• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the horrific photos of Newtown victims be published?

Should the horrific photos of Newtown victims be published?

  • Total voters
    53
Jerry said:
So you just don't care about the victims of internet bullying.
Click to expand...

dude i allow myself to be bullied daily...its altruistic.

i don;t lash back...i show them what they are...
 
Wiggen said:
You mean the ones that show the small bodies dismembered because of repeated hits from the semi-automatic rifle? Nah. We can't have people being upset now, can we?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

Boy, 4, accidentally kills Tenn. deputy's wife
Click to expand...

they should arrest the parents of the 4 year old for not watching their child, can you imagine the uproar from liberals that think having them is enough.
 
pbrauer said:
Should the horrific photos of Newtown victims be published?

Yes
Only if all the parents agree.
No
Click to expand...

Hell no.

If you want to see pictures of dead and dismembered people there is an internet full of them.

-edit-
I'll do you one better. If you REALLY want to see what a 5.56 NATO round will do to a person scroll down to the last pic in this post - http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_155/992402_Stopping_power___weak_5_56mm__.html - entry wound is in the back, exit is in the front and for those who are squeamish, fair warning, it isn't pretty.
 
Last edited:
~Dr.Who~ said:
dude i allow myself to be bullied daily...its altruistic.

i don;t lash back...i show them what they are...
Click to expand...
And that's your choice. Other's make a different choice and don't want to be harassed, but you don't care about students who just want to learn and play.

Why do you need a 2.2megapixel resolution in a school?
 
Jerry said:
And that's your choice. Other's make a different choice and don't want to be harassed, but you don't care about students who just want to learn and play.

Why do you need a 2.2megapixel resolution in a school?
Click to expand...
you've lost me....i now i know make fun...

i've stated my concerns for the relatives and anyone who would be subjected to the release of these photos..
 
pbrauer said:
Should the horrific photos of Newtown victims be published?

Yes
Only if all the parents agree.
No
Click to expand...

The obvious answer is no, however, if Obama continues to flail around in his efforts to enact gun control legislation, don't be surprised if they provide a backdrop for some speech he's giving in the near future. After all, if you can display the parents of these murdered children like some circus act, why not dig even deeper and pass out the gore?
 
Kreton said:
No it doesn't. How is that relevant to the topic? What does the 2nd story you posted have to do with anything? Are you aware of the thread you are posting in right now?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm fully aware of the thread I am posting in. Thanks for asking, however.
 
CanadaJohn said:
The obvious answer is no, however, if Obama continues to flail around in his efforts to enact gun control legislation, don't be surprised if they provide a backdrop for some speech he's giving in the near future. After all, if you can display the parents of these murdered children like some circus act, why not dig even deeper and pass out the gore?
Click to expand...

Much better just to sweep in under the rug and pretend it didn't happen, right?

I know having these parents of children dismembered by a guy wielding a semi-automatic bushmaster talking about their loss and advocating a reasonable, sensible approach to guns is inconvenient for those who worship these weapons, but them's the breaks.
 
pbrauer said:
Should the horrific photos of Newtown victims be published?

Yes
Only if all the parents agree.
No
Click to expand...

Generally, only if all parents agree. That said, makes no difference to me. It does not change the very real fact that innocent gun owners should not be punished for the actions of criminals. Nor will it change the very real fact that our federal government should NOT be making laws against (or for) guns as it is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
 
Wiggen said:
Much better just to sweep in under the rug and pretend it didn't happen, right?

I know having these parents of children dismembered by a guy wielding a semi-automatic bushmaster talking about their loss and advocating a reasonable, sensible approach to guns is inconvenient for those who worship these weapons, but them's the breaks.
Click to expand...

You should be aware that the type of firearm has very little to do with the resulting injury. A 30-06 round from a common hunting rifle would have done the same damage...more, actually. It doesn't matter whether the shooter used a semi-auto rifle, a pistol, a bomb or a chainsaw...he was intent on murdering people and did just that. Remember that the VT shooter only used pistols...but he carried several. As the saying goes, where there is a will there is a way.
 
No the answer is no.

The idea is repulsive and would serve no purpose.

There are some things in this world better left unseen.
 
Wiggen said:
Much better just to sweep in under the rug and pretend it didn't happen, right?

I know having these parents of children dismembered by a guy wielding a semi-automatic bushmaster talking about their loss and advocating a reasonable, sensible approach to guns is inconvenient for those who worship these weapons, but them's the breaks.
Click to expand...

Sir that is the most ignorant and disrespectful thing I have heard.

How can you sweep this massacre under the rug! 26 family's greive for the loved ones. We know how they died but do we really need to relive the horror of that day by showing the dead body's full of gunshot wounds?

Police use somthing called ballistics gel to simulate damage done to a human body, ever think of using that?
 
Wiggen said:
You mean the ones that show the small bodies dismembered because of repeated hits from the semi-automatic rifle? Nah. We can't have people being upset now, can we?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

Boy, 4, accidentally kills Tenn. deputy's wife
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the lie, it's still a lie. The shooter at Sandy Hook used 4 handguns, not a semi auto rifle.
 
pbrauer said:
Should the horrific photos of Newtown victims be published?

Yes
Only if all the parents agree.
No
Click to expand...

I started to vote, only if all the parents agree. Then I switched to no. I think there would be far too much undue pressure placed on the familys that didn't agree just to score some political points. I think privacy is needed here.
 
OK a folks, a little sanity on the legality of this. I was in a CERT training program last night and learned that it is specifically illegal to take photographs of dead disaster victims. Even if the photographer had not intended to photograph a body in damage assessment photos, the device used to take the photo and any media containing it become evidence in a criminal investigation. Even a death in a natural disaster is considered a crime until an investigation has been completed. The course material for the class was provided by DHS.

Beyond that those of you who are suggesting using these photos should be examined for psychological defect. Regardless of what your position is on gun control or any other issue thinking this is acceptable behavior puts you in a very dangerous group. I suspect that such a person poses a real risk to society.
 
Perotista said:
I started to vote, only if all the parents agree. Then I switched to no. I think there would be far too much undue pressure placed on the familys that didn't agree just to score some political points. I think privacy is needed here.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And protected by law as well.
 
Wiggen said:
Much better just to sweep in under the rug and pretend it didn't happen, right?

I know having these parents of children dismembered by a guy wielding a semi-automatic bushmaster talking about their loss and advocating a reasonable, sensible approach to guns is inconvenient for those who worship these weapons, but them's the breaks.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed - and as a liberal, I'm sure you're horrified when anyone tries to show pictures of aborted fetuses, particularly later term fetuses, looking almost like a born child except, of course, for the crushed skull. Might as well push that under the rug too, right? No sense letting impressionable young women see what really happens.
 
I don't think there's any need to publish them. I think it would be in extremely bad taste to do so.

That said, if a newspaper published them I think they'd be well within their legal rights.

In other words, please don't publish but the First Amendment says it's legal.
 
tech30528 said:
OK a folks, a little sanity on the legality of this. I was in a CERT training program last night and learned that it is specifically illegal to take photographs of dead disaster victims. Even if the photographer had not intended to photograph a body in damage assessment photos, the device used to take the photo and any media containing it become evidence in a criminal investigation. Even a death in a natural disaster is considered a crime until an investigation has been completed. The course material for the class was provided by DHS.

Beyond that those of you who are suggesting using these photos should be examined for psychological defect. Regardless of what your position is on gun control or any other issue thinking this is acceptable behavior puts you in a very dangerous group. I suspect that such a person poses a real risk to society.
Click to expand...
That's interesting and good to know...thanks.
 
rocket88 said:
I don't think there's any need to publish them. I think it would be in extremely bad taste to do so.

That said, if a newspaper published them I think they'd be well within their legal rights.

In other words, please don't publish but the First Amendment says it's legal.
Click to expand...

They would not be within their legal rights. There is an ongoing investigation, any photographic evidence is a part of that investigation. As far as DHS is concerned posting these photos carry the same consequences as releasing classified federal documents.
 
tech30528 said:
OK a folks, a little sanity on the legality of this. I was in a CERT training program last night and learned that it is specifically illegal to take photographs of dead disaster victims. Even if the photographer had not intended to photograph a body in damage assessment photos, the device used to take the photo and any media containing it become evidence in a criminal investigation. Even a death in a natural disaster is considered a crime until an investigation has been completed. The course material for the class was provided by DHS.
....
Click to expand...

The police and crime scene investigators took photos of the crime scene and the victims.
I do not think the media had access to take any photos of the victims.
 
minnie616 said:
The police and crime scene investigators took photos of the crime scene and the victims.
I do not think the media had access to take any photos of the victims.
Click to expand...

And every bit of it is classified.
 
What difference, at this point, does it make? ;)

While the gross-out factor may be extreme, it changes nothing about the proposed federal "universal" BG check law that is being touted as "helpful" even "necessary", since the gun(s) used for the Sandy Hook shooting were bought directly from a FFL dealer (now closed) and thus their purchase was legal and subject to existing (and naturally the proposed changed/enhanced) gun laws, including the NICS BG check.

It takes no special weapon, skill or talent to massacre teachers/children that have been herded into a tight group in a school gym. The entire Sandy Hook school shooting episode took less than four minutes from the perp's initial entry to the perp's suicide. Something as simple, and as inexpensive, as locks that can be activated from INSIDE of the classrooms would have saved far more lives than having to change magazines a few more times. Any (and all) existing "high capacity" magazines would remain available and usable for decades to detrmined mass shooters, such as Adam Lanza, that have parents, friends or relatives that own guns, even if the new AWB and MCL laws were passed as well. Anyone willing to kill his own mother (and himself) is not very likely to be deterred by stricter gun availability laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom