|
October 05, 2005
Failure of suicide is failure. (Of suicide.)
Jeff Goldstein has not only honored me by linking two of my posts in one day, but he's made me think again about the "shift" in language by Oklahoma University Dean Boren (who's now specifically refusing to call Hinrichs' death a suicide). I think Dean Boren's shift merits another look at the facts. If we assume that the Hinrichs death was not a suicide, then it must mean legally that it was either a deliberate homicide, or some sort of accident. If it was a deliberate homicide, the fact that Hinrichs was blown up would have to mean that someone unknown activated a remote detonator. If it was an accident, the inquiry is even more complicated, but I'll try to follow it out anyway. According to the man's father, he had a lifelong interest in explosives that went too far. I suppose it's possible that he was a thrill seeker with no suicidal intentions who just strapped on a bomb and decided to stroll around near the football stadium, but is that credible? Reason and common sense suggest it's more likely that he wanted to kill other people; probably a lot of other people. If Dean Boren has information pointing away from suicide, perhaps he has reason to believe that either: Option b is confusing, but here's my legal hypothesis as to how such a murder-suicide goal might have resulted in accidental death. Suppose I decided that I wanted to blow up myself along with all the patrons of a large business enterprise when it was full of customers. Suppose I managed to hide myself somewhere inside the place after it closed with a goal of staying there overnight, then detonating myself at 10:00 a.m. Suppose further that because of the instability of my ingredients, the bomb went off inside the building at night, and it killed only me. Would that legally be called a suicide? I'm not so sure; in fact, I think it wouldn't be, because I had no intention of dying at that time. My suicide would have been conditioned on events that never happened. Similarly, if I bought, loaded, and concealed a gun, intending to open fire in a crowded shopping center and then shooting myself, but the gun went off in my waistband and shot me through the heart, that would no more be a suicide than it would have been suicide had Eric Harris's gun gone off accidentally and killed him before he and Dylan Klebold opened fire at Columbine High. (Hope that's nowhere near Wasson High, as I hate bad influences....) Link via The Trenchcoat Chronicles. Obviously, any failure of suicide doesn't even have to be coupled with the intention of killing other people. If I loaded up a syringe with a fatal overdose of drugs, fully intending to inject myself at midnight tonight, but in my excitement to hide my "suicide stash" I lost my balance, fell onto the needle, and killed myself, that would not be suicide. I had not yet performed the final act, and I might have changed my mind at any time. (I guess I've beaten this issue to death.) Oh well. Another day, another legal hypothetical. posted by Eric on 10.05.05 at 02:55 PM
Comments
"while the media and police continued to pursue the conventional profile of a serial killer (white, male, indigenously American). And of course, that's exactly what the snipers turned out to be."
Mick · October 5, 2005 08:48 PM Mick, I had the same reaction at first, but I think you need to ignore the parenthetical bit, which only explains what the police were looking for: As soon as it became apparent what was happening, a very perspicuous friend with a military background diagnosed this as the terrrorist equivalent of the "walk-in" in intelligence work--the unsolicited volunteer.... And of course, that's exactly what the snipers turned out to be. I take Anne's comment to mean that sometimes people don't fit the profile because they've consciously adopted a pattern of behavior. Dennis · October 5, 2005 10:40 PM I didnt mean that to suggest it refuted her argument, and I probably should have said so in my post. Just pointing it out is all. Mick · October 6, 2005 11:32 PM Sorry, my comment was rather poorly worded on that point. What I meant to say was that the snipers turned out to be what my friend predicted--"walk-ins" inspired by a radicalism developed outside the US, in contrast to the home-grown serial killer pathology that was the initial focus. Anne Angstadt · October 7, 2005 08:45 AM Anne, thanks for coming. I appreciate the kind words! Eric Scheie · October 7, 2005 05:30 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Holiday Blogging
The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Apropos of this story's vanishing from the MSM, it may interest you that Thomas Friedman's generally well-regarded think tank/private intelligence service Stratfor devotes today's "Daily Terrorism Brief" to the strange demise of Mr. Hinrich. Subscription only, but a brief quote: "Coincidences are rare in counterterrorism, however. A blast occuring less than 100 yards from a stadium packed with over 84,000 people certainly has the hallmarks of a terrorist attempt." Indeed.
This strongly reminds me of the public and media reaction to the Washington Sniper (I work in DC). As soon as it became apparent what was happening, a very perspicuous friend with a military background diagnosed this as the terrrorist equivalent of the "walk-in" in intelligence work--the unsolicited volunteer--while the media and police continued to pursue the conventional profile of a serial killer (white, male, indigenously American). And of course, that's exactly what the snipers turned out to be.
I suggest Hinrichs is in the same general mold--malcontents adapting the radical terrorist ideology du jour to their personal pathologies, rather like the epidemic of pointless anarchist violence around the turn of the last century. (The Shoebomber was probably another.) We have to face the fact that this ideology that combines world-transformation with self-immolation will continue to exert a powerful attraction for some elements in our society. So far, we seem to be trying to avert our eyes to judge from how this story's been treated.
Also, just want to say how much I appreciate the way you just throw a cold bucket of pure reason on everything. One of my favorite blogs.
Best wishes.