You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 09, 2016, 01:42:34 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Terrorism in Scandinavia  (Read 3814 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Terrorism in Scandinavia
« Reply #50 on: July 31, 2011, 01:12:22 AM »
Oooo-kaaaaaay now. [/Fargo accent]  You do not need to be a psychologist to diagnose this one.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Terrorism in Scandinavia
« Reply #51 on: August 03, 2011, 10:41:44 PM »
You guessed it, the Westboro Church has declared that the Lord hates Norway. And guess what the key reason for His eruption of wrath is?

Well, the events two weeks ago were in retribution for - U.S. President Obama abolishing the Don't Ask,  Don't Tell policy. The Lord moves in mysterious ways, they say.  :o

This blog post, made the day of the attacks, would be brilliant satire if it wasn't for the fact that it seems to have come from a genuine Westboro'er:

http://blogs.sparenot.com/godsmacks/2011/07/22/god-hates-norway
« Last Edit: August 03, 2011, 10:48:44 PM by gaggedLouise »

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Terrorism in Scandinavia
« Reply #52 on: August 03, 2011, 10:46:46 PM »
I don't know if we have enough Patriot Riders to encircle Norway.  O_o

At this point, being hated by the Westboros (I've decided to consciously not refer to them as 'Baptists' or as a 'church') is almost a status symbol.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Terrorism in Scandinavia
« Reply #53 on: June 22, 2012, 12:33:05 PM »
In a memorable turn during his final address to the court today, Breivik stated that Sex and the City is a decadent tv show that threatens to destroy the fabric of Norwegian society - probably by idealizing homosexuals, free sexual relations and lavish urban consumption (you can't walk around on military duty in spiked heels, no matter what Colonel Qaddafi used to boast) and should be blocked from Norway's airwaves.  ;)

As some here will have noticed, the trial has run on the strange setting that Breivik and his (highly professional) defence team wanted him to be declared sane, so he would land in prison for life (normally 21 years in Norway, but I think there's a possibility to have such a sentence converted to indefinite imprisonment, a true life sentence) and his acts would be seen as those of political protest, while the prosecutors wished to have him seen as psychotic at the time of the attacks, and perhaps long before. But over the last few weeks there has been a growing body of evidence and questioning, even by the prosecution, leaning towards the view that he was sane all along: he knew what he was doing and calculated it rationally. In the end, the prosecution abstained from making a fully clear claim to either side: they indicated as their instruction to the five judges that Breivik had displayed a considerable degree of rationality and coherent planning, even though the aims of this planning had been atrocious and deluded, but that it could not be stated beyond reasonable doubt that he had not been afflicted by insanity during the final stages of planning and the actual day of the attacks.

This case is all but sure to go all the way up to the Norwegian Supreme Court. Whatever verdict the judges reach in about two months from now, appeals will be lodged by one or both sides.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2012, 12:50:58 PM by gaggedLouise »

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Terrorism in Scandinavia
« Reply #54 on: June 22, 2012, 07:33:36 PM »
It's important to note that 'insanity' has nothing to do with any medical diagnosis.  At least over here, person can be certifiably off his or her rocker and still be legally 'sane', as long as that person can a) tell right from wrong, and b) conduct him/herself in accordance with the law.  (Look up MacNaughton - it sets it out better than I can in this heat.)  You can believe that the gun in your hands is a banana, and that your co-worker is Adolf Hitler, but as long as you know that it's not right to aim that particular banana at Hitler and pull the trigger, you're sane.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Terrorism in Scandinavia
« Reply #55 on: June 23, 2012, 10:18:58 AM »
It's important to note that 'insanity' has nothing to do with any medical diagnosis.  At least over here, person can be certifiably off his or her rocker and still be legally 'sane', as long as that person can a) tell right from wrong, and b) conduct him/herself in accordance with the law.  (Look up MacNaughton - it sets it out better than I can in this heat.)  You can believe that the gun in your hands is a banana, and that your co-worker is Adolf Hitler, but as long as you know that it's not right to aim that particular banana at Hitler and pull the trigger, you're sane.


True, but I think there's also been a slight shift - over perhaps the last quarter of a century -  in what jurists mean by wilful (and often, but niot always, this implies,. legally sane) intent. As you're touching on: intent used to be understood as "he did it knowing what his/their act was /in itself/ and understanding that it could lead to - like, death of the other, the culprit's unlawful possession of the lady's jewels, or cooked documents /larceny/ - he did that in a conscious way, then he must have been sane." These days, intent sometimes seems to be read: "the accused wasn't just holding the gun or whatever and firing it with will, he must also have known what kind of offence he would be making himself guilty of." I've seen people talk hemselves out of accusations of rape, deception, fraud relating to millions in cash and papers, without ever disclaiming the bare physical facts of what happened, or what was said at the time of the suspected crimes, because they were aided by their lawyers arguing the view, and the judges buying, that to really have acted with intent, they had to have been aware of just what crime they were about to commit! So if you appear too blunt, too dumb, or in denial of the fact that you actually committed rape, fraud or forgery, then you can't be convicted of it. ("I received this outrageous sum of money from my friend for helping him to defund twenty billion bucks from the company, which it turns out later was a half-empty shell, but I never dreamt the money I got was anything other than a fee for business consultatory advice")

Not sure how much this applies to cases in the US - I would be interested -  but a comparable thing would have been if the Clutter killers (In Cold Blood) had been acquitted because it couldn't be proved that they had really acted in a deliberate wish to kill the family. After all, those four unlucky people were snuffed out at the end of a fruitless robbery, the need to get rid of eyewitnesses would have been a major reason, and the court never managed to establish beyond doubt who actually killed each particular victim. If (just as a thought experiment) the court had found that Smith and Hickock might have acted ina sudden psychosis or panic, and were not really aware that the four would die if they were shot, plus the court were not sure hwo had pulled the trigger, then they muight conceivably had gone free on the counts of murder or manslaughter. Of course, in 1960 they didn't really bother with mental investigations for ordinary murder cases, and nor were they used to defendants simply sitting through an entire murder trial and saying blandly "I don't remember a thing..." or "I was so high, I really don't think that's me in the CCTV picture and I don't recall being in that place at the time."
« Last Edit: June 23, 2012, 10:56:08 AM by gaggedLouise »