Canada - Lucas Fowler, Chynna Deese, and Leonard Dyck, all murdered, Alaska Hwy, BC, Jul 2019 #23

[copkid]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/alexandre-bissonnette-mass-shooters-1.5326201

"Attacks are preventable, says head of FBI's behavioural analysis unit"

Interesting Fifth Estate episode tonight.

 

[MistyWaters]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/alexandre-bissonnette-mass-shooters-1.5326201

Interesting Fifth Estate episode tonight.

Very interesting, thanks for posting.

from your link....

The RCMPs concerns over “copycat” crimes isn’t as simple as somebody out there might try to mimic this senseless tragedy. It’s known that releasing too much detail becomes study material for future mass shooters to obsess over.

BBM

“(Bissonnette’s) His father said he thought sport shooting was a healthy hobby for his son.

Around the same time, Bissonnette learned about the shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado. In 1999, two teenagers entered the school just before lunchtime and killed 12 students and a teacher.

The psychiatric reports and the RCMP's search of Bissonnette's computer showed that he developed a fascination with that attack.

That fits a pattern that the FBI's Wyman has found with other mass shooters.

Wyman said their acts are not "impulsive."

Instead, they're meticulously planned partly by studying previous attacks.

"For many of them, it is a very important, if not maybe the most important event of their life. So they want it to go right," Wyman said.

"They want to see, in their mind, what other people have done to achieve whatever goal it is that they're seeking. And they can model their behavior off of them." ...”

 

[poupetty77]

Very interesting, thanks for posting.

from your link....

The RCMPs concerns over “copycat” crimes isn’t that somebody out there might try to mimic this senseless tragedy. It’s known that releasing too much detail becomes study material for future mass shooters to obsess over.

BBM

“(Bissonnette’s) His father said he thought sport shooting was a healthy hobby for his son.

Around the same time, Bissonnette learned about the shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado. In 1999, two teenagers entered the school just before lunchtime and killed 12 students and a teacher.

The psychiatric reports and the RCMP's search of Bissonnette's computer showed that he developed a fascination with that attack.

That fits a pattern that the FBI's Wyman has found with other mass shooters.

Wyman said their acts are not "impulsive."

Instead, they're meticulously planned partly by studying previous attacks.

"For many of them, it is a very important, if not maybe the most important event of their life. So they want it to go right," Wyman said.

"They want to see, in their mind, what other people have done to achieve whatever goal it is that they're seeking. And they can model their behavior off of them." ...”

That rules out the Orlando shooter being a copycat of the Boston Marathon Bomber.

 

[NJSleuth91]

Philosophical question: if publicizing crimes is all it takes to inspire future killers, does that mean all us true crime enthusiasts are a major part of the problem? We're the main ones who keep talking about these criminals. And collecting all the information about them into easy to digest formats (podcasts, etc.).

If people are going to argue that talking about details of these crimes leads to copycat crimes, how do you reconcile that with being part of a true crime forum, the entire purpose of which is to talk about details of crimes?

EDIT: Also between the 24-hour news cycle and true crime becoming very popular over the past few years, these criminals are being talked about probably more than ever. Therefore, following the logic that talking about violent crime leads to crime, we should be expecting violent crime rates to skyrocket. Yet (and this may surprise people) violent crime rates are at a multi-decade historic low. Yes, even in the US.

 

[MistyWaters]

Philosophical question: if publicizing crimes is all it takes to inspire future killers, does that mean all us true crime enthusiasts are a major part of the problem? We're the main ones who keep talking about these criminals. And collecting all the information about them into easy to digest formats (podcasts, etc.).

If people are going to argue that talking about details of these crimes leads to copycat crimes, how do you reconcile that with being part of a true crime forum, the entire purpose of which is to talk about details of crimes?

EDIT: Also between the 24-hour news cycle and true crime becoming very popular over the past few years, these criminals are being talked about probably more than ever. Therefore, following the logic that talking about violent crime leads to crime, we should be expecting violent crime rates to skyrocket. Yet (and this may surprise people) violent crime rates are at a multi-decade historic low. Yes, even in the US.

I don’t think anybody is criticizing people for talking about details of crimes that are released as that’s what we do here. But that’s different than criticism directed toward police for not releasing more information. They have every right to have concern over copycat crimes with consideration to ensuring public safety so it’s a justifiable reason why police are cautious in how much and what information they release through the media. The topic of copycat crime is nothing new. Google “Dexter” if you’re interested.

In the US the stats so far this year are nothing to scoff at. While the US population is much larger than Canada, the almost continual news headlines involving gun violence might be the reason it was mentioned as a pacifist, the Professor chose not to travel in the US. As a Canadian, I’m confident I’m speaking for the majority when I say we don’t want to go down this same road.

“The total number of deadly mass shootings in the United States in 2019 comes out to an average of one every 15 days.”
There have been at least 21 deadly mass shootings in the US so far in 2019

 

[DarkSkink]

As to. the bolded, I disagree. MANY killers have parents who were involved, engaged, and interested in them. Many were coddled children, who were doted on and spoiled, in fact.

Look at the childhoods of some of the family annihilators, and you will find sons who were treasured, cherished and doted on. Little Prince's, who grew up to kill their entire families at a family dinner.
here are 2 examples:
Manhattan hedge fund manager fatally shot by son, 30, over cut allowance: source

Ashton Sachs given four life sentences after pleading guilty to killing parents, injuring siblings – Orange County Register

In your examples, you don't actually know that the parents were involved or neglectful. Nor do you know what they did to the child growing up.

That poorly written hedge fund manager article is absolutely sopping with sarcastic labels based on the writers' rather obvious class bias and anger.

Were you aware he was diagnosed with schizophrenia? It's quite possible his family around him didn't do enough. That payment may have actually been the easy way out, rather than deal with the issues head on. Just pay him and keep him out of our hair. They may also have not been aware of certain triggers to be wary of, or the consequences of mentally ill persons being off their medication because they weren't educated properly.

 

[NJSleuth91]

I don’t think anybody is criticizing people for talking about details of crimes that are released. But concern over copycat crimes is a justifiable reason why police are cautious about how much and what information they release through the media.

But the discussion is about how giving mass killers publicity supposedly leads to an increase in mass killings. Putting pictures of mass killers on the news and on the cover of magazines, etc. is one form of publicity. Discussing them and their crimes in detail on true crime forums is, arguably, another. The news wouldn't even be covering these guys if it didn't get page views...and a lot of the page views come from people who are personally unrelated to the case, but just interested in it from the true crime perspective.

Basically I think it's logically incongruent for someone to say "these mass killers should be discussed as little as possible in the media to prevent copycats," while also being on a true crime forum discussing these mass killers. It's like arguing in favor of Prohibition while drinking a glass of wine, you know what I'm saying?

 

[DarkSkink]

INCORRECT. [bolded by me]

See the quote below:

“More recently, the Orlando nightclub shooter admitted that he was inspired by the [2013] Boston Marathon bombers. This was only possible due to the amount of media coverage the Boston bombers received,” he told Journalist’s Resource. In a forthcoming study, Lankford found the younger of the two brothers responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing received “nearly $10 million in free publicity during the month of his attack, which was more than almost any other American celebrity during that time.”

“Don’t name them” – Criminologist asks journalists to help stop mass shootings - Journalist's Resource

Boom. Hammer dropped on that one.

I'll have to look at that and give it a rethink. The MOs are so different.

 

[poupetty77]

Boom. Hammer dropped on that one.

I'll have to look at that and give it a rethink. The MOs are so different.

If I am not wrong, he just said "shout out to the Tsarnaevs" or something like that. He also pretended that he knew them before. The MO is different. The crime is different. He was obviously disturbed and slightly obsessed, but you can't really say he's a copycat IMO. Especially if you consider this

""For many of them, it is a very important, if not maybe the most important event of their life. So they want it to go right," Wyman said.

"They want to see, in their mind, what other people have done to achieve whatever goal it is that they're seeking. And they can model their behavior off of them." ...”

 

[DarkSkink]

People in Europe read about mass shooters just as much as American people. See their faces, read the same information about them. We still don't have a growing Mass shooting problem. We don't have weekly school shootings.We do have problems, obviously. But not to the extend North America is experiencing it. Maybe the problem is somewhere else.

In my (uneducated and not professional) opinion, if a person is at the point to be so angry, suffering, mentally ill or disturbed that they want to murder people, they will. They will look up to the Columbine killers, K and B, Jeffrey Dahmer or the Little House in the Prairie, maybe. But they will act anyway no mater what. No one is going to read about Kam and Bryer (or any other teen killer) and suddenly think about killing just to copy them. Finding out IF something can be done to avoid anyone getting to that point is important IMO.

I mentioned the case of a high school with an epidemic of suicides problem. They tried to silence and ignore it and it didn't go well.

By any mean, let's not name the future mass/spree/serial killers in the media to avoid the incentive of "fame" as a motive to kill. But Kam and Bryer have been named already. I really genuinely do believe that understanding what happened in their case will help avoid copycats (or the occurence of the same events, even if it is not inspired by them) way more than pretending this case never happened. Understanding what happened in each case will. If the finding is "they were just sociopaths who managed to stay under the radar their whole life then suddenly decided to go a killing spree for no reason, out of the blue", then fine. At least it had been looked into. JMO.

Edited to add : I feel like some people think that looking to see if they had been failed in any way or if they could have been helped would be sharing the responsibility. It isn't. The second they acted, they were 100 % responsible and wrong. But it doesn't change the fact that maybe something could be made to stop the next teen killer to become one, and stop them before they act. Considering the number of countries were school shooters/mass killers don't happen, I would be inclined to say something can be done and it's not pretending there isn't a problem.

Spot on. Do we worry about not talking about bullying, gay bashing, hate crimes, pollution, or any other negatives based on the idea that you don't want other people doing it? No, because that is silly.

To ignore the issues are to be ignorant of the issues.

One could argue people don't want to discuss things like multiple murder or suicide because they are too uncomfortable with the subject matter and want to avoid it for their own personal comfort.

 

[MistyWaters]

But the discussion is about how giving mass killers publicity supposedly leads to an increase in mass killings. Putting pictures of mass killers on the news and on the cover of magazines, etc. is one form of publicity. Discussing them and their crimes in detail on true crime forums is, arguably, another. The news wouldn't even be covering these guys if it didn't get page views...and a lot of the page views come from people who are personally unrelated to the case, but just interested in it from the true crime perspective.

Basically I think it's logically incongruent for someone to say "these mass killers should be discussed as little as possible in the media to prevent copycats," while also being on a true crime forum discussing these mass killers. It's like arguing in favor of Prohibition while drinking a glass of wine, you know what I'm saying?

It’s not a matter of “supposedly”. No debate there, it’s a proven fact fame and notoriety can serve as a motivator.


Fame-seeking killers
“Lankford analyzed the writings and declarations of mass shooters around the world between 1966 and 2015. He found that in 24 such cases, perpetrators mentioned fame and media coverage as key motivators for carrying out the killings.

"I'll see you on National T.v. [sic]," wrote the gunman who in 2011 killed six people and wounded 13 others, including Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, during a congressional outreach event outside a Tucson supermarket.

"When you see me on the news, you'll know who I am," the 19-year-old accused in last year's mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., said in a chilling video....”

(more examples - )
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/new-zealand-mass-murder-no-notoriety-naming-killers-1.5063397

 

[DarkSkink]

Mass shootings aren't common in Canada, Europe, Asia, yet people living in all of those places suffer from mental illness and play video games.

Yet, the subject matter of this thread happened in Canada.

Mass shootings happen all over. The U.S. happens to be a free country, with sometimes difficult access to health care, and sometimes easy access to firearms.

 

[Zella]

Spot on. Do we worry about not talking about bullying, gay bashing, hate crimes, pollution, or any other negatives based on the idea that you don't want other people doing it? No, because that is silly.

To ignore the issues are to be ignorant of the issues.

One could argue people don't want to discuss things like multiple murder or suicide because they are too uncomfortable with the subject matter and want to avoid it for their own personal comfort.

There is actually a dramatic shift in how suicide is reported on, just in the last few years, precisely because of the documented effect news coverage has on creating copycat suicides, so it is not unprecedented. News agencies now have guidelines cautioning against providing too much detail, recommending more neutral language, and strongly suggesting also providing links to mental health resources.

 

[DarkSkink]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/alexandre-bissonnette-mass-shooters-1.5326201

"Attacks are preventable, says head of FBI's behavioural analysis unit"

Interesting Fifth Estate episode tonight.

Brilliant!

The article itself highlights the pros and cons of releasing information and encouraging study.

It might be worth watching.

 

[DarkSkink]

Philosophical question: if publicizing crimes is all it takes to inspire future killers, does that mean all us true crime enthusiasts are a major part of the problem? We're the main ones who keep talking about these criminals. And collecting all the information about them into easy to digest formats (podcasts, etc.).

If people are going to argue that talking about details of these crimes leads to copycat crimes, how do you reconcile that with being part of a true crime forum, the entire purpose of which is to talk about details of crimes?

EDIT: Also between the 24-hour news cycle and true crime becoming very popular over the past few years, these criminals are being talked about probably more than ever. Therefore, following the logic that talking about violent crime leads to crime, we should be expecting violent crime rates to skyrocket. Yet (and this may surprise people) violent crime rates are at a multi-decade historic low. Yes, even in the US.

I bet you grinned wryly when you pressed "Post Reply".

Perhaps you even snickered.

 

[MistyWaters]

more from the article about notoriety (dated Mar, 2019)....

BBM

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/new-zealand-mass-murder-no-notoriety-naming-killers-1.5063397
......”The Aurora theatre gunman told a psychiatrist he "felt he couldn't make [a] mark on the world with science, but could become famous by blowing up people."

Last Friday, a 17-minute video that showed part of the massacre in Christchurch, and appeared to be recorded with a camera on the shooter's helmet, was streamed on Facebook Live. That's precisely the kind of media-driven narcissism that Katherine Reed, an editor and associate professor at the Missouri School of Journalism who teaches a course on covering traumatic events, believes such killers are seeking. The myth-building can be enticing for would-be murderers.

"They're seeking to become more famous than the previous mass killer. To make their killings more sensational," she said.

That's why the activist group No Notoriety has sought to convince media outlets to resist profiling mass shooters. The organization aims to reduce the risk that information about killers will inspire other potential fame-seeking killers....”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/new-zealand-mass-murder-no-notoriety-naming-killers-1.5063397

 

[MistyWaters]

Brilliant!

The article itself highlights the pros and cons of releasing information and encouraging study.

It might be worth watching.

Not much for the general public to study in this case when the perps took their secrets to the grave.

 

[DarkSkink]

If I am not wrong, he just said "shout out to the Tsarnaevs" or something like that. He also pretended that he knew them before. The MO is different. The crime is different. He was obviously disturbed and slightly obsessed, but you can't really say he's a copycat IMO. Especially if you consider this

""For many of them, it is a very important, if not maybe the most important event of their life. So they want it to go right," Wyman said.

"They want to see, in their mind, what other people have done to achieve whatever goal it is that they're seeking. And they can model their behavior off of them." ...”

Yes. You define pretty well where the debate hinges.

Is the information about previous killings the inspiration or trigger to act, or is the act going to happen regardless and the perp is just researching ways to go about it.

 

[DarkSkink]

more from the article about notoriety (dated Mar, 2019)....

BBM

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/new-zealand-mass-murder-no-notoriety-naming-killers-1.5063397
......”The Aurora theatre gunman told a psychiatrist he "felt he couldn't make [a] mark on the world with science, but could become famous by blowing up people."

Last Friday, a 17-minute video that showed part of the massacre in Christchurch, and appeared to be recorded with a camera on the shooter's helmet, was streamed on Facebook Live. That's precisely the kind of media-driven narcissism that Katherine Reed, an editor and associate professor at the Missouri School of Journalism who teaches a course on covering traumatic events, believes such killers are seeking. The myth-building can be enticing for would-be murderers.

"They're seeking to become more famous than the previous mass killer. To make their killings more sensational," she said.

That's why the activist group No Notoriety has sought to convince media outlets to resist profiling mass shooters. The organization aims to reduce the risk that information about killers will inspire other potential fame-seeking killers....”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/new-zealand-mass-murder-no-notoriety-naming-killers-1.5063397

Excellent points!

It's making me re-think and challenge my views for sure.

In a twisted sort of way, it demonstrates why debate and discussion of details is healthy.

 

[DarkSkink]

But the discussion is about how giving mass killers publicity supposedly leads to an increase in mass killings. Putting pictures of mass killers on the news and on the cover of magazines, etc. is one form of publicity. Discussing them and their crimes in detail on true crime forums is, arguably, another. The news wouldn't even be covering these guys if it didn't get page views...and a lot of the page views come from people who are personally unrelated to the case, but just interested in it from the true crime perspective.

Basically I think it's logically incongruent for someone to say "these mass killers should be discussed as little as possible in the media to prevent copycats," while also being on a true crime forum discussing these mass killers. It's like arguing in favor of Prohibition while drinking a glass of wine, you know what I'm saying?

This is fantastic stuff, so I don't want it lost in the shuffle.

How does one reconcile believing that crimes shouldn't be sensationalized and publicized, yet publicly send post after post discussing intricate details of crimes that could serve as inspiration?

Should crime forums also be shut down? (He asks, risking bans and timeouts.)