El-P Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 Wow. That's really pathetic at this point. I have no idea why you're still allowed to post these kind of shit troll posts repetitively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stro Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 That's what I would do. But honestly one thing I don't think should be morally policed is how other people handle grief and the death of family and loved ones--unless we're talking something way out there in terms of explotation. This wasn't that. Everyone copes and handles death differently. Of course. Not judging. But I admit when I saw that picture on her Twitter than was linked to the annoncement of Snuka's death, I was like "I did not need to see this. I have no business in this hospital room with the family." But to me it goes beyond grief, it's about people's life in general. I don't get people posting unprotected pics of their children all the time on FB or Instagram either. It's a broad issue which, like I said, has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Eh, seems like the normal tribute they give to all the scum bags that die. Hard to pick this one to be more upset at than others. Because it's been just a few weeks ago that Nancy Argentino's family was denied justice and that it's a known fact that Snuka, at the very least, is responsible for letting that girl die. Yeah, tons of pro-wrestlers are (were ?) sleazebags. But very few are pretty sure responsible for the death of other human beings. Benoit is one. Snuka is another. So, a graphic would have been more than enough, really. The reaction live was indeed super awkward, which pretty much tells the story too. I don't really have an opinion on it one way or the other. I guess I'm so jaded towards the scumbaggery of wrestling that no mention or a glowing tribute elicit the shame shrug of a reaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 The Snuka tribute deal was complicated by the fact that his daughter is a member of the WWE roster and he was considered an extended family member of their WWE's biggest mainstream tie. I agree that it makes the WWE look bad to those who know the full details - and I suspect there are a much larger number of those people out there than the WWE realizes - but I fully expected it. It doesn't play well, and I think Parv does himself no favors to be going on about virtue signaling in a case where a person was killed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herodes Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 Parv sounds like a guy who just discovered an alt-right dictionary in the wake of Trump and he can't wait to use all his favorite new words and phrases. SJW! Virtue Signalling! Etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 If Snuka's guilt was as obvious as people have made out here, I don't really think that a very famous person with a lot to lose, Hollywood contracts, advertising deals, sponsorship -- let's say The Rock -- would want to touch this with a barge pole. But there he is tweeting about it. It's almost as if nothing was ever proven beyond doubt so he can do so with impunity. https://twitter.com/TheRock/status/821044564677001217 Wrestling has a long history of "insider" culture, and "inside scoop" culture, it comes from Dave. There's the official story and then there's the REAL story. The truth is out there. I have to have some faith in institutions, and the rule of law. If it's not proven, it isn't proven. I don't really see how anyone here is in a position to say otherwise one way or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 The evidence is out there and was outlined by Bix. You didn't dispute it with any counter evidence. If you choose to not care, or choose faith that is your choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herodes Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 Parv, don't go full Snuka Truther. Even if you've gone down the virtue signalling lols path, he killed her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 I have no stake in it. The only fact I know is that it was not proven and this is probably why WWE ran the video, The Rock tweeted, major news organisations reported it with hedged terms, etc. etc. As much as I love the idea of Bix playing Cooper out of Twin Peaks, he's not a policeman or a judge, he's a chap who writes and reports on wrestling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 I would take that position a lot more seriously if you weren't someone who has often tried to sleuth out details about wrestling history that are at least as difficult to ascertain as the facts of the case in question appear to be or if you were providing some sort of counter narrative other than "well, he wasn't convicted." A few years ago I sat on a jury for a rape trial in South Carolina. As it turned out the case was my worst nightmare as it was fairly obvious that the person charged was guilty of some sort of sexual assault against the victim BUT it was clear that the theory of the case was completely wrong and multiple police officers perjured themselves on the stand in order to prop up the totally unbelievable theory. We deliberated on the case for days, but ultimately could not come to any conclusion - the jury was split 7-5 for conviction the minute we went into the room, and was deadlocked at 7-5 the minute we left. I don't think a single person in the room thought the person charged was innocent, or that the victim wasn't in fact the victim. The issue was the presentation of the case. A guilty man went free, even though we all knew he was guilty. It happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herodes Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 I understand that Bix is a credible journalist covering wrestling and his work has been covered in some major outlets, not just some chap who writes about wrestling any more than you're some chap who writes about Shakespeare; it's both your professions, and your writing carries weight in your respective fields. The facts are pretty clear and his act of murder should be decoupled from his overness in MSG in 1983. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianB Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 I would take that position a lot more seriously if you weren't someone who has often tried to sleuth out details about wrestling history that are at least as difficult to ascertain as the facts of the case in question appear to be or if you were providing some sort of counter narrative other than "well, he wasn't convicted." A few years ago I sat on a jury for a rape trial in South Carolina. As it turned out the case was my worst nightmare as it was fairly obvious that the person charged was guilty of some sort of sexual assault against the victim BUT it was clear that the theory of the case was completely wrong and multiple police officers perjured themselves on the stand in order to prop up the totally unbelievable theory. We deliberated on the case for days, but ultimately could not come to any conclusion - the jury was split 7-5 for conviction the minute we went into the room, and was deadlocked at 7-5 the minute we left. I don't think a single person in the room thought the person charged was innocent, or that the victim wasn't in fact the victim. The issue was the presentation of the case. A guilty man went free, even though we all knew he was guilty. It happens. That sounds exactly like reasonable doubt and the government not proving their case which should require acquittal, tbh. Very different from Snuka and no prosecution happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 The long and the short of it is that they let him off because he was about to die, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 The long and the short of it is that they let him off because he was about to die, right? Yep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dedhemingway Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 It was definitely tone deaf, and I could see how certain segments of fans see it as insulting to their intelligence. I wouldn't have done it, but I think Snuka's death was more personal for a lot of the long time guys in WWE, including Vince, than many others, and maybe sentimentality played into it. Personally, it's just not something I'm too prone to care much about. Lots of famous people do horrible things yet get applauded in their industries. Short of convictions, it's hard to really draw a line on punishments/black balling, and the court of public opinion is notoriously fickle. Just murky waters all around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianB Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 The long and the short of it is that they let him off because he was about to die, right? No. If Snuka had a fatal heart condition and couldn't get a transplant, but was otherwise mentally fine, he could have still been competent and put on trial. But he was found incompetent to stand trial because the court thought, given his condition, he was incapable of rationally communicating with his attorney to assist in his defense. The judge listed some factors for that decision: http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/lehigh-county/index.ssf/2016/06/5_factors_judge_gave_in_superf.html By December/January, the judge didn't believe his condition could improve to where he could regain legally competent to stand trial, so she dismissed the charges. edit: Snuka's cancer also worsened in that interim period and by December his lawyer said he was in hospice and had only months to live, which might've played into the government's justification for pushing for either dismissal or forced mental treatment. There's a timeline here: http://www.mcall.com/news/local/mc-jimmy-snuka-has-died-20170115-story.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 Basically they didn't want to wast the time/resources on a 30+ year old case that would have been hard to win based on the passage of time and a defendant who most likely would not have lived through a trial anyway (and he wouldn't have as it turned out). For anyone to use that as some kind starting off point for a "he was never convicted" argument is baffling. It's like when the Enron guy had his conviction thrown out when he died. It didn't suddenly mean he didn't rob the fuck out of those people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordi Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stro Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 The thing that got me the most about whatever tributes and tweets is that the pic Rock said Tamina personally asked him to retweet of a "recent" picture of Snuka watching footage of himself is that there is a giant 24/7 logo on the TV, which would date the photo to about...2009 at the latest, as the service dropped the 24/7 labeling in April of that year in favor of just Classics On Demand. Workers always gonna work, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButchReedMark Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 "Later he adopted his wrestling name, Snuka, after the game “Snooker,” which he was an expert in" Hahaha, amazing. Surely a rib you'd think? I'd never heard of Snooker being big in Fiji in the 60s. It wasn't even big in the UK massively until the 70s-and especially 80s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 "Later he adopted his wrestling name, Snuka, after the game “Snooker,” which he was an expert in" Hahaha, amazing. Surely a rib you'd think? I'd never heard of Snooker being big in Fiji in the 60s. It wasn't even big in the UK massively until the 70s-and especially 80s. Incredible! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButchReedMark Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 This was turned down as his theme - http://www.youdubber.com/index.php?video=ane6IrGgMUw&video_start=0&audio=BliAPzEsao0&audio_start=0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 I did an article for Vocativ laying out the evidence (and calling out the media outlets who got the facts of the case most wrong): http://www.vocativ.com/falsestart/395847/jimmy-snukas-lies-murderer-legacy/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 I did an article for Vocativ laying out the evidence (and calling out the media outlets who got the facts of the case most wrong): http://www.vocativ.com/falsestart/395847/jimmy-snukas-lies-murderer-legacy/ Great work, Bix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Migs Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 The thing that got me the most about whatever tributes and tweets is that the pic Rock said Tamina personally asked him to retweet of a "recent" picture of Snuka watching footage of himself is that there is a giant 24/7 logo on the TV, which would date the photo to about...2009 at the latest, as the service dropped the 24/7 labeling in April of that year in favor of just Classics On Demand. Workers always gonna work, I guess. DVD? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stro Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 The thing that got me the most about whatever tributes and tweets is that the pic Rock said Tamina personally asked him to retweet of a "recent" picture of Snuka watching footage of himself is that there is a giant 24/7 logo on the TV, which would date the photo to about...2009 at the latest, as the service dropped the 24/7 labeling in April of that year in favor of just Classics On Demand. Workers always gonna work, I guess. DVD? I don't think they ever released a DVD with 24/7 watermarks did they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.