Natural Born Killer Sequel In Real Life: Wisconsin Teenager Strangles Girlfriend After Watching Movie

Over the years, various lawsuits have been filed against movie makers for the alleged influence that their films had on kids who acted out stunts or acts of violence. They have been entirely rejected, but there may be one more on the way. Eric Tavulares, 18, strangled his 18 year-old childhood girlfriend, Lauren Aljubouri.


According to police reports, Tavulares had watched the film 10 to 20 times previously. They had watched only half of the film when they went to bed: “He stated he does not recall exactly what happened next, but something caused him to switch mentally and he rolled over on Lauren Aljubouri and he began strangling her.”

Natural Born Killers, a 1994 film directed by Oliver Stone and depicting a bizarre crime spree, has been the focus of prior lawsuits in Louisiana and Oklahoma and other states.
For the full story, click here.

45 thoughts on “Natural Born Killer Sequel In Real Life: Wisconsin Teenager Strangles Girlfriend After Watching Movie

  1. Gyges:

    I likewise find Bartlebee “logically challenged.” See my discussion with him last night about “citizen” versus “civilian” oversight of the police. With every post of his (and there are many disjointed ones to choose from), I get a sense that Humpty Dumpty had it right for this guy:

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. “It means just what I choose it to mean – neither more or less.”

  2. Mespo,

    You’ll notice I didn’t bring up his knowledge of the Beat Poets I assumed from his stream of consciousness style of writing that he’s studied them in depth.

    (Curse us young kids not knowing about the 50s and 60s).

  3. Not true Gyges. I was thinking about what you wrote on science. A truly scientific mind is full of curiosity, wonder and playfulness as well as the other qualities you mentioned yesterday.

    Jill

  4. Gyges
    1, July 24, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    You might win an argument about T.V. getting more violent. But my position is about entertainment in general. That’s why I used word entertainment (there’s that stupid exact meaning thing again)

    Yea, that uhh… stupid “exact meaning thing”… huh?

    And since it was you responding to “my” comments on an increase in violence on television and the movies, your trying to change the meaning to “entertainment” did not comply with that “stupid exact thing”.

    My comments have been, and always were clearly articulated as being about TELEVISION, and the MOVIES.

    So trying to change my argument, to your argument might make you feel better, but doesn’t change anything I said, or diminish it.

  5. mespo727272
    1, July 24, 2008 at 3:28 pm

    Gyges:

    I likewise find Bartlebee “logically challenged.” See my discussion with him last night about “citizen” versus “civilian” oversight of the police.

    Yes, do.

    😐

    See how Mespo, who is apparently some sort of attorney, feels that “Civilian Oversight” would be performed by the “STATE and LOCAL GOVERNMENT”.

    😐

    Instead of oh…..say…..”civilian” groups like NACOLE.

    😐

    boggles the mind.

  6. Bartablee,

    I wasn’t trying to change your argument.I wasn’t even trying to diminish it, I even conceded that you’d probably win the argument you’re trying to have. I was trying to change the subject. I don’t really care if T.V. is more violent or not. I was trying to start a discussion about the over stimulation of American Society that goes on.

    Read my first and second posts on the subject. You’ll find the first (relatively short) one to be a comment about how I think the problem isn’t an increase in violence, that it’s an increase in time spent being entertained by violence. My second post begins with a similar idea and the main body gives an specific example to try and back up the statement. The aside in the second post was just an observation that I had made about people (including myself), and applied to you.

    If you say, “I think that French fries are getting saltier” and I respond “I don’t think that food is getting saltier, I think we’re just eating more salty foods.” I’m not arguing that French fries aren’t having more salt put on them, I’m trying to expanding the discussion. I may not want to talk about just French fries because I don’t eat very many and it’s a limited subject, but I may think that a much more interesting topic would be our changing eating patterns.

    All that being said, since you don’t really want to talk about anything other then T.V…. and I don’t really care about the subject, let’s both just stop talking.

  7. Gyges,

    I’m interested in a broader discussion also, so if you want to have that, I’m open. I will understand if you do not.

    Jill

  8. Gyges
    1, July 25, 2008 at 10:19 am
    Bartablee,

    I was trying to change the subject.

    Really?

    Well then next time, why not “say” you’re trying to change the subject, instead of merging “your subject”, with “my subject”?

    Additionally, since “the subject” of “THIS” thread, is about a killer mimicing something he saw in a movie, why pray tell, would you be “trying to change the subject”?

    😐

    I know why.

  9. Gyges
    1, July 25, 2008 at 10:19 am

    All that being said, since you don’t really want to talk about anything other then T.V…. and I don’t really care about the subject, let’s both just stop talking

    I got a better idea.

    If you “don’t really care about the subject”, then how about not coming into threads ABOUT the subject, and telling other people to shut up about the subject?

    😀

    How bout we give that a try, slick?

  10. Meanwhile, I’ll feel free to post ON THE TOPIC of the thread, and you can feel free to not START talking to me, LIKE YOU DID, if you don’t like what I’m talking about.

    Particularly if you’re going to weasel my words into your words, creating a straw argument, and then lie about doing that.

  11. And since I am sure you’ll want to come back, ignore the actual facts, and start bloviating on what a terrible person I am, and how utterly immature I am for pointing out your obvious creation of a straw argument, allow me to indulge you.

    —-

    BARTLEBEE’S BLOG-PUPPET THEATRE PRESENTS…

    ANATOMY OF A STRAWMAN

    What does a straw argument look like?

    Observe.

    Bartlebee posts “on topic”, about the dangers of repetitive violence in movies and television.

    Which the thread article, is about.

    😐

    Then, Gyges, comes in, and “responds directly” to Bartlebee, thus.

    Gyges
    1, July 23, 2008 at 2:44 pm

    Bartlebee,

    I’m not sure our entertainment is getting more violent.

    Bartlebee, proceeds to respond to Gyges response to him, assuming no devious misdirection is being employed, but merely Gyges substituting the word “Entertainment” as a general descriptor of the topic he is “responding” to Bartlebee on, that is, television and movies.

    After all, no one would have a problem describing television or the movies as “entertainment”.

    Then, Gyges, seeing a strong argument that he is having difficulties refuting, thus now “authorizes” his strawman, to do battle.

    Gyges
    1, July 24, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    You might win an argument about T.V. getting more violent. But my position is about entertainment in general.

    Thus we see Gyges has now “ratified” his straw argument, declaring that his comments were NOT contesting Bartlebee’s comments about Television and Movies influencing crime, (which the thread is about), but instead, was making a completely different argument.

    Kind of a “thats what you were talking about, and the thread was talking about, but not what I was talking about”.

    Unfortunately however, as we can see from the above comments, Gyges FIRST comment, to Bartlebee, was not introduced as “I’m not going to discuss Television or Movies like the thread is about, but instead I am going to expand entertainment to whatever I want it to mean in the context of your statements“.

    It was visibly the creation of a “strawman” position.

    He “responds” to my comments, or at least “acts” like he’s responding.

    But really, he’s laid the seed for a straw argument, by pretending the words he’s using, and HIS implied meaning, were also Bartlebees.

    Here;

    The Anatomy drilled down;

    A. First blogger comments on topic

    B. Second blogger responds to first bloggers comments, but changing one word subtly and acting as if he’s responding to precisely what the first blogger was commenting on. Which of course he plans on declaring he wasn’t, should his position begin to founder.

    C. First blogger responds, assuming no deception is being employed, and continues to debate his original position.

    D. Second blogger suddenly declares “I’m talking about something else!”, and proceeds to mock the first blogger, as dull witted for not realizing he was talking about something else, even though his response is worded to appear as if he’s responding directly (which he was) to the topic raised by the first blogger (and also happens to be the topic of the thread).

    And there you have it. The Anatomy of a Strawman argument.

    If Gyges, did not intend on launching a straw argument, but instead as he stated, meant to start a “whole new topic”, then he would not have “RESPONDED” to Bartlebee’s comments by declaring;

    Bartlebee,

    I’m not sure our entertainment is getting more violent.

    …pretending now that Bartlebee was speaking about some sort of broad spectrum of general entertainment. Which he was not.

    Thus we see, the anatomy of a strawman.

  12. Straw man


    A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.

    To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw man argument” is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent


    Wikipedia

  13. Examples of Straw man Arguments (From Wikipedia)

    Hypothetical Marijuana debate.

    Person A: We should liberalize the laws on marijuana.

    Person B: No. Any society with unrestricted access to drugs loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.

    The proposal was to relax laws on marijuana.

    Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend: “unrestricted access to drugs”

    WIKIPEDIA

  14. BARTLEBEE
    1, July 23, 2008 at 2:13 pm

    The facts are, that already know that we are influenced by what we see on tv and the movies,

    Gyges
    1, July 23, 2008 at 2:44 pm

    Bartlebee,

    I’m not sure our entertainment is getting more violent.

  15. EXAMPLE NUMBER 2, FROM WIKIPEDIA

    A beach debate.

    Person A: Nude bathing is healthy and nude beaches should be permitted here.

    Person B: No. That kind of free sex threatens the morality of society.


    Person B has misrepresented person A’s position as a call for sexual promiscuity.

    WIKIPEDIA

  16. BARTLEBEE SAID;

    The facts are, that already know that we are influenced by what we see on tv and the movies

    GYGES THEN REPLIES;


    Bartlebee,

    I’m not sure our entertainment is getting more violent

  17. Thus we see, Gyges, misrepresented Bartlebees position on TV and MOVIES to the harder to defend general umbrella of “ENTERTAINMENT”.

    And that my friends, is a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT, in its purest form, as we see from Wikipedia.

    😐

    The defense rests.

  18. New Example of Straw Man argument for Wikipedia;


    Violence on Television Debate;

    Person A:we are influenced by what we see on tv and the movies.

    Person B:I’m not sure our entertainment is getting more violent

  19. Bart,

    I know I said I’d shut up, but the flesh is weak.

    I hope you’ll allow me a quick aside. The topic of this post was a movie, just a movie. You keep talking about T.V. I was going to ignore this, but you kept go on and on (and on and on and on) about how I can’t possibly be right because I’m trying to include some new subject matter in the discussion.

    Now to the main point. You are right, if I was trying to argue with you about T.V. I’d have set up a straw man argument. The problem is I’m not arguing with you about T.V. For whatever reason you refuse to acknowledge that I’ve made a point of saying repeatedly (this will be the third time) that you probably would have won the T.V. argument. Well I started off by saying “might.” I’ve never had someone so intent on proving me wrong for agreeing with them.

Comments are closed.