I agree.

I refuse to allow some schmuck or group of schmucks to disrupt my life.

On 9-11 we watched the towers come down while I was on my nursing unit and one of the young docs looked at me and asked if I had any words of wisdom.

All I could think of was "when Rome fell, babies were still being born, farmers planted crops, carpenters built homes, and I have patients to take care of".

Business as usual is the ultimate act of defiance.

'Reducing risk' were the words I was struggling to find. Which is approximately what every conversation on Equipped.org is all about.

I agree that applying the lessons of 9-11 to a local murder spree would be wrong - we've given away lots of rights for perpetuity because terrorists might use box cutters to take over commercial jets. I think this situation was far different - no one was talking about stopping school or little league forever. Whatever their reasons for cancelling games and school, I don't think it it equates with 9-11 at all. It has nothing to do with 9-11.

I don't know about the rest of it but I think Lono, (would that be a veiled reference to Dr. Thompson by any chance?) has it right. Dealing with a serial killer, like many other things that occur in one's life, has nothing whatsoever to do with the events of Sept. 11.

There has been an interesting phenomenon in the U.S. in the last 7 years, attempts to correlate the horrific events of Sept. 11 with the mundane stuff of life. Politicians, Rudy Guiliani in particular, have made their responses to those events the mainstay of their campaigns and the alleged point of much legislation. One might as well try to stop war by passing a law against it as trying to stop the actions of a determined band of like minded terrorists. Or of the deranged acts of a serial killer for that matter.

John E

I should have been more clear, that's what I get for posting before I'm completely awake.

I don't think murderers / serial killers come close to equaling 9.11.

What I was referring to was the publics' response to fear in general. Whether it be a serial killer, terrorist attack, etc. Which does have some similarities. We as an animal will pretty much react the same regardless of what the perceived threat is (close ranks/circle wagons/man the parapets)

In responding here, I didn't look back to see where 9.11 was originally mentioned (doesn't really matter), but I remember reading it and it was what was in the back of my mind when I was writing my response.

I agree that the 9.11 card gets played too often. It's almost become like referring to Hitler in a debate(Godwin's Law).

Two things about this situation that always make me wonder about the human condition:

1. Why is it killers always manage to screw up a good thing and leave behind some trace that inevitably gets them caught? It is like they have this monumental character flaw (psychopathy aside for a moment) that always leads to their eventual capture. This guy managed to leave behind some trace of himself at one crime scene, and thereby ensuring that they would find out who it was and thereby know who to look for. I don't get it. If you are going to take such a huge risk as to start killing people, you would think these folks would take more time, think things through a bit more, and come up with a more foolproof plan. Surely it can't be that hard to cover your tracks, but ivariably they leave some forensics behind, or they do something like don't properly dispose of the bodies or the murder weapons, and they end up getting nabbed.

2. After thousands and thousands of years of civilized life, you would think at least one society would figure out that if the average citizen is able to properly defend themselves, then the risk of violent crime would be greatly diminished. Sure, you will still have your idiots out there trying to do dastardly things, but I gotta think if the risk of instant and immediate retribution is prevalent, then the numbers of idiots out there trying to do harm would natrually be kept low; sort of the Dawinian approach to society. Instead, they think that by putting a bunch of words on paper and having a few important people sign it that somehow this great shield has been raised which would prevent criminals from somehow exploiting the weak and ignorant.

When criminals see me, I want them to think of all the things that I might be capable of, or that someone or something unseen might be waiting to launch at them, should I be confronted or accosted. Sure, it might be called escalation by some, but I bet if a BG thought for one moment that attacking me might unleash some form of hell his way, that all I was waiting for was someone foolish enough to take such a risk so that I could exercise my own demons for a change, maybe, just maybe, that might give them pause to consider seeking life elsewhere.

Sometimes the concept of equipped to survive must become a proactive thing.

I think you're giving the psycho/sociopath personality too much credit. The true sociopath individual doesn't give a hoot about what steps you take, they're only fulfilling their own desires. Getting caught doesn't enter into it. They don't think that they're ever gonna get caught and they don't really care if they do.

The biggest issue that law enforcement has in dealing with true psycho/sociopath individuals is when they try to treat them like "ordinary criminals" and expect them to behave like an "ordinary criminal" would behave.

Read "Killer on the road" by James Ellroy, he writes a very compelling story of a psycho/sociopath, when you strip away the overly dramatic, it's a pretty good picture of how such a person thinks. And for that matter, the television series, "Law and Order, Criminal Intent" has a lead character played by Vincent D'Onofrio who is a border line schizophrenic personality, who while not sociopathic, shows how a mentally disabled person simply thinks differently then the majority of people think.

John E

Thinking differently than the majority of people describes a class that includes far more people than the mentally disturbed. Unless of course we wnat to include genius and survivalists as mentally disturbed!

"Unless of course we wnat to include genius and survivalists as mentally disturbed!"

That's also a distinct possibility...;^)

John E

When there is a spree killer on the loose in your locale, then I think soem fear is understandable. What I don't understand are reactions to that fear that would tend to isolate people and might create a situation where the killer is on the loose for a longer time and may, thereby, have more opportunities to kill.

We, our ears, our eyes, are often the best security that can be provided to our neighbrohoods, imo. People hidden in their homes are not out looking out for their neighbors and neighborhoods. If that is happening in your neighborhood, then your neighbors are not looking out for you.

While the summer school classes and Little League games may not put someone into a more vulnerable spot going home, putting everyone inside and hiding is unlikely, imo, to make the community more safe. If you cancel all the activities, you are going to tend to have people sitting at home with their TVs on and not out and about in their neighborhoods.

If you want to hunt someone down and catch them, having more people out looking for them is probably not going to hurt your chances of catching them.

"After thousands and thousands of years of civilized life, you would think at least one society would figure out that if the average citizen is able to properly defend themselves, then the risk of violent crime would be greatly diminished."

Society may have it figured out, but the politicians haven't. Bureaucrats live in a fantasy land where they think that if they pass enough laws, everyone will obey them.

But there are a couple of laws that should have been passed, and haven't been. And I think the most likely reason is that politicians and criminals have waaaaaaay too much in common. Politicians don't want to pass laws that they might disoby, and have to pay a serious price.

Here are two examples:

1) Drunk driving. There are people out there driving drunk after many, many similar violations. A local woman killed someone in this area, and she had over 35 previous drunk driving violations, but she was still driving drunk. Politicians drive drunk. They aren't going to pass a real law, like immediate and permanent confiscation of the drunk driver's vehicle (their own or borrowed), and being put on a database that prevents him/her from ever being able to buy a car again. If you loan your car to your alkie buddy and it gets confiscated, tough luck.

2) If you're injured during the commission of a crime, you can't sue anybody for anything. The burglar who falls though the skylight of a bank or private home and breaks his neck should be just SOL. But no, we have to pay them for injuries suffered while they're burglarizing our homes. How stupid is that?

It isn't the society, it's the people who want to control everything.

Sue