorable" thing did they do? I think "remember" or "memorialize" are much better terms for these victims.

Think you better get a dictionary and look up the word honor. I'll do it for you.
HONOR
1. a. : to regard or treat (someone) with admiration and respect : to regard or treat with honor. b. : to give special recognition to : to confer honor on.

If I recall we seem to do a lot of honoring of people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time during the holocaust. I for one am 100% OK with that. I am also 100% OK with honoring people who died for absolutely no reason at all other than an individual hated them so much.
I'm trying to figure out if I am more amazed or more saddened by the fact that judging from the comments most here in the villages do not feel the same way and this is nothing more than a waste of money and time

[Vermilion Villager]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Well gee, if these "tragedies" didn't keep happening over and over again, maybe we wouldn't have to keep reliving them.

They're not tragedies. It wasn't an unfortunate accident. It was an atrocious, hideous, hateful, intentional act of violence. And it keeps happening. Everyone who was affected directly by one of these incidents, lives with the risk of a new incident triggering the emotional turmoil they experienced the first time around.

So maybe if we could come up with solutions for a) stopping these incidents OR b) reducing the risk of them happening, then maybe there'd be fewer of them, and no one would have to relive anything at all.

We'll keep bringing it up, until we stop it from happening again.

GREAT REPLY!!!!

[oldtimes]

Originally Posted by blueash

Do you actually believe that the distress about the bombing of WTC was because about 400 responders died and would not have been a problem if only the 2200 civilians had died? My feeling is exactly the opposite. Civilians did not sign up to be in the line of fire. That does not mean I don't mourn the loss of the 400, but they chose a career fraught with risk of death from that career choice. I honor their devotion to service.

The WTC attack was an act of terror by a foreign government which made it an incredible tragedy all around.

The mass shootings are different in that they happen every day. What I ask is where do we draw the line, 10 deaths, 20 deaths, 50 deaths? Do we spend millions of dollars to memorialize each and every occurrence? How about the thousands of individuals that get killed every day? Do we just forget about them because it wasn't a mass shooting? I just don't understand the logic.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Bail is not meant to keep an accused individual in jail and in fact, that is prohibited by the eighth amendment.


If there is good reason to believe the accused will flee or will commit more crimes then deny bail and keep him in jail.

The concept of bail should be used as intended, not as a shortcut to keeping the accused in jail.

Many of these folks with low bails are repeat offenders. They're arrested, bail is set super low, their bondsman puts up only 10% of the fee, and they're free to go and commit more crimes. Which - they do, and this is evident because - they're repeat offenders.

My opinion - if they've committed a crime in the past, then their next arrest should have another 0 added to the end of their bail amount. Every subsequent arrest should get an additional 0. First arrest is 500? No prob, he's out, plea bargains, goes out and gets arrested for the same thing 3 months later? New bail is 5000. Posts bail and goes out and gets arrested again for something else a week later? Bail is now set to 50,000. And so on and so forth til he's just stuck there.

There's a guy who keeps getting caught shoplifting expensive stuff from Home Depot. He's not supposed to be in the store at all, but not every single employee will recognize one person out of thousands who come in every day, that they might never have seen because they weren't working the day he got caught last time.

He keeps making bail, getting out, and stealing again. Over and over again. By now, his bail should be around $500,000. And no bondsman should be wanting to go anywhere near him.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by oldtimes

The WTC attack was an act of terror by a foreign government which made it an incredible tragedy all around.

The mass shootings are different in that they happen every day. What I ask is where do we draw the line, 10 deaths, 20 deaths, 50 deaths? Do we spend millions of dollars to memorialize each and every occurrence? How about the thousands of individuals that get killed every day? Do we just forget about them because it wasn't a mass shooting? I just don't understand the logic.

Here's a thought:

Taxpayers can agree to either
a) continue paying for memorials for victims of mass shootings or
b) start agreeing on common sense, 2A-respectful gun ownership laws AND enforcement.

I'll keep paying my fair share until the vote turns around. I'm all for 2A. I'm also all for common sense gun control. Federal database, fingerprinting, registering, licensing, background checks. No gun bans. If people pass those tests, they can own a Sherman tank loaded with heat-seeking missiles for all I care. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. So we need to legislate better laws to regulate the people since they're clearly not capable of regulating themselves.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by blueash

WOW!!!! Somebody actually understands bail and the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Not a lot of that going around.

Bail simply is to let innocent people go free while guaranteeing that they will appear for trial. If you don't show you lose your money. So bail is set high enough that it is extremely unlikely you will flee, combined with ankle monitors and pulling passports as needed.

Repeat offenders should lose their right to having a bail bondsman bail them out again. And increased bail for subsequent arrests. If they're innocent, they wouldn't be caught stealing /again./ Or beating their wife /again./ Or cutting down /another/ tree on their neighbor's lawn. And so on.