• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Trial of Norwegian Breivik begins

Maggot

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood"
Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
  • Jul 27, 2007
    25,897
    29,182
    Virginia
    Im generally against the death penalty but in this case exception should be made. Brushchipper

    DECE41C04118BF618C74313AFC55C6.jpg



    The right-wing fanatic behind a bomb-and-shooting massacre that killed 77 people in Norway admitted to the "acts" on Monday but pleaded not guilty to criminal charges, saying he was acting in self-defence.

    Anders Behring Breivik defiantly rejected the authority of the court as he went on trial for the July 22 attacks that shocked the peaceful nation and jolted the image of terrorism in Europe.

    Dressed in a dark suit and sporting a thin beard along his jawline, Breivik smiled as a guard removed his handcuffs in the crowded court room. The 33-year-old then flashed a closed-fist salute, before shaking hands with prosecutors and court officials.

    "I don't recognize Norwegian courts because you get your mandate from the Norwegian political parties who support multiculturalism," Breivik said in his first comments to the court.

    He remained stone-faced and motionless as prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh read his indictment on terror and premeditated murder charges, with descriptions of how each victim died. Eight were killed in a bombing in Oslo's government district and 69 in a shooting massacre at the left-leaning Labor Party's youth camp on Utoya island outside the capital.

    "I admit to the acts, but not criminal guilt," he told the court, and said he had acted in self-defence.

    He suddenly became emotional when prosecutors showed an anti-Muslim video that he had posted on YouTube before the killing spree, wiping away tears with trembling hands.

    Breivik also said he doesn't recognize the authority of Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen, because he said she is friends with the sister of former Norwegian Prime Minister and Labor Party leader Gro Harlem Brundtland.

    The anti-Muslim militant described himself as a writer, currently working from prison, when asked by the judge for his employment status.

    Breivik has said the attacks were necessary to protect Norway from being taken over by Muslims. He claims he targeted the government headquarters in Oslo and the youth camp to strike against the left-leaning political forces he blames for allowing immigration in Norway.

    While there is a principle of preventive self-defence in Norwegian law, it doesn't apply to Breivik's case, said Jarl Borgvin Doerre, a legal expert, who has written a book about the concept.

    "It is obvious that it has nothing to do with preventive self-defence," Doerre told The Associated Press.

    The key issue to be resolved during the 10-week trial is the state of Breivik's mental health, which will decide whether he is sent to prison or to psychiatric care.

    If deemed mentally competent, he would face a maximum prison sentence of 21 years or an alternate custody arrangement under which the sentence is prolonged for as long as an inmate is deemed a danger to society.

    Police sealed off the streets around the court building, where journalists, survivors and relatives of victims watched the proceedings in a 200-seat courtroom built specifically for the trial.

    Thick glass partitions were put up to separate the defendant from victims and their families, many of whom are worried that Breivik will use the trial to promote his extremist political ideology. In a manifesto he published online before the attacks, Breivik wrote that "patriotic resistance fighters" should use trials "as a platform to further our cause."

    Norway's NRK television will broadcast parts of the trial, but it is not allowed to show Breivik's testimony.

    He had told investigators he is a resistance fighter in a far-right militant group modeled after the Knights Templar — a Western Christian order that fought during the Crusades — but police have found no trace of the organization and say he acted alone.

    "In our opinion such a network does not exist," Prosecutor Svein Holden told the court.

    Anxious to prove he is not insane, he has called right-wing extremists and radical Islamists to testify during the trial, to show that there are others who share his view of clashing civilizations.

    Breivik surrendered to police 1 hour and 20 minutes after he arrived on Utoya. The police response was slowed by a series of mishaps, including the lack of an operating police helicopter and the breakdown of an overloaded boat carrying a commando team to the island.
     
    Re: Trial of Norwegian Breivik begins

    Today, it seems, he claims self-defense. Well, I'm generally against the death penalty, too, but once in a while you gotta make an exception, right?
     
    Re: Trial of Norwegian Breivik begins

    His rhetoric certainly bears all the classic marks of a far-right guerrilla fighter, homegrown type, but his hyperbole in such a grave situation doesn't seem to me to be entirely sane; nor, really does his largely plagiarized manifesto. His actions, indeed, were simply batshit.

    Seems to me that, somewhere in his journey through the realistic understanding of things which are wrong in society, he snapped.

    I'd be really curious to see how they're justifying him being able to stand trial with full criminal consequence. Seems to me he is a few grains short of a full load.
     
    Re: Trial of Norwegian Breivik begins

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Seems to me he is a few grains short of a full load.</div></div>

    His body count would negate this assumption...
     
    Re: Trial of Norwegian Breivik begins

    Most amazing to me is a max penalty of 21 years. I guess if you're going to go on a killing spree Norway is the place.
     
    Re: Trial of Norwegian Breivik begins

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sharac</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Seems to me he is a few grains short of a full load.</div></div>

    His body count would negate this assumption...</div></div>

    Since when does effectiveness ever render a person more believably sane in such a context?

    This dude is obviously delusional and apparently lives in a world of his own creation. As I said, he checks many blocks, but then goes beyond stereotypical phrasing and into the world of batshit.
     
    Re: Trial of Norwegian Breivik begins

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CS1983</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sharac</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Seems to me he is a few grains short of a full load.</div></div>

    His body count would negate this assumption...</div></div>

    Since when does effectiveness ever render a person more believably sane in such a context?

    This dude is obviously delusional and apparently lives in a world of his own creation. As I said, he checks many blocks, but then goes beyond stereotypical phrasing and into the world of batshit. </div></div>

    Just because someone does something unfathomable or beyond reason to your logic does not make them insane. He seems fully capable of solid cognizant thought and reasoning. He knows exactly what he is doing and he will gain supporters for doing it. The government will do their best to marginalize this guy but I guarantee they're scared shitless of him. They should have killed him on the island.

    Bob
     
    Re: Trial of Norwegian Breivik begins

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ranger Bob</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CS1983</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sharac</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Seems to me he is a few grains short of a full load.</div></div>

    His body count would negate this assumption...</div></div>

    Since when does effectiveness ever render a person more believably sane in such a context?

    This dude is obviously delusional and apparently lives in a world of his own creation. As I said, he checks many blocks, but then goes beyond stereotypical phrasing and into the world of batshit. </div></div>

    Just because someone does something unfathomable or beyond reason to your logic does not make them insane. He seems fully capable of solid cognizant thought and reasoning. He knows exactly what he is doing and he will gain supporters for doing it. The government will do their best to marginalize this guy but I guarantee they're scared shitless of him. They should have killed him on the island.

    Bob</div></div>

    The issue with this is that such a definition is based on evolving shit-psychology, not actual sane vs insane. It's relativism in the cloak of definitive language. He's obviously insane, and committed an atrociously insane act, but he's not insane because he is articulate?


    It's the equivalent of declaring someone aerodynamic because they're thoroughly convinced they can fly, just because they can explain in great detail why they believe they are indeed aerodynamic when they actually have the glide ratio of a rock.
     
    Re: Trial of Norwegian Breivik begins

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ranger Bob</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CS1983</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sharac</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Seems to me he is a few grains short of a full load.</div></div>

    His body count would negate this assumption...</div></div>

    Since when does effectiveness ever render a person more believably sane in such a context?

    This dude is obviously delusional and apparently lives in a world of his own creation. As I said, he checks many blocks, but then goes beyond stereotypical phrasing and into the world of batshit. </div></div>

    Just because someone does something unfathomable or beyond reason to your logic does not make them insane. He seems fully capable of solid cognizant thought and reasoning. He knows exactly what he is doing and he will gain supporters for doing it. The government will do their best to marginalize this guy but I guarantee they're scared shitless of him. They should have killed him on the island.

    Bob </div></div>

    Bob,

    I can see your point about just smoking this guy on the island. Obviously Law Enforcement always has the mandate to preserve life when possible, and I bet it was very hard for them seeing the carnage committed by this turd on innocent kids to not just end it there. Since he surrendered though, they did their job right.The simplistic side of me says, end this guy and the attention after the initial media bonanza. Especially when you consider the fact that taking him out there would perhaps mean less media exposure and publicity. This is important as we know that when an event like this occurs, many times it speeds up the timeline of others involved in a build up to what we call in Psychology "Avenger Violence." In other words, copy-cat killings are very common with this kind of mass murder, and a trial is just going to increase his exposure to the world. Media attention often encourages and legitimizes someone on the path to committing a similar act, at least in their own head.

    On the other side of the coin, is it better for us to publicize his trial and punishment? Obviously if he had not stopped and had threatened police or innocents after the arrival of the commandos it would have been different. A thorough assesment of this guy is needed and can be best done if he is alive.

    A common mis-conception is that if you are deemed unfit to stand trial because of psychological diagnosis, that you are getting off easy or with a better chance of parole. That is not necessarily the case. Many times it just means the person will be housed in a highly secure mental hospital, and get some of the issues that caused the problem treated. It does not mean that society condones the acts in any way. It does not mean he will be released or have a cushy existence.

    He obviously has legitimate perception issues. Weather that makes him "insane" or not is a hard call. He obviously believes whole-heartedly that he is being threatened by Islam and immigration. Everyone can have their opinion, and perhaps there are some real social issues with Western and Eastern cultures "clashing" in Europe, but when your "solution" to the issue is to slaughter kids and some govt. workers, you obviously have a very big disconnect between a perceived problem and a realistic solution. This guy thinks his terrible acts and subsequent trial will spark a revolution against what he thinks is threatining his country.

    Just because he may have a mental disorder does not make him innnocent of his crimes. It does not mean that we as society shouldn't remove these people from within our population. I would be interested to see where on the Psychopath continuum he is. They are a whole other breed of animal that is extremely scary.
     
    Re: Trial of Norwegian Breivik begins

    The issue with this is that such a definition is based on evolving shit-psychology, not actual sane vs insane. It's relativism in the cloak of definitive language. He's obviously insane, and committed an atrociously insane act, but he's not insane because he is articulate?


    It's the equivalent of declaring someone aerodynamic because they're thoroughly convinced they can fly, just because they can explain in great detail why they believe they are indeed aerodynamic when they actually have the glide ratio of a rock.

    [/quote]

    So what are you arguing for? That he be labeled sane or insane? And what is your understanding of the implications of a diagnosis one way or the other in Norway's Justice System?
     
    Re: Trial of Norwegian Breivik begins

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CS1983</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The issue with this is that such a definition is based on evolving shit-psychology, not actual sane vs insane. It's relativism in the cloak of definitive language. He's obviously insane, and committed an atrociously insane act, but he's not insane because he is articulate?


    It's the equivalent of declaring someone aerodynamic because they're thoroughly convinced they can fly, just because they can explain in great detail why they believe they are indeed aerodynamic when they actually have the glide ratio of a rock.</div></div>

    Whatever helps you sleep at night man. If you need to believe that only an insane person could do these things, then believe it. Some people need a coping mechanism. I've seen the darkness of man and I know that almost anyone can be cultivated to believe that mass murder is an appropriate action. This guy is no different than the islamist extremists; he's just on the other side of the coin. Him having the strength of conviction to act on his beliefs does not make him insane but it does make him extremely dangerous.

    The police in Norway are saying that they have not found any truth to his claims of being linked to a group of like minded individuals. I don't believe that for a minute. Hell, how many times have you heard someone say we should just nuke the middle east? I have no doubt there are others out there who are willing to do as much or more than this guy and people with the same ideology are drawn together. The authorities have probably found lots of links and maybe even made some arrests. They know they screwed up by allowing Breivik to surrender and gain a public platform; they're not going to let that happen with others. I know; sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory right? Yeah well...
     
    Re: Trial of Norwegian Breivik begins

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: verdugo60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

    So what are you arguing for? That he be labeled sane or insane? And what is your understanding of the implications of a diagnosis one way or the other in Norway's Justice System? </div></div>

    I'm not arguing for anything than the impossible question as to how they have determined homeboy is sane, just because he references reality instead of purple monsters flying cucumbers. The monster/cucumber combo is perceived as real as much as we apply "reality" to perception, if that indeed is someone's subjective reality. If someone on an airplane was convinced everyone would die for no reason other than in their head, such as a pilot, would he be more sane just because he was referencing identifiable aspects of the present situation?

    The very definition of insanity, and its expounded qualities, still lead me to believe he is insane:

    http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=979&bold=||||

    "<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">insanity

    n. mental illness of such a severe nature that a person <span style="font-weight: bold">cannot distinguish fantasy from reality</span>, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior. Insanity is distinguished from low intelligence or mental deficiency due to age or injury. If a complaint is made to law enforcement, to the District Attorney or to medical personnel that a person is evidencing psychotic behavior, he/she may be confined to a medical facility long enough (typically 72 hours) to be examined by psychiatrists who submit written reports to the local superior/county/district court. A hearing is then held before a judge, with the person in question entitled to legal representation, to determine if she/he should be placed in an institution or special facility. The person ordered institutionalized at the hearing may request a trial to determine sanity. Particularly since the original hearings are often routine with the psychiatric findings accepted by the judge. In criminal cases, a plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity" will require a trial on the issue of the defendant's insanity (or sanity) at the time the crime was committed. In these cases the defendant usually claims "temporary insanity" (crazy then, but okay now). <span style="font-weight: bold">The traditional test of insanity in criminal cases is whether the accused knew "the difference between right and wrong," following the "M'Naughten rule" from 19th century England. </span>Most states require more sophisticated tests based on psychiatric and/or psychological testimony evaluated by a jury of laypersons or a judge without psychiatric training. A claim by a criminal defendant of his/her insanity at the time of trial requires a separate hearing to determine if a defendant is sufficiently sane to understand the nature of a trial and participate in his/her own defense. If found to be insane, the defendant will be ordered to a mental facility, and the trial will be held only if sanity returns. Sex offenders may be found to be sane for all purposes except the compulsive dangerous and/or antisocial behavior. They are usually sentenced to special facilities for sex offenders, supposedly with counseling available. However, there are often maximum terms related to the type of crime, so that parole and release may occur with no proof of cure of the compulsive desire to commit sex crimes.</div></div>

    Who defines reality? What designates fantasy? How do we arrive at right and wrong, and in this case, how do we determine if dude truly, honestly understands that?

    It seems to me, if dude really, truly, honestly believes what he says, he's legally insane.

    Now, does Norway have a different definition?

    Whether or not he should receive execution or not is beside the point, as Norway's laws don't allow for that, so I'm not arguing for or against his execution. I am not arguing he did or didn't do it, as that is obviously a moot point. I'm wanting to know how the heck someone who is checking appropriate blocks for the current political climate is deemed sane, when his entire story goes far beyond some dedicated self-styled revolutionary. I might (and do) also believe mohammedanism is a threat to the western Judeo-Christian culture. I also believe that immigration, in its current method of entry/staying/mooching is injurious to typical Western economic models. I check many of the same blocks as this dude- except the part about believing myself to be part of a cabal, fantasy land population that guy.

    What do Norway's laws allow for in terms of determining one to be insane?

    Ranger Bob- there is an intrinsic difference between association by general concept and actually associating with a specific group based on those concepts.

    Answer me this: what is the difference between right and wrong? From what objective moral/ethical font do you draw a conclusion on right and wrong vs the perception of right and wrong? A sane person can distinguish, if properly formed in conscience, the difference, as generally accepted by society. But what of the insane person who thinks they ARE doing right, when they are more wrong than man love Thursday? And what if society's concept of right and wrong become so relative that right becomes wrong, and wrong becomes right? Though we might retain moral truth in one area, morality is a fabric and error is a missing thread. When the continuity of the moral fabric is frayed or has a thread taken out, it only becomes obvious when the light of Truth shines through the holes to reveal our fornication with error, the thorn in man's side. Truth+error=error. Society is in error, which doesn't negate dude's own error, but certainly calls into question the ability to accurately judge punishment for the man, as he convicted himself in his actions.

    We live in this world, Bob. The man will be convicted, surely, and surely he deserves a conviction- but what sentence and follow-on care should Norwegian society be expected to provide given the dubious nature of his mental eval? Can a society that doesn't recognize its own error effectively and righteously deal with this man?

    If your foundation for insanity is ineffectiveness and drooling, I see your point, though . I fail to see your point when the very legal definition of sanity disagrees.

    I'm sure the headshrinkers will come up with a new definition of many things shortly anyway. They do every few decades. Much changes when they do, including the efficacy of the legal system. Who knows, Bob, maybe one day we'll be declared insane when sane while the insane ones declare themselves sane, and majority will rule.
    smile.gif


    I think it's called democracy.
     
    Re: Trial of Norwegian Breivik begins

    The guy killed a couple of busloads of kids, don't think it matters if he is sane or not, fry the fucker.
     
    Re: Trial of Norwegian Breivik begins

    After thinking about this for a while, it seems the only truly relevant fact is that he knew he was in a country, Norway, with no death penalty. Thats not crazy, thats evil. He'l get three hots and a cot for life, and mabey possibility of parole. Had he only done it in Virginia, or Texas.

    Lower him slowly, feet first, into a brushchipper.
     
    Re: Trial of Norwegian Breivik begins

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After thinking about this for a while, it seems the only truly relevant fact is that he knew he was in a country, Norway, with no death penalty. Thats not crazy, thats evil. He'l get three hots and a cot for life, and mabey possibility of parole. Had he only done it in Virginia, or Texas.

    Lower him slowly, feet first, into a brushchipper.

    </div></div>

    I heard early on in this case that the maximum penalty is 25 years for any crime committed in Norway. Unless they do something unprecedented and make him serve consecutive sentences, he will be out in 25.

    I could be wrong, but that is what I heard somewhere.

    edit: I just read this above
    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If deemed mentally competent, he would face a maximum prison sentence of 21 years or an alternate custody arrangement under which the sentence is prolonged for as long as an inmate is deemed a danger to society.
    </div></div>