Again, in fairness, Lavarian, I don't think that Rei is arguing against that course of action in those specific circumstances. Protecting the lives of loved ones, or indeed the lives of innocent strangers, is absolutely a legitimate first priority. If the only safe way to achieve that is by killing the person that is threatening them, then so be it.
Yes, innocent children do take priority, of course. But taking someone's life, or allowing someone to take their own should only be done if you have no other choice. Has anyone else here studying crisis intervention? The first steps are always to recognise warning signs and talking to the person at risk. We don't even consider touching them unless it's clear that there is no other alternative. If you catch the warning signs at the right time, it's generally pretty easy to prevent a more serious problem, if you know how. In crisis intervention, regardless of what the crisis is, it is always essential to listen to the person, acknowledge that it is their choice to make, and that we cannot make them do anything. But we do know what the consequences for each action is, and we need to communicate that to the person in crisis.
There was a stretch in, I think it was 2008? Where it seemed like we were having a shooting rampage at least once a week here in the States. Got to the point where it was barely even news anymore; people became a bit desensitized for a while. I dunno, man, I can kind of understand the drive to go out and commit a mass murder-suicide, to be honest. So few people are able to just be; they're always focused on building their story, creating some sort of a legacy, however humble. If that's perceived to have failed, the ego can go a little gonzo. I can understand the thought emerging, "Well here's a fine story! Got a crappy beginning and middle, but everyone's gonna talk about the end!" It's all just silliness, though; it's just a very simple mistake. When it's seen that the life story is really just that, a story, a memory re-told over and over again to make it seem real, all that nonsense just kinda falls away. If people could see past the story and just truly live each moment, this stuff would never happen. We could debate gun laws, morality and culpability all night long, but really this is just a trick of the mind to which any of us are susceptible in the right conditions. I already posted this once today on someone's blog, but what the hell: "There but for the grace of God, go I."
I agree with Cogito in that the person's actions can never be excused. The details of this have been revealed - it was a dispute over family funds and cabbie queue-jumping that led to the massacre. I think everyone has problems with their competitive relations and work colleagues at some point. There was nothing incredibly unusual about this man's life, he just chose to react to it differently. But trying to understand why he did it is completely different, and wanting to find out the reasons is perfectly justifiable. Personally, I don't think we need answers; we cannot stop this from happening. You can ban guns as much as you want; ban knives, ban poison, ban everything, and people will still find a way to kill each other if they want to. And, no, giving people more guns is a bad idea. This happens once per decade, and arming the entire population just to stop this one event is a bad idea when it will lead to a massive increase in gun crime in other respects. I wouldn't have minded the chance to take a pot-shot at any of the mass-murderers in British history, but I would have minded if I'd gotten into an argument and had been shot by a drunken maniac...that is, before I could pull the trigger on him, which I would do in that situation. Searching for answers is not the answer. Wondering whether the mass-murder wanted to drive along for three hours shooting people is irrelevant and irrational. As is telling people who might be wondering about whether they should go out with a bang to kill themselves first. Just move on from an inexplicable and pointless crime. The specifics of this latest shooting spree, however, indicate that he was actually reported to a mental hospital, and they turned him away because they didn't think he was a danger.
Rei The picture emerging here is of a middle-aged man who lived alone, and effectively worked alone (he was a taxi-driver). He seemed "normal" to those who encountered him, including his neighbours and those at his local pub where he would regularly drop in alone for a drink. Perhaps nobody was truly close enought to him to spot the signs, or those who were wouldn't have a clue what to look for. I've also read that his first victim was his twin brother, and that the catalyst was an argument over a will, but I can't substantiate these things as yet.
These things can be prevented, if you catch them at the right time, if you know how. I've worked with many kids who were at risk for a lot of things, but if you work with them early enough, just about anything can be prevented. It's not about banning weapons. They'll just find some illegal way of getting them. It's about finding out why people are motivated to do these things, and helping them before they get to that point. I don't know the person in the case that started the thread. I don't know the details other than what is posted here. We don't really know what his life was like or what was in his head, so it's wrong to make any real statements abaout him.
That is true. I don't think anyone here actually disagrees with this. (Or ever did at any point in this thread)
But you made assumptions about the state of the murderer's mind; you should never ever do this - not even detectives make assumptions: and it was insensitive, the guy still has a family. As Rei so eloquently said: "I don't know the person in the case that started the thread. I don't know the details other than what is posted here. We don't really know what his life was like or what was in his head, so it's wrong to make any real statements abaout him." Besides, no one is asking you to feel compassion for the guy. And you said the guy should have turned it on himself first - I'm sorry, this was a really stupid comment. I don't know if you have spent time with some mentally unstable people (I have by the way) but this would only happen in a perfect world, which we do not have. Apparently he was a rather popular person, and outgoing. Nevertheless, the signs of someone breaking down are very difficult to see, as mostly, they happen in private: they usually come out with symptoms like stress, OCD, collecting things, paranoia and obsessions. The last three, in most cases, happen entirely within the subject’s own mind.
I fail to see the logic behind: Gunman dead < Gunman + Innocent people (where < represents the preferred outcome, not sum of deaths)
"But you made assumptions about the state of the murderer's mind; you should never ever do this - not even detectives make assumptions" Actually, police officers are required to make assumptions in cases like this. For example, if armed police had engaged this guy after he had already killed, they would have been ordered to assume that he was likely to kill again, and would have been ordered to prevent him from getting away - by killing him if necessary - even if he wasn't there and then putting any of their lives in direct jeopardy.
One last time. What assumption? The murderer knows his own intent. The murderer can turn the gun on himself first and save a lot of people unnecessary grief. Period. There's no point in me saying any more on this, when people will hear what they want and project the rest from their own agendas.
Now you're just grasping at straws, as is everyone else on this damn thread who is so desperate to prove his point and belittle the other members until he "wins" --and therefore you must be "right." I believe this thread was to spread awareness about some unfortunate news. It wasnt about debating morality or justifying hate or deciding how best to solve the world's problems. We are internet members of a forum... we're not all that important, and no matter what we say, we're not going to convince other members who oppose us. So note to WritingForums Members: COOL IT. I havent been back but four days and already I wonder why I've returned. I'd like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and consider you all to be intelligent people, but it seems anytime someone challenges your beliefs, challenges you to defend yourself, challenges you in any way at all, you turn into this massive, fleshy blob of anger intent to destroy anyone who disagrees with you. This thread originally was quite interesting... now it's just sad.
This is out of control... None of you, nor I, could tell what it was like in the murderers mind. He could have been suffering from any number of mental problems... He could have been deluded enough to think it was his destiny... he might not have felt he had a choice in his head... he might not have even become suicidal until after the shootings. Or he could be doing it for the reasons cogito is listing. I feel pity for him, and compassion for his family, and the families of those who have died. I would be surprised if any of you have actually experienced blood-lust... proper blood-lust.
I would like to take this opportunity to say that I love you all and you're all awesome and beautiful and attractive individuals. Imaginary kisses for all of you.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not at all angry at anyone in this thread. I'm pretty calm and I think the thread is still pretty interesting. I think the biggest issue here is a miscommunication of some kind. One of the arguments in this thread sprang from nowhere (I mean that it isn't even an issue- It's an argument against a point of view that nobody is actually making) and I honestly think that we're all in agreement without actually realizing it.
Interesting "take" on the thread, Mercurial. From where I'm sitting, it has actually been a largely well-behaved thread dealing with an interesting topic, and I've enjoyed reading other people's viewpoints. If it's the kind of thread that you don't approve of, there are many others on the Forum that would doubtlessly be far more suitable for you. I just can't see your "massive, fleshy blob of anger."
No they don't. They make theories, which are not strictly assumptions. You made the assumption that the murder wanted to be noticed; and it was something of a cry for help. This IS an assumption, and this is actually very rarely the case. He could have, but he likely wouldn't have. I'm not, I don't have an agenda, I was just pointing a few things out given my experiance with the mentally unwell.
^ ... like I said: in a perfect world it wouldn't have happened ... What he should have done is utterly irrelivent anyway - I've been saying this since I first posted on this thread.
I think it's interesting that a few of you seem to be saying the guy was in a position to make descisions, moral choices. I respectfully submit that he (like other cases before him) couldn't think rationally. The eyewitnesses all talk about him having a 'blank expression'. The only emotion he seems to have shown was when he killed a lone cyclist instead of a mother with her children. Maybe at that second something of his normal humanity crept back, but come on folks, this was a man acting removed from all reason. He was temporarily insane. Why is this so difficult for some people to imagine? Haven't you ever been scared to death or incredibly angry? At times like this it's not possible to think completely normally. For someone with a fragile psche, they sometimes become removed from all normal thought and feeling. It doesn't make him an 'animal'. He was sick, and what he did was appalling, a terrible tragedy. Some people need to realise that it isn't a black and white issue. If he hadn't shot himself he would have spent the rest of his life in Broadmoor probably. I hope. I still thank God we don't have the death penalty in most European (or is it all?) countries.
madhoca I'm not wholeheartedly disagreeing with your arguments, but... The story emerging now is that Derrick Bird deliberately targeted his first three victims because of who they were before moving on to kill others at random. And he was actually seen earlier in the morning lurking outside the home of one of his first victims, suggesting a clear pre-meditated intention to kill the man. And as for the uncontrollable anger theory, after he'd killed the specific people that he sought to kill, he spent a considerable amount of time driving over quite a wide geographical area apprently seeking random victims. That he wasn't thinking rationally is beyond question, I would concede. But, to me at least, there seems enough planning and pre-meditation here to describe this massacre as an act of evil. But that's just my opinion based on what I've read. If others strongly disagree, I have no issue with that.
In other words, madhoca, he showed a complete lack of remorse. The killings were premeditated, and his actions showed organized thought. He collected weapons and ammunition, and travelled to separate destinations to kill. His target choices were not entireley random. There were clearly pre-selected targets. The insanity defense is rarely successful. It does not simply mean there is a mental disorder, or you might as well legalize murder, because the ability to take another human life demonstrates a mental disorder. No, the criteria are either that he did not understand that his actions were immoral, of that he truly could not stop himself from taking the action. I sincerely doubt anyone would argue he meets the first criterion, in light of the clear evidence of premeditation. The second is debatable, but I would argue that his ability to reserve a bullet for himself proves he WAS able to stop himself. That is my opinion, and I do accept that yours may differ.
