Topic: A Discussion About Murder (Read 11407 times)

TheJudge · « **on:** April 17, 2007, 11:36:48 AM »

Xolik's quote from below made me think about some ideas. I figure this topic deserves it's own thread anyway.

Quote from: xolik on April 17, 2007, 10:12:55 AM

His picture is up on the ABC website. I don't really understand why people do these kinds of things. What did he hope to accomplish? That shooting up everyone would somehow make everything right? All those people's lives wasted and for what? The most prominent theory is that his (ex)girlfriend was messing around with another guy. Big fucking deal. Just dump her and move on, don't start killing everybody you can. I'm actually surprised it was an Asian kid. I thought us white guys cornered the market on school shootings.

Why do poeple do this? Interesting question. I think people do these things because they are angry. It's not that they think it will make everything OK, it's more about making everyone else feel as shitty as they feel, and taking absolute control in a life that has been so out of control. That's part of it anyway. I also think a lot of humans have a curiosity about taking the life of another person, and that is natural to some degree. When you think of it, we all have that power. I can walk up to a person and blow their brains out if I want to, and no one will be able to stop me. It is absolute control and power. Fortunately, most of us don't use this power, but it doesn't mean we've never been intruiged by it at some point in our lives. Many have contemplated the act without actually performing it. Sometimes, contemplation may turn into fascination however. Some people have killed for no other reason then to know what it felt like, but in order for this to happen, your inquisitive mind must also disregard conscience and consequence. That's why it doesn't happen frequently, as most people have a conscience, and more people don't want to deal with the consequences.

I beleive that everyone is capable of murder. Maybe not right now, but I really think that any person can be driven to murderous rage if certain actions are done and they instigate either vengance or hatred. That is how our world works. That is why we go at war. That is why there are so many problems in the middle east right now. It has nothing to do with being chemically imbalanced, altought that can certainly be a factor (but not a reason). In the end, the motive is always the same: anger. What made you angry is different from people to people, and probably not as relevent as to why you weren't able to deal with the angy in a healthy way as this is ultimately where things went wrong.

I have a related theorry about murder suicides. The suicide is either planned because the murderer wants to hurt someone, but not face the consequences, so he/she takes their own life after the deed is done. In this case, the rage is so dominant that the conscience is shoved aside just long enough for the actions to take place. Sometimes however, I think the suicide is a reaction to the reality of the act, following excessive rage where once the act is commited, only then does it actually become in perspective in the erson's mind. Only then do you realise the consequences, only then does your conscience overtakes your rage. People freak out, see no way out, and impulsively blow their own brains. In both cases, the murder was driven by rage, but the suicide wasn't necessarily. Sometimes, the conscience kicks after the fact in and that triggers the suicide because the person can't deal with the reality of their actions.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #1 on:** April 17, 2007, 12:20:13 PM »

Then there's some people who put destructive impulses to good use and join something like the army where they can kill people all day long. I for one don't understand the connection that is somehow formed in people's minds between killing a schoolful of people who haven't done anything to you, unless of course somehow (and I'm going out on a limb here and guessing this was Mr. Harris' mindset in the Columbine case) you manage to mentally generalize everyone into somebody who's wronged you in some way. If the guy was pissed at his girlfriend and the guy she was cheating on him with, I can understand (in no way condone mind you) his impulse to kill them both.

TheJudge · « **Reply #2 on:** April 17, 2007, 12:38:50 PM »

I think it's more than that. There is for sure a generalization that occurs in order to kill without discrimination, but I think it's more based on a false perception that everyone else has it good but you. In your state of rage and hatred, you associate all people to the veryhting you hate, therefore making it justifyable to hurt them all. In reality, the attack was never personal towards the specific individuals (considering some where total strangers). It's more about what they represent to the killer, whether that makes sense to you or not.

It's no different then the 9/11 attack where the hatred is directed at all american citizens, therefore no individual distinction is taken into account. The hatred is based on propaganda and missunderstanding. Brainwashing in essence. I think individuals who commit mass killings have such distorted toughts that they manage to brainwash themselves and loose touch with reality. When you reach that point, how can you expect to get yourself out? You can't. Not on your own. And sometimes, it's just too late. People from your entourage don't notice the signs, or don't recognise them in time. It's only after the fact that they realize the severity of the problem and see the signs they missed. (same for suicide). I would even argue that suicide and homocide are essentially the same, with the exception of the hatred being directed at others vs yourself.

If I stick to my mass murder example of the 9/11 attacks, it's the same thing as self brainwashing, except it's a group effect. Not only do people brainwash themeselves, but they do it to each other. This only serves to reinfoce their beleifs so they don't view it as a negative thing and welcome it with arms wide open. How can this group be expected to see the light on their own? It's no possible. They only fuel each other and reinforce their collective distorted thoughts. There has to be external intervention, then dialogue, in order to acheive understanding. That applies to people who commit murder (individual or mass), and to those who are suicidal. They all suffer from the same problem: Rage + distorted thoughts. They all need help.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #3 on:** April 17, 2007, 12:43:58 PM »

I completely agree. Rage leads to distorted thoughts which leads to more rage until some fuse blows and heads start flying off.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #4 on:** April 17, 2007, 04:09:52 PM »

Believe me... if I didn't have a big amount of restraint, there wouldn't be any of you fuckers left.

TheJudge · « **Reply #5 on:** April 18, 2007, 06:36:44 AM »

That's just your conscience talking.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #6 on:** April 18, 2007, 02:21:55 PM »

From what I've seen, which doesn't qualify me as an expert in any way other than for the purposes of this discussion, people seem to kill for three broad reasons, which you may recognize from our discussion of the death penalty:

1) They've completely lost themselves to rage, and the consequences/logic of their actions is no so easily seen. (By them or by us, which was mentioned above.)

It's often said that emotions can distort our judgement, in many different directions.

2) They have some innate desire or compulsion to kill. (We call these people psychopaths, and I believe Judgie briefly touched on this.)

3) They kill for profit. (They don't think they'll be caught and the payoff is worth the consequences.)

I can't think of a situation that would not fit into one of the above. (Military, for instance, is for profit. You believe that the benefits of killing someone, free society/ whatever, outweighs the potential downsides or moral consequences.)

ivan · « **Reply #7 on:** April 18, 2007, 02:27:47 PM »

After careful comparisons and cross-checking numerous profiles, the one trait that all mass murderers seem to share is free will.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #8 on:** April 18, 2007, 02:28:09 PM »

The media overcoverage is killing me. I know of one person though who is pleased with this guy. Don Imus.

ivan · « **Reply #9 on:** April 18, 2007, 02:29:33 PM »

Ah-hahaha.

And also... uh...

No, I won't go there.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #10 on:** April 18, 2007, 02:33:10 PM »

Anyway, I'll be boycotting the media for the next couple of weeks, well except for maybe Sports Center since the NHL playoffs are going on.

TheJudge · « **Reply #11 on:** April 18, 2007, 03:00:58 PM »

CM, I would like to add "killing for fame" as a motive. Perhaps it is not the primary driver of murder, but I think once someone has made up their mind that they will be committing murder, they sometimes figure they may as well go all the way and make a big powow because it will bring them fame.

Your point number 2, I call that one the fun factor. Sounds sick, but that's really what it is.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #12 on:** April 18, 2007, 04:25:26 PM »

Which would dislike of mondays fall into?

pbsaurus · « **Reply #13 on:** April 18, 2007, 05:16:08 PM »

Justifiable homocide.

12AX7 · « **Reply #14 on:** April 18, 2007, 09:08:07 PM »

Quote from: ivan on April 18, 2007, 02:27:47 PM

After careful comparisons and cross-checking numerous profiles, the one trait that all mass murderers seem to share is free will.

And four or more victims.

Quote from: Crystalmonkey on April 18, 2007, 02:21:55 PM

(Military, for instance,

is for profit. You believe that the benefits of killing someone, free society/ whatever,

outweighs the potential downsides or moral consequences.)

People don't join the military cos they want to kill. There are a variety of reasons people join; probably the very least of which is to kill. I thought you were familiar with the role and purpose of an army in society anyway (which isn't "to kill".)
The whole point of a strong standing army is kind of like going to the gym regularly. You'll be healthy, big, and strong; nobody is likely to fuck with you (cos you're muscley and all), and you're far less likely to succumb to a sickness when you're healthy and active. On the chance that you DO have to fight; you're far less likely to die from any wounds recieved (or lose the war).
I would also wager that at the trigger level, most of any killing done is done for survival. (I'm talking at the soldier-in-the-firefight level.) What's not done for immediate self-preservation is done for mission survival (ie., moving into a hostile area and engaging).

I hear what you're saying and trying to convey; I just think your number three example (military) isn't a good one for that.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #15 on:** April 18, 2007, 09:20:40 PM »

I'd be willing to bet money that there have been people throughout history who've joined the army for the express purpose of killing people.

12AX7 · « **Reply #16 on:** April 18, 2007, 09:36:40 PM »

Well, duh. Of course there have been. Who says there hasn't?

12AX7 · « **Reply #17 on:** April 18, 2007, 09:46:33 PM »

Quote from: 12AX7 on April 18, 2007, 09:08:07 PM

People don't join the military cos they want to kill.

Oh. I did. Heh. Lemme re-phrase that; that's meant to be a generalization, and I understand that's a no-no unless so specified. So now it's specified.
"Usually, normally, under regular circumstances, the average person joining the military does not do so "to kill".

So there.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #18 on:** April 19, 2007, 09:20:51 PM »

While they may not join specifically to kill, the point is that people in the military who DO kill and don't count as 1 or 2 do it because they feel that the benefit to their killing X outweighs the moral arguments for not killing them. While I say profit, I don't just mean in a monetary sense (though that is true) I just mean the Pros outweigh the Cons.

As such, I don't see where your disagreement is.

I think killing for fame would fall under Profit.

12AX7 · « **Reply #19 on:** April 19, 2007, 09:55:08 PM »

I would say the "pros" and "cons" don't match up.

Your example: (correct me if I have it wrong):
Benefits of killing > moral arguments for not killing

What I'm pointing out is typical for a soldier:
Benefits of killing > being killed

Following your line of reasoning, it could be said people join the police force to kill. Obviously, the police have killed, but that is surely not why someone would enlist.

I don't disagree with your example if we'd substitute "mercenaries" for soldiers/"military". That's what they do. Kill. For hire. That is not a soldier in a standing army. He is hired to perform a job; be it operate a radio, or maintain a fleet of vehicles, cook, store stuff, transport stuff, and On + On + On. The soldiers you seem to refer to (the ones doing most of the killing) are a small percentage of the military; these include infantry, armor, mechanized infantry, and artillery (typically). These soldiers are also hired to perform a job; which, incidentally isn't "to kill". Today's soldiers (at least in the US military) are trained to "shoot-to-wound", as it occupies approximatley four "people" for each one wounded; whereas if you kill them; it only "occupies" one; the dead one.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #20 on:** April 20, 2007, 12:28:28 AM »

Benefits of killing would be something like:

Not being killed
etc....

Moral Arguments would be something like:

Taking a human life
etc....

And the reason I brought up the military is because even though it is a job, the specific instances where people kill can still be distributed into the three above categories. I'm not interested in the other non-combat jobs, just the combat specific ones.

Vespertine · « **Reply #21 on:** April 20, 2007, 01:15:03 PM »

CM, in my mind, you've left out a major category of why people kill. Self-defense. It's a category that may not be considered murder, but it's definitely relevant if you're speaking of killing.

12AX7 · « **Reply #22 on:** April 20, 2007, 01:49:59 PM »

I predict he'll fit that under "Profit".

ivan · « **Reply #23 on:** April 20, 2007, 01:57:55 PM »

Quote from: Agent_Tachyon on April 18, 2007, 09:20:40 PM

I'd be willing to bet money that there have been people throughout history who've joined the army for the express purpose of killing people.

I'll take that bet. I think those types are a tiny minority, and are more apt to commit violence in civilian than in military life. Someone who enlists because they want to kill will likely be frustrated: of all enlisted, only a fraction see action, and of those who see action, only a fraction ever have a chance to kill someone face-to-face. Most casualties are caused by explosive devices. A psychopath who craves killing people would also likely have a slew of personality problems incompatible with military regimen. Most soldiers are good people.

ivan · « **Reply #24 on:** April 20, 2007, 02:03:12 PM »

Goal: Kill people.
Plan A: Buy a gun and use it.
Plan B: Enlist, go through boot camp, hope to see some action.

Hmmm... Let me see....

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: A Discussion About Murder (Read 11407 times)

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7