We should realize that the same themes that prompted the extreme, the insane conduct by Breivik is what motivates the candidates and the base on the right to formulate and hold the political positions based on Islamophobia. This is frequently factually inaccurate hysteria relating to fear of Sharia law (which is NOT a threat, there is NO danger of it becoming one), fear of the insane concept o9f stealth Islamicization, fear of other countries which are largely Muslim, like not ony Iran, but also Egypt, and even fear of our fellow Americans, like the right wing political evangelicals who would not allow Muslim Americans to serve in our military. They are alike in kind to Breivik, differing only in degree. I would point out that the extremism of Breivik started out less extreme; it was fed and nurtured by the right.
I see parallels in the emotion based rather than fact based Islamophobia with the unreasoning fear of criminals descending at any moment on those who have a desperate need to carry their firearms wherever they go. It is not objective, it is not reality based, it is a disproportionate fear to any real risks.
From MSNBC.com:
Norwegian mass killer Anders Breivik is criminally insane, evaluation finds
Confessed killer could spend life in psychiatric institution rather than jail if court upholds assessment
OSLO, Norway — Court-appointed psychiatrists concluded Tuesday that Norwegian mass killer Anders Behring Breivik is criminally insane and could be committed to a psychiatric institution indefinitely rather than face a jail term. Breivik has confessed to killing 77 people in a bombing in central Oslo and in a shooting spree at a Labour Party summer camp on an island in July, in the worst attacks committed in Norway since the end of World War Two.
The finding by the two forensic psychiatrists will help determine whether Breivik is sentenced to prison or psychiatric care. Prosecutor Svein Holden says the report shows Breivik was "psychotic" during the attack.
If that assessment is upheld by the court then Breivik cannot be sentenced to prison for the attacks.
Story: Norway mass killer Breivik admits July massacre Breivik, 32, denies criminal guilt, saying he's a commander of a Norwegian resistance movement opposed to multiculturalism.
Investigators have found no sign of such a movement and say Breivik most likely plotted and carried out the attacks on his own.
36 hours with Breivik The psychiatrists spent a total of 36 hours talking to Breivik and also watched recordings of police interrogations with him, said Torgeir Husby, one of the psychiatrists who evaluated him. He added that Breivik was cooperative.
The 243-page report will be reviewed by a panel from the Norwegian Board of Forensic Medicine, which could ask for additional information, Husby said.
The head of that panel told AP in July that it was unlikely that Breivik would be declared legally insane because the attacks were so carefully planned and executed.
In Norway, an insanity defense requires that a defendant be in a state of psychosis while committing the crime with which he or she is charged. That means the defendant has lost contact with reality to the point that he's no longer in control of his own actions.
If tried and convicted of terrorism, Breivik will face up to 21 years in prison or an alternative custody arrangement that could keep him behind bars indefinitely.
Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
I agree that Islamophobia is silly. What I don't understand is where you get the idea that those of us who exercise our right to carry a handgun are afraid. I certainly don't act out of fear.
ReplyDeleteIt is good to know that Breivik isn't likely to go free ever again.
Interesting, the guy killed 77 innocent people and he's a 'mass killer'. Yet, if his name had been Abdul he would be referred to as the 'terrorist'.
ReplyDeleteI believe that as his mass shooting was intended to affect politics and government, he IS correctly considered in Norway - heck, even OUTSIDE Norway - as very much a Norwegian domestic terrorist.
ReplyDeleteHe is the Norwegian Tim McVeigh,he is the Norwegian right wing extremists crazy Jareed Loughner. This would contrast with for example, the two Columbine mass shooters, or the Virgin Tech massacre, where there appeared to be much more of a personal hatred for and vendetta against others who were shot, on the basis of real or perceived slights or trivial wrongs.
Right wing phobias, whether against Islam, or against gays, or against Mormons and Roman Catholics, or against social movements, or against immigrants ALL play to the crazies more than they do to more centrist based individuals and to more objective, rational, and just plain SANE people.
Sadly, as a measure of sanity, that would seem to rule out all or at least nearly all, of the GOP candidates for president.
GC wrote:"What I don't understand is where you get the idea that those of us who exercise our right to carry a handgun are afraid."
Very simply Greg, your insistence on carrying for personal protection from a random criminal is disproportionate to any such risk of a random criminal encounter. There IS no level of crime low enough that you wouldn't fear the possibility. Your decision is an emotional rather than a rational decision.
You can bluster all you want that you aren't acting out of fear, but so long as the probability of you requiring a firearm for personal defense is as low as it is in most places, your action defines you as fearful, regardless of how you wish us to perceive you.
You carry a gun, which is a larger heavier weapon, but not a cell phone.
Actions speak louder than words as to which you PREFER to use in a crisis.
Let me draw you an analogy. Teenager X is going out for the evening. Teenager X has expressed a possible interest if the evening runs too late, in staying overnight with teenager Y. There is a chance that there might be a party to which they could find themselves invited, but no actual invitation as yet. Teenager X is bringing overnight gear along for the evening, but not a cell phone, and doesn't really wish to discuss with parents their approval of any particular specific party that might occur. Absent a phone along, it would appear that teenager X also doesn't want to be able to call for a ride home either, versus staying out all night.
The choices of what things teenager X takes along, particularly given the small size of a cell phone, versus other gear, and the avoidance of being able to contact the authority figure - in this instance parents, in the instance of you Greg, law enforcement, suggests both you Greg and teenager X are contriving the outcome you really want.
Teenager X, to stay out overnight with a friend, possibly to attend a party even if that would not meet with the approval of the parents of teenager X.
Greg seems to be setting up a situation where it is necessary or at least possible, to pull wave around his firearm, maybe even shoot someone, but intensively avoiding the option of calling law enforcement, or seeking non-lethal solutions to a potential situation.
Bot scenarios avoid the intervention of authority that might prevent them from what appears to be the real goal. Both scenarios demonstrate by the choices in preparation what the actual goals are, in contrast to the stated goals.
The actions belie the words; the actions speak the truth of the situation. It is NOT really about being prepared. IF that were the case, then teenager X would have a phone, but not gear for staying overnight,or at least in addition to staying overnight.
And Greg would either carry a cell phone AND a gun, or just the cell phone.
That there is not a reasonable expectation of being a crime victim on a daily basis further supports the analysis of actions over words.
I do not see the word 'terrorist' in anything you posted. The BBC does not call him a 'terrorist' and neither did an article I read by a journalist in Norway that was accompanied by the BBC article.
ReplyDeleteDog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYour analogy is a false one. The teenager in question has an obligation to his parents, while I have no similar obligation to the police. (I do follow the law as a duty to society, but that's different.) Your teenager intends to stay out all night. I have no intention to shoot anyone.
My analogy is that a handgun is like a seatbelt. My chances of being in an accident are low, but the possibility exists. The same is true about a violent attack. The chances are also low, but such an event isn't impossible.
Now, let's look at your cell phone fetish. If a violent attack happens, do you really think that a cell phone would save me? I'd have to get mine out, open it up, press the correct numbers (presuming that the touch screen responds to my fingers), and wait for an officer to arrive. I do have the phone with me more often than I prefer, and I'm often with someone who has a phone, so it's not as though I'm completely out of communication. I just recognize that a telephone is not an instantaneous response.
Now what in all of that sounds fearful? I don't sit in my house looking out the windows through a scope at anyone passing by. I don't creep along from cover to cover when I'm outside. I go about my business or pleasure and don't worry about being attacked. I do keep my eyes open, but that's not fear; that's awareness.
The one thing everyone seems to forget is that the police have no legal obligation to protect you.
ReplyDeletehttp://rkba.org/research/kasler/protection
"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThe one thing everyone seems to forget is that the police have no legal obligation to protect you.
And yet it IS the police who have the authority to arrest criminals, who have legal standing.
This is a bunch of crap that people who are trying desperately to justify carrying a gun spew.
That doesn't change the statistical improbability that they will be the victim of a crime, or that they do not require a firearm to successfully deal with it in the unlikely event that would happen.
"And yet it IS the police who have the authority to arrest criminals, who have legal standing."
ReplyDeleteYes, that is entirely true. However, as my link showed, they have no obligation to do so and in many case don't.
The police have no specific duty which is greater in protecting one person than another. Rather they have a duty to protect all citizens, to the best of their ability.
ReplyDeleteThat is what I understand from the citations posted by anonymous, not the incorrect interpretation that is usually presented that the police don't or won't protect people from criminals.
From the free dictionary, on the word police:
po·lice (p-ls)
n. pl. police
1. The governmental department charged with the regulation and control of the affairs of a community, now chiefly the department established to maintain order, enforce the law, and prevent and detect crime.
2.
a. A body of persons making up such a department, trained in methods of law enforcement and crime prevention and detection and authorized to maintain the peace, safety, and order of the community.
b. A body of persons having similar organization and function: campus police. Also called police force.
3. (used with a pl. verb) Police officers considered as a group.
4. Regulation and control of the affairs of a community, especially with respect to maintenance of order, law, health, morals, safety, and other matters affecting the public welfare.
So, the way that anonymous was treating the rulings of the court was wrong, bad, inaccurate, and misleading.
Bad choice to support your argument.
Wow, I like how much the US has made it so that government is ineffective!
ReplyDeleteOf course, I can tell that Anonymous probably hasn't read the case law that he's quoting, but that wouldn't be a first for him to go talking about things he has no idea of what he is talking about.
A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order. The extent and quality of police protection afforded to the community necessarily depends upon the availability of public resources and upon legislative or administrative determinations concerning allocation of those resources.
There is a duty to protect the public, but that duty does not become specific to any one person.
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981) States that there is no specific duty to any one person to provide detailed assistance. To assume such an obligation of indefinite extension to every member of the public is seen to be the more improbable when we recall the crushing burden that the obligation would impose on the police.
There is, of course, a converse to that in that private citizens cannot take the law into their hands, which has not been added into the equation by saying that the there is no legal obligation to protect you.
Someone, can, and should be prosecuted if they take the law into their own hands and fuck up.
I find it strange that those who claim to be conservatives are so against the rule of law (especially since the Austrian School says that is an important aspect of society) and willing to start a system of vendetta justice.
Gotch, Anonymous, I quoted the case.
ReplyDeleteYou just parroted garbage from the Internet.
Get a brain that works before you kill yourself with one of those guns, dude!
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"And yet it IS the police who have the authority to arrest criminals, who have legal standing."
Yes, that is entirely true. However, as my link showed, they have no obligation to do so and in many case don't.
You are incorrect anonymous. The police usually do in fact respond in adequate time, they do arrest people. All the links you provide show is that they have a general duty to protect, not one that favors any one individual over another.
That covers them if they are unable to be in two places at once, nothing more.
The law in fact does far more to protect people and respond to crime than any individual. They also do far more to prevent crime, as the stats show in the hotspot police analysis I also posted today.
As I stated, the police have no obligation to protect you or even answer a 911 call.
ReplyDeleteWe see it all the time. Look at New Orleans (Katrina) or the LA riots.
But, I confess the cops are very good at treating everyone as a criminal, tazering and pepper spraying people and throwing people into prison who have committed no crime against anyone, but they smoked some weed.
The question anyone with a brain would ask if someone made the comment that "the police have no legal obligation to protect you" is "What the fuck do they do for the money they are being paid?"
ReplyDeleteSeriously, if they didn't have some sort of general obligation to keep the peace, then what is the reason for having a police force.
The problem with Americans is that they get too much fantasy of what cops (and most of the world) do from their TV.
Cops are pretty much no different from you or I legally; however, they job gives them some latitude for "keeping the peace" which the average citizen does not enjoy.
For example, I see some kids running from a store. I stop them by tripping one. If it turns out these kids did nothing wrong, I will be legally liable. On the other hand, if a cop stopped them, his job gives him some protection for investigating an incident.
The rule of law states that no one person is above the law, which is an important concept in any civilised society.
"You are incorrect anonymous. The police usually do in fact respond in adequate time, they do arrest people."
ReplyDeleteI would say the police were late in responding to every murder victim and every rape victim. They may arrest the murderer/rapist, but that is small consolation to the victims.
Is it considered taking the law into your own hands if you violently resist against these crimes?
Please don't give me that rule of law crap. It is nonexistent unless you have power and money.
ReplyDeleteHow many fucking times has this happened.
http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/10/1008.html
Greg, most areas have excellent 911 response time. It is not a time consuming or difficult thing to take out one's cell phone. No one gets hurt by cell phones compared to firearms.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, when you assert, incorrectly, that the police have no obligation to protect anyone, you are not only being critically misleading, you are having to go out of your way to utterly ignore all the language about
GENERAL duty to protect while focusing on the recognition that one individual has the same exact rights to that protection than all the other individuals, that no one is preferred over another.
There is something inherently dishonest about your argument, not only inaccuracy that makes it objectionable.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeletePlease don't give me that rule of law crap. It is nonexistent unless you have power and money.
How many fucking times has this happened.
I'll lob this one to Laci to answer, since he spends a lot of his time in court as a defense attorney, including for drug offense crimes.
Yes, rule of law. That's what we have, that's what we want. Sheesh! You guys are wackos.
"Yes, rule of law. That's what we have, that's what we want. Sheesh! You guys are wackos."
ReplyDeleteI would love it if we had rule of law. For you to say we do is just foolish.
"No one is above the law and everyone is equal before the law regardless of social, economic, or political status." A.V. Dicey
If you think that is true today in America, you are sadly mistaken.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteIf I'm on a trail and a good fifteen minute walk from the nearest road, how long do you think that it will take the cops to come to my rescue?
"I would love it if we had rule of law. For you to say we do is just foolish.
ReplyDelete"No one is above the law and everyone is equal before the law regardless of social, economic, or political status." A.V. Dicey
If you think that is true today in America, you are sadly mistaken.
November 30, 2011 1:55 AM"
Actually, anonynumbnuts, what we have here in the U.S. (and in the rest of the civilized world) is "Rule of Law", with all of it's imperfections and deficiencies. You want someplace without "Rule of Law"? Spend time in Mogadishu or any of several dozen other countries that have barely functional governments or no real government at all.
You wouldn't last long in a lawless world, because your, "I'm the badass, I got teh gunz" attitude would mark you as a target for the really bad people out there.
I like what Anonymous pointed out. If Abdul shoots a bunch of people he's a "terrorist," but Breivic was a "mass killer."
ReplyDeleteSo what?
I like what Greg said, Islamophobia is silly.
"what we have here in the U.S. (and in the rest of the civilized world) is "Rule of Law", with all of it's imperfections and deficiencies."
ReplyDeleteA.V. Dicey:
"No one is above the law and everyone is equal before the law regardless of social, economic, or political status."
Translation: We don't have rule of
law, but we aren't Somalia so it's quite ok if the rich and powerful aren't prosecuted for crimes but my black and brown, poor, powerless neighbors are prosecuted more severely and imprisoned for petty crime because justice is blind - to the rule of law.
Anonobody:
ReplyDeleteLike many very stupid people you tend to conflate.
"Actually, anonynumbnuts, what we have here in the U.S. (and in the rest of the civilized world) is "Rule of Law", with all of it's imperfections and deficiencies. You want someplace without "Rule of Law"? Spend time in Mogadishu or any of several dozen other countries that have barely functional governments or no real government at all."
says absolutely nothing about the "Rule of Law" being absolutely perfect--or even moderately so. Many people in many civil societies do not get fair treatment under the law. In places like Somalia where there is no rule of law, the strongest and those with the biggest gunz prevail. If that's the sort of society you would like to live in I suggest that you apply for a tourist visa and check it out. Take lots of food, water, medicine and ammunition when you go.