Jump to content

Why kill lots of people?


StuartO

Recommended Posts

The recent German plane crash, engineered by the co-pilot, which cause 150 deaths, is particularly tragic because the killer chose the opportunity to kill rather than the particular people. Whatever his motives might eventually be thought to have been, it was almost certainly entirely inside his head. There is no indication that any of the other people on the plane, passengers or crew, were anything mmore than in the wrong place at the wrong time. The co-pilot might even have taken a spur of the moment decision to commit himself to locking that door, following which he had started so, in his way of thinking, he had to finish.

 

On the other hand Dr Shipman chose his victims individually and killed them quietly, perhaps even feeling he was being kind to them by finishing them off. Again however there was nothing personal in it; he might have known them personally but he wasn't killing them to settle a persona grudge of any kind which was connecting him to them - or at least that wasn't his general approach, which was probably more to do with exercising power.

 

Dr Shipman doesn't seem to have been seeking 15 minutes of fame (although he might have realised that he was risking being caught sooner or later) but the German co-pilot is reported to his ex-girlfriend that he intended to make his mark in a big way. Both of them were in a position of power to kill if they wanted to do so.

 

There have been charismatic mass killers too; people who presumably took pleasure or satisfaction out of getting a whole bunch of people to dance to their tune and either commit suicide or kill others in service of the "cause".

 

A common thread in mass killings might also be that authority fails to prevent, including when it should have done so, perhaps as in this recent plane crash case. Allowing one person to remain behind alone in a cockit when it was possible for him to lock the door and take absolute control and make mischief (or maybe just solve his own problem) was arguably a big failure of system design and man management.

 

It is fanciful to imagine that you can screen out people who might become mass killers before they show their hand and such is the poor rliability of screening methods that it is wasteful and unfair to try to do so. You certainy cannot rely on psychiatrists (or psychologists) because there is truth in th aying that half of them are nuttier than their patients.

 

So risk management of mass killing opportunities requires a mechanism to prevent individuals getting into positions of power which allow them to kill large numbers in one go off their own bat, such as airline pilots and those who control weapons of mass destruction, and surveilallnce of individual deaths so as to pick up patterns of possible mass killings.

 

Dr Shipham was spotted as a source of suspicion by other GPs in Hale but the police and the medical authorities failed to investigate when they were tipped off - which could have saved a lot of lives. Likewise European airlines failed to impose a rule that at least wto people must remain in the cockpit at all times, which might have prevented this recent crash. A more secure arrangement would require excluding the possibility that one of the two people of the flight deck could overpower the other, so may there needs to be an overriding door control which is exercised from outside the cockpit, such as by radio from air trafficcontrol.

 

Time and again through history, we end up shutting stable doors because we have failed to anticiapte these risks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tell you what I've noticed that IS are a bit naughty never mind a one off mentally unstable co pilot we have thousands of folk in this country and elsewhere willing and supportive of whipping off someone's head for been a non believer or throwing gays off the top of a building or stoning to death females who may have commited adultery or setting fire to captives or the murders of the Christian population in Pakistan and so and so on

As terrible as the German plane tragedy is it doesn't come anywhere near what this lot are doing and still continue to do , I know which episode I'm more concerned about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you believe the media, part of this nutters motivation for this murder was to achieve fame through notoriety. As far as I'm concerned, I've already forgotten his name and I suggest everyone does the same. Do not try to compare him with anyone else, the debate is futile.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would appear that this was nothing to do with fame or otherwise. The guy was suicidal before he even became a pilot, which raises a few questions for Lufthansa. Plus he had a vision impediment, which he felt would end his flying career, but in actuial fact was treatable quite easily, but he could not be bothered to actually find this out.

 

All in all a useless member of the human race who was so selfish in his own misery, he ignored all those innocents he took with him. His father is now a broken man and I am sure his girlfriend, who is now expecting his child, must be feeling absolutely 'wonderful'. All in all, a total waste of space, and if there are others out there flying planes of a similar temperment, then God help us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the political isues which has arisen in the current Election campaign is providing adequate resources for people with mental health problems, so we need to spend more money on them. And we need to deal with the stigmatisation of mental health "victims". Fairness requires that we give criiminals a second (and thrid or fourth) chance too, so that they can recover from their mistakes or disadvantaged background and make better progress in their lives.

 

And this includes taking risks for society, that mentally ill people will continue to founder or relapse and might become a real burden to or hurt others, and that criminals will reoffend, maybe causing more harm to others than the last time. I suppose if you have a close one who has these problems (or tendencies or failings) you want them to have the best for their future. We have to seek equality of opportunity for the genders, for sexual and religious minorities and for others who can be considered to have been disadvantaged.

 

So we can never simply conclude that some people are just losers and probably always will be, or that they are an unacceptable burden or risk to others, so protecting others from them takes priority over giving them another chance. There is no such thing as the undeserving poor. Our health services must optimise care for them, no matter that their problems mightbe self-inflicted and our prison must always aim to reform and rehabilitate, no matter how long an individual's record of crime becomes.

 

That is the mark of a civilised society. In the name of fairness and liberty we take the risk that every so often something like this plane crash happens and a number, sometimes a substantial number, of innocent people suffer an absolutely terrifying ordeal and/or get killed because someone who has a personality disorder or is mentally ill - or who is just smply a failure or a loser, decides to take it out on lots of other people.

 

Rather hang on to fairness and liberty than risk the opposite. That's the theory anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

having read the last post with a degree of incredulity, I am afraid I must disagree. Using your argument, why stop at 150. Why not give them the big red button and let them do a proper job. We cannot keep apologising for this kind of behaviour. People, mentally ill or not, must take some responsibility for their actions if they are capable of living within a society. If not they should be kept in a secure place where they can neither harm themselves or anyone else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...