monstergrotusque wrote:Whether or not the victims life is "already ruined" as you put, is irrelevant. You have no idea of what his past life experiences were and the circumstances that led him too being homeless and poor.
The article says "history of homelessness and petty crime." But other than that, I don't know any more than you do.
monstergrotusque wrote:I feel your statement is presumptuous and , for lack of a better term, borders along the line of bigotry. To assume the mans' life is forfeit due to his station in life and that of which doesn't warrant any compassion by no means justifies the mutilations he suffered.
The irony is, you yourself are being presumptuous. Exactly where did I say his life was forfeit?
Yes, it's a tragic loss of life and the
further destruction of another. I don't see you bawling over the countless homeless who die everyday, though.
monstergrotusque wrote:As for what the "face eaters" state of mind was and the narcotics he took is also a moot point. I'm familiar with the "psychosis" of drug addiction and those of whom i know who suffer heavy drug addiction never act like that or have fantasies of doing such things. This individual must have been harboring latent psychotic tendencies that were repressed until he became so uninhibited that he was able to act them out.
The article doesn't say he was on drugs, it even says toxicology hasn't come back yet.
monstergrotusque wrote:He wasn't "normal" in my opinion as his affiliation with the local football team may lead people to believe.
And how do you know that? Opinion is irrelevant here, we're talking about cold hard facts and you're just randomly assuming stuff about a dead man's life trying to damn him even further.