Alleged UCSB shooter and his batshit YouTube channel

[Bocefish]

Rich degenerate who murdered innocent women... leads social media, go figure.

 

[NoelleBright]

Rich degenerate who murdered innocent women... leads social media, go figure.

I hope you're just being contrary for the sake of it and don't actually think this way.
At least this guy being outed on social media opens up the door for all kinds of useful discussion, unlike the things that usually lead social media like Justin Biebers new haircut or how Kim Kardashians ass looks today.

 

[Bocefish]

Rich degenerate who murdered innocent women... leads social media, go figure.

I hope you're just being contrary for the sake of it and don't actually think this way.
At least this guy being outed on social media opens up the door for all kinds of useful discussion, unlike the things that usually lead social media like Justin Biebers new haircut or how Kim Kardashians ass looks today.

If by useful discussion, I hope you mean how all the red flags were missed so people can learn from this tragedy.

 

[eclipse76]

Rich degenerate who murdered innocent women... leads social media, go figure.

I hope you're just being contrary for the sake of it and don't actually think this way.
At least this guy being outed on social media opens up the door for all kinds of useful discussion, unlike the things that usually lead social media like Justin Biebers new haircut or how Kim Kardashians ass looks today.

Useful discussions? Haven't seen that so far.
Did he actually fool the police or is the police is totally incompetent to handle such case? His therapists/parents should have decided to commit him to a psych ward.

 

[AmberCutie]

I just hate that people are paying attention to this piece of shit.

There is another kid out there right now with the exact same mentality, who will see how much attention this kid got from killing people and will try to 1-up him.
Sure, there are things to be learned from reading his writings and watching his videos, but leave that to mental health professionals. Not to stupid assholes like me and the millions of people that watch TMZ.

The focus of this story should be the tragedy of the victims, the piece of shit that killed them should not have his name mentioned, his face shown on tv, nada.

Sooo, are you trying to say that the general public being made aware of the signs of severe mental health issues is a bad thing? Because that sounds like a horrible idea to me.
If only professionals were ever aware of these kinds of things, this may have turned out way worse than it did which is already really horrible.

There are so many factors at play here that we SHOULD be made aware.
I don't think there is any situation where ignorance trumps being informed.

Is it at all possible, to make available all the information of the circumstances of this guy's life without using his face and name?

I'm not sure why you think his face and name are so influential.

I can kinda understand what he means. If (and of course there are) other people are out there who are craving this sort of negative attention and see that he's getting it, with his face and name everywhere, they may be more likely/inspired to try something themselves. They want to be in the, albeit negative, limelight like he got for his actions. Copycat crimes and all that jazz.

 

[mynameisbob84]

I just hate that people are paying attention to this piece of shit.

There is another kid out there right now with the exact same mentality, who will see how much attention this kid got from killing people and will try to 1-up him.
Sure, there are things to be learned from reading his writings and watching his videos, but leave that to mental health professionals. Not to stupid assholes like me and the millions of people that watch TMZ.

The focus of this story should be the tragedy of the victims, the piece of shit that killed them should not have his name mentioned, his face shown on tv, nada.

Sooo, are you trying to say that the general public being made aware of the signs of severe mental health issues is a bad thing? Because that sounds like a horrible idea to me.
If only professionals were ever aware of these kinds of things, this may have turned out way worse than it did which is already really horrible.

There are so many factors at play here that we SHOULD be made aware.
I don't think there is any situation where ignorance trumps being informed.

Is it at all possible, to make available all the information of the circumstances of this guy's life without using his face and name?

I'm not sure why you think his face and name are so influential.

I can kinda understand what he means. If (and of course there are) other people are out there who are craving this sort of negative attention and see that he's getting it, with his face and name everywhere, they may be more likely/inspired to try something themselves. They want to be in the, albeit negative, limelight like he got for his actions. Copycat crimes and all that jazz.

 

[Nordling]

Although there's a strong belief among many people that copycat crimes are common, the evidence may not bear out the belief. Same as the common beliefs that watching violent movies or playing violent video games will increase violence, the evidence simply isn't there or a direct correlation cannot be made. Personally, I think censorship itself is more harmful than violent depictions of crime. Tawdry as it may seem, knowledge of incidents like the UCSB shooting are better for future prevention than ignorance.

I would agree that presenting such news in a sensationalist style is not a good idea, but to present it in a conventional journalistic fashion makes us an aware society. Citizens and health care professionals cannot make educated decisions without knowledge of reality.

More about copycat crimes: http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/learning.htm

 

[AmberCutie]

Although there's a strong belief among many people that copycat crimes are common, the evidence may not bear out the belief. Same as the common beliefs that watching violent movies or playing violent video games will increase violence, the evidence simply isn't there or a direct correlation cannot be made. Personally, I think censorship itself is more harmful than violent depictions of crime. Tawdry as it may seem, knowledge of incidents like the UCSB shooting are better for future prevention than ignorance.

I would agree that presenting such news in a sensationalist style is not a good idea, but to present it in a conventional journalistic fashion makes us an aware society. Citizens and health care professionals cannot make educated decisions without knowledge of reality.

More about copycat crimes: http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/learning.htm

But someone already asked this: can the same thing be accomplished without the general public knowing a name and a face? Can we have "knowledge of incidents like the UCSB shooting [...] for future prevention" without knowing the identity of the perpetrator?

I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't have the incident in the news, but that it's possible to report the news without sensationalizing it by not making him famous for such heinous actions.

 

[Nordling]

Although there's a strong belief among many people that copycat crimes are common, the evidence may not bear out the belief. Same as the common beliefs that watching violent movies or playing violent video games will increase violence, the evidence simply isn't there or a direct correlation cannot be made. Personally, I think censorship itself is more harmful than violent depictions of crime. Tawdry as it may seem, knowledge of incidents like the UCSB shooting are better for future prevention than ignorance.

I would agree that presenting such news in a sensationalist style is not a good idea, but to present it in a conventional journalistic fashion makes us an aware society. Citizens and health care professionals cannot make educated decisions without knowledge of reality.

More about copycat crimes: http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/learning.htm

But someone already asked this: can the same thing be accomplished without the general public knowing a name and a face? Can we have "knowledge of incidents like the UCSB shooting [...] for future prevention" without knowing the identity of the perpetrator?

I guess my question is...do we need laws that prevent the media from showing criminal's faces? Would not seeing their faces prevent copycats (the existence of whom are questionable) from copying crimes? What about sensational crimes where the perpetrator hasn't yet been apprehended, but we have his/her picture? Don't we want his face out there so anyone who's seen him will tell the authorities?

To sum up, I think censorship of the kind we're suggesting would be extremely complicated and of questionable value.

 

[MrRodry]

Nah man, don't say the boogeyman name in the dark and he will not appear. That's how it works, right?

Cover of the Daily News.

 

[AmberCutie]

Although there's a strong belief among many people that copycat crimes are common, the evidence may not bear out the belief. Same as the common beliefs that watching violent movies or playing violent video games will increase violence, the evidence simply isn't there or a direct correlation cannot be made. Personally, I think censorship itself is more harmful than violent depictions of crime. Tawdry as it may seem, knowledge of incidents like the UCSB shooting are better for future prevention than ignorance.

I would agree that presenting such news in a sensationalist style is not a good idea, but to present it in a conventional journalistic fashion makes us an aware society. Citizens and health care professionals cannot make educated decisions without knowledge of reality.

More about copycat crimes: http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/learning.htm

But someone already asked this: can the same thing be accomplished without the general public knowing a name and a face? Can we have "knowledge of incidents like the UCSB shooting [...] for future prevention" without knowing the identity of the perpetrator?

I guess my question is...do we need laws that prevent the media from showing criminal's faces? Would not seeing their faces prevent copycats (the existence of whom are questionable) from copying crimes? What about sensational crimes where the perpetrator hasn't yet been apprehended, but we have his/her picture? Don't we want his face out there so anyone who's seen him will tell the authorities?

To sum up, I think censorship of the kind we're suggesting would be extremely complicated and of questionable value.

I suppose so. I don't know what the best plan is, but I'm betting a lot of people agree that it would be nice to eventually find a way to NOT turn murderers into celebrities.

 

[JickyJuly]

It DOES suck that this dude is receiving notoriety for his crimes, and it's also a super gross how the media salivates over this kind of thing. You know some news anchors creamed their panties a little in excitement at the mere mention of a mass shooting. But, our culture breeds and perpetuates the mixture of being a despicable human and getting attention for it. Trying to pretend human scum doesn't exist won't really fix anything. We might as well talk about it from every angle.

 

[Nordling]

Oh, and Amber, at least one part of my mind agrees with them. No decent person like to see an asshole being lionized, even if negatively. A lot of people would also like to see stories about Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton blotted out. Sadly, a lot of news will always be about things we dislike. But...another part of my mind feels kind of sad when I encounter people who are so disgusted by the news that they simply won't watch, read or hear of it.

 

[mynameisbob84]

Trying to pretend human scum doesn't exist won't really fix anything. We might as well talk about it from every angle.

Pretending it doesn't exist would be a bad idea, but to sensationalise things the way the media are prone to doing must be just as damaging. The problem is, it's the sensationalism that is proven to keep people watching and reading and consuming. Like everything else, it all boils down to money.

In a perfect world, the news media would be taking this opportunity to start a whole bunch of discussions while presenting just the pertinent facts as a guide to said discussions.

We know that a mentally ill young man stabbed three people and then went on a shooting rampage with a legally owned gun before turning the gun on himself. We don't need this guy's photograph on every front page of every newspaper and website, we don't need to see CCTV footage of panicked bystanders fleeing for their lives as he opens fire, we don't need re-enactments of every minute detail of the killing spree. What we could benefit from though is looking at why this happened. Why was a mentally ill person able to so easily purchase firearms? What possessed this person to do what he did? Why did he feel such a strong sense of entitlement to sex with any woman he found attractive? Furthermore, why are there people on the internet siding with him, who believe that women should have sex with men that they're not attracted to as some kind of civic duty? What is it about societal values that has led to so many people thinking this way and what can we do to stop that shit?

To my mind, that's the stuff worth discussing, but there's no proof that those things will sell newspapers or inspire clicks on websites.

 

[Nordling]

Trying to pretend human scum doesn't exist won't really fix anything. We might as well talk about it from every angle.

Pretending it doesn't exist would be a bad idea, but to sensationalise things the way the media are prone to doing must be just as damaging. The problem is, it's the sensationalism that is proven to keep people watching and reading and consuming. Like everything else, it all boils down to money.

In a perfect world, the news media would be taking this opportunity to start a whole bunch of discussions while presenting just the pertinent facts as a guide to said discussions.

We know that a mentally ill young man stabbed three people and then went on a shooting rampage with a legally owned gun before turning the gun on himself. We don't need this guy's photograph on every front page of every newspaper and website, we don't need to see CCTV footage of panicked bystanders fleeing for their lives as he opens fire, we don't need re-enactments of every minute detail of the killing spree. What we could benefit from though is looking at why this happened. Why was a mentally ill person able to so easily purchase firearms? What possessed this person to do what he did? Why did he feel such a strong sense of entitlement to sex with any woman he found attractive? Furthermore, why are there people on the internet siding with him, who believe that women should have sex with men that they're not attracted to as some kind of civic duty? What is it about societal values that has led to so many people thinking this way and what can we do to stop that shit?

To my mind, that's the stuff worth discussing, but there's no proof that those things will sell newspapers or inspire clicks on websites.

And while some aspects of what is "sensationalism" is pretty obvious, who gets to decide what is cogent and what is chaff? In order to discuss an event, even a horrid one, we need as much information as possible. And certainly tabloids are in no position to determine which information is valid and which is crap. So, I think in a free society, we're kind of doomed to get a more crap than journalism. It is up to each person to determine which is which.

 

[JoleneBrody]

His therapists/parents should have decided to commit him to a psych ward.

A bulk of society seems to be under the impression that this is actually easy to do. Trust me from very very personal experience, it's not! Not even the tiniest little bit and that is a HUGE part of the problem in this country. Prison is the new psych ward.

 

[Nordling]

His therapists/parents should have decided to commit him to a psych ward.

A bulk of society seems to be under the impression that this is actually easy to do. Trust me from very very personal experience, it's not! Not even the tiniest little bit and that is a HUGE part of the problem in this country. Prison is the new psych ward.

Which is kind of a two edged sword. Decades ago, all you needed was a couple signatures to get someone committed...and sometimes it had nothing to do with sanity but rather to gain control of someone's assets. The pendulum swings too wide.

 

[mutantdonut]

Furthermore, why are there people on the internet siding with him, who believe that women should have sex with men that they're not attracted to as some kind of civic duty?

I suppose i'm bubbled in from most other message boards and whatever else, but i'm curious to know where are these written? And what has been said that sides with this guy?

 

[Nordling]

Furthermore, why are there people on the internet siding with him, who believe that women should have sex with men that they're not attracted to as some kind of civic duty?

I suppose i'm bubbled in from most other message boards and whatever else, but i'm curious to know where are these written? And what has been said that sides with this guy?

The site mentioned in the below article appears to have been taken down but it may be one of what Bob is referring to:

Someone with the username EliotRodger was a regular poster on an online message board called PUAhate, on which men who have been unlucky with women commiserate, criticize one another, excoriate the opposite sex, and denounce PUA's, or pick-up artists — dating gurus whom they accuse of preying on desperate men like themselves for financial gain.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ucsb...ith-elliot-rodger-reacts-2014-5#ixzz32s5nZ8qg

 

[mynameisbob84]

Furthermore, why are there people on the internet siding with him, who believe that women should have sex with men that they're not attracted to as some kind of civic duty?

I suppose i'm bubbled in from most other message boards and whatever else, but i'm curious to know where are these written? And what has been said that sides with this guy?

A few got collected here...

http://allisonkilkenny.tumblr.com/post/86789230320/smilesandvials-thepoliticalengineer

... but if you go through Twitter there are loads. I mean, they're outnumbered by the sane people condemning the guy's actions, but the fact that there any at all is worrying.

 

[Anonymous]

Hey look, it happened again.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/26/p ... -with-him/

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Although there's a strong belief among many people that copycat crimes are common, the evidence may not bear out the belief. Same as the common beliefs that watching violent movies or playing violent video games will increase violence, the evidence simply isn't there or a direct correlation cannot be made. Personally, I think censorship itself is more harmful than violent depictions of crime. Tawdry as it may seem, knowledge of incidents like the UCSB shooting are better for future prevention than ignorance.

I would agree that presenting such news in a sensationalist style is not a good idea, but to present it in a conventional journalistic fashion makes us an aware society. Citizens and health care professionals cannot make educated decisions without knowledge of reality.

More about copycat crimes: http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/learning.htm

But someone already asked this: can the same thing be accomplished without the general public knowing a name and a face? Can we have "knowledge of incidents like the UCSB shooting [...] for future prevention" without knowing the identity of the perpetrator?

I guess my question is...do we need laws that prevent the media from showing criminal's faces? Would not seeing their faces prevent copycats (the existence of whom are questionable) from copying crimes? What about sensational crimes where the perpetrator hasn't yet been apprehended, but we have his/her picture? Don't we want his face out there so anyone who's seen him will tell the authorities?

To sum up, I think censorship of the kind we're suggesting would be extremely complicated and of questionable value.

I agree that copy cat crimes are uncommon but they do happen occasionally. It would be nice if the media treated this like a rape victim and didn't release the names, but in the age of a million blogger/journalist that seems like a pipe dream. It is certainly isn't worth any type of law, we have enough troubles with protecting our civil liberties that don't need any excuse to restrict them more.

Obviously there are case like looking for the Boston bomber, where is not possible to keep the guy anonymous. But I kinda of think of this guy as a tornado, chaotic, unpredictable and violent. When a tornado hits we spend a day or two looking at the destruction, help the victims and move on. I think trying to learn anything from this by examining is videos and forum posts, is pretty unlikely and something that only professional can benefit it. We don't even bother giving tornadoes a name why this guy?

 

[Nordling]

Incredible. It's hard to believe those posts in Bob's link are real, and not from a version of SNL broadcast from Hell.

 

[Nordling]

Hey look, it happened again.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/26/p ... -with-him/

Since none of the shots hit anyone, I'm going out on a limb and suggest the douches in this story were more terrorists than murderers. I do hope they catch them and throw away the key no matter their motive.

 

[Anonymous]

Hey look, it happened again.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/26/p ... -with-him/

Since none of the shots hit anyone, I'm going out on a limb and suggest the douches in this story were more terrorists than murderers. I do hope they catch them and throw away the key no matter their motive.

I mean.... was UCSB guy not a terrorist? he wanted to kill women to punish them, even though he ended up killing more men than women, which was obviously not his goal

he wanted to put us in concentration camps, and survey over us "like a god", watching us starve
i consider that to be pretty terroristic?

and yes I am very glad that the guy in that article didn't hit anyone with his shots, you're totally right about that

 

[Nordling]

Hey look, it happened again.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/26/p ... -with-him/

Since none of the shots hit anyone, I'm going out on a limb and suggest the douches in this story were more terrorists than murderers. I do hope they catch them and throw away the key no matter their motive.

I mean.... was UCSB guy not a terrorist? he wanted to kill women to punish them, even though he ended up killing more men than women, which was obviously not his goal

he wanted to put us in concentration camps, and survey over us "like a god", watching us starve
i consider that to be pretty terroristic?

and yes I am very glad that the guy in that article didn't hit anyone with his shots, you're totally right about that

No argument really, other than this story was three guys working together with an apparent ad hoc conspiracy to make the women frightened out of their wits, whereas the Santa Barbara guy was purely terrorizing for his own singular motive...pure hate and insanity. Either way, terror was induced.

 

[Anonymous]

Hey look, it happened again.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/26/p ... -with-him/

Since none of the shots hit anyone, I'm going out on a limb and suggest the douches in this story were more terrorists than murderers. I do hope they catch them and throw away the key no matter their motive.

I mean.... was UCSB guy not a terrorist? he wanted to kill women to punish them, even though he ended up killing more men than women, which was obviously not his goal

he wanted to put us in concentration camps, and survey over us "like a god", watching us starve
i consider that to be pretty terroristic?

and yes I am very glad that the guy in that article didn't hit anyone with his shots, you're totally right about that

No argument really, other than this story was three guys working together with an apparent ad hoc conspiracy to make the women frightened out of their wits, whereas the Santa Barbara guy was purely terrorizing for his own singular motive...pure hate and insanity. Either way, terror was induced.

ok yeah that's very true
i see your point now for sure, sorry

i will say again: i dont like how a lot of people (not just here, like everywhere on the internet) are trying to make it a "better access to mental health" conversation, i mean are people forgetting he was under the care of SEVERAL mental health professionals?? it's not that he wasn't getting help, it's that he was very good at hiding his ideals and urges
which is really, really fuckin' scary

 

[mutantdonut]

Furthermore, why are there people on the internet siding with him, who believe that women should have sex with men that they're not attracted to as some kind of civic duty?

I suppose i'm bubbled in from most other message boards and whatever else, but i'm curious to know where are these written? And what has been said that sides with this guy?

A few got collected here...

http://allisonkilkenny.tumblr.com/post/86789230320/smilesandvials-thepoliticalengineer

... but if you go through Twitter there are loads. I mean, they're outnumbered by the sane people condemning the guy's actions, but the fact that there any at all is worrying.

Yikes

The reaction responses are simplistic beyond simple. As if getting laid once or twice will solve the issue... as if being sex-deprived was the only issue

 

[Nordling]

Hey look, it happened again.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/26/p ... -with-him/

Since none of the shots hit anyone, I'm going out on a limb and suggest the douches in this story were more terrorists than murderers. I do hope they catch them and throw away the key no matter their motive.

I mean.... was UCSB guy not a terrorist? he wanted to kill women to punish them, even though he ended up killing more men than women, which was obviously not his goal

he wanted to put us in concentration camps, and survey over us "like a god", watching us starve
i consider that to be pretty terroristic?

and yes I am very glad that the guy in that article didn't hit anyone with his shots, you're totally right about that

No argument really, other than this story was three guys working together with an apparent ad hoc conspiracy to make the women frightened out of their wits, whereas the Santa Barbara guy was purely terrorizing for his own singular motive...pure hate and insanity. Either way, terror was induced.

ok yeah that's very true
i see your point now for sure, sorry

i will say again: i dont like how a lot of people (not just here, like everywhere on the internet) are trying to make it a "better access to mental health" conversation, i mean are people forgetting he was under the care of SEVERAL mental health professionals?? it's not that he wasn't getting help, it's that he was very good at hiding his ideals and urges
which is really, really fuckin' scary

And that chameleon aspect sounds very much like what I've read about sociopaths...and in this case a homicidal one. Bright, normal "looking," even cheerful...think of Ted Bundy.

 

[MrRodry]

Although there's a strong belief among many people that copycat crimes are common, the evidence may not bear out the belief. Same as the common beliefs that watching violent movies or playing violent video games will increase violence, the evidence simply isn't there or a direct correlation cannot be made. Personally, I think censorship itself is more harmful than violent depictions of crime. Tawdry as it may seem, knowledge of incidents like the UCSB shooting are better for future prevention than ignorance.

I would agree that presenting such news in a sensationalist style is not a good idea, but to present it in a conventional journalistic fashion makes us an aware society. Citizens and health care professionals cannot make educated decisions without knowledge of reality.

More about copycat crimes: http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/learning.htm

But someone already asked this: can the same thing be accomplished without the general public knowing a name and a face? Can we have "knowledge of incidents like the UCSB shooting [...] for future prevention" without knowing the identity of the perpetrator?

I guess my question is...do we need laws that prevent the media from showing criminal's faces? Would not seeing their faces prevent copycats (the existence of whom are questionable) from copying crimes? What about sensational crimes where the perpetrator hasn't yet been apprehended, but we have his/her picture? Don't we want his face out there so anyone who's seen him will tell the authorities?

To sum up, I think censorship of the kind we're suggesting would be extremely complicated and of questionable value.

I agree that copy cat crimes are uncommon but they do happen occasionally. It would be nice if the media treated this like a rape victim and didn't release the names, but in the age of a million blogger/journalist that seems like a pipe dream. It is certainly isn't worth any type of law, we have enough troubles with protecting our civil liberties that don't need any excuse to restrict them more.

Obviously there are case like looking for the Boston bomber, where is not possible to keep the guy anonymous. But I kinda of think of this guy as a tornado, chaotic, unpredictable and violent. When a tornado hits we spend a day or two looking at the destruction, help the victims and move on. I think trying to learn anything from this by examining is videos and forum posts, is pretty unlikely and something that only professional can benefit it. We don't even bother giving tornadoes a name why this guy?

This was definitely not a chaotic, unpredictable act of violence.