Buried Alive

Buried Alive (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

hlen5 -> Buried Alive (12/24/2012 12:22:59 PM)
20 six year old kids shot. Some nut-job decides to be even more sensational by luring fire-fighters to kill them. We don't have to know the reason for each individual's motives or m.o. These people are trying to become if not famous, then in-famous. I say aside from making the name of the perp a matter of public record (the first day it happens), to ever after refer to the perp by number, or simply the perpetrator (suspect?). No background story, no using their full name, no interviewing the neighbors, nothing. Do we ward off future attacks by knowing the names Manson, Bundy, Kliebold, Breivik (sp?)? I don't think so. What does anyone else think?

Moonhead -> RE: Buried Alive (12/24/2012 12:42:04 PM)
I think that you're right on the money, but that no attempt to avoid naming future twats will stick, as they'll just have their solicitors sue any Police department that tries to deny them their rightful publicity.

tazzygirl -> RE: Buried Alive (12/24/2012 1:36:19 PM)
I agree. When I talk to people about the Newtown incident, I refuse to use the killers name. When people eventually ask me why, I simply say... I refuse to give him what he ultimately wanted... to be known forever as the man who killed those children.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Buried Alive (12/24/2012 2:22:33 PM)
'If it bleeds, it leads' - sensationalism for profit - infotainment... call it what you will. The notion that it is OK for the media to release the names of rape victims (a right they sued to win), or to turn these spree killers into celebrities, certainly looks like it is causing a great deal of harm, and looks like it could indeed be linked to increased occurrences. In order to over come 'freedom of the press', there would have to be a convincing legal showing that the harm to society outweighs the right to massive profits. While I think that tipping point has been passed, I'm not confident that the courts are ready to say so. quote: ORIGINAL: hlen5 20 six year old kids shot. Some nut-job decides to be even more sensational by luring fire-fighters to kill them. We don't have to know the reason for each individual's motives or m.o. These people are trying to become if not famous, then in-famous. I say aside from making the name of the perp a matter of public record (the first day it happens), to ever after refer to the perp by number, or simply the perpetrator (suspect?). No background story, no using their full name, no interviewing the neighbors, nothing. Do we ward off future attacks by knowing the names Manson, Bundy, Kliebold, Breivik (sp?)? I don't think so. What does anyone else think?

LizDeluxe -> RE: Buried Alive (12/24/2012 9:44:04 PM)
It would entail a sweeping voluntary movement among news agencies (not likely to happen) or a modification to the First Amendment (even less likely to happen). People have suggested limiting this information in the past. I really don't see the point. I can see how the moment by moment breakdowns of these events might influence others intent on doing something similar (or provide them with tactical ideas) but it's still pretty obvious what happened even if your let out very few details. I also reject the notion that these people do this for the notoriety. I think they're just batshit crazy. Timothy McVeigh is the exception there.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Buried Alive (12/24/2012 10:07:06 PM)
Reject that notion all you want. You and science will just have to disagree. quote: ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe It would entail a sweeping voluntary movement among news agencies (not likely to happen) or a modification to the First Amendment (even less likely to happen). People have suggested limiting this information in the past. I really don't see the point. I can see how the moment by moment breakdowns of these events might influence others intent on doing something similar (or provide them with tactical ideas) but it's still pretty obvious what happened even if your let out very few details. I also reject the notion that these people do this for the notoriety. I think they're just batshit crazy. Timothy McVeigh is the exception there.

hlen5 -> RE: Buried Alive (12/24/2012 10:23:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe It would entail a sweeping voluntary movement among news agencies (not likely to happen) or a modification to the First Amendment (even less likely to happen). People have suggested limiting this information in the past. I really don't see the point. I can see how the moment by moment breakdowns of these events might influence others intent on doing something similar (or provide them with tactical ideas) but it's still pretty obvious what happened even if your let out very few details. I also reject the notion that these people do this for the notoriety. I think they're just batshit crazy. Timothy McVeigh is the exception there. I agree an all around agreement not to publish/broadcast the perp's name would be both necessary and nearly impossible. I disagree that the perps are not out for fame. Read The Gift of Fear, Gavin DeBecker, author.

Aswad -> RE: Buried Alive (12/25/2012 12:39:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe Timothy McVeigh is the exception there. McVeigh, Breivik and Kaczynski are exceptions, and belong in the domestic terrorism category. The Newtown guy was a plain spree killer. IWYW, — Aswad.

LizDeluxe -> RE: Buried Alive (12/25/2012 9:21:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Reject that notion all you want. You and science will just have to disagree. Oh, please... give me a break. It's Christmas. Science? Really? It's been scientifically proven that they do this for the notoriety?

Powergamz1 -> RE: Buried Alive (12/27/2012 8:24:19 PM)
If you are convinced that there is absolutely zero media influence on those who commit suicide, go right on ahead and hold onto that faith-based dogma as hard as you want. Likewise if you think that such research isn't science. For those that are interested in something other than a pointless internet argument: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/medical/bioethics/nyspi/material/SuicideAndTheMedia.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124845/ http://www.psychology.org.au/Content.aspx?ID=1830 http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ868106&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ868106 http://www.psyter.org/inglese/articolo.php?ID=220 http://cebmh.warne.ox.ac.uk/csr/resmedia.html quote: ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Reject that notion all you want. You and science will just have to disagree. Oh, please... give me a break. It's Christmas. Science? Really? It's been scientifically proven that they do this for the notoriety?

littlewonder -> RE: Buried Alive (12/27/2012 10:00:07 PM)
Not giving the name of the perpetrator won't stop copycats. It's not the name they are lured by. It's the actions. The only way to stop copycats is not to report the story at all.

thishereboi -> RE: Buried Alive (12/28/2012 6:25:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I think that you're right on the money, but that no attempt to avoid naming future twats will stick, as they'll just have their solicitors sue any Police department that tries to deny them their rightful publicity. If they make it a law that you can't name the perp in news stories then they have no right to publicity. (in fact as far as I know no one has a right to publicity in the first place) And considering most of the asshats kill themselves before they can be arrested, they wouldn't be around to sue anyone even if they did have a case. Now I am not sure if this would stop anything or not, but there is a part of me that thinks they are going for targets the will get the most coverage and they are doing it so everyone will remember who they are.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Buried Alive (12/28/2012 7:04:26 AM)
There's a lot of room between not reporting at all, and the extremes the media goes to currently so that they can over sensationalize a story. quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder Not giving the name of the perpetrator won't stop copycats. It's not the name they are lured by. It's the actions. The only way to stop copycats is not to report the story at all.

Moonhead -> RE: Buried Alive (12/28/2012 7:42:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 There's a lot of room between not reporting at all, and the extremes the media goes to currently so that they can over sensationalize a story. This. quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi (in fact as far as I know no one has a right to publicity in the first place) Don't tell me, tell them. Anybody who feels that welfare spending promotes a sense of entitlement has obviously never sat down and watched X factor or Big Brother. A lot of people seem to feel that they have an inalienable right to appear in the red tops, regardless of whether or not they posses the minimal talent a media career requires these days. We're probably very lucky that those who adopt Charles Manson and Charles Whitman as role models rather than Kevin Federline or Freddie Prinz jr are a distinct minority so far. Of course, that could well be starting to change now...

hlen5 -> RE: Buried Alive (12/28/2012 8:35:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi ......... Now I am not sure if this would stop anything or not, but there is a part of me that thinks they are going for targets the will get the most coverage and they are doing it so everyone will remember who they are. Exactly.

LafayetteLady -> RE: Buried Alive (12/28/2012 1:48:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 If you are convinced that there is absolutely zero media influence on those who commit suicide, go right on ahead and hold onto that faith-based dogma as hard as you want. Likewise if you think that such research isn't science. For those that are interested in something other than a pointless internet argument: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/medical/bioethics/nyspi/material/SuicideAndTheMedia.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124845/ http://www.psychology.org.au/Content.aspx?ID=1830 http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ868106&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ868106 http://www.psyter.org/inglese/articolo.php?ID=220 http://cebmh.warne.ox.ac.uk/csr/resmedia.html quote: ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Reject that notion all you want. You and science will just have to disagree. Oh, please... give me a break. It's Christmas. Science? Really? It's been scientifically proven that they do this for the notoriety? Absolutely NONE of those articles suggest the increase is due to a desire for notoriety. The possible correlation between an increase in suicides based on media coverage discounts many obvious factors involved. Healthy people don't suddenly become so despondent after watching such a news story (or movie, tv show, etc.) that they commit suicide. The increase is people who are already in mental states that are likely suicidal. Lizi said nothing about "faith based dogma." You are simply being argumentative and pointless. The situation in Newton was not about suicide, regardless of the young man killing himself at the end of it all. This was someone who suffered serious mental illness. No, that does not excuse his actions, but to say he was looking for notoriety (nothing reported has indicated that), or this was some suicide mission with hopes of infamy is conjecture and opinion that has nothing to do with facts. Perhaps when you learn to understand the studies you posted, there can be a discussion, but considering you are considerably off topic and don't seem to understand the OP, I won't hold my breath waiting.

littlewonder -> RE: Buried Alive (12/28/2012 5:25:29 PM)
We all could also lessen media sensationalism by not buying or reading the news and turning off the tv when something happens. Eventually the media goes broke and thus the sensationalism stops because there no longer will be any media. It's not the media. It's the people who buy into it.

TheLilSquaw -> RE: Buried Alive (12/28/2012 5:35:32 PM)
I suspect that some sort of media glory is part of the payoff for some criminals. But the truth of the matter is we don't have a clue. Nor do we have an idea if some sort of media blackout about them would have any effect in preventing this type of incident from occurring again. Example, when media stopped showing people running on baseball fields. That black out didn't stop it from happening, they simply stopped getting the media and public attention.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Buried Alive (12/28/2012 8:52:16 PM)
Those strawmen you erected are neither correct, nor useful. quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 If you are convinced that there is absolutely zero media influence on those who commit suicide, go right on ahead and hold onto that faith-based dogma as hard as you want. Likewise if you think that such research isn't science. For those that are interested in something other than a pointless internet argument: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/medical/bioethics/nyspi/material/SuicideAndTheMedia.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124845/ http://www.psychology.org.au/Content.aspx?ID=1830 http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ868106&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ868106 http://www.psyter.org/inglese/articolo.php?ID=220 http://cebmh.warne.ox.ac.uk/csr/resmedia.html quote: ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Reject that notion all you want. You and science will just have to disagree. Oh, please... give me a break. It's Christmas. Science? Really? It's been scientifically proven that they do this for the notoriety? Absolutely NONE of those articles suggest the increase is due to a desire for notoriety. The possible correlation between an increase in suicides based on media coverage discounts many obvious factors involved. Healthy people don't suddenly become so despondent after watching such a news story (or movie, tv show, etc.) that they commit suicide. The increase is people who are already in mental states that are likely suicidal. Lizi said nothing about "faith based dogma." You are simply being argumentative and pointless. The situation in Newton was not about suicide, regardless of the young man killing himself at the end of it all. This was someone who suffered serious mental illness. No, that does not excuse his actions, but to say he was looking for notoriety (nothing reported has indicated that), or this was some suicide mission with hopes of infamy is conjecture and opinion that has nothing to do with facts. Perhaps when you learn to understand the studies you posted, there can be a discussion, but considering you are considerably off topic and don't seem to understand the OP, I won't hold my breath waiting.

littlewonder -> RE: Buried Alive (12/28/2012 10:12:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheLilSquaw I suspect that some sort of media glory is part of the payoff for some criminals. But the truth of the matter is we don't have a clue. Nor do we have an idea if some sort of media blackout about them would have any effect in preventing this type of incident from occurring again. Example, when media stopped showing people running on baseball fields. That black out didn't stop it from happening, they simply stopped getting the media and public attention. Same as when they stopped showing car speed chases between criminals and police. It hasn't stopped anyone at all from doing it. It still happens just as much as before.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875