Tuesday, July 13, 2010 

The creation of an anti-hero.

There had been school shootings before Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold drove to Columbine high school on April the 20th 1999, and there have been since. Something however was different about the massacre they committed of their fellow students and one teacher, and it wasn't just that the death toll was the highest of any similar incident at the time. Unlike others, they recorded videos showing off their weapons, taking part in target practice, even featuring shots of the parts of the school where they would later hunt down their prey. They wrote down in journals how their plan was progressing, alongside fantasies of spreading the carnage across an even wider area. Then, half an hour before they drove to their high school, they shot a final video, explaining themselves and apologising for what was to come.

Probably without knowing it, they were mirroring what terrorist groups were already beginning to do and have since done on a far larger scale: documenting their weaponry, attempting to explain and justify why they're doing what they're doing, and leaving as a final record the images of themselves before they take part in what they term martyrdom operations, which are themselves now often filmed as well. There are two main purposes behind this, both of which are examples of propaganda in its purest form: the first is to create fear in the general public, even if in some cases it does the opposite, through showing how these men are prepared to give their lives for the cause, no matter how deranged or self-defeating it is, as well as giving an indication of how they can be stopped if they are willing to give into their demands; and secondly to inspire those sympathetic or already signed up, to give them role models, showing them that they too can follow in their footsteps if they so wish, they just have to want it. These videos, along with more spiritual fare from the religiously trained, and other written material are now an integral part of jihadi culture.

Without doubt, Harris and Klebold inspired others. Not just through their own "martyrdom" tapes and the CCTV cameras in the school which recorded their actions, but also down to how they were portrayed by the media. They became the "trenchcoat mafia", a group as it turned out they had only the very vaguest of associations with. No matter. Simply the way they were dressed as they committed their massacre, in supposed "goth" style, set it running with the dangers of this incredibly harmless subculture. More than anything else, they became, perversely, the ultimate expression of teenage alienation, angst and self-destruction. Again, just how isolated they actually were has been disputed, having had a close circle of other friends. Nonetheless, Harris expressed his rage online at those he felt had wronged him, back when mass use of the internet was still in its relative infancy. Hundreds of thousands of others have since done the same, without going on to commit similar acts. Still, among a very small section of those who find themselves in what they consider to be a similar place, Harris and Klebold were individuals who took matters into their own hands. Cho Seung-hui named them in his own effective last will and testament, and his entire "media pack", posted to NBC, owed a massive debt to both them and jihadist groups, again whether or not he was directly inspired by the latter.

Raoul Thomas Moat did, it must be said, follow some of the examples of "media" killers before him. He left messages on Facebook saying that he had lost everything and that everyone should watch what was about to happen. He phoned 999 and taunted the police for not being able to find him. He wrote voluminous notes and letters which he clearly expected the police to find and which they subsequently referred to in press conferences. It was however a media which couldn't believe its luck which decided that the hunt for Moat and everything about him was suddenly fair game. Moat didn't need to record anything he did, because the media were there to do it for him. In effect, Moat was one of the first people in this country to have his death broadcast almost live on television on radio. On Friday night the journalists were breathless with excitement as Moat had finally been cornered, informing the world that they themselves had had to be moved further away as they were so close to where Moat's stand-off was taking place. They knew that the denouement was near, after Moat had given both the police and them the run around for close to a week, and didn't want to miss a second. They wanted the "money" shots, especially one of Moat holding his gun to his body, but in the meantime ones of the police gurning with delight as they aimed their weapons at him would do. The press, having to go to bed as the impasse continued, had to settle on "GOT HIM" as their front pages, along with shots of Moat from behind. They almost certainly didn't want Moat to give himself up and so ensure that the outcome they knew would sell more papers and ensure more viewers didn't materialise. There is, after all, nothing more boring than such a week of drama ending with a whimper instead of a bang.

Moat ought to have been one of the most unsympathetic characters you could possibly have come across. In prison for assaulting a member of his own extended family, deciding that if he couldn't have his ex-girlfriend than no one else would either, murdering her new partner in cold blood, shooting a completely unconnected police officer simply because he could, he should be the epitome of repugnance. Instead, thanks partially to the fact that he had convinced himself that his girlfriend's new partner was a police officer, he informed the world, via the media, that it was the police he had a vendetta against and that he wouldn't stop until they stopped him. As it turned out, he didn't shoot anyone else but instead ran rings around the police through simply having superior knowledge of the area where he took refuge than they did. Making the police look stupid for so long is something that will amuse many, as will holding a grudge against a section of the state which inspires as much hatred as it does respect. Moreover, since the police so clearly took Moat's threats so personally, regardless of the actual danger he posed to the wider public, it ensured that it came down to either them or him. Understandably, some chose him.

In effect, it came down to the old cliché, one man against the world. With so many officers drafted in to hunt just one man, and with the media camping on Rothbury, it was always likely to end in the way it did. Whether Moat had complete access to the media and what they were saying is still unclear, but at least three mobile phones alleged to belong to him have been found, and a news blackout was requested after he appeared to threaten others, apparently having been especially upset by comments from his estranged mother, who told the Sun that "he would be better off dead". How much influence, if any, media reports had on him is also unclear, but if the police themselves were worried that ought to have been a indication that they should step back. They didn't.

The same media which created this image of a man who no longer had anything to lose while at the same time having nothing to live for, which felt it had to devote rolling coverage to the search for him, which was live throughout the night as Friday evening wore on, right up to when he shot himself and as the ambulance rushed to take him to hospital now wonders why some, rather than seeing Moat as a "cold-blooded killer", "a cruel, cowardly murderer", and "an evil beast" (all epithets given him in today's Sun leader, which has already disappeared down the memory hole) instead having been leaving floral tributes, setting up Facebook groups and calling him a "legend". The same media which published the grainy shots of Moat with a gun up against his throat wonders why some find him faintly heroic for his stand, with those turning up to take photographs of where it all took place derided as "ghouls" and "sickos", denouncing them for ignoring the distress of his victims which they themselves have devoted so little time and coverage to by comparison. They were of course just providing a service for those who were interested; this was news, the best sort of news, the kind that gets them hooked, that makes them say "gee whiz", where the demand to know even the slightest details about the man and why he's doing what he's doing trumps everything else.

Let's not overlook the complicity of those who kept watching and listening. The media doesn't do things in a vacuum, it's true. It reacts to demand like any other business. That doesn't however remove their responsibilities. They knew what they were doing as they kept the cameras rolling and the insights into Moat being written and splashed across the pages. Their reaction on that Friday night is however instructive: GOT HIM. They knew full well that he might be dead by the following morning when those papers would actually be bought, when it would seem, regardless of what he had done, to be in exceedingly poor taste at best and incredibly offensive at worst. It also though has a double meaning: that they had finally got him, got him right where they wanted him, salivating at the prospect of what was to come. And they got it all.

Those same sickos and ghouls were the same ones who were lapping up everything that was printed and broadcast across the nation. After all, if broadcasting someone's final moments alive isn't the definition of sick, what exactly is? They were the ones who settled in Rothbury, regardless of the concerns of those actually living there, the ones who got those last shots, yet they were there providing a public service, acting in the public interest, doing what their readers, viewers and customers wanted. As for anyone else turning up to have a look for themselves, well, you're just sick pal, you should be ashamed of yourselves, you "idiots appear as sick in the head as Raoul Moat himself". Not content with just creating a perfect anti-hero, someone likely to live long in the memory, to be recalled when someone does something similar, perhaps even someone directly inspired by Moat, they then damn those who followed it to a lesser extent than they did for wanting to share a piece of the action. Before, the killers and terrorists had to record their last few moments themselves; now the media apparently wants to corner even that tiny market, and when the predictable occurs, they can only condemn rather than for a moment consider that they perhaps might just have a case to answer for themselves.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Share |

Wednesday, June 02, 2010 

Spree-killings and few consolations.

It's one of those days where there doesn't seem to be anything to take in consolation. Frankly though, we were overdue something along the lines of what's happened today in Cumbria; whether down to our gun laws, or just pure luck, to go 14 years between major spree killings when other countries, America most notably and even Germany, which has experienced two major school massacres in that time, have seen numerous such incidents is almost something to be seen as an achievement. That we have never had a mass school shooting involving either a present or former pupil is also something which is sadly increasingly rare, and again, I'm more than inclined to believe that has something to do with our gun laws, which considering I'm a social libertarian on almost everything else is also something I don't admit lightly.

From what we currently know, Derrick Bird's apparently senseless (as we shall probably learn in the coming days and weeks, it's very rare that anyone's actions in such cases are genuinely senseless) shooting rampage is also one of the rarer examples which isn't just confined to either a place of work or education, and even rarer in that it covered such a large radius. In that, it is chillingly resemblant of the Hungerford massacre, although even Michael Ryan only covered around 7 miles during his spree, while Bird appears to have travelled anywhere up to 20 miles, shooting seemingly randomly, although a pattern might yet emerge. The real reasons, if there were any behind Ryan's massacre, have never been properly explained; Bird it seems at least started out by killing at least one person he knew and may well have had an argument with, and fresh reports are suggesting that he also killed his twin brother and his solicitor, almost bringing some kind of possible order to proceedings.

Unlike with school shootings, I find it doubtful that media coverage in this case is likely to influence anyone into a copycat action, although I'm more than sympathetic towards the view that all such massacres are essentially copycat crimes. While you can point to the fact that murder has been around as long as humans themselves have, it's only been relatively recently that spree killings involving either one or two individuals have become so sadly familiar, separate as they are from serial murderers who commit their crimes over time rather than all in one go, and almost always ending in either suicide or suicide by cop. Alienated teenagers are far more impressionable than the middle-aged likes of Bird, and often reach out to anti-heroes who they seem to imagine either reflect themselves or would understand what they're going through, never more aptly illustrated than by how the Virginia Tech mass-murderer Cho Seung-hui paid "tribute" to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the Columbine school shooters, in the media pack he sent to NBC. They know that their actions will be recorded for prosperity by a compliant media, further encouraging their belief that even if they die, they'll be remembered for a long time to come.

Whatever it was that pushed Bird over the edge, and that he's been described by almost everyone as a friendly, approachable man and hardly the archetypal lonely, mentally unbalanced grudge pursuer we often associate with such crimes, the hope has to be that something can be learned from today's terrible events. No one's being openly critical as yet, but that Bird was able to essentially completely control events without any seeming intervention by the police over three hours has to be something to be investigated to see whether he could have been stopped sooner. What shouldn't be on the agenda is any further tightening of our already draconian gun laws, although undoubtedly that will be something that will be revisited. Sometimes such events truly are unpredictable and unavoidable - it's when they happen that we need to be able to stop them in their tracks.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Share |

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 

Falling for Columbine.

When a jury manages to see through a court case that lasted for two weeks within 45 minutes, it's only natural to wonder whether it should have ever been brought. When it involves two teenagers who had previously never been in trouble with the police and their being kept on remand in a young offender's institution and Strangeways respectively for 6 months, it becomes a necessity.

Both Ross McKnight (the son of a police officer, no less) and Matthew Swift were found not guilty of conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions, their plans for a supposed massacre at a school in Manchester as well as the bombing of a shopping centre on the 10th anniversary of the Columbine massacre ripped to shreds both by the defence, McKnight's father, who seemed to have sealed the verdict when he talked of his son's many "harebrained" schemes and finally by the jury. What really seems to have gone on here is nothing more than teenage angst and alienation being taken slightly too far up the scale. The rants the pair wrote in diaries are hardly out of the ordinary: the only real surprise might be that they didn't post them on a social networking site or somewhere else where they were even more easily accessible. The other slight indication that this went any further than just two friends messing around and engaging in fantasies was that they had "plans" of the school, although whether these were just simple sketches of outlines which they made themselves or genuine plans we don't seem to know.

It's easy to make presumptions, but you can't help but feel that if they hadn't mentioned Columbine or supposedly fetishised the two murderers who carried out that most notorious of school shootings, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, or were meant to have planned to carry it out on the anniversary of their assault, that this "plot" wouldn't have got anywhere near the court system. There is indeed perhaps some cause for concern in this area: it's quite true that some teenagers, especially those who feel themselves outsiders or not accepted by their peers, not to mention those who are bullied, can engage in the kind of fantasies which these two boys were meant to have, and while such feelings of striking out at those that have harmed them are natural and are very rarely acted upon, they do need to be nipped in the bud. Some of those at the very extreme end of this type of thinking do indeed idolise the likes of Harris and Klebold; Seung-Hui Cho in his claim of responsibility for the Virigina Tech massacre referred to both as martyrs, and there is a strain of thinking surrounding such spree-killers that all such attacks are in fact copy-cat crimes, a view that I'm partial to. The vast majority though who dream or fantasise about doing violence to their tormentors never do; hell, I can even remember at one point during my early teenage years writing a list of those that I'd kill if I had the chance. As far as I'm aware I never carried through on my written promise.

Undoubtedly the female friend that reported McKnight's drunken referral to the supposed attack was right to let the authorities know of her concerns. That was though surely as far as it should have gone. Dave Osler compares the case to that of the "lyrical terrorist", Samina Malik, but if anything a far wider comparison to terrorism is equally applicable. Just as in cases like that involving Dhiren Barot, neither McKnight or Swift had the guns or explosives necessary to carry out their plans, nor the funds to get hold of them but they did have ideas or nous which suggested they could have done. As it happens, Barot's ideas were even more fantastical than the teenage pair's were, whether it involved destroying builders by filling limos with gas canisters, a plan thoroughly debunked by the Glasgow airport idiots, exploding a bomb on the Underground which would somehow penetrate the tunnel and cause the Thames to flood in, or constructing a dirty bomb out of smoke alarms by placing the americium he harvested from them in a coke can. He however was sentenced to 30 years in prison, more on the fact that he had been trained and probably had connections with al-Qaida, even if his ideas were even more harebrained that McKnight's. Interesting here is that Swift had a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook, a book which another teenager was previously prosecuted for possessing, despite it being freely available, as well as also a gun which could fire ball bearings. You can bet that if someone with links to extremist Islam had either that they would have also been indicted on similar charges.

The terrorist trials where the prosecution have tried and almost always convinced juries that that extremists were only days or weeks away from mass murder or horrific casualties are perhaps the significant precursor to both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service imagining that they could do much the same in this instance. It does though have to be asked, did they genuinely believe their own case, or rather did those unlucky enough to prosecute it believe it? It certainly doesn't seem, for instance, that the headmaster of the school believed it. There is of course a very fine line between caution and a potential tragedy, but in this instance what just seems to have been very normal teenage ennui could have been criminalised, and if they weren't bitter and depressed prior to their time on remand, McKnight and Swift very well may be now.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Share |

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 

Gun control and school shootings.

While I tend to be for the most part as socially libertarian as you can get, one of the things I tend to disagree with the actual libertarians on is gun control. One of the undoubted major reasons why gun crime in this country is for the most part incredibly rare, especially when compared to other countries is thanks to the draconian nature of our laws; you could argue that we've never been major gun lovers over the last century in any case, and that we've never had the sort of constitutional protection like in the United States which has encouraged mass gun ownership, but it's almost certainly a factor as to why we thankfully haven't experienced the school shooting massacres that the US has become notorious for and which Germany experienced its second of today. True, the Dunblane massacre, alongside the Virginia Tech and Columbine shootings is one of the most well-known, but that doesn't really count as it wasn't committed by either a student or former pupil who had only recently left.

Sadly, I do however think that it's only a matter of time until we do experience our own version, which is why triumphalism or sneering at other countries' problems and policies, and especially putting it down to some sort of moral decay, societal problems or a nation's history is incredibly unhelpful. The key thing that has to be stated is that all of these massacres are essentially copycat crimes: media coverage and especially sensationalism does nothing whatsoever to help them from being repeated. Some of those who launch such shootings will do it on the spur of the moment; the majority however will have almost certainly been planning their attacks for some time, and the warning signs may well have been there. What I wrote after the Virginia Tech massacre seems worth repeating:

There have always been serial killers, murderers and terrorists, but never before have young men and teenagers in such a short space of time carried out such wanton acts of carnage against their own peers in the corridors of their schools. The easy availability of such lethal weaponry plays its part, but it doesn't explain why this epidemic has erupted in such a way, especially in the last decade. Teenage angst, alienation, mental illness and a thirst for revenge against both perceived and actual slights help us to understand why, but they don't tell the full story. These may be extroverted suicides, as [Lionel, author of We Need to Talk About Kevin] Shriver also argues, and Oliver James seems to concur, but there are thousands who kill themselves and who want to end it all without taking dozens of others with them. We have to examine whether the pressures being put on children everywhere to succeed whatever the costs, especially in a dog eat dog world which seems to grow crueller and nastier by the year, and where failing and even being "different" is worthy of ridicule is helping to contribute to the malaise which is afflicting youngsters, even if very few of them are going to slaughter their classmates as a result.

...

I don't have the solution or the answer, but if there is one thing that perhaps would help, it would be for more understanding both for those who suffer from mental ill-health and more attention to be given to those who do suffer from their own private demons while young. It just might prevent more re-runs of the current grieving than is necessary.

Labels: , , , , ,

Share |

Thursday, April 19, 2007 

A secular "martyr".

When Lionel Shriver, author of a novel on a child that becomes a spree killer, wrote on Tuesday that "[A]nonymity is the last thing most of his fellow campus shooters have sought" she didn't know just how quickly Cho Seung-hui was posthumously going to prove her right. Proving beyond doubt that Cho's subsequent rampage was planned in advance, his "manifesto" as NBC termed it, last night appeared on the network news channel in all its unedifying, blood-spattered ignominy.

He wasn't the first to try to justify his actions in such a way, nor will he by any means be the last. Most notoriously, and most like an actual manifesto, Theodore Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber, wrote a 35,000 word paper entitled the "Industrial Society and Its Future", which both the New York Times and Washington Post published, out of concern that further bombings would take place otherwise, and out of the hope that his writing style would help him to be identified. His brother recognized his prose, but not before a professor from the University of Wisconsin stated that:

It's good prose. The sentences flow well into one another, the paragraphs are coherent. The Unabomber even knows how to punctuate, and that's a very rare gift.

Cho's own message from beyond the grave bears little resemblance to the Unabomber's own verbosity. It soon becomes apparent, even from viewing the few parts made available from the full 28 video clips, that Cho was almost certainly influenced by those other martyrdom tapes which we've seen over the last few years, even though radical Islamist ideology appears to have played no part in his actual thinking. For that's what this most definitely is: a martyrdom video, albeit a secular one that makes clear his own inadequacy, insecurity and twisted reasoning. Some of his monologues more than reflect the reasons given by suicide bombers for their own atrocities, only with added profanity:

I didn't have to do this. I could have left. I could have fled. But no, I will no longer run. It's not for me. For my children, for my brothers and sisters that you fucked. I did it for them.

We can't say for certain just what Cho was suffering from, as a doctor diagnosed him back in 2005 with depression, but the severe form of it seems most likely. Apart from the above speech, which he seems to have motivated himself up for, in other clips he appears apathetic, speaking in a monotone, as if crushed by the world. He was however obviously planning for this event, and the reference to the two teenagers who carried out the massacre at Columbine, the 8th anniversary of which is tomorrow, will ignite speculation over whether it was in fact meant to happen tomorrow in a further "tribute" to them; the first shootings seeming out of place, especially as it was probably more down to luck and a failure of communication than anything else that he wasn't caught before he went on to kill 30 more students and teachers, his aim almost certainly being a mass killing spree.

While NBC is now coming in for heavy criticism for broadcasting extracts of the "manifesto" it was "lucky" enough to receive, it's perhaps better that it came out now rather than later, only to reignite the misery and pain suffered by those who lost loved ones for a second time. While it's been dealt with in the sensationalist style most associated with American TV news, one of the presenters tastelessly referring to it as "a legacy to NBC", it's doubtful if he'd chosen another network that they would have treated it any differently. The contents most certainly are sensational, even if it needn't be dealt with in a such a way. While Shriver argues that these massacres are all copycat crimes, and she has more than a point, it's difficult to criticise the media's coverage, other than for the way it's predictably demonised a man who seemingly could have been intercepted and treated well before he reached the point of no return. His two short plays especially, which have been described as disturbing, instead seem adolescent, puerile and attempts at dark humour which fail due to their stilted nature, and if they're meant to be frightening as some say, then there's a lot of people out there who should never go near the writings of say, Peter Sotos or even Chuck Palahniuk.

Dismissing him in this way seems part of the way of avoiding the questioning of modern culture itself. There have always been serial killers, murderers and terrorists, but never before have young men and teenagers in such a short space of time carried out such wanton acts of carnage against their own peers in the corridors of their schools. The easy availability of such lethal weaponry plays its part, but it doesn't explain why this epidemic has erupted in such a way, especially in the last decade. Teenage angst, alienation, mental illness and a thirst for revenge against both perceived and actual slights help us to understand why, but they don't tell the full story. These may be extroverted suicides, as Shriver also argues, and Oliver James seems to concur, but there are thousands who kill themselves and who want to end it all without taking dozens of others with them. We have to examine whether the pressures being put on children everywhere to succeed whatever the costs, especially in a dog eat dog world which seems to grow crueler and nastier by the year, and where failing and even being "different" is worthy of ridicule is helping to contribute to the malaise which is afflicting youngsters, even if very few of them are going to slaughter their classmates as a result.

The one thing that's for certain is that it will happen again, and next time the killer will most likely be trying to topple Cho's macabre record. Cho has spilt his blood, and to a certain subculture he probably will be a martyr. Most kids will grow out of it, but it's hard to predict who won't, and even then if they'll try their own luck at infamy, succeeding in one thing even if they failed at everything else. I don't have the solution or the answer, but if there is one thing that perhaps would help, it would be for more understanding both for those who suffer from mental ill-health and more attention to be given to those who do suffer from their own private demons while young. It just might prevent more re-runs of the current grieving than is necessary.

Labels: , , ,

Share |

About

  • This is septicisle
profile

Archives

Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates