Anders Breivik's lack of "mens rea"

[Demigod]

Many humans had childhoods a thousand times worse than his and have not killed anyone.

He cowardly killed unarmed teenagers. In full body armor.
He didn't even get to use any of the crap he put on that armor, because he never engaged an armed person.
He's a coward and should be treated as such. You know the saying "Give me liberty or give me death?"
I wished he would say that, because then everyone will understand what to do with him.

I mean, try to fathom this. He spent years preparing bombs, weapons and a full body armor to kill unarmed teenagers?
No, he most certainly did not. He bailed after the bombing and decided to take the easy way and not take any risks.
He's afraid to die, else he would have waited for the SWAT right where the bomb went off.

Sick coward. Mental or not, he does not deserve to be fed and kept alive by the state.

I did not say what he did was not monstrous and I think he should be executed because there is no reason to keep him alive.But I don't know if you read his life story that the newspapers published after the massacres happened,all I can say is I understand why he went insane.

 

[talkingpointes]

You are behaving badly, throwing around emotional trigger words in lieu of intelligent argument or logical discourse. You join a thread to vociferously deny your willingness to discuss the actual topic of the thread, and come back for it repeatedly. You're in no position to help the campaign that is under way - you can't vote, donate, or help organize. You say that RP's policies appeal to you while violating one. You ask questions and freak out at straightforward, rational answers.

How is a reasonable person supposed to perceive such behavior? As well-intended and innocent?

Have you the slightest ability to step outside yourself and evaluate your own behavior?

I see a ban coming, and you deserve it. You are an ass.

 

[bolil]

He is not an ass, just overly verbose in his insults.

 

[mczerone]

"his intent was to defend..."

But he still had the intent to carry out the killing. Self defense is a legal "affirmative" defense to a killing, and is raised separately Om the defenses that claim that the prosecution has not met thier burden to prove all the elements of the crime.

In effect, a "self defense" defense admits that there was the needed mens rea, but justifies the action based on external factors (like being under the direct threat of serious bodily harm).

Lastly, don't think that you can play semantic games with the courts, especially to justify violence.

 

[tod evans]

Lastly, don't think that you can play semantic games with the courts, especially to justify violence.

Whoa there.......

Cops do it every day.

 

[roderik]

I'm just going to point out here that Sweden made political opposition to immigration illegal, which made a Breivik pretty much inevitable. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy

Using that quote in this context is simply shocking.
Your comment seems to me as a poor attempt to justify Breiviks actions. And that's disgusting.
You'd have to accept Breiviks worldview as a fact in order to have this validated.

Read up on Norway and immigration. Immigrated minorites are ALL below 2%, most of them below 1%.
None of Breiviks nightmarish scenarios are remotely true, especially for Norway. Go figure.

 

[ExPatPaki]

Roderik,

You're in Norway?

 

[Lishy]

Out of curiosity, but has he ever talked about government mind control like the other shooters did?

 

[presence]

Just because I can justify in my own head annihilating groups of people doesn't mean I get to walk away.

Hear, hear.

I just wanted to say that I do NOT think he should walk... But I do think there is grounds for argument that he should be tried as an "enemy of the state" for "war crimes / terrorism" by a "military tribunal" rather than as a "criminal civilian". I don't see his acts as civilian in nature. They are MILITANT acts against the state not malicious acts against the individuals targeted and killed. "Atrocious" yet "necessary," as Anders puts it. I see Anders in "enemy hands during wartime" moreso than in the hands of "the law"; I believe this is where Anders sees himself as well.

If you cannot rectify the state's worldview with Anders worldview by declaring him a militant enemy of the state, then you can't call him a criminal; you HAVE TO call him crazy. That's the paradox born by refusing to accept WHY Anders did what he did. There is no "crime" without why; this is the legal prinicple of "mens rea". I just don't buy that he's crazy. I believe he's a rational actor. He has just come to a staunchly different conclusion/worldview than the state; and the cognitive dissonance of this dichotomy left him willing to kill for it.

Frankly, even if he isn't "tried" as an enemy of the state, I think there need to be (at the very least) Norwegian military in the courtroom for security precaution in case he attempts a violent escape from a court which he doesn't even recognize as having jusisdiction over him. He BELIEVES he is an elite soldier for a resistance movement. Its not wise to stick one's legal head in the sand on that issue; he didn't commit acts against those individuals he killed... he commited acts against the very government that the court represents. There is even considerable possibility he has had paramilitary training in Belarus. I certainly wouldn't uncuff him in the court; I'd keep him in hand and ankle shackles around civilians; max-security, high risk, flight risk, re-offender risk; enemy of the court, enemy of the state risk.

If there is a legitimate purpose for places like "Guantanamo"; Anders Breivik fits the bill. IN HIS MIND, he's a lone wolf, enemy of the state, captured at war.

Thanks for joining the conversation.

Presence

 

[jmdrake]

Mmmmmmm......no. Simply having a misguided belief that you are doing the right thing does not negate the mens rea element of a crime. As far as comparing him to U.S. soldiers, the soldier that recently killed the 18 Afghans in a rampage won't be able to rely on a "I felt I was defending my country" defense.

 

[presence]

Mmmmmmm......no. Simply having a misguided belief that you are doing the right thing does not negate the mens rea element of a crime. As far as comparing him to U.S. soldiers, the soldier that recently killed the 18 Afghans in a rampage won't be able to rely on a "I felt I was defending my country" defense.

But he won't be tried in a civilian court in Afghanistan (or the US) either. He'll face military tribunal for war crimes and the potential of the death penalty under military law.

This is where Anders believes he should be.

I tend to agree.... the only other LOGICAL conclusion is that he is insane; I refuse to take that position given his testimony to date.

Execution or Aquittal is what he calls for; the paradox is why. Either he's crazy (and will be confined to an institution for life) or he's deserves a firing squad.

I guess you could take the position that everything he has said to date, he doesn't really believe... he really just hates foreigners and was so pissed he went and killed a bunch of people. I have much more trouble buying that position than the position that he's crazy.

presence

 

[jmdrake]

The U.S. soldier is facing a military tribunal because he is in the military and not because of the nature of his crime. If he was accused of smuggling Afghan opium he'd be facing a military tribunal. Only rarely do we hand our soldiers over to local law enforcement, and then it's in countries who's judicial system we've endorsed. (For example we did let a solider in Korea accused of rape be tried, convicted and imprisoned by the South Koreans.) Is this Anders fellow part of a military that can refuse to turn him over to the authorities? Is he part of a military than can bust him out of jail like the British did when some SAS officers were caught planting bombs in Iraq?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4264614.stm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2005/200905stagedterror.htm

No? Then it doesn't matter.

Oh, and he may be crazy, but with the current standards that doesn't mean he's "legally insane".

But he won't be tried in a civilian court in Afghanistan (or the US) either. He'll face military tribunal for war crimes and the potential of the death penalty under military law.

This is where Anders believes he should be.

I tend to agree.... the only other LOGICAL conclusion is that he is insane; I refuse to take that position given his testimony to date.

I guess you could take the position that everything he has said to date, he doesn't really believe... he really just hates foreigners and was so pissed he went and killed a bunch of people. I have much more trouble buying that position than the position that he's crazy.

presence

 

[tod evans]

Wasting time and money for the sake of headlines doesn't make sense to me.

Turn him over to the parents of the kids.

 

[Demigod]

But he won't be tried in a civilian court in Afghanistan (or the US) either. He'll face military tribunal for war crimes and the potential of the death penalty under military law.

This is where Anders believes he should be.

I tend to agree.... the only other LOGICAL conclusion is that he is insane; I refuse to take that position given his testimony to date.

Execution or Aquittal is what he calls for; the paradox is why. Either he's crazy (and will be confined to an institution for life) or he's deserves a firing squad.

I guess you could take the position that everything he has said to date, he doesn't really believe... he really just hates foreigners and was so pissed he went and killed a bunch of people. I have much more trouble buying that position than the position that he's crazy.

presence

A firing squad for an insane murderer?

That is a honor that his actions do not deserve.He should either be hanged or executed in Soviet style,that is you get him in a room with a drain and you put 2 bullets in hishead simple and effective.

 

[pcosmar]

Wasting time and money for the sake of headlines doesn't make sense to me.

Turn him over to the parents of the kids.

That would be ideal. They could Provide Justice, Retribution or Mercy as they saw fit.

I thought this whole question had been answered on the first page. The "lack of "mens rea"".
A criminal intent.. His intent was evident from the beginning.
He acted on an intent. Now the reason,, or the perceived reason is not relevant.

It does not matter how he came to his conclusions or why he did what he did.. except possibly when sentencing him.

 

[azxd]

Hear, hear.

I just wanted to say that I do NOT think he should walk... But I do think there is grounds for argument that he should be tried as an "enemy of the state" for "war crimes / terrorism" by a "military tribunal" rather than as a "criminal civilian". I don't see his acts as civilian in nature. They are MILITANT acts against the state not malicious acts against the individuals targeted and killed. "Atrocious" yet "necessary," as Anders puts it. I see Anders in "enemy hands during wartime" moreso than in the hands of "the law"; I believe this is where Anders sees himself as well.

If you cannot rectify the state's worldview with Anders worldview by declaring him a militant enemy of the state, then you can't call him a criminal; you HAVE TO call him crazy. That's the paradox born by refusing to accept WHY Anders did what he did. There is no "crime" without why; this is the legal prinicple of "mens rea". I just don't buy that he's crazy. I believe he's a rational actor. He has just come to a staunchly different conclusion/worldview than the state; and the cognitive dissonance of this dichotomy left him willing to kill for it.

Frankly, even if he isn't "tried" as an enemy of the state, I think there need to be (at the very least) Norwegian military in the courtroom for security precaution in case he attempts a violent escape from a court which he doesn't even recognize as having jusisdiction over him. He BELIEVES he is an elite soldier for a resistance movement. Its not wise to stick one's legal head in the sand on that issue; he didn't commit acts against those individuals he killed... he commited acts against the very government that the court represents. There is even considerable possibility he has had paramilitary training in Belarus. I certainly wouldn't uncuff him in the court; I'd keep him in hand and ankle shackles around civilians; max-security, high risk, flight risk, re-offender risk; enemy of the court, enemy of the state risk.

If there is a legitimate purpose for places like "Guantanamo"; Anders Breivik fits the bill. IN HIS MIND, he's a lone wolf, enemy of the state, captured at war.

Thanks for joining the conversation.

Presence

Are you advocating that we need a place like GITMO, because it is OK to charge our citizens with domestic terrorism ?

Are you sure about this ?

Are we not, as Ron Paul & Liberty supporters, possibly, considered by factions of our own government & society ... Elite soldier's for a resistance movement who have as yet, NOT committed acts of violence ?

 

[azxd]

That would be ideal. They could Provide Justice, Retribution or Mercy as they saw fit.

I thought this whole question had been answered on the first page. The "lack of "mens rea"".
A criminal intent.. His intent was evident from the beginning.
He acted on an intent. Now the reason,, or the perceived reason is not relevant.

It does not matter how he came to his conclusions or why he did what he did.. except possibly when sentencing him.

Yea ... Pretty much !!!