Off Topic

[Haruka]

There are cases of addiction that can be helped. Look for example to people addicted in playing Poker.

But I think that killing a person for such a nonsense like this, is alarming. By helping him won't resuscitate his mother. I think he won't last even a month without playing CS.

*Reads better Dessy's post since he edited it*

That website wasn't the original one I've read the article, but still...

[DesLife]

He could very well have good reasons to want her dead. Maybe she beat him when he was little, but if that was the case, you can be sure there won't ever be an article to tell us, because, for most people, he will only ever be the crazy kid who butchered his adoptive mom for no appearant reason.
Looks like his mother knew about his addiction, but did she try to help him ? No, she simply prevented him from going on the internet. Sounds like a very efficient way to help him, don't you think ?

Again, don't judge people too quickly, especially when you have no means to understand the situation.

[Haruka]

You have a point in there, but now that you mention, you're right.

These kind of things just shock me. It is really sad.

[Rulez]

Agreed, Des made a great point. I apologise for overreacting, which doesn't happen a lot when it comes to me.

[spiraldoor]

This guy is clearly a dangerous matricidal maniac. I don’t see the point in trying to justify this woman’s murder by speculatively accusing her of child abuse (for which there is no evidence at all). Refusing to pay the internet bills was the woman’s attempt to help the boy get his life back on track by cutting off the source of the problem; perhaps she would have been a little more cautious if she’d known he was a lunatic who would butcher his own mother for practically no reason. He doesn’t need to be helped; he needs to be imprisoned before he kills someone else.

[DesLife]

I'm obviously not accusing her of child abuse, just pointing out that the reason of this murder might be much more complex than a simple addiction. Refusing to pay the internet bills could in no way help him : when facing a severe addiction, the only solution is a psychiatric cure, not withdrawal. If she actually was trying to help him, she without a doubt acted way too lightly.

who would butcher his own mother for practically no reason.

That is my point : we do not know for sure. There is no evidence that there is not a serious reason behind all this.

He doesn’t need to be helped; he needs to be imprisoned before he kills someone else.

He needs both. Of course he must be imprisoned, but he's not going to serve a life sentence, so you'd probably agree that curing him would be better for everyone, not only him.

I'm not trying to take the defense of a murderer : I'm only pointing out that before being a murderer, he's a human being, with his own story, troubles, reasons, and we cannot begin to judge him if we don't take that into consideration and learn more about him.

[Rsandee]

[spiraldoor]

I'm obviously not accusing her of child abuse, just pointing out that the reason of this murder might be much more complex than a simple addiction. Refusing to pay the internet bills could in no way help him : when facing a severe addiction, the only solution is a psychiatric cure, not withdrawal. If she actually was trying to help him, she without a doubt acted way too lightly.

It doesn’t matter what his ‘reason’ was: he took a knife and used it to stab his own mother seventeen times. It’s also a big generalisation to say that the cold turkey method could never work for any severe addiction, but that’s hardly relevant here, as it looks like the boy didn’t even try to kick the habit; he just killed his mother instead. A normal teenager would sulk for a few days at having his internet connection cut off, and perhaps shout and throw things around, then get on with his life – not end the life of the offending parent.

That is my point : we do not know for sure. There is no evidence that there is not a serious reason behind all this.

There is no evidence that there *was* a serious reason behind this, but there certainly is evidence that there was not – namely the fact that he killed her when she turned off his internet connection.

He needs both. Of course he must be imprisoned, but he's not going to serve a life sentence, so you'd probably agree that curing him would be better for everyone, not only him.

I'm not trying to take the defense of a murderer : I'm only pointing out that before being a murderer, he's a human being, with his own story, troubles, reasons, and we cannot begin to judge him if we don't take that into consideration and learn more about him.

It’s all well and good to compassionately empathise with killers from our armchairs, but the reality is that this individual will eventually be released back into society. If he’s willing to murder his own mother, of all people, how could he reasonably be trusted in any capacity? I would not feel safe with him living on the same street as my family – would you?

[DesLife]

If he’s willing to murder his own mother, of all people, how could he reasonably be trusted in any capacity?

My mother would probably be my victim if I ever was to kill someone.

Anyway, I don't have time to answer your post, nor do I think there's a point in doing so : I think we both know each other's opinion and how incompatible they are.

[Tobbe]

When facing a severe addiction, the only solution is a psychiatric cure, not withdrawal. If she actually was trying to help him, she without a doubt acted way too lightly.

You're right. Abrubtly and involuntarily cutting off an addict's supply is largely ineffective. That was one of the first things we learned in psychiatry.

[spiraldoor]

Anyway, I don't have time to answer your post, nor do I think there's a point in doing so : I think we both know each other's opinion and how incompatible they are.

That’s right, I’m not a very empathetic person.

[Adsolution]

It’s all well and good to compassionately empathise with killers from our armchairs, but the reality is that this individual will eventually be released back into society. If he’s willing to murder his own mother, of all people, how could he reasonably be trusted in any capacity? I would not feel safe with him living on the same street as my family – would you?

Maybe he had full intent to kill his mother and had thought about it, or maybe it was a raging impulse. If it were impulsive he most likely would feel traumatized by the incident and may never do it again. After all, we all flip out at things and do something completely uncanny at some point in our lives. Does that mean we would do it again? Maybe, maybe not. If I picked up a Rubik's cube and solved it, if I personally insulted someone, if I made an extremely stupid decision, would I do it again? Maybe, maybe not. It's more likely for someone who has done it before to do it again, but it's also possible that someone who's never committed the act to do so, you just had no prior knowledge or label to stick on them that says "they have done this before" which instantly provides people with bias, a little too much if you ask me.

Of course like I said it's more likely for someone to commit the act again if they've done so before, but an impulse is usually done without thinking, and therefore the comitter would probably not do it again - about as probable as someone who has never done it before. It's along the same lines as Jimmy in school saying something stupid and everyone making fun of him for it, and eventually everyone only calls him by the embarassing nickname they've made up.

If he comitter had full intent however and shows no signs of remorse, then get the fuck away from me, bloody murderer. Once the patient does show signs of remorse, then he could ease in with people who never had known his acts, who he is and what he's done, and then it's highly doubtful he would ever kill again.

Anyway, I don't have time to answer your post, nor do I think there's a point in doing so : I think we both know each other's opinion and how incompatible they are.

That’s right, I’m not a very empathetic person.

Indeed.

[spiraldoor]

After all, we all flip out at things and do something completely uncanny at some point in our lives.

Sure, but usually that does not involve stabbing our mothers seventeen times. I would never, ever trust anyone who had done something like that.

Once the patient does show signs of remorse, then he could ease in with people who never had known his acts, who he is and what he's done, and then it's highly doubtful he would ever kill again.

I think that’s a terrible idea. The full extent of his crimes should be made public so that everyone who might be endangered by his presence would know to avoid him. If you want to befriend a convicted murderer, go right ahead – you’re the one taking the risk. But people who are unaware of what this man has done should not have him infiltrating their lives without their knowledge.

[Adsolution]

After all, we all flip out at things and do something completely uncanny at some point in our lives.

Sure, but usually that does not involve stabbing our mothers seventeen times. I would never, ever trust anyone who had done something like that.

Once the patient does show signs of remorse, then he could ease in with people who never had known his acts, who he is and what he's done, and then it's highly doubtful he would ever kill again.

I think that’s a terrible idea. The full extent of his crimes should be made public so that everyone who might be endangered by his presence would know to avoid him. If you want to befriend a convicted murderer, go right ahead – you’re the one taking the risk. But people who are unaware of what this man has done should not have him infiltrating their lives without their knowledge.

An impulsive decision is an impulsive decision, and although killing your mother is a rather terrible one, it was an impulse that almost certainly wouldn't happen again if the man is traumatized and remorseful of his actions. Sticking a big glowing arrow over his head that says "THIS MAN HAS KILLED, WATCH OUT" is rather cruel if you ask me. Now it wouldn't be a problem if humans were cold, hard calculators, but most people would interpret this as a reason to jump on the nearest plane to escape the country rather than a simple warning.

[PowerPatrick]

This reminds me of really tragic story. A software engineer named Hans Reister, being the creator of the successful ReiserFS filesystem, has possibly murdered his own wife. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser

Also follow the documentary:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xa3SbqPv-Ms
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HGXE95LcfW8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hoT5WfKCtJE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GcB0-VvcZzM

And it still continues today:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/0 ... new-trial/

[spiraldoor]

An impulsive decision is an impulsive decision, and although killing your mother is a rather terrible one, it was an impulse that almost certainly wouldn't happen again if the man is traumatized and remorseful of his actions.

I wouldn’t be willing to chance it. You would. That’s fine.

Sticking a big glowing arrow over his head that says "THIS MAN HAS KILLED, WATCH OUT" is rather cruel if you ask me.

It’s not cruel, it’s completely justified. Do you really think the truth should be withheld from the people whose lives are endangered by it? That resources should be wasted allocating this killer a new home and a new identity? ‘Impulse’ or not, he brutally murdered an innocent woman – I think it’s far too kind to release him back into society *at all*, let alone with the luxury of a hidden past and a clean slate.

Now it wouldn't be a problem if humans were cold, hard calculators, but most people would interpret this as a reason to jump on the nearest plane to escape the country rather than a simple warning.

Why not just make the information public? That way, people like me can choose to stay the hell away from convicted criminals, and people like you can choose to go over to their houses for tea and crumpets. Everybody wins.

I wonder if you also think the USA’s sex offender registry is ‘cruel’ to the paedophiles whose crimes it makes public.

[Adsolution]

Now it wouldn't be a problem if humans were cold, hard calculators, but most people would interpret this as a reason to jump on the nearest plane to escape the country rather than a simple warning.

Why not just make the information public? That way, people like me can choose to stay the hell away from convicted criminals, and people like you can choose to go over to their houses for tea and crumpets. Everybody wins.

I'm not quite sure if you're saying I'm a happy-go-lucky individual or if you're mocking our previous blurbs on my British heritage.

I wonder if you also think the USA’s sex offender registry is ‘cruel’ to the paedophiles whose crimes it makes public.

It all depends on their current and future motive and train of thought. I would have no problem having one even as a roommate if their motives have changed. Despite my previous occurrences and encounters, my reasoning hasn't been swayed.

[iHeckler9]

On the First Day of Christmas, iHeckler sent to MLII...

A slave driver, Rigatoni!

[Rulez]

On the First Day of Christmas, iHeckler sent to MLII...

MLII. I thought it was supposed to be pronounced 'em el two', eventually 'em el aye aye', but 'mlee' sounds... glorious.

[Adsolution]

On the First Day of Christmas, iHeckler sent to MLII...

MLII. I thought it was supposed to be pronounced 'em el two', eventually 'em el aye aye', but 'mlee' sounds... glorious.

I thought it was pronounced "em el two" as well, though I think he might have been thinking of "em el ee," also known as "Emily." However, that's not actually her name.