with events like the Fort Hood Shooting does the "why" matter?
I've been watching CNN off and on this evening and one of the things that keeps coming up is the topic as to why Hasan perpetrated such an act. There were similar discussions after the events at Virginia Tech, Columbine High School, École Polytechnique, etc.
I realize that its a natural part of the rationalization in dealing with a traumatic act but at the end of the day does asking (and presumably getting an answer) to the why do anything to prevent a similar event?
Take the situation at Fort Hood. There's going to be a thorough investigation into Hasan's background; as much as possible his state of mind; activities, be they secular or religious, he was involved with; what groups he may have joined prior to the shooting. And of course he'll be facing extended interrogation to hopefully gain first hand information. Lets say for argument sake the information gathered all comes back to something very obvious and benign, that he simply didn't want to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. His islamic faith or any radicalization of those beliefs, the claim that he had been taunted by fellow soldiers or because he was suffering from some variation of PTSD.....none of those were a trigger or the motivation for him killing 12 of what should have been his comrades in arms. Or even if it was something nefarious and that he was an Al Qaeda sleeper agent who'd been carefully groomed and trained to reach a senior command position within the US Armed Forces and then at some point go on a killing rampage.
If the why is found out does it make a difference in terms of preventing similar situations, does it allow for law enforcement & emergency management to have more effective techniques in place to deal with the situations that will inevitably come again or does knowing the why mean nothing?
__________________
living to loaf
Last edited by opie's twisted balls; 11-06-2009 at 03:45 AM.
My balls & a-hole are wet. I have shaved my dick to make it look bigger
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,288
because knowing is half the battle
i do kindve agree with you. it is human nature to be curious about the motivation behind these things. There was the Warren commission, the 9/11 commission but in the end what happened still happened. And people who want to do these sorts of things will always be able to do them. We can spend half our lives trying to prevent them, or we can go on with our lives knowing that the chances of something "bad" happening are very slim. Do we abort all babys with the serial killer gene? Do we go back in time and stop the invention of the gun or the atomic bomb?
If the why is found out does it make a difference in terms of preventing similar situations, does it allow for law enforcement & emergency management to have more effective techniques in place to deal with the situations that will inevitably come again or does knowing the why mean nothing?
Well, in this case since he didn't have the decency to use one of those bullets on himself, there will be a murder trial. His lawyer will undoubtedly use an insanity defense, it's really all they've got. So now the prosecutors will have to find the why, which is a motive.
I agree with PapaBear in why we have to know....but there would have been more satisfaction if that hero cop had double-tapped that bastard in the head...then we could investigate to our heart's content!
The military adopted the Federal Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 through Congress’s creation of Article 50a, UCMJ in 1986, known as the Military Justice Act of 1986. The Act provides that (1) only severe mental disease or defects can form the basis for an insanity defense, which do not include abnormalities manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct, or minor disorders such as nonpsychotic behavior disorders and personality defects; (2) the defendant must be totally unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts; and (3) the defense must prove insanity by a clear and convincing evidence standard.
The military adopted the Federal Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 through Congress’s creation of Article 50a, UCMJ in 1986, known as the Military Justice Act of 1986. The Act provides that (1) only severe mental disease or defects can form the basis for an insanity defense, which do not include abnormalities manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct, or minor disorders such as nonpsychotic behavior disorders and personality defects; (2) the defendant must be totally unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts; and (3) the defense must prove insanity by a clear and convincing evidence standard.
You will not hear this often from me Serpico, but you are correct. I was incorrect. Amazing I was waiting for the Earth to open up and swallow me. Hmmm strange.
I did not see that until I scrolled down to Art 50. It explains in great detail what you are saying here. My experience with UCMJ was alot of extra duty with some barracks confinment. Mostly for public intoxication and fighting. Maybe I should have reviewed this section before throwing myself on the mercy of the Battalion Commander.
with events like the Fort Hood Shooting does the "why" matter?
Linear Mode
