How would you react ?

[Patti]

Something this fails to take into account is that Sheila never showed any interest in guns and there was no indication she knew how to load and operate the weapon.  For her to grab the weapon in and of itself demonstrates something is wrong.  That she doesn't likely know how to use it though provides a reason to be more brave in the face of helping.

That's a poor shot Scip...

We only have the word of relatives that Sheila had no idea or interest in guns. Relatives that hardly saw Jeremy and Sheila. One would have to be present in their family life a little more often to state that as fact.

Sheila was a 27 year old woman, she was not a child Scip. 

[Alias]

Yet another overreaction. You never tire of playing victim! Don't talk to me Alias - this is childish!!!!!!!! 

And one more dig....

[scipio_usmc]

That's a poor shot Scip...

We only have the word of relatives that Sheila had no idea or interest in guns. Relatives that hardly saw Jeremy and Sheila. One would have to present in their family life a little more often to state that as fact.

Sheila was a 27 year old woman, she was not a child Scip. 

You conveniently ignore that Jeremy himself admitted she had no interest in guns that he was aware of and that she had not fired any guns to his knowledge.

You are also intentionally keep ignoring this was the first semi-auto the family had and thus she never had any way to learn about a semi-auto while growing up. 

Far from being a cheap shot I am bringing the full reality of the situation to the hypothetical we are being asked. 

Your bias is in full effect here especially since you choose to on one hand ignore Jeremy's own words and suggest the family was lying about Sheila not having an interest in guns and yet to at the same time want to ignore that Jeremy initially lied to police telling them she fired all weapons in the house and had been trained by him to fire the Anschutz. 

[Caroline]

That's a poor shot Scip...

We only have the word of relatives that Sheila had no idea or interest in guns. Relatives that hardly saw Jeremy and Sheila. One would have to be present in their family life a little more often to state that as fact.

Sheila was a 27 year old woman, she was not a child Scip. 

And Jeremy was a 25 year old man - fully aware of the emergency number for the police.

[Patti]

You conveniently ignore that Jeremy himself admitted she had no interest in guns that he was aware of and that she had not fired any guns to his knowledge.

You are also intentionally keep ignoring this was the first semi-auto the family had and thus she never had any way to learn about a semi-auto while growing up. 

Far from being a cheap shot I am bringing the full reality of the situation to the hypothetical we are being asked. 

Your bias is in full effect here especially since you choose to on one hand ignore Jeremy's own words and suggest the family was lying about Sheila not having an interest in guns and yet to at the same time want to ignore that Jeremy initially lied to police telling them she fired all weapons in the house and had been trained by him to fire the Anschutz.

Nope you are wrong Scip, I have not ignored it at all.  You are the one that is biased because you are tunneled and want to believe everything you read to be correct, but you are not always correct are you. Will you not except that sometimes what you read can be false.  You will not look at it from a different perspective or consider an alternative. This is where you fail most of the time and this reflects how biased you really are.  Shame you can't balance the scales like a Libran. 

Just because she had no interest does not mean that she did not know how to pick up a gun and use it. 

[Patti]

And Jeremy was a 25 year old man - fully aware of the emergency number for the police.

Another dig 

[nugnug]

You conveniently ignore that Jeremy himself admitted she had no interest in guns that he was aware of and that she had not fired any guns to his knowledge.

You are also intentionally keep ignoring this was the first semi-auto the family had and thus she never had any way to learn about a semi-auto while growing up. 

Far from being a cheap shot I am bringing the full reality of the situation to the hypothetical we are being asked. 

Your bias is in full effect here especially since you choose to on one hand ignore Jeremy's own words and suggest the family was lying about Sheila not having an interest in guns and yet to at the same time want to ignore that Jeremy initially lied to police telling them she fired all weapons in the house and had been trained by him to fire the Anschutz.

both my father and my grandfather had no intrest in guns but they both knew how to use one. ive got no intrest in cars but i know how to drive. lack of interest does not mean perfectly capeble of using them.

[guest154]

Nope you are wrong Scip, I have not ignored it at all.  You are the one that is biased because you are tunneled and want to believe everything you read to be correct, but you are not always correct are you. Will you not except that sometimes what you read can be false. You will not look at it from a different perspective or consider an alternative.  [/b] This is where you fail most of the time and this reflects how biased you really are.  Shame you can't balance the scales like a Libran. 

Just because she had no interest does not mean that she did not know how to pick up a gun and use it.

I don't think Scip is biased. But all the above in bold.. you constantly defend someone who does that, even when you know she is wrong. 

[Stephanie]

I don't think Scip is biased. But all the above in bold.. you constantly defend someone who does that, even when you know she is wrong. 

I think some posters don't understand the concept of being objective. When posters compare something from their own  lives you can't help sense they are being guided by their own emotions as opposed to logic and reasoning.

[guest154]

I think some posters don't understand the concept of being objective. When posters compare something from their own  lives you can't help sense they are being guided by their own emotions as opposed to logic and reasoning.

It seems some people pick and choose things from their own lives to excuse/explain Bambers behaviour, no matter how convulted they seem. There are only so many excuses one can make before all they are doing is denying what is in front of them.

[Patti]

I don't think Scip is biased. But all the above in bold.. you constantly defend someone who does that, even when you know she is wrong. 

Scip knows I mean no wrong with what I am saying to him and he will not be offended. But, what I cannot understand is that you complain when I speak like that but not when Scip does...I find that very odd.

[scipio_usmc]

both my father and my grandfather had no intrest in guns but they both knew how to use one. ive got no intrest in cars but i know how to drive. lack of interest does not mean perfectly capeble of using them.

They had to have learned how to use a guns somewhere and in the meantime what guns could they use? The assumption once you use one gun you can use any is not right.

[scipio_usmc]

Nope you are wrong Scip, I have not ignored it at all.  You are the one that is biased because you are tunneled and want to believe everything you read to be correct, but you are not always correct are you. Will you not except that sometimes what you read can be false.  You will not look at it from a different perspective or consider an alternative. This is where you fail most of the time and this reflects how biased you really are.  Shame you can't balance the scales like a Libran. 

Just because she had no interest does not mean that she did not know how to pick up a gun and use it.

You are just projecting.  You have tunnel vision not me.  Saying someone could be lying is not enough to establish they are which is necessary to disregard something.  You want us to believe the family and Jeremy lied in their statements and that Sheila actually had fired guns before and had an interest in them.  You want to ignore logic and pretend that because she grew up on a farm she would know how to operate all guns of any kind even though the family hadn't even owned a semi-auto until a few months before the murders.

Being objective means taking the evidence as it is found not ignoring it and that is what you do you put on blinders then absurdly suggest anyone who doesn't wear the blinders you wear are biased.  That is classic projection.

We are trying to assess the situation JEREMY claims existed to see if his supposed reaction is one that is credible.  His own claims are that she was not known to have any interest in guns or to have fired any to his knowledge.  To put ourselves in his place means putting ourselves in the exact position he claimed existed with a sister who had mental problems but the problems were controlled, she wasn't violent towards the family in the past...

You don't want to do that because you know Jeremy's actions are indefensible.  That reveals who has the bias in this instance.

People who are biased make poor advocates precisely because they can't see the evidence in the light an objective party sees the evidence and is thus unable to try refuting that evidence competently. 

 

[Reader]

He drives slowly to WHF. Testifying that he did not want to arrive before the police.

He didn't drive slowly - the police who overtook him all estimated that he was driving at about (or up to) 30 mph.

To be fair no one knows how they would react if receiving a call. At 3.10am.

Jeremy's initial recollection was that his father called him at about 3:22am.

West told him to go right over he didn't say to wait for police to arrive before going.

According to his statement, Pc West said to Jeremy "go to the house and wait for the Police officers and liaise with them there", so he seemed to think that Jeremy would get there first, but clearly didn't want him to do anything significant there until he'd talked to the police at the scene. That's presumably what nugnug was referring to, albeit slightly inaccurately.

[SaraT]

I think some posters don't understand the concept of being objective. When posters compare something from their own  lives you can't help sense they are being guided by their own emotions as opposed to logic and reasoning.

I understand perfectly the concept of being objective. I'm just saying at that same age and at that time, I didn't call 999.
Had I recieved the same call Jeremy did, I would have acted in the exact same way and I would say that whether I thought he was innocent or guilty.