Man decapitates 5-year-old sister in front of officer

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What I don't get is... how did he decapitate her with a kitchen knife? I'm sure he could've slit her throat, but remove the entire head? I have to assume that slicing through the spinal column would require a heftier weapon.

Probably not unlike how its easier to cut down a sapling than it is to cut down a 200 year old oak.

If it was a very sharp knife it could have been done very easily. I know a finger is different than a neck, but I've cut a finger off without even noticing at first. Also he could have got "lucky" and hit in between vertebrae.

I guess if there were eyewitnesses to the crime it obviously is possible.

[Heracles 417]

The media coverage of the infamous case in Britain of the 2 kids who murdered the toddler - eschewed the upbringing of the perpetrators (who were both variously from broken homes, and/or subjected to violent abuse by parents) in favor of the idea that certain movies they saw inspired them to act it out.

Totally ridiculous of course - but blaming violence in the media for real world violence is one of those perennial bread and butter news stories; not unlike "Exam pass rates up this year, are they getting any easier?".

So you are insinuating then that the media is to blame for hyping this sort of stuff while exposure to violence and horror, especially at a younger age, has nothing to do with such incidents. Considering you blamed assault riffles in another thread thread rather than the individual, then what is the cause? At the same time, can you also explain why such incidents barely happen in Australia or various other developed countries? Think carefully about the second question as it ties into the first. If this is just a psychological issue, why it is cases and incidents like this or Columbine barely happen in other developed countries?

Since no studies have been carried out, it shouldn't be too hard to compare a number of developed countries and their underlying attitudes, culture and differences side by side. Matching similar attributes between those with a low crime rate and low rate of homicide.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Constellation

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The media coverage of the infamous case in Britain of the 2 kids who murdered the toddler - eschewed the upbringing of the perpetrators (who were both variously from broken homes, and/or subjected to violent abuse by parents) in favor of the idea that certain movies they saw inspired them to act it out.

Totally ridiculous of course - but blaming violence in the media for real world violence is one of those perennial bread and butter news stories; not unlike "Exam pass rates up this year, are they getting any easier?".

So you are insinuating then that the media is to blame for hyping this sort of stuff while exposure to violence and horror, especially at a younger age, has nothing to do with such incidents. Considering you blamed assault riffles in another thread thread rather than the individual, then what is the cause? At the same time, can you also explain why such incidents barely happen in Australia or various other developed countries? Think carefully about the second question as it ties into the first. If this is just a psychological issue, why it is cases like this or incidents like Columbine etc barely happen in other developed countries?

Since no studies have been carried out, it shouldn't be too hard to compare a number of developed countries and their underlying attitudes, culture and differences side by side. Matching similar attributes between those with a low crime rate and low rate of homicide.

No BY - you're wrong again. I'm saying its very easy to find scapegoats for these things to avoid looking at the entire picture.

Comparing numbers of incidents between countries means very little - to be honest. There could be any number of reasons why rampage shootings or killings like the one in the OP happen - its just unfortunate that people fixate on imaginary boogeymen to try to explain them.

[Ladylethal 12]

If it was a very sharp knife it could have been done very easily. I know a finger is different than a neck, but I've cut a finger off without even noticing at first. Also he could have got "lucky" and hit in between vertebrae.

I imagine it was your own! Did you really cut it entirely off?!?

[Amby 490]

If it was a very sharp knife it could have been done very easily. I know a finger is different than a neck, but I've cut a finger off without even noticing at first. Also he could have got "lucky" and hit in between vertebrae.

I imagine it was your own! Did you really cut it entirely off?!?

I cut it off slightly above the first joint and at an angle. I actually threw it away and it grew back (seriously)! It doesn't even look that weird, but I do have a scar. I was in a massive hurry and didn't have time for stitches. I didn't think it was a bad idea until later in the day I didn't cut through the bone.

[Ladylethal 12]

Did you get the matrix of the nail as well or did it grow back properly too?

[DeadPoolX 9]

The media coverage of the infamous case in Britain of the 2 kids who murdered the toddler - eschewed the upbringing of the perpetrators (who were both variously from broken homes, and/or subjected to violent abuse by parents) in favor of the idea that certain movies they saw inspired them to act it out.

Totally ridiculous of course - but blaming violence in the media for real world violence is one of those perennial bread and butter news stories; not unlike "Exam pass rates up this year, are they getting any easier?".

So you are insinuating then that the media is to blame for hyping this sort of stuff while exposure to violence and horror, especially at a younger age, has nothing to do with such incidents. Considering you blamed assault riffles in another thread thread rather than the individual, then what is the cause? At the same time, can you also explain why such incidents barely happen in Australia or various other developed countries? Think carefully about the second question as it ties into the first. If this is just a psychological issue, why it is cases and incidents like this or Columbine barely happen in other developed countries?

Since no studies have been carried out, it shouldn't be too hard to compare a number of developed countries and their underlying attitudes, culture and differences side by side. Matching similar attributes between those with a low crime rate and low rate of homicide.

Violent media has very little effect on people. It can have some effect, but overall, it's minimal at best.

Some video games are too violent for children. However, not all games are for kids (a fact that the media has trouble understanding) and there are ratings on each game. If a game has an M-rating (which means it's mature and 17+), that game should not be given to a young child. Even if the purchaser is a teen above 17, that teen is still answerable to his or her parents, in which case it's the parents' job to know what their kid is doing. The same is true of movies.

The real problem is with the individual and their situation. For instance, the two kids who shot up Columbine High School. The media liked to point fingers at video games (specifically DOOM). The real issue was not with DOOM, but the fact those two teens were constantly picked on and had severe social problems inside and outside of school. If more had been done to correct that problem then perhaps that particular school shooting wouldn't have occurred.

People don't kill because they "saw it in a movie or a video game." They kill because they want to, feel they need to or have a psychological condition. Movies and video games are merely convenient scapegoats.

[Amby 490]

Did you get the matrix of the nail as well or did it grow back properly too?

It took about a year but the nail grew back properly as well. It looks odd because if you look you can see a line running under my nail.

[Heracles 417]

People don't kill because they "saw it in a movie or a video game." They kill because they want to, feel they need to or have a psychological condition. Movies and video games are merely convenient scapegoats.

I agree with that. But it is a well documented fact that exposure to violence and horror desensitizes kids. Why is it that nothing of this caliber occurred when my brother was growing up. Or even when I was young. The games and horror are NOT the cause but they can be a catalyst. Much in the same way guns don't shoot people but in the hands of anyone who is unstable, guns will destroy other people's lives. IE that victim.

We can all suit here and pull the 2009 lib and delude our selves to believe, "it hasn't happened to me so why should I care. Or hell no, I don't want anything to change (who moved my cheese)". Or we could go ask the victims how they feel. Only a moronic society plays the numbers games rather than tackling real issues. We would have been instinct if humans had our attitude back a few thousands years ago. Said something like," why do I want laws telling me what to do, I want my freedom".

Ultimately, when I compare countries that do restrict violence and horror from minors to those that do not, much like when it comes to guns, the statistics speak for themselves.

Did you get the matrix of the nail as well or did it grow back properly too?

It took about a year but the nail grew back properly as well. It looks odd because if you look you can see a line running under my nail.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The media coverage of the infamous case in Britain of the 2 kids who murdered the toddler - eschewed the upbringing of the perpetrators (who were both variously from broken homes, and/or subjected to violent abuse by parents) in favor of the idea that certain movies they saw inspired them to act it out.

Totally ridiculous of course - but blaming violence in the media for real world violence is one of those perennial bread and butter news stories; not unlike "Exam pass rates up this year, are they getting any easier?".

So you are insinuating then that the media is to blame for hyping this sort of stuff while exposure to violence and horror, especially at a younger age, has nothing to do with such incidents. Considering you blamed assault riffles in another thread thread rather than the individual, then what is the cause? At the same time, can you also explain why such incidents barely happen in Australia or various other developed countries? Think carefully about the second question as it ties into the first. If this is just a psychological issue, why it is cases and incidents like this or Columbine barely happen in other developed countries?

Since no studies have been carried out, it shouldn't be too hard to compare a number of developed countries and their underlying attitudes, culture and differences side by side. Matching similar attributes between those with a low crime rate and low rate of homicide.

Violent media has very little effect on people. It can have some effect, but overall, it's minimal at best.

Some video games are too violent for children. However, not all games are for kids (a fact that the media has trouble understanding) and there are ratings on each game. If a game has an M-rating (which means it's mature and 17+), that game should not be given to a young child. Even if the purchaser is a teen above 17, that teen is still answerable to his or her parents, in which case it's the parents' job to know what their kid is doing. The same is true of movies.

The real problem is with the individual and their situation. For instance, the two kids who shot up Columbine High School. The media liked to point fingers at video games (specifically DOOM). The real issue was not with DOOM, but the fact those two teens were constantly picked on and had severe social problems inside and outside of school. If more had been done to correct that problem then perhaps that particular school shooting wouldn't have occurred.

People don't kill because they "saw it in a movie or a video game." They kill because they want to, feel they need to or have a psychological condition. Movies and video games are merely convenient scapegoats.

Oddly enough there was an article a month or two ago about how people who are compulsively "addicted" to videogames are not addicted in the accepted sense of the word, but rather that they turn to these things because they have an inability to handle social interactions.

[Ladylethal 12]

I agree with that. But it is a well documented fact that exposure to violence and horror desensitizes kids. Why is it that nothing of this caliber occurred when my brother was growing up. Or even when I was young. The games and horror are NOT the cause but they can be a catalyst.

I don't think it's a matter of didn't happen back then, it's a matter of it wasn't documented as much, there are several horrible things that happened in my small town that never made it national, as a kid we didn't have the internet where everything gets announced, so I believe it probably happened as much as now, but now media coverage is more intense.

Like I said before, we can't blame violence on TV and games more than any other factor to trigger that violence, I don't think it makes the matter worse.

[Heracles 417]

I agree with that. But it is a well documented fact that exposure to violence and horror desensitizes kids. Why is it that nothing of this caliber occurred when my brother was growing up. Or even when I was young. The games and horror are NOT the cause but they can be a catalyst.

I don't think it's a matter of didn't happen back then, it's a matter of it wasn't documented as much, there are several horrible things that happened in my small town that never made it national, as a kid we didn't have the internet where everything gets announced, so I believe it probably happened as much as now, but now media coverage is more intense.

Like I said before, we can't blame violence on TV and games more than any other factor to trigger that violence, I don't think it makes the matter worse.

It's not a case of blaming at all. What such video games and movies do is subconsciously indicate (reinforce) that violence is acceptable in our society.

We now glamorize the gangsta and mafioso. So what message do you think this sends to kids? In the United States we glamorize drug use. What message do you think this sends to kids?

[Peikko 1,575]

Do you think the news is desensitizing BY? I would have thought, if you go down that road, actually watching real life events would be far more desensitizing that video game representations.

I wasn't aware the drug taking was glamourized. How did I miss that?

Edited April 1, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Ladylethal 12]

But it doesn't make kids go knife their siblings, I don't believe so. Without a pre-condition it just doesn't happen.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Another proof that violence has no contribution to violence in reality is yourself. Have you watched movies when you were younger, maybe 8 years old, like Night of the Living Dead? Or, Friday the 13th? Or, whatever? I know I did. I didn't turn out to be a serial killer, rapist, etc...

In high school literature class, they do teach good versus evil by giving examples within dramas written in books. An example is the crucible. It shows us what ignorance is. We don't quite understand ignorance if we have realize it. The Crucible shows that. 1984 by Geore Orwell. Without that book, the people probably will not be able to visualize what the government as a whole of "big brother is watching you."

As far as violence in TV and Games, it shows triumph over evil. It teaches ethics. Ever played Metal Gear Solid? Or, Streets of L.A.? You're always playing the person who is protecting peace. This is another way of looking at it.

These two comparisons cross over each other in terms of depicting reality on good versus evil.

Parenting plays a big role in childhood development. The community, and their school also contributes alot to that as well. This kid probably was in a neighborhood where there's alot of peer pressure. This peer pressure influences him, and gave him an ego. That ego manifests into 'I'm the strongest here, no one can mess with me.' That is probably what this kid expressed.