Reporting Rampages

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Should media name these criminals?

 

There are arguments on both sides.

 

Personally, I think these glory hounds should not be named or in any way reported in the media.  It is one of the goals of many of them to have their 15 minutes of fame.  It should positively be denied.

 

Reporting of such events should be limited to referring the the perpetrator as 'the criminal' or 'the perpetrator', and his whole biography should be quickly forgotten.  If there is no chance of them getting the publicity they seek, then it might just cut down on the number of them,.

 

I am not suggesting a permanent publication ban.  Just a period of up to five years after the death of the perp.  Before that, the perp could only be referred to by general nouns such as those proposed above.

 

The press won't like it, but it also should not have to be legislated.  There is enough other news every day to fill the media to overflowing with the pap they dispense without sensationalizing some nut's moment of glory.  The problem will be taming the 'Tabloids' and the sensationalist broadcast media.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Freedom of information and of the press is an important pillar holding up our so called free society sir.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

But is it freedom or licentiousness for news media to report something that gives rise to copycat criminal behaviour?  Sense has to be employed not just rampant "who cares".

[Indiana Joe 1,750]

You have to admit, infamous criminals are treated like celebrities in many aspects.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Whether they should or should not name those criminals, we live in the age of Facebook. Even if places like the NYT or other respectable mainstream news outlets would stop naming them, people would find out the killers name anyways through other means. Face it, if you are going to kill a bunch of people in a rampage, people will want to know and curious beings that we are, we will find out who did it, why he did it, how he did it, what his background is, etc. 

[fan o SC4 128]

Yeah, even if the mainstream news avoids coverage, you can't stop word of mouth and social media. Besides restricting freedom of the press is a slippery slope, weighing out the ramifications of censorship, we better not go there.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

But is it freedom or licentiousness for news media to report something that gives rise to copycat criminal behaviour?  Sense has to be employed not just rampant "who cares".

 

You know the old saying; the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Your idea sounds sensible at first but imposing restrictions on the press, regarding what they report, will only lead to consequences far more serious than a couple of nutjobs gone on a rampage. Implicitly the nutjobs would have then done even more damage to society because their identities are kept secret. Thus your idea backfires entirely.

 

I don't like the sensationalizing but that is the state of the media today. It is totally unreliable. Oh well just another crazy thing in the New Normal.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The U.S., at least, is already on a slippery slope to tyranny.  Take a look at the Patriot Act.  More like enabling a 'Court of the Star Chamber'.  Due process?  Habeas Corpus?  What does all that matter?

 

Maybe it is time for another conference at Runnymede.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

The U.S., at least, is already on a slippery slope to tyranny.  Take a look at the Patriot Act.  More like enabling a 'Court of the Star Chamber'.  Due process?  Habeas Corpus?  What does all that matter?

 

Maybe it is time for another conference at Runnymede.

 

For all intents and purposes the US is a police state disguised as a constitutional republic. Everyone is spied upon, people who oppose core government policies are labelled terrorists, the media is the government's lapdog, corporations have more say in governance than the voting populace, To Big To Fail, the police look like the military now, and finally the Republicans and the Democrats are two sides of the same team.

 

I would say the US is already there and safeguards against tyranny are being systematically eroded and demolished. It's all a matter of perception. Of course this could explain why the media in that country, when they report gun rampages, always push the anti-gun bias whenever possible. It's hard to have complete tyranny when there are tens of millions of Americans who possess guns, and should some of those band together to form a militia, the government's days are numbered.

 

I also believe there is a clause in the constitution where citizens have the right to overthrow their government if they think it has become too tyrannical. But I'm a Brit, what am I to know of the US constitution?

[Duke87 1,070]

I also believe there is a clause in the constitution where citizens have the right to overthrow their government if they think it has become too tyrannical. But I'm a Brit, what am I to know of the US constitution?

 

There is no such clause. What you may be thinking of is this quote, which comes from the Declaration of Independence:

 

 

{...}when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

 

Indeed, the Constitution does speak of Treason in multiple places:

 

 

Article I, section 6

 

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

 

 

Article II, section 4

 

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 

 

Article III, section 3

 

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

 The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

 

[Compdude787 916]

The media, love 'em or hate 'em, is free to report on whatever the heck it wants. It has total, 100% freedom! I do think this country is not really as "free" as it should be, but that is a totally different subject. I can complain all I want about how bad the news media has gotten, but I will never push for any sort of rules or government legislation that reduces its freedom in any way, shape or form.
 

For all intents and purposes the US is a police state disguised as a constitutional republic. Everyone is spied upon, people who oppose core government policies are labelled terrorists, the media is the government's lapdog, corporations have more say in governance than the voting populace, To Big To Fail, the police look like the military now, and finally the Republicans and the Democrats are two sides of the same team.
 
I would say the US is already there and safeguards against tyranny are being systematically eroded and demolished. It's all a matter of perception. Of course this could explain why the media in that country, when they report gun rampages, always push the anti-gun bias whenever possible. It's hard to have complete tyranny when there are tens of millions of Americans who possess guns, and should some of those band together to form a militia, the government's days are numbered.

The US, sadly, has become less and less free.    I can't help but totally agree with you that the media (except for Fox News) is the government's lapdog. According to CNN and MSNBC, Obama must be the best president ever because they puff him up to be this great, amazing president that he's clearly not. And they wonder why their ratings are so bad.

 

Right-wing conservatives who love this free country are mocked and laughed at by the leftist (the term "liberal" is often used as well) media, the education system, and Hollywood as being radical extremists (terrorist is probably the wrong word), even though in most cases conservatives are in the majority. Mind you that the Left here is really an outspoken minority on many economic issues. Hopefully in 2016 we can elect a president who actually cares about people's freedom and liberty and making gov't smaller and less intrusive.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Curiouser and curiouser.  The idea of a coalition of neighbourhoods into a militia might just turn out to be the salvation of the United States.  Is this not the intent of the second amendment?

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Curiouser and curiouser.  The idea of a coalition of neighbourhoods into a militia might just turn out to be the salvation of the United States.  Is this not the intent of the second amendment?

 

And that's precisely why the second amendment needs to be protected at all costs. It is also why the anti-gun lobby/movement is opposed in certain quarters, and by myself included, because of the power and responsibility the second amendment places upon the common folk. It is the sort of power that would keep any government afraid of their people, and that is how it should be. Government really is a servant, an entity to provide service to the citizens. When people become afraid of the government and feel powerless to change it, then it becomes clear that the government is too centralized and tyranny has become prevalent.

 

I think it is something along the lines of one of Thomas Jefferson's famous sayings about the fear dynamic between the people and the government; and which entity predominantly experiences it.

[LexusInfernus 908]

The US, sadly, has become less and less free.    I can't help but totally agree with you that the media (except for Fox News) is the government's lapdog. According to CNN and MSNBC, Obama must be the best president ever because they puff him up to be this great, amazing president that he's clearly not. And they wonder why their ratings are so bad.

 

Right-wing conservatives who love this free country are mocked and laughed at by the leftist (the term "liberal" is often used as well) media, the education system, and Hollywood as being radical extremists (terrorist is probably the wrong word), even though in most cases conservatives are in the majority. Mind you that the Left here is really an outspoken minority on many economic issues. Hopefully in 2016 we can elect a president who actually cares about people's freedom and liberty and making gov't smaller and less intrusive.

Nah they only make him look so good because the opposition is just so cringe worthy idiotic. I mean, he is contrasted to a party filled with people that our outspoken racists and homophobes, who want to ban abortion through all kinds of increasingly intrusive and idiotic ways, who have some really weird ideas about how for example the female body works, who deny science and scientific facts, who have clear links to white supremacist and white nationalist groups who in turn have clear links to extreme right wing terrorists (like Timothy McVeigh) and who generally do all kinds of things that quite clearly do not sit right with the majority of people. By now, only extreme right wing republicans can really connect to their party while all the moderates are being scared off by the lunatics that have taken over. 

 

President Obama is not a great president, or even a good president. He is average, mediocre, at best. But by comparison to his opponents he looks great because his opponents are just so incredibly bad. 

 

And unless the Republicans get rid of their tea party and shift more the center, they are going to lose again, by the simple virtue of not getting the votes of minorities and women. 

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

 

The US, sadly, has become less and less free.    I can't help but totally agree with you that the media (except for Fox News) is the government's lapdog. According to CNN and MSNBC, Obama must be the best president ever because they puff him up to be this great, amazing president that he's clearly not. And they wonder why their ratings are so bad.

 

Right-wing conservatives who love this free country are mocked and laughed at by the leftist (the term "liberal" is often used as well) media, the education system, and Hollywood as being radical extremists (terrorist is probably the wrong word), even though in most cases conservatives are in the majority. Mind you that the Left here is really an outspoken minority on many economic issues. Hopefully in 2016 we can elect a president who actually cares about people's freedom and liberty and making gov't smaller and less intrusive.

Nah they only make him look so good because the opposition is just so cringe worthy idiotic. I mean, he is contrasted to a party filled with people that our outspoken racists and homophobes, who want to ban abortion through all kinds of increasingly intrusive and idiotic ways, who have some really weird ideas about how for example the female body works, who deny science and scientific facts, who have clear links to white supremacist and white nationalist groups who in turn have clear links to extreme right wing terrorists (like Timothy McVeigh) and who generally do all kinds of things that quite clearly do not sit right with the majority of people. By now, only extreme right wing republicans can really connect to their party while all the moderates are being scared off by the lunatics that have taken over. 

 

President Obama is not a great president, or even a good president. He is average, mediocre, at best. But by comparison to his opponents he looks great because his opponents are just so incredibly bad. 

 

And unless the Republicans get rid of their tea party and shift more the center, they are going to lose again, by the simple virtue of not getting the votes of minorities and women. 

 

 

Don't be hoodwinked by the left/right paradigm. Republicans and Democrats offer nothing whatsoever substantial. The national debt will keep on rising. TBTF will endure. The US government will continue to grow and centralize. And of course every congress and senate member has been bought off by Wall Street, the Israeli Lobby and other nefarious interest groups. Why else is lobbying so big?

 

I think elections should have a new option. So you have Republican, Democrat or Independent. Well how about 'none of the above?'. What if there are no candidates or parties who you agree with, what if their manifestos or policies are not going to address ones personal problems with how the country is functioning?

 

If a party or candidate can't get above 50%, then a re-vote must take place. It would give disenfranchised people the chance to express their dissatisfaction through voting and the Republicans and Democrats would really have to start changing their tones and looking into why so many people were not voting for any party.

 

It's an idea, possibly quite crazy, but it may go some way to stemming the growing tyranny and corruption running rife in the US government.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

And how many people in the U.S. are actually afraid of their government?  Considering the present situation, is the ballot box any good now or is it time for some Jeffersonian action? 

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

And how many people in the U.S. are actually afraid of their government?  Considering the present situation, is the ballot box any good now or is it time for some Jeffersonian action? 

 

"Jeffersonian" action will not take place until it is too late. You have fifty million people on EBT cards for food stamps in the US, a middle class who need pensions and the housing bubble to stay afloat. To trigger a revolution, in an attempt to correct government largesse and economic imbalances, it simply will not ignite or endure since a large majority of the people are either dependent on the government, or rely on its flawed economic policies (TBTF, constant growth, and the housing bubble) to keep their asset values intact.

 

I'm sure many Americans don't like the system and the government, but through their actions they will play safe and keep their heads down because they have a lot to lose. And you can preach and inform of the current and future dangers, you can engage in as much activism as you like. But it's like trying to talk to a crackhead about becoming sober. As long as he has the drugs, he will not listen to anything you say even if it will destroy him at a later time.

 

Human beings only learn the hard way. That's why I think that change will only come once the system blows up from its own hubris.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Very good points.  The Roman Empire didn't collapse despite abuses until it could no longer supply the bread and circuses that kept the plebs amused and quiet nor pay the legions.  The parallels are quite astonishing.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Very good points.  The Roman Empire didn't collapse despite abuses until it could no longer supply the bread and circuses that kept the plebs amused and quiet nor pay the legions.  The parallels are quite astonishing.

 

But the good news, well in the grand scheme of things, is how quickly the world is changing. Given the last one hundred years, everything is on steroids. Technology has made insane leaps forward, social norms and values are evolving at a dizzying rate, and more importantly empires and nations are changing at an extraordinary rate. So I really doubt the American Empire is going to last a few hundred more years. Considering how things went totally to pot after 9/11, and in the space of thirteen years there has been this unprecedented transformation in the US- this descent to tyranny. Maybe 2020 is pushing it...

 

Evolution is at work here, I think this craziness could be the first step towards mankind's maturity. That's the optimist in me talking, and God knows we need some hope...

[LexusInfernus 908]

Don't be hoodwinked by the left/right paradigm. Republicans and Democrats offer nothing whatsoever substantial. The national debt will keep on rising. TBTF will endure. The US government will continue to grow and centralize. And of course every congress and senate member has been bought off by Wall Street, the Israeli Lobby and other nefarious interest groups. Why else is lobbying so big?

 

I think elections should have a new option. So you have Republican, Democrat or Independent. Well how about 'none of the above?'. What if there are no candidates or parties who you agree with, what if their manifestos or policies are not going to address ones personal problems with how the country is functioning?

 

If a party or candidate can't get above 50%, then a re-vote must take place. It would give disenfranchised people the chance to express their dissatisfaction through voting and the Republicans and Democrats would really have to start changing their tones and looking into why so many people were not voting for any party.

 

It's an idea, possibly quite crazy, but it may go some way to stemming the growing tyranny and corruption running rife in the US government.

Of course the US government will grow. But that is not because they are centralizing in the sense that they are taking power away from the states or the local counties or what not. Its because the world is getting more complex. thus there is more need for government regulation. Will the debt grow? Well yes, if Republicans refuse to increase taxes and drastically cut back on things like defense and the Democrats are unable to reform the social security policies then indeed the US will spend more than it gets. 

 

The better idea is perhaps that instead of voting blank is to actually show up on elections, especially at local elections and the primaries. You'd get a lot better group of candidates. The reason the US is such a mess is because of voter apathy, giving people on the political fringe a disproportionate amount of influence. 

 

And please, the US government is not a tyranny. People should really stop saying the US government has turned tyrannical. Its on the same level as saying the government has turned into fascism or communism or both. People who say that have no idea what real tyranny looks like. The very fact that they can say that the government is supposedly tyrannical and corrupt without getting arrested and their private parts electrocuted is proof that the government is not tyrannical. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

No, they are just more subtle than Mussolini or Hitler or Stalin.  Under some of the post 9/11 legislation people can now be "disappeared". 

 

Ben Franklin would be ashamed of some of the recent acts of Congress.  Thomas Jefferson would roar with laughter and indignation.  There has been a lot of factual overload on those poor beleaguered people in Congress who are being pulled every which way by the various lobbies, and their consciences have all gone out the window.

[Compdude787 916]

 

The US, sadly, has become less and less free.    I can't help but totally agree with you that the media (except for Fox News) is the government's lapdog. According to CNN and MSNBC, Obama must be the best president ever because they puff him up to be this great, amazing president that he's clearly not. And they wonder why their ratings are so bad.

 

Right-wing conservatives who love this free country are mocked and laughed at by the leftist (the term "liberal" is often used as well) media, the education system, and Hollywood as being radical extremists (terrorist is probably the wrong word), even though in most cases conservatives are in the majority. Mind you that the Left here is really an outspoken minority on many economic issues. Hopefully in 2016 we can elect a president who actually cares about people's freedom and liberty and making gov't smaller and less intrusive.

Nah they only make him look so good because the opposition is just so cringe worthy idiotic. I mean, he is contrasted to a party filled with people that our outspoken racists and homophobes, who want to ban abortion through all kinds of increasingly intrusive and idiotic ways, who have some really weird ideas about how for example the female body works, who deny science and scientific facts, who have clear links to white supremacist and white nationalist groups who in turn have clear links to extreme right wing terrorists (like Timothy McVeigh) and who generally do all kinds of things that quite clearly do not sit right with the majority of people. By now, only extreme right wing republicans can really connect to their party while all the moderates are being scared off by the lunatics that have taken over. 

 

President Obama is not a great president, or even a good president. He is average, mediocre, at best. But by comparison to his opponents he looks great because his opponents are just so incredibly bad. 

 

And unless the Republicans get rid of their tea party and shift more the center, they are going to lose again, by the simple virtue of not getting the votes of minorities and women. 

 

I would like to point out that the vast majority of people on the right are not all racists and homophobes. Just because someone thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman doesn't mean that they are afraid of homosexual people, so therefore they are not homophobes. Personally, I don't treat anyone differently because they are gay/lesbian either, even though I don't support gay marriage.

 

However, I still don't like that many Republicans are pushing their ideas on social issues so hard. Politically, they should just take a more libertarian stance by saying that government should be small enough to not have any influence on the culture or on social issues, just like they believe that government should not have much influence on the economy. After all, liberals have pushed their social views through Hollywood and pop culture and social or religious institutions, so conservatives can and should do the same, right?

 

Anyway, let's get back on topic: Even if you release the identity of a suspected criminal who has not been arrested in an attempt to get the public's help in finding him/her, you're giving the criminal some attention. In fact, releasing a photo of the criminal would make them realize that they better hide so that people won't see them and report them to the police.

 

Even when the news media reports a crime, that gives the criminal some attention and recognition. Even if the crimes weren't reported and the criminals weren't getting this sort of attention, I don't think it will take away their evil desires in their hearts and minds to commit such an atrocious crime. People with the desire to kill other innocent people don't even think rationally or logically or they will channel all their logical thinking into figuring out how to get away with their crime and how not to get caught.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

However, it is well known that evil begets evil.  Less detail of such crimes might be a good idea to help avoid copycats.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I knew it was only a matter of time until someone would go on a rampage in Seattle. I read that there were 2 gunmen who between the two of them shot 4 people at the SPU campus. It is only a matter of time before most of the rest of the major US American cities get struck with tragedies as well. The current society in the USA is on a decline and it is/will be taking the rest of the world down with it, most likely within a century.

 

http://www.kirotv.com/gallery/news/photos-scene-shooting-seattle-pacific-university/gCLNc/#5344351

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2014/06/shooting-on-seattle-pacific-campus-2-victims-reported/

http://q13fox.com/2014/06/05/breaking-police-search-seattle-pacific-university-after-reported-shooting/#axzz33oZ07U9h

 

--Ocram

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

I knew it was only a matter of time until someone would go on a rampage in Seattle. I read that there were 2 gunmen who between the two of them shot 4 people at the SPU campus. It is only a matter of time before most of the rest of the major US American cities get struck with tragedies as well. The current society in the USA is on a decline and it is/will be taking the rest of the world down with it, most likely within a century.

 

http://www.kirotv.com/gallery/news/photos-scene-shooting-seattle-pacific-university/gCLNc/#5344351

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2014/06/shooting-on-seattle-pacific-campus-2-victims-reported/

http://q13fox.com/2014/06/05/breaking-police-search-seattle-pacific-university-after-reported-shooting/#axzz33oZ07U9h

 

--Ocram

 

Gun rampages and deaths are pretty standard in the US. I think every year about ten thousand people in the US are killed by guns, and most of them are either mobsters or small gangsters- i.e. black street gangs in LA and other urban areas.

 

You are still far more likely to be killed by a car (or in a car) then with a handgun. As always play the probabilities. Most people don't think twice about stepping into a car yet they should since car accidents cause far more death and injuries.

 

Lastly, before we all get our knickers in a twist, this ain't a warzone like parts of Africa or Syria. US citizens aren't facing situations where an army or some dissidents turn up and start shooting everything. These are a collection of isolated incidents in all of these gun rampages, so while bad it comes nowhere close to what other people around the world are living with. It is all a matter of perspective.

 

Finally, something which always seem to crop up, many of these shooters always seem to be on medication! Perhaps more effort should go towards assessing the suitability of individuals, who possess guns, who are taking medication for some kind of mental illness. Perhaps questions should be raised about the effectiveness of all of this medication and whether it is healthy for a large section of society to be taking all these prescription drugs for various mental conditions.

 

As always the US media loves describing the situation and bleating on about gun control -- something which would disempower people -- but fails to dig any deeper into some obvious patterns.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Gun control in the U.S. has about as much chance of happening as a renewal of the Volstead Act.

 

Probably the best that can be done is some attempt to keep firearms out of the hands of children and the mentally disturbed when they are known.

 

Otherwise, more people die in traffic accidents.