Anyone sympathize with Jimmy Shaker's philosophy?

Well since no one has answered you and I was bored and came to this site anyway, I will get you a rebuttal. You can sympathise with Shaker, but at the same time, you make your own choices in life to make yourself better one way or another. You see the type of company Shaker kept, users and low lifes. Shaker had a good, decent job as a cop, it was not shown if he was a dirty cop, but he had an excellent job. I think he did what he did because of his GF had a grudge against Mullen. He got whipped or caught up in her poor existence and wanted the quick way to make his gf and her family rich. So you can understand what Shaker says, but it doesnt give him to right to steal from the rich. Neither does it any other criminal or low life that says "Im a druggie, slacker, poor, pooped on in the world, but I dont want to work hard and make myself or my life around me better so I will steal from a rich guy" Thats the excuse alot of low lifes give, they are rich, I hate them, I dont know anything about them but will hurt them because they have it better. The poor and rich will always be opposite because thats the way its always been. But you can improve your life. If you spent your whole life being jealous of the rich, thats a pathetic way to live.

Message board, not fan site,if you dont like my comments, gomake oneyourself.

Economic inequality is no excuse for one's crimes. The fact that someone has a lot more money than you do and struggles a lot less than you do is no excuse to commit a felony.

I'm not going to comment on Jimmy Shaker's philosophy, but I do want to say that I found his Time Machine speech over the walkie-talkie to be the best part of this film. It's definitely at worst a slightly above average film, and at best a great '90s thriller due to nuances like his speech.

You ignore the fact that Shaker was a sociopath who had no intention of returning Mullen's innocent kid alive, and showed no compunction in killing his two male comrades (his girlfriend's killing was in self-defense, but the other two weren't). You also ignore that all these factors are part of his "philosophy" too, as relevant to his actions as anything he might quote from an H.G. Wells book.

But even ignoring this your argument makes no sense. Shaker was not intending to harm Mullen, he was intending to become someone like him by earning a lot of money in a dishonest way. I don't think I can sympathize with someone who wants to become an instant millionaire by engaging in criminal behavior. That might be Morlock tactics alright, but that doesn't take the evil out of them.

Unless of course you think Shaker was the Robin Hood type and intended to share his wealth with fellow "Morlocks". I can think of two dead occupants of a van who might tell you otherwise.

Once you kidnap a kid you lose the right to any sympathy for your gripes in the world. Gibson's character had it right when he told Shaker that he would have paid except he was dealing with human garbage.

"In the movie, we're made to sympathize with Mullen and revile Shaker, but in reality people like Mullen cause a lot more harm and suffering than Shaker does."

I think an attempt was made to morally discolour Mullen's image by revealing he had perjured himself and made illegal payments to Jackie Brown, thereby sending him upstate for something he didn't do, reinforcing the OP's point.

But ultimately this blurring of moralities was overtaken by Shaker being revealed to be quite sociopathic as one of the other posters has noted. I think the film may have been even more interesting and morally ambiguous if Shaker's character had been drawn more sympathetically.

The fact is, Mullen built the company from scratch. He didn't inherit Daddy's money. That means he put the time, hard work and effort into making his money. Just because it worked out for him, why is that wrong?

The poor, in many cases, are where they are due to their own doing. Many refuse to work hard, get the education, take the risks or keep persisting like the successful do.

I have read about many of the world's most successful people. They all have one thing in common. They didn't get there because they are "superior", or more lucky, or "better" than everyone else. They got there because they had an idea that people were willing to pay money for, they worked harder, would often be the first to arrive and the last to leave. They put in the time, the effort, they made the sacrifices and took risks that many aren't prepared to make. Many have been broke numerous times, but, instead of giving up, they brush themselves off, and keep backing themselves. They win because they have a winner's mentality.

However, many others act entitled, and just expect that they should be given things. They don't work hard, they slacken off, they can't handle money, many are lazy, not very clever or don't put in the time and effort, or give up the moment it becomes too hard.

Also, it is a bit hypocritical for people to bag the rich, as you often make them rich. Take Steve Jobs. He wouldn't be a millionaire if you didn't buy his Iphones all the time. Every time a new I Phone comes out, the same people buy , again and again, to update. So, you buying from these people increases their wealth.

Why should the rich feel guilty that masses of people buy what they are selling? If you can get people to hand over their hard-earned, because they want your product or service, why is that their fault?

If you don't want people to be rich, then don't buy their stuff. Do without your I-phones, I-pads etc. Don't buy what they are selling. If enough people do that, then they won't be rich and successful.

Also, if the rich are so bad, then why do many people buy lottery tickets, unless, they too want to be rich? Isn't that hypocritical, to criticize those with wealth, while all the time coveting what they have? Sounds like jealousy and envy to me, and that's your problem, not theirs.

I wanted more money, so I worked a second job. I didn't bitch and moan. I took inititave, and work for myself, working my hours around my other job, because I am very organized. I don't get handouts. I just work really hard, and am satisfied with what I have.

The FBI agent, when speaking on the phone to his wife, said that he was glad he wasn't rich, and was appreciative of what he had. Maybe others should stop resenting others for having more than you, and just be content with what you have. Or else, step up and change your situation legally. Take on a second job, like I did, or spend less. There are plenty of ways to have more money, but many won't do it.

Besides, there is NO justification for what Shaker did whatsoever. He can justify it any way he wants, but he was wrong. Even if he felt that way, it doesn't justify crime, EVER!

I worry about your morality if you think, for a second, that Shaker could be right. He was wrong to do what he did. Mullen earned his money by honest means (mainly). Shaker tried to get rich by totally dishonest means. Totally different.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, OP, and just assume you said those things in your post to be a troll. It is scary if you actually agree with a kidnapper and potential killer.

It's not so much that you sympathise with Shaker, but you can at least understand where he's coming from. Which is what makes the character memorable and forceful, plus the fact that it's played so well by the brilliant Gary Sinese.

The female mind is, after all solely tuned to being self-serving - rjfme