More police refusing to name shooters for fear of copycats
The sheriff detailed how a shooter armed with several guns walked into a Thursday morning writing class at a rural Oregon community college and killed nine people. He described how investigators found still more weapons at the man’s home.
But when it came time to reveal the shooter’s name, Sheriff John Hanlin adamantly refused, saying, “I will not give him the credit he probably sought prior to this horrific and cowardly act.”
Like Hanlin, law enforcement officials are recently refusing to name mass shooters, hoping that not immediately identifying them will reduce the chance of their notoriety and keep their actions from inspiring others. SOURCE
Some have it, some don’t, some can’t even spell or define it.
This is an admirable effort on the part of Law Enforcement; sadly, the news media doesn’t have an admirable bone in their collective bodies and are not bound by any thought of human decency.
The old line in print news was *If it bleeds it leads*, meaning a bloody news story, one of a particularly gruesome or brutal nature, will be the lead story of the day, it’s the 1st story your readers see and the headline itself will draw you in some readers, new readers and your old crowd, they focus on the headline.
Let’s face facts; we ALL want hits and readers, mainstream media and the guy with a small time blog, we are all writing for the same reason in most instances, to get hits for our sites and to gain notoriety for ourselves.
But as with most things in life; there is a *catch*.
There’s little research to suggest the practice prevents copycats. And criminologists and ethicists worry that withholding names will make it harder to assess a mass killer’s motivations and spot trends that could help prevent future violence.
I have, on occasion, been privileged with information that I had to hold, I would have the story but due to the sensitivity OF the story, the subject of the story, the parties involved or the sensitive nature of the information I would be asked to not publish that particular story until there was more on it or its sensitivity had lessened.
I have NO problem with that; it is the right thing to do and once upon a time sources could ask the media for that courtesy and expect it to be given to them.
That is how you gain great sources, you protect their identity, you use the phrase *an anonymous source* or * a person not authorized to speak*, something of that nature, your sources were sacrosanct and as long as they knew that you would protect their identity they would feed you the good stories.
Every news source and blog in the nation was doing everything they could do to ascertain the name of the Oregon shooter.
I was looking for his identity too, I don’t believe simply using his name would provoke a *copycat*, but I do believe that details of his actions would cause some other mentally unstable person to try and emulate those actions.
I applaud Law Enforcement for not using the shooters name and by doing so denying him specific notoriety, but I don’t condemn the media or my fellow bloggers for posting his name as soon as they had it.
We all have to live by our own standards, but if you’ll notice, I have yet to publish the name of this despicable piece of garbage.
You may notice that the self-congratulatory media is bending over backwards to slap their own backs over not using the shooter’s name … but they continue to flog the story 24/7 and re-interview talking heads from the police, psychiatry, etc. thus prolonging the ordeal. In effect, magnifying the result of this tragedy from an unfortunate tragic incident involving a crazy person to something that looks like a national violence trend.
The sad fact nobody mentions is that you cannot stop criminals and crazies with any law that they ignore or consciously refuse to accept. Not one reporter has the balls to stand up to Obama and ask him “just what laws are you promoting when you say gun control and how would that have stopped this tragic event?” or “do you mean we could eliminate all DUI deaths and traffic accidents by banning cars?” And, if he argues the point, ask him to compare the usage of vehicles to the usage of guns by law-abiding citizens.
I went OFF on an Obamatard on Facebook last night over the position Obama took about MORE gun laws… This clown was carrying on about how Obama was correct, we are ALL wrong and SOMETHING has got to be done, more laws, stricter laws and so forth…
I asked him if, other than more laws and restrictions did he actually have ANYTHING to offer that was even moderately useful and I think I pissed the guy off and a few of his friends too I guess… Today I find myself in Facebook Hell, I just don’t know for how long… LMAO
I have always believed the media sensationalizing these mass shootings and the shooter leads to more mass shootings. The media will dig into every known factual and fictional story about the shooter and play it 24/7. Somewhere the next crazy is watching this and saying to himself, ” I can do better, just watch me”. It was said this sicko was upset because past shooters never engaged the police and he said he was going to and did. The medial will turn him into a subculture sick hero just like they have done others.
These mental defectives know they will be covered. It’s the coverage they look for. They can “be somebody” and “people will hear and know of me.” The only way this occurs is via the media. Once Klebold and Harris made the initial mark at Columbine in 1999, the rest have sought their own notoriety BECAUSE those two murderers received such national and even global recognition.
Mentioned by Obama, this isn’t Australia and this isn’t the UK. You just TRY to disarm America and see what kind of pushback you get, Obama and Leftists. There aren’t enough cops and soldiers to pull it off. And those who decide to abrogate their sworn oaths won’t care for the pushback. Neither, sad to say, will the families of those who get involved. A former cop, that’s where I draw the line. I will not take kindly to the disarming of America. And make NO mistake, that is PRECISELY what Obama wants.
BZ
I was talking with a few friends last night about the copycat thing. Remember a few years back, when hijacking an airliner to Cuba was all the rage? Then we had the stinkin palestinian rebels (muzzie fundamentalists) hijacking and blowing up a plane? The security that followed seemed to stop that kind of behavior. The liberal mind can’t accept common sense solutions, they want to control the situation before it happens. I think we should take all the alcohol off the shelves, confiscate every ones car keys, ban baseball (bats), take away golf clubs, outlaw boxing and mixed martial arts and have everything bought in supermarkets as food pre cut into bite sized pieces so we don’t need knives anymore. Yes, ban knives because certain elements in our civil society like to stab people and cut off their heads. There. I think I just solved a lot of problems. What do you think Fred. A real journalist would publish a list of all the instances where the citizen with a firearm prevented a crime or more serious catastrophe. I cite ” The Armed Citizen ” published monthly in The American Rifleman magazine published by the NRA and comes monthly with NRA membership. It also appears in Americas’ First Freedom magazine, also published by the NRA. People who are anti gun fail to or won’t recognize the NRA as the oldest civil rights group in the US (143 years I believe). As long as I am a CFL holder, I will choose when and where to carry.
In this instance, Wayne, it’s really about the gun. The gun, as I’ve said many times and here in the comments section, is just a tool. But to Leftists it represents everything you should not have: the ability to defend yourself, freedom, control. Most Leftists don’t believe in true freedom and they don’t believe in self-determination. They believe that everyone requires help from the government and that — at least today, in the US — Socialism would be ultimate form of fairness and egality. That’s because the bulk of those persons have never experienced Socialism. Just what they’ve read. And NO population under socialist rule has EVER been allowed to defend themselves because of the fundamental UNfairness of the regimes installed.
In terms of true fairness, then, Obama should eschew his USSS. The Pope should do the same. But they won’t because they are hypocrites. We are the Rabble, the Proles, the Serfs, the Groundlings. The upper class, the elites, THEY know how to lead OUR lives much better than we do. This is how they justify their personal security contingents being armed: because they are targets.
They forget: EVERYONE in the US is a potential target for a criminal. It’s just that you and I don’t matter as much as they do.
They believe in fairies (on many levels), unicorns, glitter, and spiritualism. They don’t believe there is true EVIL in the world. They believe EVERYone is rehabilitatable. Which, of course, as everyone with a WHIT of common sense in their skull knows is unmitigated bullshit.
In conclusion, I think you’ll trust me when I tell you this: if MORE senators, representatives, politicians, judges, attorneys, city council members, local politicians, appellate court judges and patricians of all stripes were raped, knifed, shot, kicked in the balls, had their ears bitten, been spit upon and shot at, things would CHANGE.
Crime, you see, is personal. Crime is very very personal. It is perpetrated by predators whose own personal Victim Radar works flawlessly. They know when you are weak, where you live, how you live and when you’ll be most weak. They can tell when you won’t even meet their eyes. What’s theirs is theirs and what’s yours is theirs unless you have the strength to stop that.
Criminals and Muslims, by the way. Same thing. Both factions only respect strength.
BZ
Inquiring minds would like to know how many honor killings of muslim daughters by muslim fathers go unreported by the media and law enforcement in this country. And what is the weapon of choice the gun or the scimitar?