Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TamerVirus]

So the assertion here is that serial killers are created, not born? Nature vs nurture?
If serial killing is related to upbringing, what classifies as 'normal' upbringing? Something that has little to no affect on one person might mentally damage someone else.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Nurture I think is more important by far. Even a case such as Joseph Kallinger who had a lot more that went wrong with him mentally than just the serial killer urge, and thus probably had some manner of genetic factor which made him vulnerable to developing that schizophrenic disorder, was clearly exacerbated by the abuse he suffered.

Outcomes of natural-born mental issues are going to be widely affected by what that person experiences in life. People with schizophrenic delusions may sometimes cause significant problems due to the nature of those delusions, but they're just reacting to what they think is happening to them when it actually isn't. They themselves are not desiring or intending violence. Whereas Kallinger's delusions took on a darker and explicitly murderous intent, and I attribute that difference to the abuse he suffered.

[Reelya]

I think there's a difference between the conditions under which organized crime appears disappearing, and the conditions under which it dissolves. Or at least, interia is a thing. They're not going to stop being gangsters just as soon as the government starts offering a better deal, if only because humans are prone to the sunk cost fallacy.

EDIT: I'd agree with "go away eventually", though. Months? Generations? I'm not qualified to say how long it would take, but it would happen.

The Yakuza would be a good example here. There aren't very many murders in Japan despite having the Yakuza still. There's a big difference between having organized crime and having people gunned down in the streets. They don't necessarily have to go together.

When you're talking about gang violence, that's not the Italian mafia behind that, it's mostly young street gangs, and those types of gangs come and go based on conditions. They grow up, you don't see 50 year olds still doing that, it's always young people. So that aspect is highly responsive to changes in social conditions in only a few years.

[Cthulhu]

Nurture I think is more important by far. Even a case such as Joseph Kallinger who had a lot more that went wrong with him mentally than just the serial killer urge, and thus probably had some manner of genetic factor which made him vulnerable to developing that schizophrenic disorder, was clearly exacerbated by the abuse he suffered.

Outcomes of natural-born mental issues are going to be widely affected by what that person experiences in life. People with schizophrenic delusions may sometimes cause significant problems due to the nature of those delusions, but they're just reacting to what they think is happening to them when it actually isn't. They themselves are not desiring or intending violence. Whereas Kallinger's delusions took on a darker and explicitly murderous intent, and I attribute that difference to the abuse he suffered.

It seems more likely that the diagnosable mental disorders came from traumatic brain injury than genetics in the case of someone like this.

Even with diagnosis though, the statistical artifacting thing I think comes into play.  THere've been several psychological profiles done of violent criminals, one I read about looked at a teenager in prison for assault, who they diagnosed with a paranoid disorder because he felt the need to have weapons on him at all times in case someone attacked him.  Looking at his upbringing and his stint in prison, that sounds a lot more like common sense than a brain problem.  How much of diagnosed criminal insanity is just rational decision making from a different perspective than that of the psychiatrist?

[Max™]

Point being: most people will go through their entire lives doing nothing that would draw the attention of the cops: with or without the police. But that's not all the people, it's just most of the people. The police aren't there because of most people, so saying how most people are, therefore we don't need police at all, is just wrong.

I'd argue this is the least subtle and most apparent reason for cops and governing bodies to exist.

The more subtle reason does actually apply to everyday folks: they have disputes and they're self-interested. Forget serial killers and psychopaths, what about two neighbors arguing about a property line? Garden variety rudeness and anger that explodes into something else, like road rage. Those are the times we want a neutral party in the middle, when in the heat of the moment and long before it goes to the court system.

Cops are not the answer for this, cops are never the answer for anything other than "how do we keep these darkies in line so we can keep getting rich off their labor" and the faster people realize this the faster we can get rid of them.

Yes there are damaged individuals who need help, a cop is not going to help.
Yes there are times where two people feel they have legitimate grievances who need help, a cop is not going to help.
Yes there are times when an actual psychopath has broken into a house and people need help, a cop is as likely to bust into the wrong house and shoot the resident or shoot the people who called as they are to help apparently.

Cops exist to keep a power structure which benefits from and depends on capitalism in place, nothing else. They didn't exist before capitalism took root all over the place, and they don't do anything for you beyond reminding you of your place and the threat of violence if you step out of line.

The only people who want you to believe cops are there to help you are cops and those who want to keep you in a weaker position than they are.

The only people who want you to believe cops are necessary are also cops and those who want to keep you in a weaker position than they are.

Don't help them, it's understandable to be mistaken after literally decades of propaganda and disinformation campaigns, and it can take time to unlearn that shit, but that is what it is: shit.


I mean, for fuck's sake, last week in Austin they had a kid who was shot in the base of the skull with a rubber bullet (less lethal, not non-lethal) and other protestors were asking someone to call an ambulance, some of the cops said to bring the injured kid closer and they could help so they started carrying him over there.

Some of the kids carrying him had actual red crosses sewn onto their clothing, hoping to indicate that they were medics and there to help the wounded.

When they got close, did the cops:

a. call an ambulance
b. begin administering first aid
c. bring the injured kid inside for assistance
d. begin firing bean bag rounds at the kids carrying him

Hint: the letter of the right answer is the only one which isn't part of the acronym it confirms.

[Egan_BW]

all cops are dad?

[Max™]

Sadly no, they began firing at the kids carrying the injured kid, including ones with clear markings indicative of being a medic, prompting loud cries of "WHAT THE FUCK" from them.

You might think "isn't firing on medics against the geneva convention" and you'd be right, so is tear gas... oh well?

[Frumple]

... they have those?

[TamerVirus]

When the cyberpolice backtraced those who have done goofed, consequences will never be the same

[Il Palazzo]

You might think "isn't firing on medics against the geneva convention" and you'd be right, so is tear gas... oh well?

Riot control agents only prohibited under the convention when used for warfare. They're specifically not prohibited for use in law enforcement.
I keep seeing this reposted, but it's just not in the text.

[Frumple]

Yeah, it's "only" "stuff that would be a war crime to use against enemy combatants" . Totally okay when used on your own citizens :V

Most people I've seen commenting on that are entirely aware of the fucking grotesque fact actions prohibited by the convention suddenly aren't when used against civilians. They're not making the comparison in ignorance, more like disgust.

[Egan_BW]

It's pretty obvious that it's not illegal, and it's also pretty obvious that it should be.

[Il Palazzo]

Yeah, it's "only" "stuff that would be a war crime to use against enemy combatants" . Totally okay when used on your own citizens :V

Most people I've seen commenting on that are entirely aware of the fucking grotesque fact actions prohibited by the convention suddenly aren't when used against civilians. They're not making the comparison in ignorance, more like disgust.

They're being silly, then. I can use pepper spray to defend myself against muggers without it being a war crime. And when I buy bear repellent I'm not buying chemical weapons. Nobody in their right mind would call these grotesque and disgusting exceptions to the Geneva convention. Context matters.
And I get it, pepper spraying peaceful protestors just for standing there is fucked up. But it's not more fucked up that hitting those same protestors with a baton, tazing them, or charging at them with riot shields.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If we can ban lachrymal weapons for soldiers but not for cops and workers, than we can also ban it for soldiers and cops but not for workers. I have no problem with letting you keep your collection of 12,000 vintage bear mace cans.

Lachrymal weapons are not non-lethal. There was a post just a few pages ago in this very thread about them trapping someone in a cell with it and waiting for them to die, which they did. More importantly, and the reason why they are banned in war right alongside chlorine and nerve gas in spite of lesser lethality, is because they are all indiscriminate terror weapons. You have a can of pepper spray, you can fuck up the day of maybe a dozen people in a targeted way. You have one of those huge cans of bear mace, maybe a couple dozen people, still targeted.

The police shoot lachrymal gas grenades from launchers into crowds and terrorize thousands and thousands of people all at once. People get physically hit with those canisters all the time, and regardless there's no controlling the gas after you've pulled the trigger. Say a young mother lives in an apartment nearby and the cops launch one of those gas grenades which then clouds inside, smothering her infant? Say you show up to a protest with lifelong asthma and get hit? Say any number of thousands of possible situations, all of which are bad for that same reason: Indiscriminate terror.

The cops don't even know who they're attacking. It is fundamentally worse than batons, tazers, or riot shields for that reason.

[Il Palazzo]

I strongly disagree. Sure, you can use tear gas to kill, just as you can use water to kill. And guess what, dispersing a crowd with a fire hose is equally indiscriminate as to whom you hit (and god forbid you hit a baby with it). But to call it a terror weapon and invoking war crimes is a ridiculous hyperbole.