betsy

Here is something that offer a glimpse on mass murders... "Mass murder has, in fact, been around longer historically and in more societies than serial murder. Little is known about it, however, since in comparison to serial killers who are usually apprehended, sent to prison, and can be interviewed, the mass murderer usually ends up taking their own life or is killed by police ("suicide by cop"). About the only way to study mass murder is by conducting "psychological autopsies" or speculating about similarities between cases. Workplace violence has some of the characteristics of mass murder in that the offender is usually seen as some crazy, disgruntled employee ("snapping"; "going postal"). In many cases, the grudge is against the organization or bureaucracy. Psychosis is not the only motivation, as the following rank order of Characteristics of Violent Employees and Employment Domains demonstrates: Violent Employees: Employment Domains: 1. History of Violence 1. Transportation Hubs 2. Psychosis and/or Projection 2. Tavern/Liquor Stores 3. Romantic Obsession 3. Convenience Stores 4. Chemical Dependence 4. Fast Food Restaurants 5. Depression 5. Government Offices 6. Pathological Blaming 6. Business Offices 7. Impaired Neurology 7. Administrative Offices 8. Elevated Frustration 8. Police Stations 9. Interest in Weapons 9. Postal Stations 10. Personality Disorder 10. Educational Institutions There's not much that can be done to protect society completely from mass murder. Many of the motivations are unclear, and there's tremendous controversy over what constitutes the proper "warning signs". Prevention as well as police response tactics are areas and issues that deserve greater consideration. More often than not, mass murderers tend to target particular victims to avenge perceived injustices. There are also, of course, random and indiscriminate patterns. In almost all cases, innocent bystanders get caught in the crossfire. The more random the pattern, the more likely the perceived injustice is small and insignificant. " http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/428/428lect21.htm

Here is another interesting excerpt/link about the subject. "But the differences between these two types of offenders far outweigh the similarities. First, mass murderers are generally apprehended or killed by police, commit suicide, or turn themselves in to authorities. Serial killers, by contrast, usually make special efforts to elude detection. When we discover that people exist who are not considered to be insane or crazy but who enjoy killing others for "recreation," this indeed gives new meaning to the word "stranger." Although the mass murderer is viewed as a deranged soul, a product of a stressful environment who is just going to "explode" now and then (but of course somewhere else), the serial murder is seen as much more sinister and is more capable of producing fear. the mass murderer kills groups of people at once, whereas the serial killer individualizes his or her murders. The serial killer continues to hurt and murder victims, whereas the mass murderer makes his or her "final statement" in or about life through the medium of abrupt and final violence. We rarely if ever hear of a mass murderer who has the opportunity to enact a second mass murder or to become a serial killer. Similarly, we rarely if ever hear of a serial killer who also enacts a mass murder." http://www.serialhomicide.com/serial-killers.htm

Can you please explain about "incarceration?" You got me confused here.

Can you provide a credible link that will back up your statement please. Strange that I've never read anything that even hinted anything to do with religion regarding suicides. I say "strange", because you'd think that the media will jump on this very juicy theory and have a field day bashing Christianity (which they have been doing for any opportunity they get). I don't think any opposition from the churches will stop anyone...especially the Liberals and the NDP...from doing any studies. On the contrary, any opposition from the churches is a sure-fire way to get the Liberals to proceed right on ahead.

Of course I'd say Harper!

If a witness describes the perpetrator as "a black who drove away in a red car!"....do you think the cops should stop ALL RED CARS...including those driven by WHITES, just so not to be accused of being racist??? You're talking GTA...a city that's predominantly peopled by blacks and asians...and yes, gang-members in this place are predominantly peopled by blacks and asians! As a member of the asian group, I sure would like to see the cops doing their jobs in the most professional and EFFICIENT manner...and not waste time and tax dollars trying to be stupidly politically correct.

There is no comparison between Ahanekew's comment and Morgan's. Ahanekew had called jews "a disease that ought to be wiped out....", then went on to justify the holocaust. (if I'm not mistaken?). That is not only obviously and undeniably racist...it is also unmistakenly a DANGEROUS hate speech!

If the statistics and evidence are accurately saying there is problem within a minority group, why should not it be pointed out? He is stating an obvious fact. It is not a criticism of ALL people belonging to that race. Elders or leaders/civic-minded members from that group could come up with something to help their own....for who would understand ethnic members more other than fellow-ethnic members? Everyone in Toronto and other areas affected by increasing violence are all clamoring to have crime dealt with....that's one of the election platform, thus one of the reasons why people voted for the Conservatives. And they include people from various ethnic groups, especially those belonging from the black and asian communities.

You're right. There's been tons of Christian-based movies done in Hollywood! I'm actually sick and tired of them....we need something different. They've done some Dalai Lama movies. I wonder when they're gonna start doing Islam?

If you'd read my response again, you'd see that my point is actually the same as yours as posted above...except that I stressed that "good christians who think they are christians...etc..." for in truth, those heinous acts are not that of true Christians who believe and follow the teachings of Christ. And if reports are true that some chieftains do line their own pockets instead of spending the money the way they should...then that is not only a mistreatment....but a terrible betrayal of their own people as well.

It's the media's combo name for Brad and Angelina, since they've got this baby coming.

True. And discussing it nonetheless. They may care about what's going on....but caring for who is the big question. You could have had your protest just like other non-natives who'd protested before you without having to hurt innocents (financially and economically) who have nothing to do with your problem. True the power outage may've been cause by one or two people....however, it is the responsibility of your organizer to see to it that nothing like this should've happened...considering the previous tension-filled blockades that had happened in the past.

It is vandalism AND terrorism! Why can't it be both? Whether the power outage was only for a few days....it is not up to you to conclude that what happened was just an inconvenience. What may be an inconvenience to you....could be a grave situation for someone. Besides, you have no right to cause an inconvenience.

The answer to this is nothing - which begs the question - Why are they so affected by the protest? Because your protest directly affects them! It costs them!

Same as the big point that your beef is with the government. Why should the people of Caledonia be penalised for it? Take your protest to the government.

I am comparing the reaction. I know it is miniscule compared to 9/11...but it did provoked a violent response. I am referring to the violence that erupted in Caledonia.

The reality is: majority of people couldn't care less about political issues. So whether your people had been victimized since the beginning of time, what matters to most everyday folks is their everyday life! It doesn't help to victimize them NOW....for whether we understand the root problem of native people or not....or whether your land claim is legit or not....these people do not have anything to do with it.

Geez...we could have used your opinion back in 1995, when this whole issue first went to court at the SCC. H How come you didn't get on the Feds case then, instead of waiting til now? would've saved a lot of anguish in the present. On another note, are you trying to argue that the actions of the Kaledonians at the blockade were civilized? Buddy, I've seen more civility coming from a bunch of drunked-up fans fighting at an Argo game than anything we've seen at Kaledonia. Again, you're barking up the wrong tree! Harping about the reactions of the citizens of Caledonia isn't going to solve your problems. It's only aggravating it...causing more harm than good. I am a minority myself....and yet I find it hard to emphatize with a group that's victimizing ordinary folks like me who just wants to go through my daily business and pay my bills on time like everybody else. Even if you whine til you're blue in the face...what can an ordinary Joe like me do, besides, I have no obligation to take up your fight. You're hurting...and alienating even those who could be neutral...or even understanding...of your problems by resorting to this. Whoever is advising your group should be replaced. It's bad for your image. Instead of taking your plight to heart...you incur more ridicule...and frankly, taken as a joke. I heard someone here say: "Blockade? It's their way to get pissed and have a party!" Sure it's a racist thing to say....but when you become destructive to innocent people, being racist becomes justified for a lot! Perhaps you should nag on your chieftains...after all, isn't it their job to see through the welfare of their people? And THEY ARE the ones in the political arena who can do something about it.

Scrib...believe it or not, but you just identified the Kaledonians with the above post. I guess that means that both parties at the blockade were terrorists, by your definition. If that is the case, then the Army needs to take out both groups, correct? You're wrong, Tem. It's like a kid who pushed...and the victim decided to push back. A natural response to bullying tactics. The blockade by the Indians have instigated a response. This is like the response of the US to Afghanistan....after they were hit by 9/11. Now, don't go spouting off about your legal land woes. Whether it's legit or not is not the point. Most ordinary citizens couldn't care less about any other major political problems...until it directly affects them. Caledonia citizenry were clearly directly affected. What do they (citizens) have to do with government policies and legal matters? As Krak had said, arrest those who actually vandalised....ergo, take your protests directly to those who can do something about it and leave the poor ordinary folks alone.

What is the difference between blowing up the power supply from "vandalising" that results in power outage....when the result achieved is the same?

Which of these was it? The fact that they blockaded so no one can get through is a clear intent of intimidation and cercion. What would they have done if citizens insisted on passing through? The fact that they've deliberately vandalised to cause power outage had caused in disruptions (and economic/financial loss)....is also an act of terrorism. Caledonia and its people were "held hostage".....it was akin to "pay-up-or-else."....

Bullying. The feeling of frustration. Feeling of Helplessness. These all can trigger acts to do VIOLENCE to another. It need not be just to mass murder. But it is a trigger effect. I was watching the newsclip regarding Caledonia (darn, it's hard to stay away from this ), and I could understand the feelings from both sides. But as a member of the public....I was incensed by the fact that the protesters started to vandalise (and cause power outage). I put myself in the shoes of an ordinary citizen (regardless of whether I voted for a certain government or not...for a lot of ordinary folks are not political afficionados)...and I cannot help but emphatize with their feelings. Here you are, trying to make ends meet...trying to live your life, trekking out a living...and suddenly your business/income is affected. For some, unable to pay the bills on time can be a trigger for going ballistics! As you know, violence erupted that day. You can say that the factors I mentioned above triggered a collective negative response. How could we have stopped that? Sure....the answer need not be a mystery like the one trying to find a needle in a haystack for would-be serial killers/mass murderers. Several options could have prevented that violence in Caledonia. But none were taken.

Temagami, Do you by any chance have any information at all about the mass murderers and serial killers in Canada? I'm trying to find some but unable to. That's the key, isn't it...in at least trying to understand the root causes of these murders in Canada. If this really interests you so much...then I suggest you should get a hold of most of the serial/mass muders data in Canadian history. Usually they give assumptions or known factors that have triggered the acts. Then we can pick up and discuss from there.

If they cannot come up with a solution, with all the information, technology and resources they've got, what makes you think we can in this forum? I'd like to hear what you've got to say about that part of my previous post.

Yesterday when Harper was in Vancouver to announce about the new law against car-racing, guess what the first question was from the press (of course someone from CBC): about the Harper-Gallery feud. But Harper summed it all up, saying: When the government announces something, the press should not control the message that should be given to the public. We expect the message to reach the public. The press' job is to report facts! To write or say it as it is. I do not want their spin...or their interpretation of things (whether they are biased or not). Let me be the one to decide.