"The term spree killer is useless, according to law enforcement" Yeah law enforcement, not the profilers who invented the terms and whos job it is to catch them. Like i said if you read a book instead of the garbage on the net, you'd know that one of the reasons these people avoid capture so long is that "law enforcement" don't know dick about them, most cops never see a serial killer in their lifetime. The FBI has their own units that deal with serial killers.
I guarantee you! There are no exceptions when you know the correct diagnostic terms, every one of them can be placed in either serial, mass or spree. You will not be able come up with one name mr high-functioning retard.
And no shit you don't agree, if you knew what you were talking about then i wouldn't be posting this.
Here's another GLARING example...the DC Sniper attacks (beltway sniper). Dismantle that one, genius.
According to your 'guidelines', they are both spree AND serial killers. Again, confirming I am right. They killed several people in one day, and also carried out the killings over a 3 week period. Malvo and in some instances Muhammed also killed a few other people up to about a month BEFORE the beltway attacks started.
There's so many more examples, but just admit, you're wrong.
They are serial killers. Due to the time span lol. Like i said it can be worked out if you know what you're talking about.
You are also forgetting that even if there is an example of someone who crosses the lines of definition it doesn't make the whole term pointless as it's useful to label the hundreds more who DO fit the serial killer term. The term exists for a reason you tard, what are you going to do, throw it out because a few don't fit.
The question is simple; are there more who do fit the term, or more who don't. And because WAY more do, the term is has a valid use. Thats why it's used lol.
You said I couldn't name anyone, not one single one, who crosses lines, and YES I can, and did, and I have several more.
You're the one who posted all the timelines (3 days, one month, bullshit) and guidelines that you so believed in, and I proved you wrong. That's the whole point of what I'm saying anyway, they made too many guidelines and assumptions in the beginning when this was a 'new' term and a newer concentration of study (not a new thing of course, just a newer study)...just like they've been doing since the 70's with this serial killer crap, you just did right now with all the backpedaling and foot-in-mouth syndrome. This is exactly why 'spree killer' is useless and has been proven so, yet you still fail to see that. It just got proved to you.
This argument is about the validity of the term, not who is or isn't a serial killer.
You can't throw a term out just because a SMALL number don't fit, thats retarded as the HUGE number left would be unclassified, do you realise this simple fact is what proves your whole point wrong?
SEE THERE ^^^^^^ THAT, READ THAT INSTEAD OF RANTING ON.
I have repeated it three times over, it's not that hard to grasp if you read it and think instead of going on about a whole lot of different but equally irrelevant things. Either understand or don't, like the others said you're a retard.
1) I never said to throw out the term and NOT replace it with more appropriate terms (where did I say that??)
2) The argument is based on pointing out all of the wrongly/poorly classified, exceptions and cross-overs, so YES, it IS about who is and isn't a 'serial killer'. That's precisely what it's about!! How do you think they figured out 'spree killer' was a useless term? They found it to be impractical and undefined THROUGH USING IT AND FINDING IT DIDN'T WORK OUT. Oh, wait, even though I proved that to you, you still didn't concede I was right. Hello, I'm right, it's been showed to you.
You're calling ME a retard when you're the one who got proven wrong, posted a bunch or erroneous information and can't address any points. Hmm, good job.
Yes, you're a retard as your argument is retarded. It's a broad term so it doesn't need changing, otherwise you'll just end up with heaps of different terms making it more complex for the FBI than their jobs already are, while producing the same results. The point being that changing the terms won't DO ANYTHING, it won't catch them any faster mr retard. Don't cry to me, i'm not the only one here to point out your retardedness.
I did address your points as there aren't any because you seem to think that the WAY someone is killed is how they term a "serial killer", it isn't. I'm not wrong, and niether is the REST OF THE WORLD that disagrees with you.
"The validity of spree murder as a separate category was discussed at great length. The general definition of spree murder is two or more murders committed by an offender or offenders, without a cooling-off period. According to the definition, the lack of a cooling-off period marks the difference between a spree murder and a serial murder. Central to the discussion was the definitional problems relating to the concept of a cooling-off period. Because it creates arbitrary guidelines, the confusion surrounding this concept led the majority of attendees to advocate disregarding the use of spree murder as a separate category. The designation does not provide any real benefit for use by law enforcement."
It's quite old and not upto date. Like i said, i get my info from those who invented the term, not the net. Read "whoever fights monsters" by Robert Ressler, he invented the term "serial killer". Your post was written by a bunch of different people who are in competition with him but yet still can't agree. And it's not about spree killers, we're talking about serial killers.
Like i said the "cooling off" period isn't a debate anymore, they have since said it to be 3 days to a week or more. So 3 minimum.
Oh bullshit, you're just backpedaling now because you knwo you're wrong. You say above, 'I'm going by what the FBI says'...and then gee, the FBI isn't saying what you're saying so now you say this is out of date?? Really?? It's from 2005...wow, ancient history man!!
"In an effort to bridge the gap between the many views of issues related to serial murder, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) hosted a multi-disciplinary Symposium in San Antonio, Texas, on August 29, 2005 through September 2, 2005. The goal of the Symposium was to bring together a group of respected experts on serial murder from a variety of fields and specialties, to identify the commonalities of knowledge regarding serial murder.
A total of 135 subject matter experts attended the five-day event. These individuals included law enforcement officials who have successfully investigated and apprehended serial killers; mental health, academic, and other experts who have studied serial killers and shared their expertise through education and publication; officers of the court, who have judged, prosecuted, and defended serial killers; and members of the media, who inform and educate the public when serial killers strike. The attendees also reflected the international nature of the serial murder problem, as there were attendees from ten different countries on five continents. "
The Unabomber....easy. I have more in mind but there's a real easy example. Methods+intent+results do not equal a simple definition of any of those terms.
Yeah he fits perfectly, sure. He tried to blow up a plane. OK, so it wasn't successful, and of course you can't label him based on what didn't happen, BUT serial killers don't try to blow up planes, that's what a mass murderer does. He planted the bomb, and one small thing went wrong so it didn't detonate, but still the fact that he DID that shows he's more than a serial killer mentally.
He's also a suspect in the Chicago Tylenol Murders, which may or may not ever get solved, but still he's a new suspect. Until he's cleared of that, judgement needs to be reserved anyway.
Yes because he was a domestic terrorist who failed and ended up a serial killer. Again you're confusing their actions as having something to do with a "serial killer"
Is it normal I think we need to throw out the term 'Serial Killer'?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
"The term spree killer is useless, according to law enforcement" Yeah law enforcement, not the profilers who invented the terms and whos job it is to catch them. Like i said if you read a book instead of the garbage on the net, you'd know that one of the reasons these people avoid capture so long is that "law enforcement" don't know dick about them, most cops never see a serial killer in their lifetime. The FBI has their own units that deal with serial killers.
I guarantee you! There are no exceptions when you know the correct diagnostic terms, every one of them can be placed in either serial, mass or spree. You will not be able come up with one name mr high-functioning retard.
And no shit you don't agree, if you knew what you were talking about then i wouldn't be posting this.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Here's another GLARING example...the DC Sniper attacks (beltway sniper). Dismantle that one, genius.
According to your 'guidelines', they are both spree AND serial killers. Again, confirming I am right. They killed several people in one day, and also carried out the killings over a 3 week period. Malvo and in some instances Muhammed also killed a few other people up to about a month BEFORE the beltway attacks started.
There's so many more examples, but just admit, you're wrong.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
They are serial killers. Due to the time span lol. Like i said it can be worked out if you know what you're talking about.
You are also forgetting that even if there is an example of someone who crosses the lines of definition it doesn't make the whole term pointless as it's useful to label the hundreds more who DO fit the serial killer term. The term exists for a reason you tard, what are you going to do, throw it out because a few don't fit.
The question is simple; are there more who do fit the term, or more who don't. And because WAY more do, the term is has a valid use. Thats why it's used lol.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
And once again, you weasel out of it.
According to YOU they're also spree killers.
You said I couldn't name anyone, not one single one, who crosses lines, and YES I can, and did, and I have several more.
You're the one who posted all the timelines (3 days, one month, bullshit) and guidelines that you so believed in, and I proved you wrong. That's the whole point of what I'm saying anyway, they made too many guidelines and assumptions in the beginning when this was a 'new' term and a newer concentration of study (not a new thing of course, just a newer study)...just like they've been doing since the 70's with this serial killer crap, you just did right now with all the backpedaling and foot-in-mouth syndrome. This is exactly why 'spree killer' is useless and has been proven so, yet you still fail to see that. It just got proved to you.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
This argument is about the validity of the term, not who is or isn't a serial killer.
You can't throw a term out just because a SMALL number don't fit, thats retarded as the HUGE number left would be unclassified, do you realise this simple fact is what proves your whole point wrong?
SEE THERE ^^^^^^ THAT, READ THAT INSTEAD OF RANTING ON.
I have repeated it three times over, it's not that hard to grasp if you read it and think instead of going on about a whole lot of different but equally irrelevant things. Either understand or don't, like the others said you're a retard.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
1) I never said to throw out the term and NOT replace it with more appropriate terms (where did I say that??)
2) The argument is based on pointing out all of the wrongly/poorly classified, exceptions and cross-overs, so YES, it IS about who is and isn't a 'serial killer'. That's precisely what it's about!! How do you think they figured out 'spree killer' was a useless term? They found it to be impractical and undefined THROUGH USING IT AND FINDING IT DIDN'T WORK OUT. Oh, wait, even though I proved that to you, you still didn't concede I was right. Hello, I'm right, it's been showed to you.
You're calling ME a retard when you're the one who got proven wrong, posted a bunch or erroneous information and can't address any points. Hmm, good job.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Yes, you're a retard as your argument is retarded. It's a broad term so it doesn't need changing, otherwise you'll just end up with heaps of different terms making it more complex for the FBI than their jobs already are, while producing the same results. The point being that changing the terms won't DO ANYTHING, it won't catch them any faster mr retard. Don't cry to me, i'm not the only one here to point out your retardedness.
I did address your points as there aren't any because you seem to think that the WAY someone is killed is how they term a "serial killer", it isn't. I'm not wrong, and niether is the REST OF THE WORLD that disagrees with you.
I think if you read this information from the FBI you may realize you're wrong on most, if not all of your points.
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder/serial-murder-1#two
From this publication:
"The validity of spree murder as a separate category was discussed at great length. The general definition of spree murder is two or more murders committed by an offender or offenders, without a cooling-off period. According to the definition, the lack of a cooling-off period marks the difference between a spree murder and a serial murder. Central to the discussion was the definitional problems relating to the concept of a cooling-off period. Because it creates arbitrary guidelines, the confusion surrounding this concept led the majority of attendees to advocate disregarding the use of spree murder as a separate category. The designation does not provide any real benefit for use by law enforcement."
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It's quite old and not upto date. Like i said, i get my info from those who invented the term, not the net. Read "whoever fights monsters" by Robert Ressler, he invented the term "serial killer". Your post was written by a bunch of different people who are in competition with him but yet still can't agree. And it's not about spree killers, we're talking about serial killers.
Like i said the "cooling off" period isn't a debate anymore, they have since said it to be 3 days to a week or more. So 3 minimum.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Oh bullshit, you're just backpedaling now because you knwo you're wrong. You say above, 'I'm going by what the FBI says'...and then gee, the FBI isn't saying what you're saying so now you say this is out of date?? Really?? It's from 2005...wow, ancient history man!!
"In an effort to bridge the gap between the many views of issues related to serial murder, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) hosted a multi-disciplinary Symposium in San Antonio, Texas, on August 29, 2005 through September 2, 2005. The goal of the Symposium was to bring together a group of respected experts on serial murder from a variety of fields and specialties, to identify the commonalities of knowledge regarding serial murder.
A total of 135 subject matter experts attended the five-day event. These individuals included law enforcement officials who have successfully investigated and apprehended serial killers; mental health, academic, and other experts who have studied serial killers and shared their expertise through education and publication; officers of the court, who have judged, prosecuted, and defended serial killers; and members of the media, who inform and educate the public when serial killers strike. The attendees also reflected the international nature of the serial murder problem, as there were attendees from ten different countries on five continents. "
If there was no point to the term, it wouldn't be used. Simple as that.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Who's using the term? Anybody that COUNTS?
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The people who track and catch them. Seriously thats the dumbest comment you've made so far.
The Unabomber....easy. I have more in mind but there's a real easy example. Methods+intent+results do not equal a simple definition of any of those terms.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Methods+intent+results have nothing to do with anything, you are very confused as to how they label a "serial killer"
The unabomber killed three people over a very extended time, he fits perfectly into the term "serial killer"
How he killed them and why isn't a factor in the term as every serial killer has his/her own reasons.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yeah he fits perfectly, sure. He tried to blow up a plane. OK, so it wasn't successful, and of course you can't label him based on what didn't happen, BUT serial killers don't try to blow up planes, that's what a mass murderer does. He planted the bomb, and one small thing went wrong so it didn't detonate, but still the fact that he DID that shows he's more than a serial killer mentally.
He's also a suspect in the Chicago Tylenol Murders, which may or may not ever get solved, but still he's a new suspect. Until he's cleared of that, judgement needs to be reserved anyway.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes because he was a domestic terrorist who failed and ended up a serial killer. Again you're confusing their actions as having something to do with a "serial killer"