Comments on: Where the people rule

By: WestTxCrude

WestTxCrude — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:10:50 +0000

Great story!

By: A2C3E5

A2C3E5 — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 16:39:45 +0000

“Gatekeeper” systematic suppression of viewpoints and it’s contribution to prevention of social progress:

Certain viewpoints as to the possible relationship of the vigilatante justice to the violence that initiated the incident in the first place are apparently not being allowed to be expressed in this media.

Such systematic suppression of viewpoints and opinions as to roots causes and contributing factors severely limits the debate and has no valid place in a supposed democracy.

By: charlesmartel

charlesmartel — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:47:34 +0000

On second thought, no one else was killed so the camera was obviously not an determining factor.

By: charlesmartel

charlesmartel — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:42:22 +0000

Yes. These people have different cultural standards but I don’t buy that the camera would not incite further violence. What about the guy who was so impressed by the Reuter’s credentials?

By: charlesmartel

charlesmartel — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:42:17 +0000

Yes. These people have different cultural standards but I don’t buy that the camera would not incite further violence. What about the guy who was so impressed by the Reuter’s credentials?

By: MDickson

MDickson — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:42:15 +0000

Charles: Latin America, especially the more remote areas, are very, very different than what I imagine you are familiar with. I have lived in the middle of Mexico for almost 13 years.

The photographer did not exacerbate this situation.

By: charlesmartel

charlesmartel — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 15:40:58 +0000

Ok. Got it. The other men were “thieves.”

By: charlesmartel

charlesmartel — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 15:32:10 +0000

Uh? I’m looking at the photos of the woman beating the guy in the truck, and the woman with the knife to another guys throat, and thinking what is the Rueters photographer’s part in all of this vigilantism. Your camera is fueling the fire. If not for the camera may be mob would have quelled itself.
Also, I saw three different men in these photos. Did all do the killing. I don’t understand. Let me read again.

By: A2C3E5

A2C3E5 — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 13:45:34 +0000

What is truly ironic is that these barbaric people cannot understand that the initial cause of the incident that provoked all this may well have been motivated by exactly the same kind of “do it yourself instant ‘justice’” thinking that they are using.

Why did he kill the two children in the first place? It’s quite possible that they did something that he felt merited that kind of ‘instant’ justice. Maybe he had mental difficulties that disordered his thinking but if he hadn’t been primed to think in terms of “instant justice” by his society would that disordered thinking have led to such a horrendous result or something far less serious?

Is it possible that the children themselves did essentially the same thing by thinking that something he’d done (or that they thought he had done) merited “instant justice” (by stealth because they were children) and then they got caught?

Note that the blood lust of the crowd wasn’t satisfied by the death and suffering of the initial target so they shifted to other targets as well, the suspected thieves. Who suspected then and why? What was the evidence? Then when those targets were removed they started talking about burning the town square! What crime was the town square guilty of? Clearly there is a real problem with the cultural thinking here and that supports the suspicion that the children may have started the whole escalating spiral of violence by something they did.

What is clear is that this society has sunk to a truly barbaric level. It wasn’t always this way. One has to suspect that the current extreme economic conditions may have exacerbated the situation.