This term serial killer is bandied around quite casually within the confines of our contemporary existence.

What number qualifies as being categorized as "serial" and not...?

3...??

20...??

Doesn't take much to be a serial type.

2 murderers of the same thematic might suffice these days.

And why aren't soldiers during wartime considered to be of the criminal element?

To be a "serial" killer, there needs to be a series of killings by the same person. Usually - like a TV series - there are recurring themes. But maybe it's not be a bad idea for a serial killers to kill someone differently each time just to throw off the investigators.

There's better ways to draw attention to yourself.

Have you considered streaking?

SC

EDIT: I know, some people find that irritating, but surely its better than him becoming a serial killer?

There's better ways to draw attention to yourself.

Have you considered streaking?

SC

EDIT: I know, some people find that irritating, but surely its better than him becoming a serial killer?

Streakers want others to see them. Serial killers generally want to remain anonymous.

Mods, if you would - delete those other two.

Done

Soldiers during wartime are killing legally. Serial killers are not.

Soldiers during wartime are killing legally. Serial killers are not.

Top non-sequitor. If no-one starts an argument, join in anyway.

You're right, though; it would be better for Zzaa to join the Legion than become a serial killer.

Let's hope the helpful suggestions keep flooding in, and we find an alternative he likes...

SC

Maybe a Trappist monastery would be the place for zzaa? But I'm not sure if a Trappist monk is allowed to post on the Internet.

Maybe a Trappist monastery would be the place for zzaa? But I'm not sure if a Trappist monk is allowed to post on the Internet.

Nice one, SC. A lot of TV posters could do well to copy this!

Soldiers during wartime are killing legally. Serial killers are not.

Top non-sequitor. If no-one starts an argument, join in anyway.

From the OP:

"And why aren't soldiers during wartime considered to be of the criminal element?"

Soldiers during wartime are killing legally. Serial killers are not.

Top non-sequitor. If no-one starts an argument, join in anyway.

From the OP:

"And why aren't soldiers during wartime considered to be of the criminal element?"

I suppose that's the benefit of reading the whole post...

Would it be in poor taste to add

"Oh no - he's got the wrong end of the stick and topped the corn flakes!"?

Soldiers during wartime are killing legally. Serial killers are not.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/64344.stm

I would call that multiple murder, but with no clear demographic, women, children, old men, Soldiers, wartime and most definately illegal.

Soldiers during wartime are killing legally. Serial killers are not.

http://news.bbc.co.u...cific/64344.stm

I would call that multiple murder, but with no clear demographic, women, children, old men, Soldiers, wartime and most definately illegal.

Don't forget the concentration camps during WWII.

Soldiers during wartime are killing legally. Serial killers are not.

http://news.bbc.co.u...cific/64344.stm

I would call that multiple murder, but with no clear demographic, women, children, old men, Soldiers, wartime and most definately illegal.

It may be morally wrong, Mossfinn, but it's not illegal. Even the guys who did the actual killing at Srebenica (have I spelt that right?) did nothing illegal; the people who gave them their instructions were the ones who broke the law. It's a moot point how far down the chain of command that goes.

Soldiers during wartime are killing legally. Serial killers are not.

http://news.bbc.co.u...cific/64344.stm

I would call that multiple murder, but with no clear demographic, women, children, old men, Soldiers, wartime and most definately illegal.

It may be morally wrong, Mossfinn, but it's not illegal. Even the guys who did the actual killing at Srebenica (have I spelt that right?) did nothing illegal; the people who gave them their instructions were the ones who broke the law. It's a moot point how far down the chain of command that goes.

The Srebrenica incident happened because the Dutch component of the UN peace-keeping force were ordered to stand-down from their duty at the request of the local (Serb) military commander - Ratko Mladic. The UN force were non-combatants, having no brief to join in any fight on the side of one faction or another.

With regard to 'who is responsible' - almost inevitably it is the politicians - the representatives of the people. But I have never seen an election manifesto that proposes that the country goes to war.

Soldiers during wartime are killing legally. Serial killers are not.

http://news.bbc.co.u...cific/64344.stm

I would call that multiple murder, but with no clear demographic, women, children, old men, Soldiers, wartime and most definately illegal.

It may be morally wrong, Mossfinn, but it's not illegal. Even the guys who did the actual killing at Srebenica (have I spelt that right?) did nothing illegal; the people who gave them their instructions were the ones who broke the law. It's a moot point how far down the chain of command that goes.

The Srebrenica incident happened because the Dutch component of the UN peace-keeping force were ordered to stand-down from their duty at the request of the local (Serb) military commander - Ratko Mladic. The UN force were non-combatants, having no brief to join in any fight on the side of one faction or another.

With regard to 'who is responsible' - almost inevitably it is the politicians - the representatives of the people. But I have never seen an election manifesto that proposes that the country goes to war.

I don't know why you even mention the UN, HB. They really don't come into the picture. Directly responsible was Mladic; above him were his political bosses.

Soldiers during wartime are killing legally. Serial killers are not.

http://news.bbc.co.u...cific/64344.stm

I would call that multiple murder, but with no clear demographic, women, children, old men, Soldiers, wartime and most definately illegal.

It may be morally wrong, Mossfinn, but it's not illegal. Even the guys who did the actual killing at Srebenica (have I spelt that right?) did nothing illegal; the people who gave them their instructions were the ones who broke the law. It's a moot point how far down the chain of command that goes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/29/newsid_2530000/2530975.stm

I think it is safe to safe Calley was both giving orders and doing the shooting and as he was found guilty, I am not exactly sure what is not guilty about that.

I think it is safe to safe Calley was both giving orders and doing the shooting and as he was found guilty, I am not exactly sure what is not guilty about that.

I agree with you, Mossfinn, and am not quite sure why you bring Calley into the discussion.

As far as I can see from the link, Calley originated the order to kill, and was therefore guilty. If a more senior officer had given him his orders, the situation would have been different.

What about the guards at Auschwitz? Since Calley has been brought into the conversation for some obscure reason, why not WWII?

Oh, now I remember...Calley was American.

What about the guards at Auschwitz? Since Calley has been brought into the conversation for some obscure reason, why not WWII?

Oh, now I remember...Calley was American.

Calley, Breivik, the guards at Auschwitz were not serial killers. They were mass murderers, which is quite a different thing. The whole point of a serial killer (if he can be said to have a point) is that he repeats his crime(s) after an interval.

What about the guards at Auschwitz? Since Calley has been brought into the conversation for some obscure reason, why not WWII?

Oh, now I remember...Calley was American.

Calley, Breivik, the guards at Auschwitz were not serial killers. They were mass murderers, which is quite a different thing. The whole point of a serial killer (if he can be said to have a point) is that he repeats his crime(s) after an interval.

Then why was Calley even mentioned to begin with?

Then why was Calley even mentioned to begin with?

Because someone introduced a 'what about soldiers' comment.

There is a difference between serial killers, mass murderers and terrorists.

In this thread we should stay with the serial killer - the guy (usually) who kills in secret and repeats his crime at intervals, usually following and expanding upon one set of actions during the commission of each crime.

Because someone introduced a 'what about soldiers' comment.

There is a difference between serial killers, mass murderers and terrorists.

In this thread we should stay with the serial killer - the guy (usually) who kills in secret and repeats his crime at intervals, usually following and expanding upon one set of actions during the commission of each crime.

Boy that underlined area suggests a few *groups*

Soldiers during wartime are killing legally. Serial killers are not.

http://news.bbc.co.u...cific/64344.stm

I would call that multiple murder, but with no clear demographic, women, children, old men, Soldiers, wartime and most definately illegal.

It may be morally wrong, Mossfinn, but it's not illegal. Even the guys who did the actual killing at Srebenica (have I spelt that right?) did nothing illegal; the people who gave them their instructions were the ones who broke the law. It's a moot point how far down the chain of command that goes.

I agree with you, Mossfinn, and am not quite sure why you bring Calley into the discussion.

As far as I can see from the link, Calley originated the order to kill, and was therefore guilty. If a more senior officer had given him his orders, the situation would have been different.

I mentioned Calley, because you said it was morally wrong but not illegal, he was found guilty, so if you trust in the rule of law, it has to be illegal. Just following orders was debunked at Nuremburg, it is a moot point I agree, Calley was both issueing orders and carrying them out.

Soldiers during wartime are killing legally. Serial killers are not.

http://news.bbc.co.u...cific/64344.stm

I would call that multiple murder, but with no clear demographic, women, children, old men, Soldiers, wartime and most definately illegal.

Now that is obscure, using the Camps to explain my debunking of soldiers killing legally or illegally, depending on your point of view, in war. But I am glad to see you didn't try and justify the illegal killing of civillians during a war.

Don't forget the concentration camps during WWII.

What about the guards at Auschwitz? Since Calley has been brought into the conversation for some obscure reason, why not WWII?

Oh, now I remember...Calley was American.

I thought the example of Calley was obvious, he just happened to be American. If I had used examples of other military units, for example the Irish Civil War, where comrades tied up their former comrades of just months before, then threw in hand grenades, would that make me anti-Irish, or would you prefer a link?

motive

http://news.bbc.co.u...cific/64344.stm

I would call that multiple murder, but with no clear demographic, women, children, old men, Soldiers, wartime and most definately illegal.

Now that is obscure, using the Camps to explain my debunking of soldiers killing legally or illegally, depending on your point of view, in war. But I am glad to see you didn't try and justify the illegal killing of civillians during a war.

Don't forget the concentration camps during WWII.

What about the guards at Auschwitz? Since Calley has been brought into the conversation for some obscure reason, why not WWII?

Oh, now I remember...Calley was American.

I thought the example of Calley was obvious, he just happened to be American. If I had used examples of other military units, for example the Irish Civil War, where comrades tied up their former comrades of just months before, then threw in hand grenades, would that make me anti-Irish, or would you prefer a link?

How many anti-Irish comments have you seen posted on TV Forum?

How many murderers who are caught after their first killing could have kept on killing and become serial killers?

I would think two murders on separate occasions would constitute a serial killer, if the murders had similar motive or were carried out in a similar way.

I exclude hired contract killers as serial killers, but really, they could fit the definition couldn't they?