Teen Kills Family Out of Curiosity

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Came across this article and felt it warranted serious discussion:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/25/16692073-teens-confession-horror-film-inspired-murder-of-mom-sister?lite

The story says a teen shot his mom and sister after watching the Rob Zombie Halloween remake because he was fascinated by the idea of killing without remorse and wondered how he himself would react.

Honestly, I found this tragedy far more disturbing than a lot of the other murder stories going around lately because, unless he's a magnificent actor, his remorseful confession and painful mugshot tells me this wasn't the work of a deranged killer with mental illness or violent tendencies like the others - he's an ordinary kid who wouldn't let go of a really stupid idea. At one point, he talks about mulling over how he might handle the fact that he would never see his family again and then reconsiders by focusing on the times his sister made him mad. He actually had an understanding of consequences and managed to steer himself away from his conscience. He even convinced himself to switch from a knife to a gun to spare them pain.

There's not a lot about his back-story and what psychological underpinnings could've made him think like that, but if it turns out there isn't some underlying mental case for this, then I think media violence really has to start being examined, not so much about the actual acts, but the idea of emotions and consequences and what discussions need to be put out to the public. Being curious about death is one thing, but needing to physically experience it is something, though it may ultimately be isolated to this event, that I don't think can't be repeated in a normal setting.

Thoughts?

If only he'd used a knife. Most of his family would still be alive now if he had.

Not sure why you confined this to R&P, this could've fitted in off topic. I...wow, that is fucking disturbing. He killed because he wanted to know what it felt like? Dear God. And I find it hard to believe that just watching a movie can make you want to kill that badly. Either this kid had some sort of mental issue, or he was extremely detached from reality.

Blablahb:
If only he'd used a knife. Most of his family would still be alive now if he had.

Or not, it's not hard to kill someone with a knife. Or perhaps an axe (see for example the case of Lizzie Borden) or a hammer, there are many different weapons around the average person's house. You might think a gun is easier, pretty sure a hammer or axe could've done it quicker.

vid87:
Came across this article and felt it warranted serious discussion:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/25/16692073-teens-confession-horror-film-inspired-murder-of-mom-sister?lite

The story says a teen shot his mom and sister after watching the Rob Zombie Halloween remake because he was fascinated by the idea of killing without remorse and wondered how he himself would react.

Honestly, I found this tragedy far more disturbing than a lot of the other murder stories going around lately because, unless he's a magnificent actor, his remorseful confession and painful mugshot tells me this wasn't the work of a deranged killer with mental illness or violent tendencies like the others - he's an ordinary kid who wouldn't let go of a really stupid idea. At one point, he talks about mulling over how he might handle the fact that he would never see his family again and then reconsiders by focusing on the times his sister made him mad. He actually had an understanding of consequences and managed to steer himself away from his conscience. He even convinced himself to switch from a knife to a gun to spare them pain.

There's not a lot about his back-story and what psychological underpinnings could've made him think like that, but if it turns out there isn't some underlying mental case for this, then I think media violence really has to start being examined, not so much about the actual acts, but the idea of emotions and consequences and what discussions need to be put out to the public. Being curious about death is one thing, but needing to physically experience it is something, though it may ultimately be isolated to this event, that I don't think can't be repeated in a normal setting.

Thoughts?

So he's a sociopath then.

This is old news actually. Appeared in Off topic months back.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.390315-Jake-Evans-17-tells-911-he-shot-and-killed-mother-and-sister

Captcha: just deserts

Yes. I hope he gets that as well. Though it sounds like he needs metal help more than jail time.

He's insane and he's cut of from reality or he's a bastard. I'm leaning on the latter. No real other excuses.

Something else is at work if watching a movie makes you wake up in the morning and kill your family.

This isn't really the sort of news that should make you angry. It just makes you sad.

EDIT: Apparently this is old news. No much to say about this really.

I really don't think the "People who've watched Rob Zombie Halloween" / "People who've also killed their family" ratio is anywhere near a level where reasonable level-headed people would be concerned.

Also, Freedom of Speech.

vid87:
Honestly, I found this tragedy far more disturbing than a lot of the other murder stories going around lately because, unless he's a magnificent actor, his remorseful confession and painful mugshot tells me this wasn't the work of a deranged killer with mental illness or violent tendencies like the others - he's an ordinary kid who wouldn't let go of a really stupid idea.

I get what you are saying, but that's hardly unusual. The vast, overwhelming majority of assaults and murders are committed by people who aren't mentally ill. There's just this weird assumption that "normal" people don't tend to do that.

Xan Krieger:
Or not, it's not hard to kill someone with a knife.

Actually it is. You have to use physical strength, get close, observe someone's fear of death, ignore it, keep stabbing 20-30 times untill you do enough damage to cause fatal internal bleeding.

That's why stabbings have so many fewer victims than shootings. Any coward without a spine can squeeze a trigger. Melee weapons on the other hand require a lot more determination, determination most would-be killers don't have.

Not just that, but it's far more likely that he'd been overpowered by his father if he had used a knife. Even if you're hardly a hero, just grabbing a hold of someone reduces the damage they can do hugely.

A truly admirable commitment to the search for knowledge. There was only one way to know and now he knows. He did it despite any misgivings or fears; a courageous act.

Blablahb:
Actually it is. You have to use physical strength, get close, observe someone's fear of death, ignore it, keep stabbing 20-30 times untill you do enough damage to cause fatal internal bleeding.

Or you stab them once, or you slit their throat. The idea that you need to stab someone dozens of times for it to be fatal is dangerously wrong. A single knife wound can be fatal.

And if someone is going to murder his family to see what it's like to kill without remorse, I doubt observing their fear of death is going to be much of a problem.

BrassButtons:

Blablahb:
Actually it is. You have to use physical strength, get close, observe someone's fear of death, ignore it, keep stabbing 20-30 times untill you do enough damage to cause fatal internal bleeding.

Or you stab them once, or you slit their throat. The idea that you need to stab someone dozens of times for it to be fatal is dangerously wrong. A single knife wound can be fatal.

And if someone is going to murder his family to see what it's like to kill without remorse, I doubt observing their fear of death is going to be much of a problem.

Considering he killed them both while they were awake and not sleeping I'd say it would be considerably harder to slit someones throat as opposed to pulling a trigger. The throat isn't exactly an easy target.

As an aside, I saw this when it fist appeared in off topic, the audio of the 911 call he made after killing them was posted as well. Very messed up.

BrassButtons:
Or you stab them once, or you slit their throat. The idea that you need to stab someone dozens of times for it to be fatal is dangerously wrong. A single knife wound can be fatal.

But ussually it isn't, and all of that takes power. Much more power and effort than squeezing a trigger several times.

One of the things that came up with the gun control discussion was the example of the Chinese school stabbing, where a loonie failed to kill even one person.

BrassButtons:
And if someone is going to murder his family to see what it's like to kill without remorse, I doubt observing their fear of death is going to be much of a problem.

You're very, very wrong about the impact of watching someone being mortally wounded. We've got built-in instincts against killing, and their trigger is rather powerfull.

BrassButtons:

Blablahb:
Actually it is. You have to use physical strength, get close, observe someone's fear of death, ignore it, keep stabbing 20-30 times untill you do enough damage to cause fatal internal bleeding.

Or you stab them once, or you slit their throat. The idea that you need to stab someone dozens of times for it to be fatal is dangerously wrong. A single knife wound can be fatal.

And if someone is going to murder his family to see what it's like to kill without remorse, I doubt observing their fear of death is going to be much of a problem.

That sort of assumes that the attacker knows what they're doing, and that the person they're stabbing is standing perfectly still. The further you get away from someone the easier it is to get to terms with killing them - which is exactly why bombers in WWII didn't have a problem carrying out missions, but infantry would have only a small percentage that actually fire their weapons.

Seanchaidh:
A truly admirable commitment to the search for knowledge. There was only one way to know and now he knows. He did it despite any misgivings or fears; a courageous act.

I sincerely hope that your post was written with the holy keyboard hailing from the Sarcastic Master of the Sar'casm Seas, and that your hands have undergone rigorious training in the secret arts in order to clear the Seven Trials of Sarcasm. Because if that was written with honesty and represents your personal view on the whole situation, then I suggest you seek help. Because I fail to see how that can be considered healthy in this day and age.

In case it was sarcasm then I hope you will be more obvious with your intentions in the future. Oh, and you may also disregard what is written above.

In any case, sorry for lashing out.

Come to think of it, I believe I did see the first part of this story a while back. I only came upon this segment a while ago because of the "violence in media" angle they were using and was just struck by the combination of the bizarre rationale and immediate regret this kid went through. There probably are statistically more violent crimes committed by so-called "sane" people than those with mental illness but it seems to me mental illness is often cited as a major contributing factor to the crimes that get the most attention such as these mass shootings. So to read about a kid who, despite having a clear lack of understanding about cause and effect, also talked about how he knew about pain and that he would be losing his family made me take notice. Maybe something will come to light soon about him, that he has some history of emotional problems or the like.

But I would also ask any of you who would admit it whether you've ever had such morbid thoughts (regardless of if you would act on it, which I'm sure none of you would) and if it's possible this kid's detachment from reality and apparent need to experience a unknown emotion is actually caused not necessarily by an overwhelming exposure to violence but from a lack on context regarding consequences from that violence. For example, I've sometimes wondered, after all the action movies and Tv shows I've seen doing it, how easy is it really to snap someone's neck - they make it seem like a quick jerk is all it takes (BTW I'm not really looking for an answer to that, I'm just using it as an example). I know not to do that and I would never try, but this kid said he was intrigued by the movie's portrayal of death without emotion. I would ask if what ultimately pushed him do what he did wasn't brought on by mental illness but from just some kind of emotional isolation from, say, living a sheltered, comfortable life in well-to-do community that probably doesn't see much violence or death and could, hypothetically, dull those so-called "instincts" against murder.

Clearly, this means we need to ban horror films, amirite? They're making people kill their own family!

Imperator_DK:
Also, Freedom of Speech.

Which, as has been repeatedly stated over and over again, is not an absolute right.

On topic: I suspect there was something that made him act on his fantasy, either an underlying medical condition or a mental stresser that allowed him to make the choice to start shooting.

Xan Krieger:

Blablahb:
If only he'd used a knife. Most of his family would still be alive now if he had.

Or not, it's not hard to kill someone with a knife. Or perhaps an axe (see for example the case of Lizzie Borden) or a hammer, there are many different weapons around the average person's house. You might think a gun is easier, pretty sure a hammer or axe could've done it quicker.

Have you ever swung an ax? It's kind of fucking hard to hit someone with one within a confined space such as a house, and pretty much requires an ambush method to use effectively. You'd probably have better luck with a hatchet, but you still need force and and a swinging arch to make it more effective than a hammer. As for the hammer, you're running into the same problem: you need speed and force to do any real damage and the only way you're going to get enough to kill is by ambush or tackle.

All of those have difficulty in killing more than one target thanks to all the possible ways it could create unnatural noise (only a lying down target could be killed by a hammer or hatchet without sound whereas an ax would be heavy enough to make a serious thud upon impact. If the target is not lying down, the dead drop would make a loud thud as well. This doesn't count screaming or yelling).

The knife could be more effective, if he managed to kill on the first stab every time in a manner that was not heard by the rest of the occupants (see dead drop). Ambush would be required, especially if they could outrun him.

In fact: pretty much all of the above would effectively require you to kill people while they were sleeping if you wanted to kill more than one person.

A gun is the most effective because any center-mass impact by even the smallest standard caliber weapon would be enough to disable anyone short of a member of a special forces unit. The "pop" of smaller caliber weapons, if shot once, can easily be confused with numerous other, less threatening sounds such as car backfire or the flat dropping of a heavy book onto a non-carpeted surface (I have shot and heard shots from firearms and have confused those sounds), and that's if they are heard at all (loud TV, music, or wearing insulated/noise-cancelling headphones can muffle the sound). In a fleeing situation, the natural instinct is to run directly away from an attacker, which, while a more difficult shot, is much much more easy to fatally wound with a gun than with any melee weapon whether by running down or by throwing (ever tried throwing a knife? It's kind of fucking hard).

Stop with this "well, they could have just used a knife/ax/hammer" line of argument that inevitably pops up every time there's a shooting. It's a tired response that really doesn't doesn't hold up to scrutiny. A modern handgun is efficiently designed to shoot multiple bullets in a compact, easy-to-use, and reasonably safe form for the operator. It is designed to kill in a way that a knife, an ax, and a hammer are not. It's time that this line of argument is dropped.

LetalisK:
Clearly, this means we need to ban horror films, amirite? They're making people kill their own family!

No, he was curious.

Meaning the next NRA press conference will be about how curiosity is the root of all evil, and the cause of animal cruelty (it kills cats!), and therefore curiosity should be banned, but guns definately didn't play any role in this.

Blablahb:

LetalisK:
Clearly, this means we need to ban horror films, amirite? They're making people kill their own family!

No, he was curious.

Meaning the next NRA press conference will be about how curiosity is the root of all evil, and the cause of animal cruelty (it kills cats!), and therefore curiosity should be banned, but guns definately didn't play any role in this.

I'm not sure if you're playing along or shitting on my point.

I think that says something about the NRA's recent activities.

Blablahb:
If only he'd used a knife. Most of his family would still be alive now if he had.

Because you haven't turned enough topics into gun-control topics?
Give it a rest.

OT: The kid is a sociopath or had an unfortunate bout of temporary insanity. What else is there to say?

Wow, this looks interesting. I sure hope it doesn't turn into...

Blablahb:
If only he'd used a knife. Most of his family would still be alive now if he had.

Fuck. Stay classy Blahb, you magnificent individual.

OT- Quite an odd case really. Seems he clearly has some degree of empathy, if he is to be believed, as he chose to use the gun to keep them from experiencing too much pain. If we're talking disorders he could have some impulse or obsession based problem, but he appears to be sane. It just shows that we are all capable of terrible things, even the sane.

Blablahb:
If only he'd used a knife. Most of his family would still be alive now if he had.

That assumes the kid couldn't have overpowered his mom and sister anyway. It also assumes he couldn't have gotten the job done with a sharp weapon as apposed a gun, and that he wouldn't have been able to go through with it during the knife attack.

We don't know enough to make that call, so please don't turn this into another gun control fight.

Imperator_DK:
Also, Freedom of Speech.

"But what is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint. Those who know what virtuous liberty is, cannot bear to see it disgraced by incapable heads, on account of their having high-sounding words in their mouths."

Xan Krieger:
Or not, it's not hard to kill someone with a knife.

You fully realise you just said that to a soldier who, at least been near war... your telling him about about personal experiance about the ease of killing. Do go on, this should be enlightening/hillarious.

Rare is the culture that breeds, as typical those who can kill with ease. Its mostly those who need to do it in order to survive, who find it easy. The Samurai being one of the more civilised breeds who were acustom to it. Everyone has barriers to overcome, and even then stabbing someone once and killing them... there and then. Unless you stab them through the heart your looking at a long death or a lot of stab wounds before blood loss. Cutting someones throat results in them dying of suffocation or if lucky, shock. A bullet to the heart kills instantly due to shock.

---------------------------

What about this. A curious case for the Psychologists to look at. I mean its not as if this guy could have a life anymore without people wanting to lynch him . Sad...

perfectly rational people kill people every day.

i'm not saying it relates to this case but its something to think about.

the only difference is..."societal permission" perhaps ?

and anyway as i said just the other day the vast huge majority of murders are done commited by people the victim knows in a "moment (or encapsulation if you want to expand it) of madness".

we are not perfectly rational beings.
we aim high, but we miss the mark and jails are full people who have made big mistakes.

Comando96:
A bullet to the heart kills instantly due to shock.

It doesn't, actually. Even if the heart is totally destroyed, the person can still have up to ten seconds of voluntary movement left. Expecting the target to go down straight away has cost the lives of police officers (amongst others) in the past. That's why police snipers aim for certain parts of the head, and the failure drill of 2 two the chest, one to the head exists.

Of course, if the victim is unarmed, even if they get their 10 seconds (no guarantee they will either), there's not that much they can do with it. Especially if the shooter is at a safe distance, something that's not possible with a knife.

thaluikhain:

Comando96:
A bullet to the heart kills instantly due to shock.

It doesn't, actually. Even if the heart is totally destroyed, the person can still have up to ten seconds of voluntary movement left.

Depends on volocity, and then based on range. For a pistol to kill with shock, it would have to be close as it is a low velocity weapon, but within 5 metres it would unless you had a heart larger than the standard human, and would still likely kill with shock a lot further, no significant projectile speed decrease noticable for 5 metres. Police in any number of senarios may be firing pistols at someone 100 feet away, maybe more and at that range obsticles and loss of projectile speed would have impacts and you may have a few odd occurances, in well maintained induviduals.

In the context mentioned above ie, close range premeditated murder... it would.

So I read his writen confession and listened to the 911 call.

Man, it's clear he regrets it instantly, but it's still horrifying. It seems like he managed to get himself somehow detatched from reality and then this suddenly shocked him back into reality. He truely understands the horror of what he did, but it appears he didn't fully grasp the enormity of what he was about to do until he did it.

A sad, horrible story for everyone.

There are forms of mental illness that give people this sort of clarity of thought, that makes it easier to carry out actions because the decision seems so easy to make. A lot of anti-depression drugs are known to have this effect, as depression is the opposite feeling of being helpless and not doing anything. Often this kind of mental state encourages suicide, which is why you might hear a drug may cause "thoughts of suicide" but from how people reach that state describe the feeling its not any more extreme to think about taking other peoples lives then it is to think about taking your own life. And what's probably most nerve racking is this state of clarity eventually passes and floods the person with all that depression that escape them, especially in cases where it was drug induced.

It's scary to think this can happen, but its a small demonstration that rationality will not protect you from doing horribly things. Ironically, its our insecurity and fear that we often hate that keeps a healthily mind from slipping into these sorts of extremes. So next time your feel sad or anxious, just remember without them you could end up doing something you'd truly regret.

I'm sure after hearing this story, many of you are already sad.

Blablahb:

Xan Krieger:
Or not, it's not hard to kill someone with a knife.

Actually it is. You have to use physical strength, get close, observe someone's fear of death, ignore it, keep stabbing 20-30 times untill you do enough damage to cause fatal internal bleeding.

That's why stabbings have so many fewer victims than shootings. Any coward without a spine can squeeze a trigger. Melee weapons on the other hand require a lot more determination, determination most would-be killers don't have.

Not just that, but it's far more likely that he'd been overpowered by his father if he had used a knife. Even if you're hardly a hero, just grabbing a hold of someone reduces the damage they can do hugely.

My budo teacher who is a black belt and a cop quite clearly shows that if you have a knife and know what you are doing, you can kill somebody in 4 slices or less. If you stab someone 20-30 times, then you either fail at knife or are a sadistic bastard.

Edit: This of course ignores the psychological issue. I think it is safe to say that most people would have extreme difficulty knifing someone multiple times.

Also, cowards can easily not pull the trigger because they could know that they have a high chance of doing extreme harm and possibly killing them; they would be less likely to fire.

Comando96:

thaluikhain:

Comando96:
A bullet to the heart kills instantly due to shock.

It doesn't, actually. Even if the heart is totally destroyed, the person can still have up to ten seconds of voluntary movement left.

Depends on volocity, and then based on range. For a pistol to kill with shock, it would have to be close as it is a low velocity weapon, but within 5 metres it would unless you had a heart larger than the standard human, and would still likely kill with shock a lot further, no significant projectile speed decrease noticable for 5 metres. Police in any number of senarios may be firing pistols at someone 100 feet away, maybe more and at that range obsticles and loss of projectile speed would have impacts and you may have a few odd occurances, in well maintained induviduals.

In the context mentioned above ie, close range premeditated murder... it would.

Not according to the FBI report I read (can't remember where I found it, unfortunately), it specified the heart being totally destroyed. And, were that the case, police snipers with high powered rifles wouldn't have to place their shots so carefully.

ETA: For that matter, the US military did/does train soldiers to use "2 to the chest, 1 to the head" on hostiles at short range, when firing assault rifles.

People talking about how it wouldn't happen without a gun. That's true, but it's clear they never heard the grief in his voice when he said he didn't want to cause them pain which is why he used a gun, and it never worked like he thought it would and it was like "everything went wrong". He also said that he thinks guns are terrible, he was clearly shocked and shaken up by what he'd done.

I'm not defending him. I just feel sorry for him.

I have a hard time feeling sorry for murderers, whatever he gets he deserves.

Also if he is a psychopath whatever remorse he feels could completely be for show. I mean an intelligent psychopath could severely affect any punishment they receive by putting on an act and staging it to escape the consequences, or at least that's the way I think a psychopath would act.

thaluikhain:

ETA: For that matter, the US military did/does train soldiers to use "2 to the chest, 1 to the head" on hostiles at short range, when firing assault rifles.

Mostly because our rifles have the stopping power of a wet noodle, making hits to vitals more important. We really need a new rifle.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked