51 replies to this topic

[CJ]

Ixonoclast, on 24 Jul 2011, 19:00, said:

21 years for one murder, I assume. Given the fact that he has killed 93 people... it's pretty certain he won't get out of prison. Ever.

That whole talk about him getting out after 21 years is misinformation. Or just anti-European prison system hate speak.

Oh I dunno about that, you seem very misinformed about how justice works in some European countries. In France or Italy for instance Serial Killers easily get away with 8 years of prison, plus they get released after only 5 years for good behavior...

[Libains]

CJ, on 24 Jul 2011, 19:09, said:

Ixonoclast, on 24 Jul 2011, 19:00, said:

21 years for one murder, I assume. Given the fact that he has killed 93 people... it's pretty certain he won't get out of prison. Ever.

That whole talk about him getting out after 21 years is misinformation. Or just anti-European prison system hate speak.

Oh I dunno about that, you seem very misinformed about how justice works in some European countries. In France or Italy for instance Serial Killers easily get away with 8 years of prison, plus they get released after only 5 years for good behavior...

Or the prisons get overcrowded and the 'lesser' criminals get booted out early. From my perspective, the prison system is a bit of the weedy side these days, but I understand the concept of rehabilitation too, and the return of people to society at some stage in their life. So I'd prefer to sit on the fence on this one, tbh.

That is not to say, regards Norway, however, that this murdering psychopath does not deserve to be incarcerated for the rest of his life. Shooting innocent teenagers (although I presume that in his eyes they were guilty of being too right-wing) is just not on. Also, it says a lot for how easy it really is to kill people off. It is to some respects a mercy of human nature that in civilised countries guns are often given out, but barely ever used for murder. Also, no matter what anyone says about him being totally in control, he may well have been, but that does not mean he was 'wired up' correctly in his head. There is just no way anyone in their right mind could bring themselves to do this?

Also, Stinger, I tried to find that pic that you mentioned yesterday, and I seem to be unable to find it - have you got a link anywhere?

[General]

AJ, on 24 Jul 2011, 20:56, said:

he may well have been, but that does not mean he was 'wired up' correctly in his head. There is just no way anyone in their right mind could bring themselves to do this?

So you think evey killer is mentally ill and people with stable mental condition cannot kill others ? just look at everyday military examples.

[Destiny]

General, on 25 Jul 2011, 3:01, said:

AJ, on 24 Jul 2011, 20:56, said:

he may well have been, but that does not mean he was 'wired up' correctly in his head. There is just no way anyone in their right mind could bring themselves to do this?

So you think evey killer is mentally ill and people with stable mental condition cannot kill others ? just look at everyday military examples.

If I'm not wrong, you were a soldier at one point of time during your national service. You should very well know that these men and women do not kill for the sake of killing or to satisfy their sadistic desires (most of them, anyway...).

[Chyros]

Ixonoclast, on 24 Jul 2011, 20:00, said:

21 years for one murder, I assume. Given the fact that he has killed 93 people... it's pretty certain he won't get out of prison. Ever.

Well I hope so because apparently he's written a 2100-page document describing in detail why he did it and from what I've heard it is a full 100% certainty that if he ever got out he would do the same thing again as soon as he could.

[Libains]

General, on 24 Jul 2011, 20:01, said:

AJ, on 24 Jul 2011, 20:56, said:

he may well have been, but that does not mean he was 'wired up' correctly in his head. There is just no way anyone in their right mind could bring themselves to do this?

So you think evey killer is mentally ill and people with stable mental condition cannot kill others ? just look at everyday military examples.

I didn't say that at all What I said was that somebody capable of slaughtering 100 civilian teenagers begging for mercy wasn't quite in his right mind.

I do not believe for a second that a member of the military is not in their right mind, however they have taken an oath, and a burden upon themselves to fight for those who cannot, against those who would prey on those who cannot fight. That does not include murdering 100 civilians in cold blood (And before anyone takes THAT out of context, I am aware that various militaries have killed civilians, but have done so either by accident, misinformation, or ordered to do so by a psychopathic dictator. Or a bit of both. Following orders, no matter how loopy those orders are, is not the same as having the capacity to plan and murder on such a scale as was seen in Norway.)

[Ixonoclast]

AJ, on 24 Jul 2011, 19:56, said:

Shooting innocent teenagers (although I presume that in his eyes they were guilty of being too right-wing) is just not on.

Small correction, he thought they were too left-wing. He saw it as a Marxist conspiracy to let the Islam take over Europe.

[Libains]

Ixonoclast, on 24 Jul 2011, 20:21, said:

AJ, on 24 Jul 2011, 19:56, said:

Shooting innocent teenagers (although I presume that in his eyes they were guilty of being too right-wing) is just not on.

Small correction, he thought they were too left-wing. He saw it as a Marxist conspiracy to let the Islam take over Europe.

Whoops, my bad. But yeah, ta

[Ion Cannon!]

AJ, on 24 Jul 2011, 20:11, said:

General, on 24 Jul 2011, 20:01, said:

AJ, on 24 Jul 2011, 20:56, said:

he may well have been, but that does not mean he was 'wired up' correctly in his head. There is just no way anyone in their right mind could bring themselves to do this?

So you think evey killer is mentally ill and people with stable mental condition cannot kill others ? just look at everyday military examples.

I didn't say that at all What I said was that somebody capable of slaughtering 100 civilian teenagers begging for mercy wasn't quite in his right mind.

Where do you draw the line though? The point is serial killers do things we cannot comprehend. We can't just say theres something wrong with them (IE not their fault). Even if he did have some sort of mental disability that doesn't change the fact he murdered 90+ people in cold blood.

[Libains]

Ion Cannon!, on 24 Jul 2011, 22:25, said:

AJ, on 24 Jul 2011, 20:11, said:

General, on 24 Jul 2011, 20:01, said:

AJ, on 24 Jul 2011, 20:56, said:

he may well have been, but that does not mean he was 'wired up' correctly in his head. There is just no way anyone in their right mind could bring themselves to do this?

So you think evey killer is mentally ill and people with stable mental condition cannot kill others ? just look at everyday military examples.

I didn't say that at all What I said was that somebody capable of slaughtering 100 civilian teenagers begging for mercy wasn't quite in his right mind.

Where do you draw the line though? The point is serial killers do things we cannot comprehend. We can't just say theres something wrong with them (IE not their fault). Even if he did have some sort of mental disability that doesn't change the fact he murdered 90+ people in cold blood.

There's a distinction I'm trying to show here, and perhaps I've not got it across quite right yet. I am not, for a second, suggesting that this psychopath did not know full well what he was doing. I am also not suggesting that he had a mental 'disability'. All I am saying is that somewhere, in his brain, the 'right' and 'wrong' wires got a bit muddled up, probably by himself. This is not a disability, in my books. Everyday people know right and wrong, and we are able to discern between the two. A disability is being unable to discern between the two of them at all, I'd say. I just think that he was fully aware of what he was doing, period. He might have not carried the same values as everyday civilised humans, but he knew damn well what he was doing.

I suppose a good comparison would be a child soldier in an African country indoctrinated into murdering civilians (note I am not for a second blaming them, rather comparing mindsets). In both cases, they are aware of what is right and wrong, but this has been twisted enough so that the boundaries are blurred. In the case of child soldiers, this is by drugs, beatings, etc. In the case of this right wing extremist, it was probably his own damn fault. He may be a bit addled, but he brought it on himself, and has nobody to blame, and is still subjectively capable of realising the consequences of his actions.

[Chyros]

If only he WERE mad. Everything I read about him strongly suggests that he is completely sound of mind. That's worse, because if someone is mad,it's not something the person can really do too much about, but if they actually believe in seriousness that killing 100 people is a great idea then IMO they are far worse and far more dangerous.

[Libains]

Chyros, on 24 Jul 2011, 22:52, said:

If only he WERE mad. Everything I read about him strongly suggests that he is completely sound of mind. That's worse, because if someone is mad,it's not something the person can really do too much about, but if they actually believe in seriousness that killing 100 people is a great idea then IMO they are far worse and far more dangerous.

Well tbh I'd define someone who writes 2100 pages as to why people of a certain political orientation need to die as being a bit on the insane side. I mean seriously, imagine the cramp... But I do agree, if you are of sound mind (or are least capable of appearing to be totally sane), you are one dangerous person - you don't let fanatiscism get in the way - it is instead simply a method, and you are cold and calculating.

[Chyros]

AJ, on 24 Jul 2011, 23:57, said:

Chyros, on 24 Jul 2011, 22:52, said:

If only he WERE mad. Everything I read about him strongly suggests that he is completely sound of mind. That's worse, because if someone is mad,it's not something the person can really do too much about, but if they actually believe in seriousness that killing 100 people is a great idea then IMO they are far worse and far more dangerous.

Well tbh I'd define someone who writes 2100 pages as to why people of a certain political orientation need to die as being a bit on the insane side. I mean seriously, imagine the cramp...

I understand it's a joke of course, but I think it's dismissive for people to brand him insane because he's obviously not. In fact the 2100 page thing is just one of the MANY political aspects he's taken to. He's invited press from all over the world to attend, confessed every accusation and explained into minute detail how and why he did everything he did; he hasn't held back on anything. He's apparently refused counsel pleading him to be mad or psychotic and is determined to face justice completely cooperatively (in fact he surrendered to the police immediately and non-violently) and is adamant that he has a good justification for everything he did and that it is impossible for him to be blamed for any wrongdoings. Apart from killing 100 people he's doing everything as the ultimate model citizen should - and that makes it all exponentially more sick in my opinion. I'm genuinely terrified at the prospect of him ever seeing the light of day again.

[Raven]

When I first heard of the news, I thought the majority were caused by the bomb, which is the case usually. I am pretty used to this sort of stuff since my country came out of a civil war in 2009. Even for me, its difficult to see how a single person can shoot 80+ ppl to death in 2 hours.

We have had terrorists executing700 surrendered policeman on point blank range. But that was also done by a group not an individual. Someone killing so many ppl all alone shows a totally fk** up mind.

[Destiny]

Raven, on 25 Jul 2011, 10:55, said:

When I first heard of the news, I thought the majority were caused by the bomb, which is the case usually. I am pretty used to this sort of stuff since my country came out of a civil war in 2009. Even for me, its difficult to see how a single person can shoot 80+ ppl to death in 2 hours.

We have had terrorists executing700 surrendered policeman on point blank range. But that was also done by a group not an individual. Someone killing so many ppl all alone shows a totally fk** up mind.

Considering if you had a M-16 with a Beta-C mag with 100 round capacity...if he had access to the right weapons, it's easy.

[Krieger22]

Destiny, on 25 Jul 2011, 17:19, said:

Raven, on 25 Jul 2011, 10:55, said:

When I first heard of the news, I thought the majority were caused by the bomb, which is the case usually. I am pretty used to this sort of stuff since my country came out of a civil war in 2009. Even for me, its difficult to see how a single person can shoot 80+ ppl to death in 2 hours.

We have had terrorists executing700 surrendered policeman on point blank range. But that was also done by a group not an individual. Someone killing so many ppl all alone shows a totally fk** up mind.

Considering if you had a M-16 with a Beta-C mag with 100 round capacity...if he had access to the right weapons, it's easy.

Even with more relaxed gun laws than most Southeast Asian countries, I doubt it is THAT easy to get a Beta-C or any sort of drum magazine (government legislation galore, and let's not get stared on the US of A).

Since I hadn't posted earlier(needed more information), I would like to state my sympathy to all that have lost their family members or have been injured in this horrifying event.

[Ion Cannon!]

The death toll has been revised down from the island shootings? Not exactly sure how that works, but it's still 68. Oh and what was I saying before?

http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-14294251 - His laywer says he is insane.

And even if he is, honestly I don't think that should change anything. And this goes for all "mental health cases" it's just a fucking excuse and the acts have still been commited, it shouldn't result in a less leniant sentence.

[Chyros]

Ion Cannon!, on 26 Jul 2011, 15:44, said:

The death toll has been revised down from the island shootings? Not exactly sure how that works, but it's still 68. Oh and what was I saying before?

http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-14294251 - His laywer says he is insane.

And even if he is, honestly I don't think that should change anything. And this goes for all "mental health cases" it's just a fucking excuse and the acts have still been commited, it shouldn't result in a less leniant sentence.

Well of course his lawyer is trying to plead for insanity, I don't think any other lawyer would do anything different. It's obvious that with him confessing everything so openly there is no question as to who did it or not, so the only thing left to opt for is loss of guilt.

However, I disagree with you that insane people should be considered guilty. If you truly are insane you have no control over your actions, which means that no-one can really fault you for it. I WOULD like to point out that if you ARE declared insane and dangerous a judge might not be able to sentence you for punishment but they CAN send you into an asylum for the rest of your life. So it's not like insanity is a way for people to get back on the streets again easily .

[Ion Cannon!]

Chyros, on 26 Jul 2011, 14:53, said:

Ion Cannon!, on 26 Jul 2011, 15:44, said:

The death toll has been revised down from the island shootings? Not exactly sure how that works, but it's still 68. Oh and what was I saying before?

http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-14294251 - His laywer says he is insane.

And even if he is, honestly I don't think that should change anything. And this goes for all "mental health cases" it's just a fucking excuse and the acts have still been commited, it shouldn't result in a less leniant sentence.

Well of course his lawyer is trying to plead for insanity, I don't think any other lawyer would do anything different. It's obvious that with him confessing everything so openly there is no question as to who did it or not, so the only thing left to opt for is loss of guilt.

However, I disagree with you that insane people should be considered guilty. If you truly are insane you have no control over your actions, which means that no-one can really fault you for it. I WOULD like to point out that if you ARE declared insane and dangerous a judge might not be able to sentence you for punishment but they CAN send you into an asylum for the rest of your life. So it's not like insanity is a way for people to get back on the streets again easily .

The problem with an "insane" person doing it, is that they can lie/fake it. Though there is some correlation between brain patterns and mental disorders most of the assessment is based on psychologists observations.

[Wizard]

Ion Cannon!, on 26 Jul 2011, 14:44, said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-14294251 - His laywer says he is insane.

And even if he is, honestly I don't think that should change anything. And this goes for all "mental health cases" it's just a fucking excuse and the acts have still been commited, it shouldn't result in a less leniant sentence.

Deluded and insane are not the same thing. A sane person can utterly convince themselves of something, but that does not make them incapable of rationale thought or of understanding the difference between right and wrong.

[Wanderer]

If he gets sent to a normal jail, I doubt that he will survive for long. Even the criminals in there must hate this guy...

[Raven]

Destiny, on 25 Jul 2011, 15:19, said:

Raven, on 25 Jul 2011, 10:55, said:

When I first heard of the news, I thought the majority were caused by the bomb, which is the case usually. I am pretty used to this sort of stuff since my country came out of a civil war in 2009. Even for me, its difficult to see how a single person can shoot 80+ ppl to death in 2 hours.

We have had terrorists executing700 surrendered policeman on point blank range. But that was also done by a group not an individual. Someone killing so many ppl all alone shows a totally fk** up mind.

Considering if you had a M-16 with a Beta-C mag with 100 round capacity...if he had access to the right weapons, it's easy.

I am not talking about the equipment, I am talking about the mental state. I am not sure even an insane person can focus for 2 hours and kill so many ppl alone. Thats what I find really scary. Its not that he sprayed bullets all over. He seem to have target fleeing ppl. Even people swimming away.

Also I wonder if any of the civilians made an attempt to subdue him.

[Krieger22]

The bastard thinks he is a saviour of Europe. No. Just no. And him calling himself a "Templar Knight" is just an insult to knights throughout history and their descendants.

Edited by Krieger22, 27 July 2011 - 10:58.

[SquigPie]

Krieger22, on 27 Jul 2011, 12:54, said:

The bastard thinks he is a saviour of Europe. No. Just no. And him calling himself a "Templar Knight" is just an insult to knights throughout history and their descendants.

I wonder what his lawyer is thinking. I understand that everyone deserves a fair trial (thus having a lawyer). But I wonder what his lawyer thinks about defending a guy like him.

[Wizard]

SquigPie, on 27 Jul 2011, 12:09, said:

Krieger22, on 27 Jul 2011, 12:54, said:

The bastard thinks he is a saviour of Europe. No. Just no. And him calling himself a "Templar Knight" is just an insult to knights throughout history and their descendants.

I wonder what his lawyer is thinking. I understand that everyone deserves a fair trial (thus having a lawyer). But I wonder what his lawyer thinks about defending a guy like him.

He's doing his job, which, in all fairness, is to give him the best defense possible. If that means spouting BS about his mental state and trying it on with the court, then that's what he has to do. You cannot have a fair legal system if the defendent isn't given all rights and options under the law.

Morally fubar, but actually correct. Total try on though.