Shootings in Montreal
First off, this was a horrible event. It's amazing only one person was killed, when 20 were shot. Big kudos to the police and paramedics.
I've got two observations to make:
1) Publishing pics and information about the shooter is exactly what he wanted. He wanted to leave his mark. Of course, his name has to be released but I wish media would leave it at that. Instead, they publish pictures of him with guns, talk about his blog and websites he'd been to. It's basically like letting him win, and encouraging other crazies to follow in his steps. I guess society always likes putting a face to evil/madness.
2) Listening to AM radio this morning, my least favourite personality was outraged that this was a preventable crime, because the guy was talking tough (perhaps mentioning killing people) and showing off pictures of him with his guns. He couldn't understand why the police wouldn't check him out, or check that his guns were legit.
Look, the 'Net is packed with crazies. People talk junk all the time. There aren't nearly the resources for ANY police force to start looking at every kook that starts talking about violence and death. Even then, there's civil rights issues. If I was expressing how upset I was with a store and joked about 'bombing the place', I'd be pretty pissed off if the cops showed up at my doorstep. The only justification for police involvement is if he said: "On such and such a day, I'm going to walk in to my school and start shooting." Even then, someone would have to read this and REPORT it to the cops. There's no way to justify having a police position that surfs the web looking for potential mass murderers. If they do create that job, I'd be all over it!!
Simply, there are just some crimes that can't be prevented.
I've got two observations to make:
1) Publishing pics and information about the shooter is exactly what he wanted. He wanted to leave his mark. Of course, his name has to be released but I wish media would leave it at that. Instead, they publish pictures of him with guns, talk about his blog and websites he'd been to. It's basically like letting him win, and encouraging other crazies to follow in his steps. I guess society always likes putting a face to evil/madness.
2) Listening to AM radio this morning, my least favourite personality was outraged that this was a preventable crime, because the guy was talking tough (perhaps mentioning killing people) and showing off pictures of him with his guns. He couldn't understand why the police wouldn't check him out, or check that his guns were legit.
Look, the 'Net is packed with crazies. People talk junk all the time. There aren't nearly the resources for ANY police force to start looking at every kook that starts talking about violence and death. Even then, there's civil rights issues. If I was expressing how upset I was with a store and joked about 'bombing the place', I'd be pretty pissed off if the cops showed up at my doorstep. The only justification for police involvement is if he said: "On such and such a day, I'm going to walk in to my school and start shooting." Even then, someone would have to read this and REPORT it to the cops. There's no way to justify having a police position that surfs the web looking for potential mass murderers. If they do create that job, I'd be all over it!!
Simply, there are just some crimes that can't be prevented.
2 Comments:
Well... I do sort of agree.
But, I sort of don't.
1) I agree that the media shouldn't have posted the info about this wingnut. It will probably encourage people to do the same thing. I think though, there might be SOME positive that comes from it... I think that this is a social problem (What, me, think something is a social problem?) and that maybe by understanding the wingnuts we can try and fix them before they go on crazy murderous rampages.
2) I doubt you would ever actually threaten to blow up a store... and if you did, and the police showed up at your door.. well, that's actually a criminal offence you've just committed... if the police read it... well... be angry all you want but you've committed a crime. So really, I don't see ANY harm with the police reading the internet for stuff like that. If you don't want it being public knowledge, DON'T SAY IT ON THE INTERNET.
Everyone knows that crazies flock to the internet... why not monitor it more closely? It probably would lead to a lot of uselessness... and maybe this particular crime wouldn't be committed... but if more people had less tolerance for the insanity that people spout out on this giant soap box we have in the internet it might end up being a positive endeavour.
1) "If you're thru with life, but think it would be cool to have your picture on cnn.com, go on a rampage!"
2)Ok, perhaps a specific store bombing was a bad example. But how many people would take it seriously? If police were obligated to check on everyone that wrote that sort of material, there'd by none left to watch the streets, etc.
Perhaps "I'm going to kill somebody" is a better example? Does the uttering death threats crime need a specific target?
Now remember I'm NOT defending him, but I doubt anything this guy said on the web counted as an actual crime, so even it was monitored what would be the result? A stern talking to? You can't start following him on a hunch. He'd probably go through with the plan anyway.
Post a Comment
<< Home