Ft. Hood Shootings

[Jmacq1]

Originally Posted by Jake

Seconded. All I'm seeing from the right is "THE MEDIA! THE MEDIA! THEY LOVE HASAN!" but NOBODY'S FUCKING POINTING OUT WHO'S DOING THIS.

It's not a matter of "Loving Hasan." I don't think anybody's doing that, though I agree that there is flak from the Right that's trying to paint it that way. Flak which I have shamefully added to in this thread.

For the record, I generally stick with CNN, Newsweek, and my local paper (The Washington Post). So I don't really know what Fox News or MSNBC is saying on the matter. Maybe I've gotten an entirely mistaken impression from what (apparently comparatively little compared to others here) I've read on the matter. So I apologize for that.

[DerekT]

Its been asked before about how someone wouldn't care for the "why did he do it". I'll give you my answer on this.

Even if some super pyschologist came along, and after months/years of sessions was able to figure out "now we know, we know exactly what parts of his family played a role, what parts of the millitary played a role, whats parts of other outside inflences played a role, and what parts of himself played a role". The truth of the matter is it will only allow us to know why in this case. It won't stop other cases, because generally most behavoir issues he probably had. It would only help in an after the fact way that "this suspect had the same behaviors this other suspect has".

[Ludwig]

Originally Posted by DerekT

Its been asked before about how someone wouldn't care for the "why did he do it". I'll give you my answer on this.

Even if some super pyschologist came along, and after months/years of sessions was able to figure out "now we know, we know exactly what parts of his family played a role, what parts of the millitary played a role, whats parts of other outside inflences played a role, and what parts of himself played a role". The truth of the matter is it will only allow us to know why in this case. It won't stop other cases, because generally most behavoir issues he probably had. It would only help in an after the fact way that "this suspect had the same behaviors this other suspect has".

That's only true if the findings reveal that there were no occupational or external factors that contributed to his behavior. If it turns out that there was a component to all of this rooted in his job and the military as a whole, that information is very useful, if for no other reason than getting the military to boost support of programs designed to help returning vets and their families.

[Ryan S~]

Originally Posted by DerekT

Its been asked before about how someone wouldn't care for the "why did he do it". I'll give you my answer on this.

Even if some super pyschologist came along, and after months/years of sessions was able to figure out "now we know, we know exactly what parts of his family played a role, what parts of the millitary played a role, whats parts of other outside inflences played a role, and what parts of himself played a role". The truth of the matter is it will only allow us to know why in this case. It won't stop other cases, because generally most behavoir issues he probably had. It would only help in an after the fact way that "this suspect had the same behaviors this other suspect has".

So, we should just ignore the why and go straight to the lynching?

What learning why helps with is potentially preventing situations like this from happening in the future. If part of the issue is that he felt disenfranchised because he was muslim, then the army can figure out ways of making muslim soldiers feel more welcome. If part of it was that he was terrified of being shipped to Iraq then maybe they need some (or more) pre-deployment counselling. If part of it was that he was numb from hearing tales of PTSD sufferers the army can figure out how to take pressure off those in his situation.

Understanding won't lead to no situations like this but it will teach people how events lead individuals to get to this point and possibly prevent them from happening.

[Dr Vivisector]

So what do we do with Hasan after he gets convicted after a fair trial?

Military justice would suggest the death penalty, even though it is very difficult to carry out the sentence. Sergeant Hasan Akbar, the man convicted of fragging two officers in Kuwait at the start of Gulf War II, sits on death row right now.

[Ludwig]

Originally Posted by Dr Vivisector

So what do we do with Hasan after he gets convicted after a fair trial?

Military justice would suggest the death penalty, even though it is very difficult to carry out the sentence. Sergeant Hasan Akbar, the man convicted of fragging two officers in Kuwait at the start of Gulf War II, sits on death row right now.

I am not sure how it works in the States, but here in Canada this would purely be a military law matter as it happened on a base and not on civvy street. The maximum military prison sentence is 2 years less a day in Edmonton. I am not sure if there is a death penalty in Canadian military law unless the grievance happens in an active warzone...

Anyone here know American military law? Would this guy only get charged through that system, or would there be an opportunity by the victim's family members to launch some kind of civil/criminal action against Hasan?

[DerekT]

Originally Posted by Ryan S~

So, we should just ignore the why and go straight to the lynching?

What learning why helps with is potentially preventing situations like this from happening in the future. If part of the issue is that he felt disenfranchised because he was muslim, then the army can figure out ways of making muslim soldiers feel more welcome. If part of it was that he was terrified of being shipped to Iraq then maybe they need some (or more) pre-deployment counselling. If part of it was that he was numb from hearing tales of PTSD sufferers the army can figure out how to take pressure off those in his situation.

Understanding won't lead to no situations like this but it will teach people how events lead individuals to get to this point and possibly prevent them from happening.

Gee, I don't recall stating any sort of lynching is in order. Thats for jumping at conculsions of what I was stating.

Understand will lead to teaching people how events can leads individuals. However it will not prevent a thing because of the very simple fact that an individual can be all that you stated and still not go on a killing spree. In fact every answer you stated about how the millitary can make it easier for muslims to be accepted, for pre-deployment consuling, and general make his work a little less stressful, there is no evidence that would of stopped this from occuring. Seeing how you brought up the subject, what if he was having trouble in his mulsim community for being in the millitary, what if he himself changed during the period of time that he was serving that he regreted ever joining. Luckily he survived, so hopefully we will get a great idea of what his shooting was about and what he felt he was accomplishing. But I doubt I will hear or see anything in the future that says "oh well luckily we knew how his mind was working, so we knew he was about to shoot an army base, good thing we were able to stop him in time"

[Jmacq1]

Originally Posted by Ludwig

I am not sure how it works in the States, but here in Canada this would purely be a military law matter as it happened on a base and not on civvy street. The maximum military prison sentence is 2 years less a day in Edmonton. I am not sure if there is a death penalty in Canadian military law unless the grievance happens in an active warzone...

Anyone here know American military law? Would this guy only get charged through that system, or would there be an opportunity by the victim's family members to launch some kind of civil/criminal action against Hasan?

He will almost certainly be charged and court-martialed according to United States Military law (The Uniform Code of Military Justice, UCMJ for short). In the United States, penalties for crimes prosecuted and convicted under UCMJ are generally on par, if not slightly more harsh than equivalent civilian offenses.

He will almost certainly receive multiple life sentences, and may possibly be sentenced to death, however to my knowledge the United States Military has not carried out an execution since 1961, though technically they still allow the death penalty. It's just rarely carried out.

I don't know if any of this would preclude him being charged with a wrongful death suit in civil courts, but to my knowledge he could not be tried for the criminal charges in civilian courts if he's court-martialed (double jeopardy still applies, in other words).

I do think they Army could choose to have him tried in Texas (though I could be mistaken on that), but because the incident took place on-base it's very unlikely.

[Ryan S~]

Originally Posted by DerekT

Gee, I don't recall stating any sort of lynching is in order. Thats for jumping at conculsions of what I was stating.

Understand will lead to teaching people how events can leads individuals. However it will not prevent a thing because of the very simple fact that an individual can be all that you stated and still not go on a killing spree. In fact every answer you stated about how the millitary can make it easier for muslims to be accepted, for pre-deployment consuling, and general make his work a little less stressful, there is no evidence that would of stopped this from occuring. Seeing how you brought up the subject, what if he was having trouble in his mulsim community for being in the millitary, what if he himself changed during the period of time that he was serving that he regreted ever joining. Luckily he survived, so hopefully we will get a great idea of what his shooting was about and what he felt he was accomplishing. But I doubt I will hear or see anything in the future that says "oh well luckily we knew how his mind was working, so we knew he was about to shoot an army base, good thing we were able to stop him in time"

So, again, I say, we should just get right to the punishment (likely death sentence) and learn nothing from this? Good to know.

On the other hand I've heard tale that Behavioural Analysis is pretty popular in some circles, some agencies and some bureaus are fond of it. One or two may use it to catch criminals and prevent crimes.

PS - I'm pretty sure the muslim community is capable of learning from mistakes just as well as the military.

[Cylon Baby]

Originally Posted by Ryan S~

So, we should just ignore the why and go straight to the lynching?

What learning why helps with is potentially preventing situations like this from happening in the future. If part of the issue is that he felt disenfranchised because he was muslim, then the army can figure out ways of making muslim soldiers feel more welcome. If part of it was that he was terrified of being shipped to Iraq then maybe they need some (or more) pre-deployment counselling. If part of it was that he was numb from hearing tales of PTSD sufferers the army can figure out how to take pressure off those in his situation.

Understanding won't lead to no situations like this but it will teach people how events lead individuals to get to this point and possibly prevent them from happening.

I agree with this. It seems with Major Malik a lot of different people saw warning signs but no one put all the pieces together. The US Intelligence agency (Homeland Security?) who spotted his emails to that radical Iman had the best indication, yet they didn't notify anyone.

[Merriweather]

Radical Iman:

[DerekT]

Originally Posted by Ryan S~

So, again, I say, we should just get right to the punishment (likely death sentence) and learn nothing from this? Good to know.

On the other hand I've heard tale that Behavioural Analysis is pretty popular in some circles, some agencies and some bureaus are fond of it. One or two may use it to catch criminals and prevent crimes.

PS - I'm pretty sure the muslim community is capable of learning from mistakes just as well as the military.

Catch criminals, yes. Prevent crimes, ok I'll bite, name one crime stopped by behavior analysis. And your not allowed to state "they caught the serial killer after only 20 murders". Yes criminal profiling has helped showed certain paterns in serial killers. And at the same time, until there are actual bodies on the ground it hasn't prevented anything. And there are cases that general go against the patern as well.

Your not looking at the issue I stating which is that because each individual is different, you can't just go by set paterns and know who is going to commit crimes. At most you can apply the patern when it occurs, but often its a case of hindside where the result occurs first and then you look at the patern.

PS- As far I know, most people don't like acknowleging "mistakes". Its makes them feel like they are responcible to the actual crime committed. So expecting the millitary, the community, etc to state "well after looking at the case, it was our bad".

And I'm not stating we should learn nothing, we can defently learn general warning signs and in general how long he been planing this and what exactly this accomplishes in his mind.

Also I do what answered a question your not willing to ask. Basicly "the how". How did he get the guns on the base (were they army issue or did he smuggle them), how did he get past security, how did the actually shooting go down. No matter why he did it, if we find out the how the why really doesn't matter. For example should the army or use their own recurits just to keep a watch for any personal period. Should security make certain that guns are only allowed on fire ranges only and check all personal entering for firearms (I don't know the army policy on this). Using a real life example, banks don't ask why bank robbers steal from them, they are only interested in how they stop robberies from occuring.

[Merriweather]

That's it, scrap all behavioural profiling - DerekT has uncovered a serious flaw in police procedure!

Why in God's name would "stopping a serial killer before they kill again" not be a valid example of behavioural studies being useful?

[Jmacq1]

Army policy for guns on base as I remember it:

Pretty much anyone can have them, but enlisted folks, if they live in the barracks, have to check them into their company arms' room and sign them out when they want to use them.

I'm pretty sure folks living in family quarters and officers can own and keep guns as they like. They can be transported on-base as long as all your licenses and such are in order, and they're not loaded when you're driving around with them. Not surprisingly, hunting and recreational shooting are pretty popular hobbies amongst military personnel, and they usually have indoor ranges and Rod and Gun Clubs on-base for off-duty use.

I believe (though I could be mistaken) that most bases are considered "open carry." So no...probably not hard to bring a gun on base at all if you've got the right licenses and such, and truth be told if you're a soldier with an ID card they're not going to search your car coming onto base anyway.

[Ryan S~]

Originally Posted by DerekT

Catch criminals, yes. Prevent crimes, ok I'll bite, name one crime stopped by behavior analysis. And your not allowed to state "they caught the serial killer after only 20 murders". Yes criminal profiling has helped showed certain paterns in serial killers. And at the same time, until there are actual bodies on the ground it hasn't prevented anything. And there are cases that general go against the patern as well.

You're still arguing to doing nothing about this sort of thing. If you don't see why that's absurd, I can't help you.

As to your points:

Can't prove a negative.

But ask yourself this: how many people have spotted odd and unusual behaviour in loved ones and sat down to talk to them about it? How did we figure out that certain behaviours lead to certain actions? By studying what has happened in similar circumstances. I am sure there has been more than one instance of a guy under stress, showing signs of mental fatigue and starting to get into rage territory that was calmed down before he took up arms. Likely because someone learned from the past and realized their friend/coworker/bank teller was not in a good space.

Originally Posted by DerekT

Your not looking at the issue I stating which is that because each individual is different, you can't just go by set paterns and know who is going to commit crimes. At most you can apply the patern when it occurs, but often its a case of hindside where the result occurs first and then you look at the patern.

Not really. You can predict future behaviour (to a certain extent) from past actions. It's why they have behavioural analysis. A kid who tortures animals is highly likely to move on to humans at some point. You can prevent that step by catching the early signs and seeking help for that child. Someone who is chronically depressed and shows the major signs of suicide should be watched because past behaviour of other suicides show there's correlation between certain behaviours and actions.

Originally Posted by DerekT

PS- As far I know, most people don't like acknowleging "mistakes". Its makes them feel like they are responcible to the actual crime committed. So expecting the millitary, the community, etc to state "well after looking at the case, it was our bad".

So, because most other people are huge jackasses about admitting to being flawed we should not try to understand what happened? What about the people who are affected and admit to the mistakes? Why shouldn't we give them as much information as humanly possible about this. Just because they are in the minority (or rather because you believe they're in the minority) doesn't mean we should't try.

Originally Posted by DerekT

And I'm not stating we should learn nothing, we can defently learn general warning signs and in general how long he been planing this and what exactly this accomplishes in his mind.

So, what's your problem with figuring out why this guy did what he did?

Originally Posted by DerekT

Also I do what answered a question your not willing to ask. Basicly "the how". How did he get the guns on the base (were they army issue or did he smuggle them), how did he get past security, how did the actually shooting go down. No matter why he did it, if we find out the how the why really doesn't matter. For example should the army or use their own recurits just to keep a watch for any personal period. Should security make certain that guns are only allowed on fire ranges only and check all personal entering for firearms (I don't know the army policy on this). Using a real life example, banks don't ask why bank robbers steal from them, they are only interested in how they stop robberies from occuring.

I have no idea how you figure I'm not willing to ask that. This is a case that fascinates me (part of it is that I had a friend stationed at Ft Hood about five years ago) and I'd love to know all the details of how this happened. Not just why this guy snapped but how did he pull it off. What can the military learn from their mistakes in that one (if they made any)?

You're comparing apples and oranges in the bank example. We know why they rob the bank. It's two reasons, power or money or both. They want to know the psychology of the planning, the psychology of defeating the security system and the psychology of how a person gets from stealing stuff at a corner store to robbing banks. If the banks and their security teams start to understand how the mind of a robber works they can start creating new safety protocols and new ways of protecting their employees and clients.

[DerekT]

Originally Posted by Merriweather

That's it, scrap all behavioural profiling - DerekT has uncovered a serious flaw in police procedure!

Why in God's name would "stopping a serial killer before they kill again" not be a valid example of behavioural studies being useful?

Only I'm just going to agrue on profiling for a bit

I don't recall stating the profile is not useful, I stated that there would have to first be bodies on the ground before a profile is made and that the profile can be wrong.

The 3 serious flaws to profiling police procedure is

1) that at time police officers only look at the profile, considering it the key to a case rather than just a tool (Richard Jewell)

2) At times they can be made/edited to make a known suspect look more guilty (Guy Paul Morin)

3) The profile is plain old wrong (Beltway snipers).

Profiling as of now is a subjective, not objective science. Sorry if you didn't know that.

[Ryan S~]

Originally Posted by DerekT

Only I'm just going to agrue on profiling for a bit

I don't recall stating the profile is not useful, I stated that there would have to first be bodies on the ground before a profile is made and that the profile can be wrong.

The 3 serious flaws to profiling police procedure is

1) that at time police officers only look at the profile, considering it the key to a case rather than just a tool (Richard Jewell)

2) At times they can be made/edited to make a known suspect look more guilty (Guy Paul Morin)

3) The profile is plain old wrong (Beltway snipers).

Profiling as of now is a subjective, not objective science. Sorry if you didn't know that.

Just because something is flawed doesn't mean it's useless. Yes, criminal profiling has resulted in false positives and false negatives but it's also been more right than not. Why would you not want to add the information we learn from each and every case in to the pool of knowledge? Why would you want to waste what we have learned simply because a system is not perfect?

ETA: Your first two examples of profiling failing were due to human error. The third, I agree, was an example of failure on the part of criminal profiling.

[DerekT]

Sean, I reject the abuse to animals are a sign of become a serial killer.

http://www.skepticism.net/?p=8

Now that I been so kind to point out my examples, can someone point me out an example where knowing the why, stopped a behavior.

Its nice knowing the why, but in general it does not often answer everything. In paticular it almost never stops the behavior.

[DerekT]

[QUOTE=Ryan S~;2750853]Just because something is flawed doesn't mean it's useless. [QUOTE]

When did I say it was useless? I pointed out that a criminal profile is not sacrosanct, never stated that it should be not used.

And I'm not saying do nothing. Look alot of people with behavior problem often look at the why and get reliefed when they find answers (alcholoics, drug addicts, etc). In every case though, knowing the why was never enough to stop the behavior. Of course I'm happy in general when people discover the why of the question, but that answer is never enough.

[Richard Dickson]

Ft. Hood hero may not have actually been the hero.

I'm waiting for the whole "Allahu akbar" thing to be debunked. Not that it'll matter, since the story's in people's heads now.

[pagoda]

This thread is a headache to read through. Let's all step back and take a deep breath and make a stab at common sense.

Hasan was a Muslim who was in contact with a radical Muslim Imam. I would say the chances are very good that his religion played a large role in this attack. Hasn't it been confirmed he was yelling, "Allah Akbar!" during (or just before) the shooting?

Hasan also heard horror stories from war on a very regular basis, and was about to be deployed to a war zone. I would, again, say that there is a good chance this lead to (or perhaps precipitated) the attack.

I think it's good to look at all circumstances surrounding a crime like this, and try to figure out what caused it. The problem is, there are so many circumstances in each situation that anyone can find information to back up their pre-conceived notions.

It did seem, to me, that immediately following the attack some in the media (particularly the New York Times) rushed to theorize about possible reasons for the attack (PTSD) while ignoring the elephant in the room (radical Islam) as if they'd much rather blame Army policy for the violence, rather than radical religion.

Again, investigate all areas of possible motive, but it does seem a lot in this thread are nearly toeing some sort of "party line," that at times seems to border on making Hasan a victim.

Compare this thread to the discussion about the murder of the abortion doctor in Missouri. Reactions seem a bit hypocritical when it comes to judging motives and brandishing pitchforks. The killer of the abortion doctor was labelled a terrorist immediately, while Hasan has been defended as NOT being a terrorist.

For the record, I think both incidents were deplorable acts of cowardice that were largely driven by religious extremism. The difference is Hasan killed 13 people, the other guy killed one.

[Richard Dickson]

Originally Posted by pagoda

Compare this thread to the discussion about the murder of the abortion doctor in Missouri. Reactions seem a bit hypocritical when it comes to judging motives and brandishing pitchforks. The killer of the abortion doctor was labelled a terrorist immediately, while Hasan has been defended as NOT being a terrorist.

The abortion doctor was killed as part of an ongoing campaign to achieve a political objective -- the end of abortion. Hasan had no such political motivation that we know of.

[Ryan S~]

Originally Posted by DerekT

Its been asked before about how someone wouldn't care for the "why did he do it". I'll give you my answer on this.

Even if some super pyschologist came along, and after months/years of sessions was able to figure out "now we know, we know exactly what parts of his family played a role, what parts of the millitary played a role, whats parts of other outside inflences played a role, and what parts of himself played a role". The truth of the matter is it will only allow us to know why in this case. It won't stop other cases, because generally most behavoir issues he probably had. It would only help in an after the fact way that "this suspect had the same behaviors this other suspect has".

Originally Posted by DerekT

When did I say it was useless? I pointed out that a criminal profile is not sacrosanct, never stated that it should be not used.

And I'm not saying do nothing. Look alot of people with behavior problem often look at the why and get reliefed when they find answers (alcholoics, drug addicts, etc). In every case though, knowing the why was never enough to stop the behavior. Of course I'm happy in general when people discover the why of the question, but that answer is never enough.

As above you said you didn't care why he did it. A number of people, including myself, gave you good reasons why we should care.

At no time did anyone say behavioural analysis was sacrosanct. In fact, I've admitted that it doesn't always work. But, again I ask, why would we not want to find out why this guy did it? It adds to the knowledge pool and helps us gain further insight in to the behaviour.

As to your example of alcoholics and drug addicts, knowledge is one thing, the ability to act properly on that knowledge is something completely different.

Now that I been so kind to point out my examples, can someone point me out an example where knowing the why, stopped a behavior.

Again, you can't prove a negative.

Also, did you read the article you linked to? It showed that the study done by one group of people was flawed. That's it. There's no follow up study showing how many kids who torture animals grow up to be perfectly normal human beings.

[dontEATnachos]

I think it's fair to wonder if Hasan's outbreak was 'terrorism' or the now standard 'workplace shooting spree' that we've seen a number of times. The question for me, is whether what he was doing was to get even with pre-conceived slights or harassment or if he was trying to murder US soldiers to prevent them from performing their duties in Iraq/Afghanistan.

[pagoda]

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson

The abortion doctor was killed as part of an ongoing campaign to achieve a political objective -- the end of abortion. Hasan had no such political motivation that we know of.

Good point. The fact that he was in contact with a radical Imam, and has been reported to have been openly anti-American (though that could mean anything. I've been accused of it as well) point in the direction that this was politically motivated, though we have yet to confirm that.

My point was that when the abortion doctor was killed there was no, "Wait let's step back and think about possible motivating factors. Maybe he had heard horror stories about abortion and was worried that his wife was going to get one," or something like that. We made a logical assumption that turned out correct.

An objective reading of the evidence (that has come out so far) about Hasan turns up some possible links to religious extremism. That isn't exactly a lynching.

[Ryan S~]

Originally Posted by pagoda

This thread is a headache to read through. Let's all step back and take a deep breath and make a stab at common sense.

Well done, you've insulted everyone in the thread already. Good start at common sense.

Originally Posted by pagoda

Hasan was a Muslim who was in contact with a radical Muslim Imam. I would say the chances are very good that his religion played a large role in this attack. Hasn't it been confirmed he was yelling, "Allah Akbar!" during (or just before) the shooting?

Never confirmed.

Why would you assume that religion played a part in the shooting? It may have. But if you start assuming those sorts of things that's whne you run in to issues.

Originally Posted by pagoda

Hasan also heard horror stories from war on a very regular basis, and was about to be deployed to a war zone. I would, again, say that there is a good chance this lead to (or perhaps precipitated) the attack.

So, which is it? Religion or fear?

Originally Posted by pagoda

I think it's good to look at all circumstances surrounding a crime like this, and try to figure out what caused it. The problem is, there are so many circumstances in each situation that anyone can find information to back up their pre-conceived notions.

Of course it is. No one is saying other wise.

Originally Posted by pagoda

It did seem, to me, that immediately following the attack some in the media (particularly the New York Times) rushed to theorize about possible reasons for the attack (PTSD) while ignoring the elephant in the room (radical Islam) as if they'd much rather blame Army policy for the violence, rather than radical religion.

Why would you rather ignore that the Army is to blame and place the blame at the feet of Islam?

Media outlets are looking at all the possibilities as to why this happened. It's called even handed reporting. As far as I can see most articles have mentioned the Islam connection.

Originally Posted by pagoda

Again, investigate all areas of possible motive, but it does seem a lot in this thread are nearly toeing some sort of "party line," that at times seems to border on making Hasan a victim.

Can you please point to anywhere in this thread or in a large media outlet that is trying toi portray him as a victim? He pulled the triggers, now we want to know why. Why is that so difficult for people to understand?

[DaveB]

Originally Posted by DerekT

Sean, I reject the abuse to animals are a sign of become a serial killer.

http://www.skepticism.net/?p=8

Now that I been so kind to point out my examples, can someone point me out an example where knowing the why, stopped a behavior.

Its nice knowing the why, but in general it does not often answer everything. In paticular it almost never stops the behavior.

It always pays to check and follow up on your sources, especially if it's scientific research published seven years ago. If you read the article by Piper and Myers that Skepticism.net cites, it would seem that the last thing they'd want their research used for is an argument against understanding the "why"s of behavior:

There are major problems with the coherence of the argument for a close link between harming animals and people, and the nature of the supporting evidence.

Practitioners need to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the problem. We do not know how much cruelty there is, and accurately measuring it is difficult. Harming animals is a largely invisible form of violence and abused animals cannot tell us. During our research, several adults (including social workers) said that, when younger, they had been cruel to animals. These experiences had not apparently adversely affected them. Given the proportion of children and young people who admitted harming animals or knowing others who have harmed animals, this is welcome news.

Social workers should not uncritically accept the arguments that have been put forward about linking animal and human violence. Rather we should consider lessons from other areas of social work.

It should also be noted that in a response to a subsequent, but similar, article by Piper and Myers, Greenfields (citation below) points out some shortcomings in their research and asserts that it is valuable to monitor children who abuse animals, not simply because it's a causative factor in terms of future violence (and, naturally, to protect the animals), but that it can be an indicator of parental neglect or abuse, which is reason enough for alarm, but might also be a predictor of behavioral problems later on. So while violence to animals may not, in itself, be causative, it's often correlative to something that is potentially causative.

Greenfields, M. (2007). Letters to the editor. Child Abuse Review, 16(2), 74-76.

Forgive the formal citation, but if we're presenting scientific evidence, I figure thoroughness counts.

[Ryan S~]

And DaveB brings the awesome.

[Richard Dickson]

Originally Posted by pagoda

Good point. The fact that he was in contact with a radical Imam, and has been reported to have been openly anti-American (though that could mean anything. I've been accused of it as well) point in the direction that this was politically motivated, though we have yet to confirm that.

My point was that when the abortion doctor was killed there was no, "Wait let's step back and think about possible motivating factors. Maybe he had heard horror stories about abortion and was worried that his wife was going to get one," or something like that. We made a logical assumption that turned out correct.

An objective reading of the evidence (that has come out so far) about Hasan turns up some possible links to religious extremism. That isn't exactly a lynching.

Because there was most likely one motivation -- killing a doctor who was performing abortions. With Hasan, he may have done it because he hates America. He may have done it because he figured Leavenworth was better than Iraq. He may have done it because he simply snapped between the stress of his job and the stress of his upcoming deployment. It's much more open to speculation than the abortion doctor's murder, where similar acts have been going on for years. You don't have a lot of Army officers going on shooting sprees at Army bases.

[Jake]

We're comparing this to the Tiller assassination now? Really?

[Cylon Baby]

Originally Posted by Jake

We're comparing this to the Tiller assassination now? Really?

Yes, really.

I think it is legitimate and useful to compare how Radical Islam and Radical Christianity (to coin a phrase) operate. In both religions there is an organized subset of "True Believers" who carry out a planned program of terror or at least individual acts. But they also generate a loose network of people, propaganda, etc that serves as an enabler to people already mentally ill or unstable.

I thought we wanted to learn why and how this happened to prevent future occurrences? Surely one way to do that is to compare the different groups who operate in the same way. (Groups meaning both the organized and the "enabled")

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby

Yes, really.

I think it is legitimate and useful to compare how Radical Islam and Radical Christianity (to coin a phrase) operate. In both religions there is an organized subset of "True Believers" who carry out a planned program of terror or at least individual acts. But they also generate a loose network of people, propaganda, etc that serves as an enabler to people already mentally ill or unstable.

I thought we wanted to learn why and how this happened to prevent future occurrences? Surely one way to do that is to compare the different groups who operate in the same way. (Groups meaning both the organized and the "enabled")

Yeah, I got that part, thanks. It's just that the Tiller murder was perpetrated by a guy who was part and parcel of a crazy-ass movement hellbent on curbing women's reproductive rights.

This guy's situation isn't that clear-cut.

[Richard Dickson]

Yeah, unless we have a rash of Muslim Army officers going on similar shooting sprees, there's a world of difference here.

[Jake]

And I'd also argue that it's a terrible comparison just based on the obvious fact that someone with an anti-American agenda and someone with an anti-choice agenda WOULDN'T really operate in the same way (aside from using violence as a tool), just because anti-American sentiment takes many forms and is kind of a nebulous term in itself while being anti-choice/anti-abortion is more focused.

They can't exactly target women on the street howling about "YOU'RE THINKIN' ABOUT AN ABORTION", so there's obviously more of a pattern concentrated around women's health clinics/etc. and certain groups centered around the ideology that will obviously be more prone to violence when it comes to this issue. Not so much with anti-American sentiments that could easily boil over into violence. I've been to war protests and was screamed at for being un-American, so it takes all kinds.

Anyway, I feel like I'm rambling nonsensically about obvious shit at this point and it's 4:56 AM here and I need coffee.

[Merriweather]

It's a useless comparison until the case becomes clearer. The motivation was as plain as day in the Tiller case - it was a cold-blooded, targeted murder. Here the guy was killing indiscriminately. If nothing else, it suggests a gulf between the two perpetrators' mental wellbeing, regardless of motive.

Also, this:

My point was that when the abortion doctor was killed there was no, "Wait let's step back and think about possible motivating factors. Maybe he had heard horror stories about abortion and was worried that his wife was going to get one,"

Is unbelievably asinine. Abortions cause the same mental stress as open warfare?