chess online
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Wow. Just wow. A man in Michigan abducted a female college student, took her to his house, tied her up and raped her. Then put her back in his car, along with two containers of gasoline, and told her he was going to kill her. As he was driving, she jumped out of the moving car and ran to a house yelling for help. Police chased the man who abducted her, eventually shooting and killing him. As the end of the above article states, they are investigating what was going on in his life that could explain why he did this. As if there is anything in the entire world that could ever explain terrorizing a girl like this. Can you imagine how much he must have enjoyed scaring her and having her beg for her life? Look at how he dragged the entire thing out, putting her back into his car alive and telling her he was going to kill her. The take home message of this article is that he was not responsible for his actions. HE was a victim too. Something in his life drove him to do this, and that thing, person, situation, what have you, is responsible for his actions. Anyone who thinks this way deserves to be abducted, raped, put in their abductors car and told they are going to be killed. At which point they should be expected to have the same sympathy and understanding for their abductor that they do for this man. Is mental illness spreading like wildfire in our society? I honestly cannot imagine just how psychologically damaged someone would have to be to empathize with someone who does something like this. Why anyone would even THINK to search for an explanation here is completely insane. When did it become impossible for people to be psychopaths? People like Ted Bundy, the BTK killer, and so on have been studied by forensic psychiatrists for decades and it's pretty well documented that people who do things like sexually assault and kill women are not normal and have no empathy whatsoever. Ted Bundy was attractive and did not have poor life circumstances. He did what he did because of who he was as a person. So, do people who search for answers in situations like this have problems with empathy and imagination? I could see how someone who is unable to imagine being the victim or the criminal could not appropriately evaluate a situation like this. I can also see how people with low intelligence would also look for answers in a situation like this, with no awareness for how dysfunctional and innapropriate this is. |
||
|
We should |
||
|
|
||
|
If all these idiots could be put to sleep that way, we'd not have to try and find out why they did it. They do something horrendous ONCE. Then NEVER again. Think about the benefits...NO recidivism. No lawyer costs. No court costs. No incarceration costs. No costs for sex change operations. No re-education costs. Obviously all that we know now and all that we do now to "help" these people has not and does not work. Why spend all that money on something that doesn't work? I say "End the problem early, quickly and humanely (fast with a bullet)". |
||
|
He had a gun but didn't use it. Keeping a gun out of his hands would have accomplished nothing. However, had this same man walked on campus, shot this girl and then ran away or shot himself, we'd never hear the end of it. The democrats would act like this man was mysterious evil. We'd hear about how we need to keep guns out of the hands of people like him. Of course, this situation in Michigan shows just how sophomoric and irrational this thinking is. If someone went into a school and abducted children at gunpoint, never shot them but did what this man in Michigan did (and planned to do) to that girl, would we still be on a crusade against firearms? |
||
|
It's more or less standard procedure for the police to thoroughly examine every aspect of the crime until they can confirm who, what, when, where, how and lastly, why. I'm more or less certain the private lives of school shooters have been opened and examined at length. |
||
|
tat3225 10-Feb-13, 23:03 |
Deleted by tat3225 on 11-Feb-13, 01:25.
|
||
|
tat3225 10-Feb-13, 23:24 |
Deleted by tat3225 on 10-Feb-13, 23:28.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<<If all these idiots could be put to sleep that way, we'd not have to try and find out why they did it. They do something horrendous ONCE. Then NEVER again.>> They won't, but what about the next one? And the next one? Prevention is better than cure. We shouldn't be too quick to write off any heinous crime as insanity or psychopathic just by virtue of it being heinous, but it some cases this will be true, and it will be important for the prevention of future crimes to look at what, if anything, could trigger something like this. It does not excuse the criminal, and he or she should be dealt with to the full extent of the law, but there is a benefit to be had in the possible prevention of future crimes surely? <<Think about the benefits...NO recidivism. No lawyer costs. No court costs. No incarceration costs. No costs for sex change operations. No re-education costs.>> I know that you're not being entirely serious here, but I'm not sure I want my police force to act as judge, jury and executioner. It will lead to miscarriages of justice in the worst way. In this case they may have had to shoot this evil man, however I don't think it's a good thing to start the police chase with the mindset of shoot to kill. We have due process in the civilised world for a reason, and I'm sure it's mentioned in that constitution thing you guys always bring up Tat: <<the man who abducted the girl threatened her with a gun to get her to comply and go with him to his car>> <<He had a gun but didn't use it. Keeping a gun out of his hands would have accomplished nothing.>> I am struggling to reconcile those two statements. Surely threatening someone with a gun is enough? If he didn't have it, she is much less likely to comply right? Though I accept crimes of this nature can and are committed without a gun, having one makes it much easier to get your victim to comply I would imagine even if it is never used? |
||
|
Itchy However, it is interesting to consider that of the two kinds of criminals who do heinous things, there are those who are sane and there are those who are not. For those who are not sane, we do not need to learn anything about why they do it. We already know why... they are insane and nothing will prevent them from (at some point) doing something heinous. For those who are sane and commit these heinous acts, I have no compassion and couldn't care less why they do it. But, you are correct, if we can figure out why, we may be able to prevent it in the future. THAT has not happened for the last 60 years though, although we always say we are trying to figure out why they do it. I think so far we have the following excuses, and probably more: it is the fault of society, we don't spend enough on education, there are drug pushers in the U.S. there are too many guns in the U.S. they were bullied at school, their father left them when they were very young, they were given prescription drugs throughout their school years, they are off their meds, They don't eat healthy meals, it's caused by Global Warming or George Bush. (that last was just being funny) So far... no consensus. |
||
|
|
||
|
Oh absolutely, how exactly we go about that is another matter entirely, I was just trying to get across that looking for reasons is not an inherently bad thing in of itself. |
||
|
Itchy All kinds of people wanted to interview Bundy in prison. Detectives wanted to ask him about unsolved murder cases to see if he was responsible. Psychiatrists, criminologists, psychologists wanted to talk to him because of just how extraordinarily charasmatic he was. He was full of information and at times appeared to be a gold mine of insight. Of course the problem was that he told different people different things in such a meaningful way that it sometimes took quite a while for the inconsistencies and inaccuracies to be noticed. He would research the person interviewing him ahead of time, and would tell them exactly what they wanted to hear. Most of the time in exchange for something he wanted. At the end of his life, he was actually using information about women he had murdered and the locations of their bodies as currency to negotiate how much time he had left in HIS life. Thankfully the Governor of Florida could see exactly what he was doing and firmly held up Bundy's execution date. He was killed in the electric chair in 1989, but not after a desperate attempt to manipulate a highly credible psychiatrist by "confessing" that pornography was to blame for all of his behavior and actions. Which naturally was interesting to this psychiatrist, who had built a career on the negative impact of porn on society. My point is that people like Ted Bundy, and there have been many of them, prey on your desire to understand them, and the gullible and trusting nature of human beings in general. Truly understanding people like this means knowing that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to stop them. They literally believe that they can't get caught, and in many cases are right. Or, by the time they are caught have already killed over 90 teenage and young women with their bare hands and sexually assaulted their dead bodies over a period of 15 years, like Gary Ridgway. It's certainly interesting to think about what kind of person does something like this. But I'm not sure that it ever prevents crime. We're talking about people who are clever and elusive. For instance, the knowledge gained through all of the serial killers over the past century has appeared to do nothing to further the search for the Long Island serial killer, who apparently has been killing prostitutes, dismembering them and then dumping their remains along the same long island beaches since 1996. That's 17 years. So far there are like 11 people who are pretty conclusively linked together as being victims of the same person. And these are just the people who's remains have washed up or been found. Considering all of that, it's hard to take gun phobias seriously. The most heinous and horrible crime is committed without firearms. These mass murderers make Adam Lanza look humane in comparison. Which is precisely the point I was attempting to make by bringing up the gun control debate. The same people who get fired up following a school shooting are bored by, and subsequently do not care about, an individual who kills more people in more tortuous and horrible ways over an extended period of time. It's entirely possible that this guy in Michigan has abducted, raped and killed people before this girl. Every single serial killer in history who has been caught, has only been conclusively linked to only a couple murders. Or is only linked to the attempted abduction of a victim who, like this girl in Michigan, escaped. These people later confess to all kinds of cold cases and unsolved murders that shock the crap out of people. I could be completely wrong about this Michigan guy, but it sort of seems unlikely that he'd do something so complex as a first time offense. But I wouldn't really know. All I am saying is that while gun control advocates are yelling and screaming about how terrible guns are.....it's situations like this that put things in their correct perspective. Attempts to prevent violent crime by blaming the weapons used to commit them is a fools endeavor of the highest order, in my opinion. |
Log in 
