Victim's families don't want killers named

After what they've been through I can't blame them for feeling this way but I think it's naïve and unrealistic at best.
If we don't know who did something and why if its possible to know, how can we ever learn anything?

nonotoriety.com/
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

sergeant hartman wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Great clip. Thanks!

Not gonna happen. Names get revealed somehow eventually

Well, they need to get used to it and I'm sorry for what they went through. People though are always curious about the shooters and they often wonder why they did what they did.

There is no way in hell you can cover up information like that. The public has to know why something happened.

Techv4921 wrote:

There is no way in hell you can cover up information like that. The public has to know why something happened.

I'd say the public has a right to know but do we really need to know why?

What is gained (especially for the average member of the public who reads only sensationalized articles about motives)?

sscc wrote:

Techv4921 wrote:

There is no way in hell you can cover up information like that. The public has to know why something happened.

I'd say the public has a right to know but do we really need to know why?

What is gained (especially for the average member of the public who reads only sensationalized articles about motives)?

I'd certainly say that we need to know, for the purposes of critical analysis of motive. At least in most cases. There are people out there, more obscure, who do good research into these things. It's the Reddit crowd who drag things down and make it lazy.

I think Europe’s approach is the most appropriate way to approach crimes like this by only releasing the first name and second initial , and not giving a mugshot / id.

But I don’t think we have to take it to their lengths, I think it is good to have a general idea of a motive to prevent an act becoming like this again.

Maybe some school districts even learn and are wary of how kids turn out / are treated / neglected due to local tragedies in the past.

I BELIEVE PEOPLE HAVE THERE RIGHTS

Alexz wrote:

I BELIEVE PEOPLE HAVE THERE RIGHTS

THERE

sscc wrote:

What is gained (especially for the average member of the public who reads only sensationalized articles about motives)?

This is true for every news story though. I would guess that 90% of the public at minimum have little to no understanding of anything they hear on the news. This is partly because the news does not accurately report the facts to begin with, often prioritizing pushing a narrative instead of relaying information. The current war in Ukraine is an excellent example of this that you can see in real time as blatantly false, half true, unconfirmed, or exaggerated stories are churned out 24/7, giving Americans such a distorted picture of the conflict that it bears no resemblance to reality.

Recall the approach the New Zealand media took with Brenton Tarrant: They displayed an unprecedented level of restraint in stating his name. Obviously, this is to be contrasted with the notoriety through the internet that Tarrant was able to achieve -- even if to a comparatively lower extent. But I think it is fairly clear that this approach should invariably be adopted by the media in response to mass shootings.

There are some crucial truths that one has to face here, though. Most mass shootings are quite forgettable, which means even if the media by default provided the average shooter with a substantial amount of notoriety, he would still be forgotten fairly quickly. Further, this push for "no notoriety" is not too far from pointless whenever a mass shooting really grips people. The names of the perpetrators in such cases will inevitably become known. So adopting the principle is good, but I would hope that people would be more aware of the parameters of it, from which it is to be understood that there are more pressing things to address if one really hopes to mitigate these crimes.

Edit: I am editing this for clarity ... mainly to appease myself to be honest. When I upheld the approach the New Zealand media took, I did so not primarily based upon the effect it had on mitigating interest and notoriety of Tarrant but on separate moral bases. For example, consider Tom Teves's experience, namely the fact that Holmes's face was everywhere immediately following the shooting with comparatively less about the victims, which included his son. There is a crucial moral point to consider with this prioritization of giving shooters maximum notoriety as quickly as possible. So I appreciated the opposite approach with Tarrant. However, I am not so deluded as to believe that the approach is hugely beneficial in mitigating notoriety because that is just factually incorrect. But that should not discourage the media from adopting it. With all of that being said, I concluded that there are more significant things to focus on if one desires to mitigate these events.

lovethoughtslierich wrote:

Recall the approach the New Zealand media took with Brenton Tarrant: They displayed an unprecedented level of restraint in stating his name. Obviously, this is to be contrasted with the notoriety through the internet that Tarrant was able to achieve -- even if to a comparatively lower extent. But I think it is fairly clear that this approach should invariably be adopted by the media in response to mass shootings.

There are some crucial truths that one has to face here, though. Most mass shootings are quite forgettable, which means even if the media by default provided the average shooter with a substantial amount of notoriety, he would still be forgotten fairly quickly. Further, this push for "no notoriety" is not too far from pointless whenever a mass shooting really grips people. The names of the perpetrators in such cases will inevitably become known. So adopting the principle is good, but I would hope that people would be more aware of the parameters of it, from which it is to be understood that there are more pressing things to address if one really hopes to mitigate these crimes.

Cope lol, your censorship will never work
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Mr Bubbless wrote:

lovethoughtslierich wrote:

Recall the approach the New Zealand media took with Brenton Tarrant: They displayed an unprecedented level of restraint in stating his name. Obviously, this is to be contrasted with the notoriety through the internet that Tarrant was able to achieve -- even if to a comparatively lower extent. But I think it is fairly clear that this approach should invariably be adopted by the media in response to mass shootings.

There are some crucial truths that one has to face here, though. Most mass shootings are quite forgettable, which means even if the media by default provided the average shooter with a substantial amount of notoriety, he would still be forgotten fairly quickly. Further, this push for "no notoriety" is not too far from pointless whenever a mass shooting really grips people. The names of the perpetrators in such cases will inevitably become known. So adopting the principle is good, but I would hope that people would be more aware of the parameters of it, from which it is to be understood that there are more pressing things to address if one really hopes to mitigate these crimes.

Cope lol, your censorship will never work
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yes, I am aware that Brenton Tarrant would obviously be very significant in 2019 worldwide regardless. Can you find in my post even an implication to the contrary? I was talking about the situation solely within New Zealand, and my argument is based upon the principle of their names not being stated, which has other moral bases -- not just preventative ones. This leads into my main point which was demonstrated: The effect, for multiple reasons, is largely insignificant and there are strikingly better courses of action that one should take. So your response just doesn't make any sense.

I agree. Not exactly what youre talking about, but similar: Paul joseph watson said in order to stop mass shootings, stop making shooters ''famous'' by putting their names and photos out there. I simply cant agree and this argument is dumb. The shooters name and photos SHOULD be put out there so they can be condemned and made fun of. This lets the public know who the killer is and who to stay away from. Shooters dont become ''famous'', thats incorrect. They become infamous. Infamy is the opposite of fame. Besides, shooters dont kill to become famous anyway. They kill simply because they have the sadistic desire to kill, that's it. There's nothing else to it. Shouldnt be that hard to figure out.

DylsTrenchCoat911 wrote:

I agree. Not exactly what youre talking about, but similar: Paul joseph watson said in order to stop mass shootings, stop making shooters ''famous'' by putting their names and photos out there. I simply cant agree and this argument is dumb. The shooters name and photos SHOULD be put out there so they can be condemned and made fun of. This lets the public know who the killer is and who to stay away from. Shooters dont become ''famous'', thats incorrect. They become infamous. Infamy is the opposite of fame. Besides, shooters dont kill to become famous anyway. They kill simply because they have the sadistic desire to kill, that's it. There's nothing else to it. Shouldnt be that hard to figure out.

dumbassretardnigga moment

Amokauliflower wrote:

DylsTrenchCoat911 wrote:

I agree. Not exactly what youre talking about, but similar: Paul joseph watson said in order to stop mass shootings, stop making shooters ''famous'' by putting their names and photos out there. I simply cant agree and this argument is dumb. The shooters name and photos SHOULD be put out there so they can be condemned and made fun of. This lets the public know who the killer is and who to stay away from. Shooters dont become ''famous'', thats incorrect. They become infamous. Infamy is the opposite of fame. Besides, shooters dont kill to become famous anyway. They kill simply because they have the sadistic desire to kill, that's it. There's nothing else to it. Shouldnt be that hard to figure out.

dumbassretardnigga moment

How??? My post was related to what this thread is about. I feel like so many people on this forum say shit just to be insufferable. You remind me a lot of vluptune.

Can't say I blame them either.. but I agree with you. I'd be willing to hear another argument though, see things from other perspectives. But I think we need to learn about these people in order to prevent more of them.

As much as I feel for them, the victim's families can be a real pain in the fucking ass.

It would be impossible to achieve this as people will always be able to find out the names of the Shooters.