Monday, December 9, 2019
Genuine Remorse?
It's been a long, long time folks, but wanted to post an old 60 Minutes Australia video clip I found of Susan Atkins (and her dragon lady fingernails) weeping, claiming remorse and putting on a damn good act. Personally, I don't buy it. Is my opinion popular on this blog? Nope, it never has been, but that's ok. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
56 comments:
I agree. She s delusional in this clip. What about drinking the blood? The tying of hands? Just because she became a Catholic she thinks she was absolved. She got what she deserved.
She did stab Frykowski in the legs. She did hold Sharon when Tex stabbed her. She was present at Tate's house and Gary's house. She rode along for Labianca. She dipped a towel in Sharon's blood and wrote PIG on the door. By her own hand, she did not directly kill anyone; but she helped and she was not merely there. She is very far from being innocent. And why can't she say the word sorry to the victim's families. She dances around an apology.
Austin Anne said...
Personally, I don't buy it. Is my opinion popular on this blog? Nope, it never has been, but that's ok. Thoughts?
It's not really a matter of whether or not your opinion is popular. It's a matter of actually having a fair reason for holding the opinion that you do. And in truth, you never go beyond the point where the murderers murdered and sang and danced during their trial. You tend to zero in on a three or so year period and wilfully ignore the next 35-45. It doesn't really matter what any of them could say or have said, your default position is "screw them !" You show your distate quite openly. Even in your preamble, the way you refer to her fingernails is loaded with resentment and displays your bias.
Now, personally, I think Susan Atkins was a messed up individual that went through some fundamental changes as she reflected on the folly of her actions and mess of her life over a 35 year period. But I would not have released her from prison even up to 2009 when she died. Because despite her changes, she also demonstrated that there was enough in her character to still make her risky. A cursory read of "The myth of HS" shows that she was still all over the place.
One can still believe that a person has gone through important stages of remorse and regret, yet hold to the opinion that they should remain in jail until they die. But the fact will always remain, even the worst of us can regret and change.
Jeff Harper said...
What about drinking the blood? The tying of hands? Just because she became a Catholic she thinks she was absolved. She got what she deserved
Yes, she got what she deserved.
Interestingly, it was never a point made by Atkins herself about drinking blood. As far as I'm aware, the closest she came to speaking about it is in "Child of Satan, Child of God," a book that should never have been written in my view. Anyway, in it, she says that when she went to get the towel to write on the door, she pictured herself tasting the blood and then nearly threw up at such a thought. Hmmmm. All of her books are problematic for so many collective reasons.
If it turns up elsewhere prior to the trial, I'll gladly hear it but the whole thing about her tasting the blood comes from Virginia Graham's testimony. Graham stated that she had been told by Atkins that she had blood on her hand and had tasted it and said something like "To taste death and yet give life. What a trip !" I have no doubt that Susan did say this. Whether or not it actually happened, only Atkins would know, but it certainly meshes with the kind of thinking Susan exhibited in that period and her view of life and death and I can't honestly see Virginia Graham pulling that one out of the air. It so fits with Family thinking.
Off topic:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/marianne-williamson-spreads-lie-about-trump-pardoning-charles-manson_n_5dee579ee4b07f6835b6761b
Author and Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson once again found herself the subject of ire on social media after she spread an unsubstantiated claim that Donald Trump was planning on posthumously pardoning murderer and cult leader Charles Manson.
“There is something deeply sinister about Trump pardoning Charles Manson, even posthumously,” Williamson tweeted to her 2.8 million followers. ....
Williamson’s tweet warning of the implications a Manson pardon would carry read with the somber tone of a candidate wanting to be taken seriously, but her claim about a forthcoming pardon was wholly unsupported.
While in prison Charlie thought he could be as big as the Beatles. In terms of name recognition, he probably is.
I'll bet Manson has, at this point, more name recognition that every one of the big Hollywood stars of the '60s. More name recognition that most past US Presidents.
I thought knowledge of Charlie would gradually fade after his death, but what if the opposite happens? What if he becomes a bigger star than ever?
I have no doubt she's remorseful for what she did ... but dressing it up in shades of innocence in certain aspects of the events is wrong. She wants it both ways. Yes, she's remorseful .... it just never mattered a whole lot to anyone.
I would agree that she does have remorse. I am just no sure if most of the remorse stems from getting caught or opening her mouth and cracking the case against the family. What I would have loved to see is the interviewer asking questions about the Hinman murder. She saw this poor man begging for his life for days without feeling enough compassion to help him. With the Tate murders she only had to listen for these terrified pleading for their lives for a short period of time. With Hinman it was days. The fact that Susan knew him makes it so much worse. That can only come from a heartless person. For that same reason, I really thought that Brunner got away with murder. I can't even imagine the fear that Hinman felt during all those hours.
It's tough for me to ignore what happened to Susan when she was a kid. I do have some empathy but realize that actions have consequences. Her mom dying closed the door on a chance for Susan to live a more typical life and that affects me as a dad, although by then it could've been too late anyway, I wasn't there and don't know. But lots of people had messed up childhoods and didn't go Susan's route, so I'm not using that as an excuse. I think she was lookin for love in all the wrong places while mentally ill from past traumas and things snowballed until out of control. NS said she looked straight out of central casting and something along the lines of her appearance and behavior made it easier for us to not care what happened to her. I agree. Her leg sores gross me out to this day.
As far as letting her out of prison, I don't think that keeping old criminals in prison affects how young criminals evaluate the crimes they're about to commit. And neither does the death penalty. So I don't have a solution. Pass more laws that people in charge can ignore whenever they want? I dunno. I do know that none of us will ever forget the video of Susan praying at her parole hearing. And I think they're keeping them all in prison because payback is a mf-er. And payback doesn't have to be right or wrong, it just is.
Austin Ann, while I do expect you to react in a consistent manner, I don't have any problem with your opinions. It's pretty obvious who thinks what at this point in the blog anyway. It's cool that people are still willing to discuss things here.
Matthew said...
I would agree that she does have remorse. I am just not sure if most of the remorse stems from getting caught or opening her mouth and cracking the case against the family
At the last parole hearing that she was compos mentis at in 2005, I think she was of a mind in which she suspected she'd never see the outside world again. Some of her words are instructive; "Every breath I take is a gift that I know I don't deserve. The people in this room who believe I don't deserve it & I agree with them....I don't deserve anything. The DA says that I'm manipulative. The DA who has never spent 5 minutes, not 5 seconds with me has assassinated the quality of my character based on my commitment offense. And that's his job is to assassinate me in your eyes and to assassinate my character. I don't know whether he's succeeded or not. But after 35 years, almost 36 years, almost 37 years of incarceration, the quality of my character today is not defined by the walls that hold me in...The quality of my character today is defined by the work that I have done to make amends to everybody that I've harmed....I do know the gravity and the nature of my commitment offense. I do know that although the DP was abolished because it was unconstitutional, in my heart it would have been right, had I been executed....I firmly believe in the process of remorse and repentance and regeneration and rehabilitation and finally, restoration to the community. The community outside and the community inside. And I do want to, through the Board of Prison Terms and Parole, make available at any time, in any way that the families of the victims, if they ever desire to, to confront me face to face, ask me questions. I will answer any questions that they have. I will answer them honestly. They deserve that from me. I've just never been able to bridge that gap and I need help. I need help from the BPT. I need from the CDC. I need help from the community. I think it's time that there be some healing and that's why I'm here today is to offer that healing. To offer a way and to ask for a way. Will you help me? Will you help the families of the victims? Will you help the outside community find a way? Will you help the DA's Office? Will the DA's Office help? Will the Police Department help? Or will the legacy of hate and revenge and retribution continue today? It's not the time served. It's not whether I stay in prison or out of prison. There's prisons beyond the walls and the fences of CIW. There's a prison of un-forgiveness and that prison of un-forgiveness hurts every single heart that holds it. And I understand the unwillingness or the inability and with forgiveness, if forgiveness should come, it does not mean an abandonment of the victims. It does not mean a disloyalty to the victims. It does not mean that I don't do what justice demands. It does not mean that the law is thwarted. But forgiveness and restoration and reconciliation means healing. And that's what I'm asking for today, for everybody in this room."
That was in the bit at the end where she's meant to tell them how much she'd changed and why she should be paroled. And she doesn't. She risks a 5 year denial to speak about the need for healing and trying to end the cycle. It seemed more important to her than being paroled.
Whatever one thinks of Susan Atkins {and believe me, she is one hard lady to find much positive about}, one at least should give credit where credit is due.
OMG GrimnTard is still here?
Susan died remorseless. Her soul died when her mother died. Every single action of every single day since that event was seeking attention- good or bad she wanted attention.
She clearly disassociated from the Cielo events early on, even describing them like she was in a film.
I don't come here that often. Deb and you are among the few worth a damn- but seriously, why is this controversial. She toed the Charlie made me do it excuse because she thought that would work.
Remember, even the lying scumbag BUG thought this girls would be out by 1985 at the LATEST. Dying in prison must have been such a slow, hard, painful reality.
GOOD
ColScott said...
I don't come here that often
Only because the security hounds recognize your scent !
Why have you not disappeared?
grim introduced an excerpt of SA’s 2005 parole hearing noting...
Some of her words are instructive
I couldn’t agree more, though I may reach a conclusion much closer to the OP than yours. The excerpt you chose, in the context of this discussion, motivated me to actually dust off the dictionary and confirm the definitions of remorse and regret and guilt. I also did a bit of looking for published results from psychologists about the distinctions between regret and remorse. At the end, when I look at everything I have encountered about SA, I can convince myself that she reasonably satisfies the criteria for regret, but she falls short when it comes to genuine remorse. I understand that’s a bit of a word game, and it’s also merely an opinion. But I claim it’s an informed opinion, and as you have so often remarked, nuance is crucial when analyzing all things TLB. With crisp, concise definitions in front of me, when I reread this excerpt, I see her almost surreally using the word “remorse“ clearly trying to make it mean something it doesn’t.
Popular or not, while I understand she’s tough to fathom, I give her no credit when it comes to remorse as I understand its meaning.
I think John Waters makes an insightful point in his article discussing his friendship with Leslie. He comments that Leslie had put in the hard work of trying to redeem herself. And contrasts that with Tex and Sadie who took the easy way of "finding religion." No work involved, just instant absolution. Of all the actors in this story, Sadie is the one I have the hardest time finding sympathy for. She was the most willing, the most unrepentent.
grimtraveller said...
ColScott said...
I don't come here that often
Only because the security hounds recognize your scent !
----------------------------------------------------------------
scent...LOL
DEPEND(s) on if you know why he was called Private Peepee pants on tour.
I would say that Pat and Leslie have remorse for their actions and Tex, Susan, Bobby and Bruce have regrets. You can regret an action because you have to pay the price. Remorse is feeling guilt or sadness for the action itself.
grimtraveller said...
Only because the security hounds recognize your scent !
snort...
I have NEVER felt any compassion for Susan. She never seemed to express genuine remorse for the victims. As brought up in a comment above, she was friends with Gary Hinman. She sat there watching him be tortured for days. Sick. And the words she told Sharon are especially cruel and taunting:"Bitch, I have no mercy for you or your baby. You're gonna die!" She gleefully participated in those murders. She was ready to kill again the second night, but Linda took them to the wrong apartment. Before they left Susan squatted on the stairs and pooped, and left it there. She also bragged about giving oral sex to her baby boy. Susan Atkins was beyond warped. She was a perverted, filthy, twisted, cruel and sadistic narcissist. If she ever felt "remorse," it would be about getting caught and sentenced!
I tell you I've got news for many of you.
I've got news for many of the freaks that wrote articles and some of the books:
spinning and lying again and again about a girl named Susan, you know?!
This video, interview with Susan, with the weirdo Kay and then some comments here and elsewhere, really upset me, bothered me.
And, you have no idea what I have done and seen in the late 60's-early 70's.
Still, this really played a bummer on my mind, even with myself being somewhat jaded to all that has been in society.
Can the outright lies stop?
Look and consider: everything Kay said was untrue. Something in this guys head is making him vindictive and hateful. Young, attractive girls 'hippie' types having fun and sex bothered him and others? Too freakin' bad, that tells you where they are mentally.
As people that are 'just against' cute Susan, no matter what, try to build a 'case' against her they are often building a 'case' that is built on falsehood, bizarre statements and, well that's the way it's been going.
While I'm at it, it just so happens that Susan did not 'rot in jail.'
Therefore, that 'satisfaction' isn't really there for the haters.
This, the above written truisms, are only as I begin to set out the truth as I can and will show the outright lies and false analysis about dear Susan. One by one. See you in while crocodile.
Dig?
I think Susan believed she had remorse but that is not enough.
ColScott said...
Why have you not disappeared?
Because your magic routinely fails.
Abracadabra !
Carlos said...
I can convince myself that she reasonably satisfies the criteria for regret, but she falls short when it comes to genuine remorse. I understand that’s a bit of a word game
It can be. And it's a sliding scale at times and has a progressive element to it. It's not a one time action. Susan flip-flopped a lot but for me, the bottom line was that she believed that her execution would have been just, thereby signalling that she disagreed that it would have been unconstituional. It was interesting that she said that she felt that in her heart.
Peter said...
I think John Waters makes an insightful point in his article discussing his friendship with Leslie
Yeah. His friendship with Leslie.
He comments that Leslie had put in the hard work of trying to redeem herself. And contrasts that with Tex and Sadie who took the easy way of "finding religion."
Anyone that thinks "finding religion" is the easy way out needs to speak to a large cross section of people that never had any religious or spiritual persuasion before and then did and continued living the life. The funny thing is that many of those that continue and those that fall away or abandon the life generally will answer the question the same way !
No work involved, just instant absolution
Well, having been a Christian for the last 34 years, having been atheist prior to that, neither part of that equation is remotely true and those for whom it appears that way find that out further down the line if they don't catch it initially.
John Seger said...
She was ready to kill again the second night, but Linda took them to the wrong apartment. Before they left Susan squatted on the stairs and pooped, and left it there
Much of what you say in your post, I can see where you're coming from but the one area I think there is room for doubt is this one.
I don't think she was willing to kill that second night. That's what I think her actions demonstrate. In fact, I don't think her or Clem were willing to. They abandoned Ocean Front Walk pretty sharpish for people with the scent of blood in their noses and seemed more willing to go and smoke weed than carry out orders. And laying that loaf on the stairs could easily be seen as major relief on her part. Relief in the sense of not having to kill again, that is !
You go to your church and I'll go to mine.
grim said...
I don't think she was willing to kill that second night. That's what I think her actions demonstrate. In fact, I don't think her or Clem were willing to. They abandoned Ocean Front Walk pretty sharpish for people with the scent of blood in their noses and seemed more willing to go and smoke weed than carry out orders.
Being willing to kill does require any over the top blood lust compelling one to kill. I don’t doubt that Manson’s manipulation played a foundational role, as well. But I think that if circumstances had been slightly different, SA would have participated in some fashion, perhaps even more so than her claims regarding the events of the previous night. That satisfies being willing enough for my purposes.
And laying that loaf on the stairs could easily be seen as major relief on her part. Relief in the sense of not having to kill again, that is
Perhaps. Or perhaps it’s the inevitable result of getting amped up on speed and being stuck in a car for hours. Or adrenaline and speed and being stuck in a car for hours. Maybe The Sopranos were on to something with the anecdote about what Big Pussy did once on a cat burglary job.
You're in 60's California
dream away
where the sun is always shining
and her life was nice and promising
till that day it all crashed away
darkness was what she lay there on the roof in desperate wonder
I wanna die I wanna go away I don't care anymore
take me back before my mother left me I wanna go back
there was no answer as she lay there from above
or from the people below
anyway what did they know
then came along a fella named Charlie
and now she had a 'family' of rag tag sillies
and hobbies of fun well, now, what's to care about except
well I'll just get high and play and I like keep on keeping
and getting laid
after betrayal after betrayal what really matters what I do
can you relate and see it what kind of phony society is this
were you there in Haight-Ashbury did you ever trip on acid
I got stoned on Hash and slid off the sofa those were screwed up
crazy days and John Lennon said you say it's the institution well you know
we all wanna...
Hello allow me to present this to you we're not here as definitive textbook history scholars however what we say will do as far as logic enters the picture
you know if we don't hate and lie that's cool.
This 'notorious' case that's also 'sensational' was enjoyed by the media and a good time and money was had by the prosecution and some others.
--In this video with brown eyed Susan (what's up with the 'wedge' hairstyle? Kinda goofy if you ask women lover me)
--But wait, there's more:
all of the lies this loathsome Kay said are easy to dispel.
A general look and answers with the facts will show that.
This guy actually said that the 'family' planned on taking over the U.S!
huh, really? And that he wasn't sure but maybe taking over the World! Ha ha, sure weird Kay.
Then, the dishonest former asst. DA says that Susan killed Sharon Tate and drank her blood.
No.Tex was man enough to take the blame and said that Susan did no such thing/s.
And, there was actually no evidence, physical or other witnesses that said/pointed to anything like that.
Then we have creepy Kay saying that Susan was the most dangerous female criminal he had ever seen in 17 years or whatever.
Now, we had Pat (call her Katie) attack Abigail (just a fine person as was beautiful Sharon) and attack both of the LaBiancas. Yet Susan was a 'killer' and most dangerous?
There were other females in California that were in prisons for outright, cold blooded murder of one and more persons. Well, you get the idea.
With the basic use of ones basic mental facilities, of common sense, then you can see the spins and lies.
30 years in prison and then freedom for attractive, shiny dark brown hair Susan, would have been the equal or more years served than hundreds of others that were paroled, those that murdered one and more persons, that is.
And that was and is only in the state of California, the land of beaches, hills and all of those fruits and nuts.And, I've been to Chatsworth, in July, 1969.
What's it all about, anyway? Blood from a turnip?
Aren't you tired of people who just keep on Susan and Leslie with a permanent, seething hate?
Don't you believe in any understanding of what leads people to do what they do and that some people like Susan didn't do what they keep saying she did and doesn't it matter when we point out some of those logic based truths?
Thank you, now I'll get up and get a coffee refill, here at Wendy's.
Free wifi and tasty frosty's.
Shock jocks know down deep they are gonna get fired eventually.
Nature of the beast.
You want to leave your mark? I can make you famous. Leave something witchy.
You like spooking people? Really freaking scaring them. Creepy crawl in my home as I sleep. You got my attention.
Really Pregnant... doesn't matter I'm here to shock-like none of the same ole vanilla killers hundreds of (*witch) that were paroled. Ha, no one is scared of those type killers no. They'll get out.
Leave my mark, yup carved right into his chest stick the fork in and leave it there for good measure, I'm on my way to the top you see. You will remember me dammit.
Look at me! No, really I said look at ME, you didn't think I would use your blood to write on your house walls. Silly pigs I have no limits. I do as I please anything at all, do I have your attention?
I'm the devil! Treat me as such or pay with full chaos. This is your warning Los Angeles elite did my tone shine or need I try again someday?
Peter said...
You go to your church and I'll go to mine
You got me there Pete. Please elaborate.
Carlos said...
Being willing to kill does require any over the top blood lust compelling one to kill
I'm not so sure it always does. Being willing to murder might, though.
I think that if circumstances had been slightly different, SA would have participated in some fashion, perhaps even more so than her claims regarding the events of the previous night
Oh, I agree with you wholeheartedly on that. If Linda had taken them up to Nader's apartment and he'd let them in, I reckon Susan would have taken part in whatever shenanigans ensued. Bear in mind though, that the instructions to actually kill were issued to Clem and Linda exclusively. That alone makes me wonder what Atkins actually did the night before and how it was reported to Charlie and what understanding of her participation he was under.
perhaps it’s the inevitable result of getting amped up on speed and being stuck in a car for hours
I don't think that would make you wanna shit !
Seriously though, all I'm saying is that there are different, and perhaps equally plausible ways, of looking at some of Atkins' myriad actions over the two nights.
Fayez Abedaziz said...
This guy actually said that the 'family' planned on taking over the U.S!
Well, if you follow the trajectory of Helter Skelter, that's a partial outcome. Part of the gig was planning for the day 'blackie' would discover their inability to do anything without the white man and therefore hand over the reigns of power. In George Stimson's book, "Goodbye Helter Skelter" he quotes Charlie extensively throughout the book and Charlie was still of the belief that Black people were clones trying to ape the white man and basically couldn't do anything without them. And he was also of the belief that if Black people were in charge, there wouldn't be any White people left.
Then, the dishonest former asst. DA says that Susan killed Sharon Tate and drank her blood
The drinking of the blood bit is just dishonest sensationalist cak from Kay, although it was part of the witness testimony that she tasted the blood as it was on her hand. But he was in court during the penalty phase and with his own ears, he heard Susan unashamedly tell the entire world that she stabbed Sharon to death. When she was asked if she considered it a mercy killing, she reiterated that she had told Sharon that she had no mercy for her. It is part of the transcript and therefore part of the court record. So even if he deep down thought it was actually a load of horseshit, as a member of the DA's office, he was perfectly within his rights to use it, over and over and over.
Then we have creepy Kay saying that Susan was the most dangerous female criminal he had ever seen in 17 years or whatever
As much as that may sting you, she might have been. It was his opinion and I'm not aware of him saying that about Leslie or Pat. He said some unsavoury stuff about them, but not that.
I think he had a point. We certainly can't say that he didn't have a point given that it was his feeling.
I kinda thought Fayez was Melton for a minute.
Glad to see the ol' Grimster back in good form.
Blogger GreenWhite said...
I kinda thought Fayez was Melton for a minute.
White Rabbit or the other Melton?
Orwhut, the White Rabbit :)
Thanks, GreenWhite. Having two Manson related Meltons sometimes confuses me.
Or, Nitrini III
Ha,ha Doug.....lol
This is me
👇
https://mobile.twitter.com/nitrini1950/photo
And, I'm not just another pretty face....lol
But if I pull my hair back and shave, I'm a "RINGER" for
Mick Jagger
Mario George Nitrini 111
--------
The OJ Simpson Case
I'm not so sure I'd advertize that fact, Mario ! Micky kinda wrinkly.
Donna said...
She is very far from being innocent
Probably the only thing that could unite the entire world is opposition to the notion of Susan Atkins and innocence having been true compadres.
Grim,
I'll rephrase that....lol
A younger Mick Jagger.....lol
Mario George Nitrini 111
-----
The OJ Simpson Case
Mario George Nitrini 111 typed:
Ha,ha Doug.....lol
This is me
��
https://mobile.twitter.com/nitrini1950/photo
When I clicked on the link I thought it was Bob from "Twin Peaks"!
Gorodish,
Bob from Twin Peaks?
I'm not that scary looking, am I?
Or am I?.....lol
Mario George Nitrini 111
-------
The OJ Simpson Case
Having a shit childhood doesn't begin to excuse what this woman did. My opinion of her will never change, neither will Grim's of me.
AustinAnn74 said...
Having a shit childhood doesn't begin to excuse what this woman did
No, it doesn't. But it goes a long way towards explaining the path that led her to where she ended up. I'm often interested in why people are so quick to make the point that "no amount of horror in a person's childhood or teenage excuses what they did." Many of those same people wouldn't always say the same thing about a battered woman who eventually kills her batterer. But the reason I'm interested is that it's almost as though some are afraid to acknowledge that things that happen to one along the path of life can actually go a long way towards accounting for a person's future actions. That does not mean that those future actions were inevitable or are excuseable or can be justified. It doesn't mean that the perpetrator isn't responsible. But it's naive to presume that many such perps just appeared in a vacuum.
If children are treated like shit, then that is what is taught to them. That's what goes into their psyche. If little is done to turn that around, then those children will have a particular way of looking at people and treating people and quite simply, you can't blame them for not fitting into whichever society pattern they are part of because that's what has been taught tot them. If they don't value anyone's life because they have not been valued, then to a large extent, they are hardly to blame for acting out of that mindset. We're not so optimistically wonderful as human beings that we, particularly as kids, shrug off ill treatment/neglect and assume the world and the people in it are actually brilliant, contrary to the evidence of our lives.
My opinion of her will never change
My opinions are pretty much always subject to change depending on the information/evidence to hand and the way an opposing or alternative argument is framed or presented. That doesn't mean the opinion will change, just that it is not so entrenched that it can't change.
neither will Grim's of me
I'm not sure what that means, Anne. That seems to imply that I think negatively of you. I don't, not at all. I can disagree with someone's position without concluding that they are the worst specimen the earth has to offer. My closest friends could have your opinions on this subject.
How does one go about evaluating whether a particular individual is genuinely remorseful ?
grim said...
How does one go about evaluating whether a particular individual is genuinely remorseful ?
To avoid going way too far sideways with some of the psychology articles I have read this week, I will offer you simply this:
Have YOU ever felt genuine remorse yourself? If so, how did you know? How did you define it? How did it make you feel? How did your feelings make you act? How did your actions make others feel? I hate to sound like daytime TV, but I can’t escape the fact that I can not evaluate remorse in another person unless and until I know it first hand myself. I suspect that should be true for most of us, and for most powerful emotions as well. I think there is much truth to the idea that we as humans learn to see in others what we have seen and felt ourselves. Experience is often the most powerful teacher of all. It’s not perfect, of course; it’s not even scientific. But in many cases such as Miss Sadie Mae, it’s all we’ll ever have.
Far cooler to be an older Keef than a young Brenda!
Yes, Ms Milly, I agree with you 100%
(older Keef)
Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case
Grim, I love this question for so many reasons!
I think murder/killing (to the degree in this case) is very complex.
Let’s differentiate between murder and killing as they are two very different things. Essentially, the family were brainwashed soldiers carrying out orders and in order to be a “good soldier” they had to be bought in on the concept that “this is war”. Individually, I don’t think any of the family would have sought out to ‘murder’ such as a serial killer does. In terms of buy in to the “this is war” concept, Tex is at one end of the spectrum and Linda is at the other.
That being said, I think there’s a huge difference between feeling sorrow and regret, versus feeling remorse. Can a “good soldier” feel remorse? I’m not sure. Again, the difference between killing and murder has to be taken into account because once one crosses the line to kill, I’m not sure remorse is something a “good soldier” can feel.
Personally, as a soldier, I never felt like I committed murder. If I was tasked with rescuing hostages, killing is the last thing on my mind. Mission success is not defined by the act of killing a hostile enemy, it’s only defined by rescuing the hostages. If an enemy combatant engages me and I have to kill that person, it’s not my desire or objective but have to do so or be killed myself. If I randomly shoot someone unarmed on the street during that mission, that would be murder. At least, in the eyes of the military lawyers who establish the “rules of engagement” for various military objectives.
When I see the sad family members, I see sorrow and sadness and regret for their actions. I’m not sure that I see “remorse”.
Good point, AC.
What about operation phoenix?
What about the USS Liberty (LBJ conspiring with the Israelis to create a false flag sinking of an American warship to get the Americans into the middle east conflict)? The Israeli pilots refused to completely destroy the ship when they saw it was American. Does that make them bad soldiers?
Vietnam was judged daily on body counts.
AstroCreep said...
When I see the sad family members, I see sorrow and sadness and regret for their actions. I’m not sure that I see “remorse”.
Agreed. For me, Tex and Bobby are slam-dunk remorseless. Susan is close behind. I sense significant remorse in Pat and a fair amount in Leslie. I can’t completely tell about Bruce, because of the whole religious thing, but the parole board sure seems to be satisfied with his level of remorse. Clem is an interesting study. I’m convinced he truly became remorseful, but I always remember a quote attributed to him when many years after the murders someone showed him a photo of his younger self, and he said words to the effect that, “That kid is dead.” What does it say about being remorseful for something as terrible as a murder if one can eventually consign the act of murder and all associated emotions to the past and live one’s life completely free of it?
Dan S- this is one of my favorite topics given most of America has been brainwashed to think Vietnam was a war of the poor, uneducated, and mostly fought by minorities, which is completely untrue. 88% of those who served were Caucasian with at least a high school diploma and the overwhelming majority volunteered for service, they weren’t drafted. More than 83% of those who served in Vietnam felt positively about the war and their service. It’s also true that there are more than 9 million Americans who claim to be Vietnam veterans which means roughly 9 out of 10 who claim to have been in Vietnam, are frauds.True story.
The military plans and conducts strategic operations. Meaning, the plan is never to “go kill all the people that you can”. D-Day being a great example of this- secure the beaches for follow on forces to land. In a perfect world, America and it’s allies storm the beaches in overwhelming force, the Nazis drop their weapons, we win and not a shot is fired. Should that fail, the military plans for contingencies and for what happens should things not go according to the plan.
I’ve post quite a bit about the government not being very good at keeping secrets. It’s true and most of what people think is sensitive really is nothing more than secure ways to communicate. There is actually very little that’s really sensitive and the only people who have access to that are people that have been officially read on to a program. Just a method to control who has official access to sensitive programs and information. A good example of this are the helicopters used on the Bin Laden raid. Not everyone needs to know they exist and so access to that information is controlled. I’d be willing to bet big money that people saw those helicopters at night multiple times and feed into the UFO conspiracy. It’s really that simple.
Vietnam and the war of attrition- that’s not a military objective. Maybe it’s a good headline, but that’s about it.
Carlos said...
Have YOU ever felt genuine remorse yourself? If so, how did you know? How did you define it? How did it make you feel? How did your feelings make you act? How did your actions make others feel?
I had to think about this but once I began to, I could definitely answer "yes."
There is a difference in the psychology and dictionary definitions of remorse though, and that I found interesting. Most dics talk of a deep sense of regret and guilt for something that one has done. For example, the Cambridge dic states:a feeling of sadness and being sorry for something you have done and a strong feeling of guilt and regret about something you have done. But an interesting definition in Psychology Today from July 2015 states:Remorse involves admitting one’s own mistakes and taking responsibility for one's actions. It creates a sense of guilt and sorrow for hurting someone else and leads to confession and true apology. It also moves the remorseful person to avoid doing the hurtful action again. Regret leads a person to avoid punishment in the future, while remorse leads to avoiding hurtful actions towards others in the future.
It's worth pointing out that sometimes, a hurtful action isn't even picked up by the hurter as being that way. Sometimes, one is simply not aware that a person has been hurt by something you've said or done.
But once you are aware........
And it's hardly not likely to apply to murder. Although I'm not at all surprised that it can.
But yeah, I've felt remorse many times. I even felt it the week before last.
I can not evaluate remorse in another person unless and until I know it first hand myself. I suspect that should be true for most of us
I am in two minds about that. It sounds logical and I don't want to disagree with it but yet.....
If someone tells you repeatedly for years that they honestly regret something they've done, that they've thought through the possible impact that specific action had on others, and wish, not that they hadn't been caught but that they'd never done it, I don't think you'd have to have experienced remorse yourself to be able to come to some sort of conclusion about whether that person was being genuine. And even if you'd had frequent remorseful episodes, is that really some kind of guarantee of being able to gauge someone else ? You don't need to be a parent {or a good one} in order to have valid and well tought out views as to whether someone else is a good parent.
I think there is much truth to the idea that we as humans learn to see in others what we have seen and felt ourselves
I think that is true but I also think that it is not all embracing. I think it's equally true that other people's experiences can inform a person of matters they've not yet experienced. Similarly, even though we might have been through something, we can totally miss it in someone else because the way each manifests something is unique to them. Not to mention the circumstances in which a particular thing arose.
Experience is often the most powerful teacher of all. It’s not perfect, of course; it’s not even scientific. But in many cases such as Miss Sadie Mae, it’s all we’ll ever have
Again, it's a two headed monster for me on this. On the one hand, I agree entirely. But only because you were wise enough to include that important word 'often' in your thoughts. Its great power is precisely that it is not scientific. It works on a far more instinctive level than that. But of course, because we too are flawed, that may also be a large weakness. Sometimes, experience can actually blind. To an interesting degree, one could say that's what happened with Charlie, Susan, Pat, Leslie and come to think of it, Barbara Hoyt.
AstroCreep said...
I think murder/killing (to the degree in this case) is very complex
Agreed. Most people see it as being rather black and white. Much of the time, it is. But not in this case.
Let’s differentiate between murder and killing as they are two very different things
They're totally different things. Even the bible makes major distinctions between the different ways a person can die at the hands of another and what it is. For example, when King David told his army commander to put this guy at the front of the battle in the hope he'd get legitimately killed {Dave had just screwed the guy's wife and she was pregnant}, even though there was no guarantee he'd die, when he did die in battle, God counted that as murder.
Can a “good soldier” feel remorse?
One of the guys that was on the Enola Gay, when he saw the bomb explode in Hiroshima, he thought "what have we done ?" and I think he was remorseful for the rest of his days. I think a number of Nazi soldiers were eventually remorseful, even though they were hanged.
Yeah, I think good soldiers can feel remorse. It may not be common, but sometimes, soldiers look back on things they did and wish they had not done those things.
Personally, as a soldier, I never felt like I committed murder
Soldiering involves to a large extent, legalized killing. It does differ in different battlegrounds and situations. When some of us were young we tended to put every situation into the same box but maturity teaches us that that's not how it works. The example you gave of rescuing hostages is a great example of that. Taking out snipers might be another, depending on what the overall objective was. I neither take the view that soldiers are murderers or that everything a soldier does is good, right and justifiable. As with many other things, absolutism plays no part here.
When I see the sad family members, I see sorrow and sadness and regret for their actions. I’m not sure that I see “remorse”
I think it was progressive. For example, I don't think Tex was remorseful for a very long time.
Then he discovered that this woman from a prisoner visiting group that he'd been corresponding with was Suzan LaBerge, the daughter of Rosemary LaBianca. His actions had induced a nervous breakdown in her. And here she was, forgiving him, to his face. I know a lot of people see her as batshit crazy and others think they planned the murder and others still, think the whole religion/God/Jesus bit is for nerdy goofs, "not living in the real world" wankers and psychological weaklings but, in spite of what I replied to Carlos earlier, having been through the experience myself, that has enabled to me see somewhat deeper into Tex than I might otherwise have done. I think that bit by bit, gradually, as he has taken more of Christ on board {it's progressive, it doesn't happen all at once. It takes a lifetime}, he's had to confront more and more of himself. If Christians of a certain vintage have one thing they can't run from, it's our own individual ugliness and warpedness.
I think Suzan LaBerge was like a tiny pebble that God used to demolish a toughened windscreen, but starting as an almost imperceptible crack. Part of why I think he's genuine on remorse, Shorty notwithstanding, is that his explanation of Christ routinely gets him nowhere. Yet, he keeps bringing Jesus up. And it keeps contributing to him getting 5 year denials. Einstein once posited the definition of insanity as being doing the same thing each time and expecting a different result.
I'm not so sure...
Cheshire was the British witness re the atom bombs on Japan. He hoped never to see such a thing again. He, and his wife, Sue Ryder, threw themselves into charity work subsequently. Make of that what you will.
What about strategic bombing? Basically random killing of civilians and wanton destruction.
Post a Comment