Norway mosque shooting an 'attempted act of terror', police say

[Spirit of Light]

A killer, not a murderer. Murder is the illegal taking of a life. If done legally by definition it is not murder.

I oppose the death penalty because it is impossible to undo in the case of an error. If one could be guaranteed that the person was guilty I might change my mind.

I don't accept the death penalty as a legal method to end someone's life, because we humans should not be the once to judge who lives or who dies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't accept the death penalty as a legal method to end someone's life, because we humans should not be the once to judge who lives or who dies.

But laws are a human construct. You might not like it, you might not agree with the policy. But when you make semantic errors you hurt your own case. Call them killers, that is accurate and rational. Call them murderers and you become guilty of doing a wrong and that will be used against you.

 

[Spirit of Light]

But laws are a human construct. You might not like it, you might not agree with the policy. But when you make semantic errors you hurt your own case. Call them killers, that is accurate and rational. Call them murderers and you become guilty of doing a wrong and that will be used against you.

Well in the case of the attack in Norway even the police say it is terror. but I do not agree that the 21-year-old man should be killed by a government. it is better if he is put in jail for the rest of his life

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well in the case of the attack in Norway even the police say it is terror. but I do not agree that the 21-year-old man should be killed by a government. it is better if he is put in jail for the rest of his life

I agree with you.

I only want you to make your case more effectively. And I can see why they call it an "attempted" terrorist attack. The good news is that no one died.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I agree with you.

I only want you to make your case more effectively. And I can see why they call it an "attempted" terrorist attack. The good news is that no one died.

His step adopted sister who was 17 years old was killed. Police found her in his apartment
She was shot to death

 

[Subduction Zone]

His step adopted sister who was 17 years old was killed. Police found her in his apartment
She was shot to death

Yes that slipped my mind. My error.

And for that alone he should be locked up for a long long time. If by some miracle he could right himself I could see him being freed, but the psychiatrists that judged him sane would have to be willing to pay the price of they are wrong. But that murder would not have qualified for a terrorist attack.

 

[Spirit of Light]

justify

Yes that slipped my mind. My error.

And for that alone he should be locked up for a long long time. If by some miracle he could right himself I could see him being freed, but the psychiatrists that judged him sane would have to be willing to pay the price of they are wrong. But that murder would not have qualified for a terrorist attack.

Its the attack on the Muslims that make it a terror attack here in Norway. and yes i agree with the police on it. And he will most likely be in jail for most of his life, and if not he will be in a psychiatric institution

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its the attack on the Muslims that make it a terror attack here in Norway. and yes i agree with the police on it. And he will most likely be in jail for most of his life, and if not he will be in a psychiatric institution

I swear I did not put "Justify" at the start of my post. I am using a rather wonky tablet. It almost looks as if I demanded that you justify your position and that was not my intent.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I swear I did not put "Justify" at the start of my post. I am using a rather wonky tablet. It almost looks as if I demanded that you justify your position and that was not my intent.

I like when you support my way of thinking

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Why? Then we would not be any better than the killer we experienced this weekend.

I just can't understand this line of thinking.

The killer kills with the intent to do harm.

The executioner within a justice system is permitted to kill with the intent to protect others from further harm.

The killer already established that he/she is a danger to society, capable of grievous things

 

[Spirit of Light]

I just can't understand this line of thinking.

The killer kills with the intent to do harm.

The executioner within a justice system is permitted to kill with the intent to protect others from further harm.

The killer already established that he/she is a danger to society.

But we do not need to do as he did, we do not need to kill to give him a punishment, he will be in jail for a long time. Killing is not the answer to any problem

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

But we do not need to do as he did, we do not need to kill to give him a punishment, he will be in jail for a long time. Killing is not the answer to any problem

My personal take is this: an extreme action like killing being perpetrated, is basically proof that, on some level, the killer believed those actions to be okay behavior between human beings. Whether that's because those who raised them pushed that idea into their mind, or they came to that conclusion themselves. They have proven that they think this action of killing is okay in the behavior between human beings. Otherwise, why take that extreme, irrevocable step? And so, our killing them is simply doing to them what they already accept as valid behavior between human beings. Even if WE don't accept it as such, my focus is on THE RELATIONSHIP between that individual (the person willing to kill) and the rest of us. Obviously there are differences in every relationship you have - behavior that is acceptable versus not acceptable. For example, you aren't going to make crude jokes with your mother, but you might with a good friend, or siblings. All depending on your personal relationship with those individuals. A killer just so happens to take his relationship to a different level with the rest of us - and then between him/her and us it is now understood that "killing" is acceptable behavior.

 

[Spirit of Light]

My personal take is this: an extreme action like killing being perpetrated, is basically proof that, on some level, the killer believed those actions to be okay behavior between human beings. Whether that's because those who raised them pushed that idea into their mind, or they came to that conclusion themselves. They have proven that they think this action of killing is okay in the behavior between human beings. Otherwise, why take that extreme, irrevocable step? And so, our killing them is simply doing to them what they already accept as valid behavior between human beings. Even if WE don't accept it as such, my focus is on THE RELATIONSHIP between that individual (the person willing to kill) and the rest of us. Obviously there are differences in every relationship you have - behavior that is acceptable versus not acceptable. For example, you aren't going to make crude jokes with your mother, but you might with a good friend, or siblings. All depending on your personal relationship with those individuals. A killer just so happens to take his relationship to a different level with the rest of us - and then between him/her and us it is now understood that "killing" is acceptable behavior.

As far as I have read in the news, the 21 years old man is an extreme rightwing and he hates not only Muslims but he hates mostly foreigners who come to Norway, and the police say he has been radical for some time. even his school admit it. And now he will get psychology help so his mind maybe can become normal again. But he will not be a free man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just can't understand this line of thinking.

The killer kills with the intent to do harm.

The executioner within a justice system is permitted to kill with the intent to protect others from further harm.

The killer already established that he/she is a danger to society, capable of grievous things

That is the theory, but innocent people have been put to death.

If a person is found guilty in error a life sentence gives them the chance of being found to be innocent and freed. After an execution it is a bit late to say "oops".

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

As far as I have read in the news, the 21 years old man is an extreme rightwing and he hates not only Muslims but he hates mostly foreigners who come to Norway, and the police say he has been radical for some time. even his school admit it. And now he will get psychology help so his mind maybe can become normal again. But he will not be a free man.

And I never said we shouldn't assess a case and determine if "rehabilitation" of some kind is possible/probable. I, personally, wouldn't advocate for immediate killing of a perpetrator unless the evidence were iron-clad and they had killed multiple times before being caught, showing that they were a consistent danger. Otherwise, I would advocate for a (relatively short - meaning not years and years on end) appeals and re-assessment period. And that the system not be shy about admitting when the experts are of the opinion that the person can't be safely incorporated back into society.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That is the theory, but innocent people have been put to death.

If a person is found guilty in error a life sentence gives them the chance of being found to be innocent and freed. After an execution it is a bit late to say "oops".

I get this, and I just replied again to @Amanaki to clarify that I wouldn't advocate for immediate killing of a perpetrator unless there were heavily established justification - overtly-compelling evidence and multiple killings showing consistent danger.

Personally, I would be a lot more okay with a relatively short (maybe 2 years for assessment/appeal of my case) incarceration period, followed by a quick, painless death than I would a 15-20-40 (or more) year span in prison before I was finally (maybe) found innocent. That kind of time irrevocably changes a person, and I don't know that I'd like the person I would become, knowing that I was unjustly locked away by the system and subjected to the conditions of prison for such a length of time. As the world changed around me, and I wasn't able to partake, I could easily see myself coming out of the ordeal a bitter relic. After that short period, if I knew it was to go on longer, and I didn't know whether or not I'd actually be freed, I'd much rather they just get it over with. And I do understand that others may have a different take on it, and want all the chance they could get, regardless the length of time they were looking at incarceration. Maybe it should be left up to the prisoner themselves then?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I get this, and I just replied again to @Amanaki to clarify that I wouldn't advocate for immediate killing of a perpetrator unless there were heavily established justification - overtly-compelling evidence and multiple killings showing consistent danger.

Personally, I would be a lot more okay with a relatively short (maybe 2 years for assessment/appeal of my case) incarceration period, followed by a quick, painless death than I would a 15-20-40 (or more) year span in prison before I was finally (maybe) found innocent. That kind of time irrevocably changes a person, and I don't know that I'd like the person I would become, knowing that I was unjustly locked away by the system and subjected to the conditions of prison for such a length of time. As the world changed around me, and I wasn't able to partake, I could easily see myself coming out of the ordeal a bitter relic. After that short period, if I knew it was to go on longer, and I didn't know whether or not I'd actually be freed, I'd much rather they just get it over with. And I do understand that others may have a different take on it, and want all the chance they could get, regardless the length of time they were looking at incarceration. Maybe it should be left up to the prisoner themselves then?

That is an interesting out. Death with permission. For example I am not happy with Epstein's recent suicide. It would be nice to know how deep the rot went. We may still find out, but some people may get off that should see prison themselves. I could see that if a case was wrapped up totally. All questions answered that death would be available as an escape from the dull drag of prison.

 

[We Never Know]

My personal take is this: an extreme action like killing being perpetrated, is basically proof that, on some level, the killer believed those actions to be okay behavior between human beings. Whether that's because those who raised them pushed that idea into their mind, or they came to that conclusion themselves. They have proven that they think this action of killing is okay in the behavior between human beings. Otherwise, why take that extreme, irrevocable step? And so, our killing them is simply doing to them what they already accept as valid behavior between human beings. Even if WE don't accept it as such, my focus is on THE RELATIONSHIP between that individual (the person willing to kill) and the rest of us. Obviously there are differences in every relationship you have - behavior that is acceptable versus not acceptable. For example, you aren't going to make crude jokes with your mother, but you might with a good friend, or siblings. All depending on your personal relationship with those individuals. A killer just so happens to take his relationship to a different level with the rest of us - and then between him/her and us it is now understood that "killing" is acceptable behavior.

IMO if you are identified as the shooter, caught on the scene with weapons and killed others, you should be put to death.
As you said they already deemed it ok to kill other humans.

 

[We Never Know]

Stop whining. We pay for things that we don't agree with here in the states, it happens.

Whining is done by people wanting to ban guns.

 

[We Never Know]

A car accident don't make you a killer. if you shoot someone or put a knif in them and they die, then ou by definition is a killer

What? Did you change your mind already?

You already said someone is a murderer or killer to this question "Do you think someone that kills someone, regardless of how or reason, is a murderer?"

Now you're saying a car accident doesn't make you a killer.