Is this the right reaction or an example of panic?

I've been reading a bit about the murders in the Rock Falls area of Illinois and in Missouri, as well as the arrest of the suspected killer. I also read about the cancelling of summer school classes and Little League games in the area. It seems to me that this could be the wrong reaction. See: http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2008/07/02/news/local/doc486b0da9451fb470486840.txt?sPos=1

In areas where the neighbors are out and about and looking out for each other, the people are usually safer and more secure. When people sit inside, lock their doors and stop looking out for each other, when they isolate themselves, often they become less secure as a community. In this case, the suspect was caught because a person decided to go out for dinner and recognized the person who was wanted. If they had sat at home, the suspect could still be on the loose.

Is the cancelling of the games and schools a case of panic? Is it also a case of the people who are in charge of these activities trying to do some CYA, so they are not blamed or sued for anything? Are these kind of reactions likely to make people less secure? I don't have answers, but it seems to me as that these things are worth thinking about.

Yes, yes, and yes.

It's hard for many people to beat fear.

-Blast

I'm not sure it boils down to fear, maybe a small town reaction to a random and senseless tragedy. 8 deaths in a week, young, old and in between, that's alot, and creates a lot of uncertainty - if there's no pattern to who's being targetted it creates risk for people assembling people. The killings appear to be fairly random, so a school administrator or little league coach has to ask does it make any sense to expose 70 kids to risk of getting off the bus alone after school, walking home from a ballgame etc. It sounds too like the suspected killer had been a suspect for a while, it was a matter of locating him, and they had 70 officers looking in a place of just 25,000 people. And I'm not sure this situation resulted in fewer eyeballs on the street. Just because people aren't in summer school or playing baseball doesn't mean they aren't out on the streets. If this is anything like the smalltown I'm familiar with, there might have been just as many out with pitchforks and torches if they had a description. Anyway, strange situation, and really too bad for the victims here.

canceling classes and games gives more power to those who would disrupt the society. Paranoia, fear and splitting of the culture is the purpose and method of terror.

People looking out for each other, coming together and carrying on would be, IMO, the proper response and counter to this sort of threat.

+1 to what Blast and Art in Fla has said. When we disrupt our natural flow of life we lose. In a sense, the terrorist actions of 9/11 have won. We have as of yet to rebuild the towers, something we as a country should have done as soon as the rubble cleared IMHO. We have to deal with harassment boarding planes, inconviencing ourself just to fly. The list goes on. When something of this nature happens the best course of action, again my opinion, is to just keep on living life as if nothing has changed, with the exception of being more vigilant and observant. And being ready to bring down the wrath of the justified with exteme "enthuiasm".

-Bill Liptak

Absolutely panic - and bad in general. Many eyes can watch more than few.

Yup. The best you can do is the best you can do. Crawl into a cave to hide, and the bad guys have won. So you venture out into the world, taking all possible precautions to ensure the safety of you and yours. Bad things can still happen, but the alternative is grim...

Well, I can tell I'm in the minority on this one but I think you haven't really considered the situation fully to understand if by cancelling little league and summer school they had panicked or were afraid. Arguing by analogy doesn't work in this situation - how do the eyes of 70 students or a few dozen little leaguers improve the odds of finding a murder suspect? My point was, the 8 murders that occurred were done on unsuspecting people, out and about like any other day. In a community of ~25,000, that makes just about anyone the next likely suspect (albeit 4 of the dead were subsequently found to be known to the alleged killer, and apparently that gave the cops the suspect and description that eventually nailed the guy). Eight murders strung out along I-70 headed west would give you one indication that the killer is moving away, but these were recent kills in a fairly small locale. You don't gain anything by staying indoors and cowering, the killer might pick your house and attack you as you open the door - but you certainly don't gain anything by sending your kids off to play baseball or school, business as usual, and possibly put them in a public situation that the killer would exploit. I can't say either way, but maybe the little league ball games would be cancelled anyway for lack of players, held home by parents until the killer was caught?

I don't know where you all live, but eight dead by one hand within a couple zip codes in a week is alot of dead folks. 'Doing business as usual' is what got about 50 prostitutes killed by the Green River Killer a few years back. Brave whores, not to cower in the safety of their homes... I digress.

Everyone want to argue by analogy, let me try, change the scenario just a bit - bird flu has crossed over to humans and the first 16 victims are found dead in their beds within a week about 15 miles outside of St Louis. CDC can't say if they've localized the outbreak, probably not. Are all us brave Equipped folks going to be secluding ourselves in our homes with our stockpiles of Tamiflu and MREs, trying to avoid the coming plague, or will we be be out doing business as usual, congretating in public places? Would we be more fearful, would we be panicking, or are we just trying to cut the odds of dying?

This brings to mind a road trip from my youth, we were RV'ing our way through California in the early 70s and tracking in the papers the latest attacks of someone dubbed The Sickle Killer, who attacked unsuspecting campers with a sickle at nearby camps (slashing through tents, very graphic stuff). He took a while to catch, and hurt a bunch of people. We were near enough and in approximate camping mode to pay careful attention to his path - was that panic, or fear? I don't recall my Dad changed our itinerary at all. As kids we ate up the stories and kept our eyes open for a guy walking around with farm implements.

"'Doing business as usual' is what got about 50 prostitutes killed by the Green River Killer a few years back."

While the 'Green River Killer' was an egregious case the fact is that prostitutes, run aways and the homeless are disproportionately victims of violence. Hookers get, no pun intended, coming and going. They are marginalized and kept from forming a collective defense for fear of becoming targets of law enforcement. They are forced into the dark corners of society and are seldom protected by society. For a very long time Gary Leon Ridgway, the Green River Killer, was able to do his deeds because very few people cared enough to allocate the resources to stop him.

Also, the choice is not between a labile acceptance of murder and carrying on entirely as usual or being armed to the teeth and cloistered in a fortified home. People, particularly children, can be taught to travel in groups. The green river killer didn't attack women in groups. A few police have speculated that if women jogged in groups of three, possibly nominally armed with pepper spray and cell phones, the number of attacks on joggers would plummet. Numbers, a nominal defense, and the ability to call for help quickly levels the playing field.

There is a lot of room for action and options between head-in-the-sand acceptance and living like your living in a war zone surrounded by vicious enemies.

I don't think hiding at home changes the odds much with a killer like this. Even if all the murders had been totally random, how would it really change the odds if you decided to hide at home versus going to your normal places? What piqued his attention with his victims? That they made eye contact? Avoided eye contact? The color of the victim's clothes? That they had a dog under 10 pounds? The color of their front door? That they had roses growing in their yard?

You just can't anticipate what catches the attention of this kind of person. They don't think like normal people.

It would be silly to cower at home, just to find out that all a killer's victims had a small mole on their left arm.

You just can't anticipate whackos.

Sue

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

I do not believe that the problem with Politicians is the fact that they do not pass laws for the benefit of the people. At least, not all of them, that is... If you're rich, or make them a lot of money somehow it's different. Most laws are only to support the system that they have set up. Take Marijuana for example. It's most definitely not nearly as damaging as cigarettes or alcohol, yet it is still illegal. Reasons being, they can't make money off it being legal, at least not nearly as much as when it's illegal. Think about it: How much money goes into the justice system when a person gets caught with a little bit of weed? Upwards to a grand in most cases, for the first offense! They could never make up for that if they made it legal.... When someone gets busted for drunk driving, how much do they end up paying? Ridiculous costs add up, from initial fines, to getting the license back. It's all money- If they started making laws for the betterment of mankind, things might be different. But as long as the government is kissing the asses of big corporations, things will never change.

Once again, Sue hits the nail right on the head...

Dang, my apologies moderators... Type was flowing out of me, I cursed there at the end. Won't happen again:-)

"...How much money goes into the justice system when a person gets caught with a little bit of weed? Upwards to a grand in most cases, for the first offense!..."

I suspect that if you figure in the arresting officers time, the court officers time, the various folks in the DA's office time, the judge/court reporter/bailiff/various clerks time, "upwards of a grand" won't come close to covering it. The justice system does not make money, period...

True enough- however the system is sustained AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE by strategically making certain things illegal, regardless of moralities, or what's "better" for people in general.... And lets not forget that the people that are employed to handle these things deal with more than one case at a time....

But you miss my point.

A predator, be they psychopathic or simply a big griz, will not likely prey on other predators that have a good or better chance of eating them instead.

Given the choice, I am sure most psycho-sociopaths would prefer not to tangle with those perhaps seeming more depraved than themselves, unless they have a truly self-destructive desire, which seems counter-productive.

That is the image, however subtle, I intend to convey. When considering me as a target I would prefer they consider that I might enjoy doing to them a bit more than they might to me, and maybe with a bit more facility than they have.


Law enforcement is not the deterrent I had in mind. It's not about steps or getting caught, it is about conveying the perception that they are about to enter a trap, a lot more trouble than it'd be worth to pursue.

You've got an interesting point benjammin. I hope you never have to convince a psychopath that you're a bigger predator...;^)

John E

Or a bigger psychopath that you're a predator.

There are lots of killers who haven't been caught. If they don't have a pattern, their murders may not even have been linked.

In addition, I think many criminals are stupid. Often they are criminal because they are stupid. Hannibal Lecture types are rare, except in fiction.

Whenever I've gone down that path, I've concluded that the only real foolproof plan is not to commit the crime.

I think the trend is in the opposite direction. Most societies figure out that there is less violent crime, and fewer long-running violent family feuds, if disputes are mediated by an impartial law instead of personal retribution.

This is currently reversing in the UK. Lots of teenagers are scared of knife crime, so they carry knives themselves, and that leads to more knife crime. Minor disputes get out of hand, and what would have been a fist-fight with no long-term harm because a knife-fight with victims maimed for life. The publicity from such events creates more fear, creating a vicious cycle. It's escalated over the last 5 or 10 years. Thankfully in the UK guns are still rare and hard to get hold of (compared to knives) so it can't escalate in that direction.

Your example does tend to prove a point, that being that even when a certain class of weapons are prohibited, people will still seek out some sort of advantage by arming themselves with whatever is available and proven effective rather than do without. The Brits may very well be once again reduced to sticks and stones, but they will always resort to possessing something more than fists and feet, until that is all they have left.

But more to the point, I don't think anyone can rationally argue that self-defense is akin to retribution. Pre-empting or at least preventing criminal activity by the use, or even implied use, of force is not the same as hunting down an enemy with intent. Likewise, I'd say you would be hard put to find evidence supporting the argument that violent crime is abated simply by restricting access to certain classes of weapons. In fact, here in the US, we have a rather robust body of evidence that would lead one to conclude just the opposite is true. There may be cases where violent crime diminished in a given geographic or social area, but I think the true incentive fomenting such a reduction would likely be the result of other factors, with restrictions on weapons possession being more of a consequence than a cause.

From a survival perspective, I would say it only makes good sense, then, to be properly equipped with a suitable means of defending yourself, or at least being able to reliably sell prospective opponents that such is likely the case.

On your other points, I will agree for the most part. However, it seems many more criminals than you might expect encounter what I can only conclude is a Karmic calibrating event having virtually nothing to do with their apparent intelligence, or lack there of, thus supporting the contrapositive argument to an old cliche, wherein it may be better to be below average than unfortunate!!!