Aaron Hernandez’s suicide notes revealed

Simpelton said:

Don't do that. The left wing has just as many of those people, they just act on it differently. Both sides play the identity politics game.

Click to expand...

Please, playing it off as identity politics? This isn't baking a penis cake for gay dudes, this is part of a system which feeds on fear to foster the very inner city environment that keeps the for-profit prisons packed to the gills. Calling this identity politics is ridiculous, this is a major facet of today's GOP's platform, a bajillion dollar industry and a tremendously impactful policy approach to dealing with crime.

You don't get to jerk off about being 'tough on crime' unless you take the black and white world view people in this thread espouse out of convenience or deeply-held belief.

This conversation is near and dear to my heart because I grew up in a house with a serial abuser. I could just call him a monster and be done with it but when I learn what he endured as a child while it certainly doesn't absolve him of what he did it becomes easier to understand why he ended up doing the things he did to people. It would be childish to just call him a Very Bad Man and move on and it would accomplish nothing.

Pol Pot wasn't born, he was created. Creating a good guys vs. bad guys world fosters the exact type of environment that prevents people from climbing out of abuse instead of propagating it.

Mark. said:

They were talking about this on the radio this afternoon. Of course, they look for anything to make Belichick look bad. Anyway, they said he had his lawyer present when interviewed by the police about Hernandez and he declined to be recorded. I don't blame him for not wanting to be recorded. Imagine how his words could/would be twisted. To the legal experts of here, is it standard practice to record those who are interviewed?

Click to expand...

There's a great youtube I highly recommend where a lawyer and a cop debate never talking to the police. The lawyer goes first and gives several fantastic examples of why you should just never talk to the police before talking to counsel. Cops and juries are human. The risks far outweigh the negligible rewards. "if you did nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" is a stupid policy.

farn said:

Many people will have differing views : that makes perfect sense.

But I’ll stick to « it doesn’t matter your upbringing, you do not need to kill people ». Trying to understand why someone brutally murders others might be interesting to some. I don’t find it interesting at all.

While I understand, intellectually, how some people might attribute senseless violence on past experiences, I continue to believe that if you act as AH did - you are a bad person. To me, there is no grey in his particular case. I don’t forsee an argument strong enough to convince me that « this had to happen ». AH is the author of this tragedy. He owns it forever.

He was (potentially) a great player. He was a bad person.

Click to expand...

Well for example, I've seen some recent work on the impact of lead on the developing brain (think paint dust, pesticides). The impulse control areas are essentially turned into Swiss cheese, as are the hormonal systems that balance and control aggression. People with that particular poisoning have no more control over their violent behavior than you do over yours when you sneeze.

You can simply call them "bad people" but IMHO that's what we do as a society when we don't have the courage, discipline, and commitment to stick with the problem through all of its complexity and tragedy.

We are now using more lead paint than ever before, in homes that have short half lives, all because we'd prefer to pay a couple of bucks less for a gallon (short term pleasure) than protect millions of children (eventual adults) from horrific poisoning. The people making those policy decisions are having far, far more violent impact on their fellow humans than AH did. Who is "the bad person" really?

betterthanthealternative said:

Well for example, I've seen some recent work on the impact of lead on the developing brain (think paint dust, pesticides). The impulse control areas are essentially turned into Swiss cheese, as are the hormonal systems that balance and control aggression. People with that particular poisoning have no more control over their violent behavior than you do over yours when you sneeze.

You can simply call them "bad people" but IMHO that's what we do as a society when we don't have the courage, discipline, and commitment to stick with the problem through all of its complexity and tragedy.

We are now using more lead paint than ever before, in homes that have short half lives, all because we'd prefer to pay a couple of bucks less for a gallon (short term pleasure) than protect millions of children (eventual adults) from horrific poisoning. The people making those policy decisions are having far, far more violent impact on their fellow humans than AH did. Who is "the bad person" really?

Click to expand...

I’m still going with AH and anyone who kills humans for sport as the « bad person ».

If you truly believe that lead makes you so impulsive that you’d kill someone and that it wasn’t your fault, then I think we need to consider an « agree to disagree » strategy...

fnordcircle said:

Please, playing it off as identity politics? This isn't baking a penis cake for gay dudes, this is part of a system which feeds on fear to foster the very inner city environment that keeps the for-profit prisons packed to the gills. Calling this identity politics is ridiculous, this is a major facet of today's GOP's platform, a bajillion dollar industry and a tremendously impactful policy approach to dealing with crime.

You don't get to jerk off about being 'tough on crime' unless you take the black and white world view people in this thread espouse out of convenience or deeply-held belief.

This conversation is near and dear to my heart because I grew up in a house with a serial abuser. I could just call him a monster and be done with it but when I learn what he endured as a child while it certainly doesn't absolve him of what he did it becomes easier to understand why he ended up doing the things he did to people. It would be childish to just call him a Very Bad Man and move on and it would accomplish nothing.

Pol Pot wasn't born, he was created. Creating a good guys vs. bad guys world fosters the exact type of environment that prevents people from climbing out of abuse instead of propagating it.

Click to expand...

I love you as a poster and find you consistently funny. I am sorry you had to endure difficult times in your youth and i truly hope your adult life has been more peaceful.

But, as I said to another fine poster, I disagree with your premise. I am in the « Pot was born evil and he can burn » camp. No excuses or reasons for what he did. None.

fnordcircle said:

Please, playing it off as identity politics? This isn't baking a penis cake for gay dudes, this is part of a system which feeds on fear to foster the very inner city environment that keeps the for-profit prisons packed to the gills. Calling this identity politics is ridiculous, this is a major facet of today's GOP's platform, a bajillion dollar industry and a tremendously impactful policy approach to dealing with crime.

You don't get to jerk off about being 'tough on crime' unless you take the black and white world view people in this thread espouse out of convenience or deeply-held belief.

This conversation is near and dear to my heart because I grew up in a house with a serial abuser. I could just call him a monster and be done with it but when I learn what he endured as a child while it certainly doesn't absolve him of what he did it becomes easier to understand why he ended up doing the things he did to people. It would be childish to just call him a Very Bad Man and move on and it would accomplish nothing.

Pol Pot wasn't born, he was created. Creating a good guys vs. bad guys world fosters the exact type of environment that prevents people from climbing out of abuse instead of propagating it.

Click to expand...

Did you have a merry little sail along the stream of consciousness?

I'm at a loss for why this post exists, or how any of it has anything to do with the fact that there's judgmental hypocrites playing identity politics on both sides of the political spectrum.

I chose to call someone out who tried to use a murderer's suicide to launch a political attack on the Christian/moral right, as if they were somehow responsible for the man Aaron Hernandez was. I called that out, and got this lovely trip down Whatchasayin Lane that started with penis cake and ended with Pol Pot and went nowhere in between.

For an appropriate reply to the sentiments expressed, I think I'm somewhere between "Wha" and "Huh?"

farn said:

I am in the « Pot was born evil and he can burn » camp. No excuses or reasons for what he did. None.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind words and that was not an attempt to leverage experience for collateral but was rather an attempt to say that I'm not just trying to take this approach for purely academic purposes, but that it's helped me move on in life.

To your comment above the only other question I have is do you believe in free will? Because Calvinistic predestination, as you seem to casually espouse above, suggests not. Someone being 'born evil' is a really tough concept for me to even consider let alone accept.

But since I believe in free will, I do believe that while Ahern was responsible for his actions there's more to it than simply laying the blame for those actions at his feet, full stop. Rather I think that the ripple effects of the people and place he grew up surrounded by played a part in who he became as a man. CTE and/or mental illness played another part. And, to reiterate, the point isn't to say that he was blameless but rather that his actions were forged in part due to his own choices but, at the same time, thought processes and approaches he learned during his formulative years have to be considered as part of the equation.

In the end I think he was just a sad, pathetic and scared person. Even the act of killing someone for spilling a drink on you suggests massive insecurity. I don't think he became that insecure by simple virtue of his genes and I think to suggest otherwise either removes the ripple effects of other people's expression of free will from the equation or implies that free will doesn't exist.

Trying to figure out why I would care about any of this.. Hernandez is a crap stain on this fabulous run that has taken place for the Patriots.

Baez is an opportunist who does not care about all that much except the bottom line..

Was listening to Toucher and Rich early this AM and they were talking about this book, something about how Hernandez when he began to descend into darkness requested a trade to the West Coast.. BB denied it, and according to Baez BB is somewhat culpable for not trading him??

Guess in Baez's world there are no criminals in LA, San Diego, Oakland or San Francisco that Hernandez would have linked up with.. the so called "thug life" only exists in the suburbs of Boston and Providence..

Mark. said:

They were talking about this on the radio this afternoon. Of course, they look for anything to make Belichick look bad. Anyway, they said he had his lawyer present when interviewed by the police about Hernandez and he declined to be recorded. I don't blame him for not wanting to be recorded. Imagine how his words could/would be twisted. To the legal experts of here, is it standard practice to record those who are interviewed?

Click to expand...

It's standard practice to ask, but not everyone will consent (as is his/her right to refuse).

DarrylS said:

Was listening to Toucher and Rich early this AM and they were talking about this book, something about how Hernandez when he began to descend into darkness requested a trade to the West Coast.. BB denied it, and according to Baez BB is somewhat culpable for not trading him??

Guess in Baez's world there are no criminals in LA, San Diego, Oakland or San Francisco that Hernandez would have linked up with.. the so called "thug life" only exists in the suburbs of Boston and Providence..

Click to expand...

I read that too. They were trying to say it was BB’s fault that he killed people. That’s next level irresponsibility. I didn’t want to post on this thread because this incident as you say was a stain on our team. Now this lawyer is doing a money grab.

fnordcircle said:

By certain types of people I mean right wing/religious people who want to view crime more of an essentially predestined condition of the soul rather than the sum of a person's upbringing and environment.

Click to expand...

Absolute BS!! The "right wing" had nothing to do with the current status of the inner cities of Baltimore, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Chicago. There hasn't been anyone close to a right winger in any power in any of those cities for decades!!

If your argument is that these murders are products of their environment, then you are blaming the wrong people for the creation of those environments.

fnordcircle said:

Thanks for the kind words and that was not an attempt to leverage experience for collateral but was rather an attempt to say that I'm not just trying to take this approach for purely academic purposes, but that it's helped me move on in life.

To your comment above the only other question I have is do you believe in free will? Because Calvinistic predestination, as you seem to casually espouse above, suggests not. Someone being 'born evil' is a really tough concept for me to even consider let alone accept.

But since I believe in free will, I do believe that while Ahern was responsible for his actions there's more to it than simply laying the blame for those actions at his feet, full stop. Rather I think that the ripple effects of the people and place he grew up surrounded by played a part in who he became as a man. CTE and/or mental illness played another part. And, to reiterate, the point isn't to say that he was blameless but rather that his actions were forged in part due to his own choices but, at the same time, thought processes and approaches he learned during his formulative years have to be considered as part of the equation.

In the end I think he was just a sad, pathetic and scared person. Even the act of killing someone for spilling a drink on you suggests massive insecurity. I don't think he became that insecure by simple virtue of his genes and I think to suggest otherwise either removes the ripple effects of other people's expression of free will from the equation or implies that free will doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

I believe in free will. AH chose to be evil. I guess I believe that no one NEEDS to be an awful criminal, no matter the upbringing. His choices are what makes him evil. And anyone who makes those type of choices is evil.

Clonamery said:

Your use of the word literature with this mess is about as tangential as the word football being used around the topic of the NJ Jete.

Click to expand...

"Literature" served both as a sarcastic marker being a foil to the garbage that has been pandered at the expense of those involved, as well as uniquely a modifier to highlight the great display of sports journalism that article was.

As a journalist myself, and someone who steered clear of sports journalism because of it's disgusting reputation to spew drama and falsehoods, I really appreciate when a sports journalist does their job in such a capacity.

This wasn't at all a rebuttal to your post haha, I just took the opportunity to share my thoughts. I certainly see from where you're coming.

fnordcircle said:

There's a great youtube I highly recommend where a lawyer and a cop debate never talking to the police. The lawyer goes first and gives several fantastic examples of why you should just never talk to the police before talking to counsel. Cops and juries are human. The risks far outweigh the negligible rewards. "if you did nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" is a stupid policy.

Click to expand...

I've watched that fantastic video a few times, once alone and a couple of more times with my adult children. It's the best example of why you don't ever say a word to the police, even if you're totally innocent.

If there is one thing I hope I never read it is a suicide note.

It is easy to "bash" the NEP and BB because of their alleged inaction, due to their history of being silent on these issues. If I remember correctly there is ongoing litigation regarding his CTE.. whatever they say or respond to can be used against them.

Not completely up to date on what has happened regarding his CTE lawsuit, but why didn't Hernandez atty's also sue Florida, Bristol Central High School and any youth league he may have played in???

Dragda said:

If there is one thing I hope I never read it is a suicide note.

Click to expand...

I could think of a couple of those I wouldn't mind reading

fnordcircle said:

There's a great youtube I highly recommend where a lawyer and a cop debate never talking to the police. The lawyer goes first and gives several fantastic examples of why you should just never talk to the police before talking to counsel. Cops and juries are human. The risks far outweigh the negligible rewards. "if you did nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" is a stupid policy.

Click to expand...

Another example:
Everybody Lies: FBI Edition

betterthanthealternative said:

We are now using more lead paint than ever before, in homes that have short half lives

Click to expand...

The use of lead-based paint in residential structures and environments was banned in the US in 1971, and the manufacture of lead-based house paint was banned in the US in 1978.

So you're claiming that non-house lead paint is being (illegally!) used "off-label" even more than lead paint was used when it was legal? Seems doubtful.