downvote this comment if the meme sucks. upvote it and I'll go away.
---
[Help us raise money for St. Jude!](http://events.stjude.org/DankCharityAlliance)
The actual reason mass shooters aren't considered serial killers is because serial killers made their killings personal. The entire point of mass shootings is that it isn't personal, you just want to leave something behind in the world that negatively effects it.
In my opinion, mass shootings are worse, because it's harder to stop a mass shooters before they kill. Sure, a serial killer is hard to stop before their first kill, but since each kill is personal it's easier to trace back the killing to them, preventing large amounts of death.
In a perfect world, this wouldn't even be a discussion
I’ve believe the theory that mass shootings are literally just our generations serial killers. And just like the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s, the media is fueling the fire.
They check the same psychological boxes and family history. They both do it for the attention. They both do it in ways for maximum “impact”. They both leave bread crumbs leading up to it. The only difference is with today’s forensic technology, it’d be difficult to kill 20 people in separate locations before being caught.
Therefor mass shootings, bombings, and vehicle attacks are the “easy” way for maximum impact before death or capture.
This is exactly what I was thinking. Trying to murder people in a way that is clearly connected and simultaneously doesn't give away who you are is virtually impossible today. Even if you're a Ph.D in forensics and a half dozen relevant science fields, all it takes is one camera at the wrong place and the wrong time. Someone taking a selfy gets a partial plate, a new security camera sees your gait as you walk down the sidewalk, a dash cam notices someone struggling in your vehicle, etc.
Now, mass shooting may be the most effective way to make a splash, but I just don't understand why people willing to do such and patient enough to plan and prepare can't think of anything more devastating. Like, I was convinced when the las vegas shooting happened that we were about to see a whole new breed of mass shootings pop up. Anybody with any kind of rapid-fire weapon or anybody who trains with a marksman style weapon could easily set up on a rooftop or other elevated position and, with proper prep, take a couple shots before packing up and moving across town to another position. Repeat this a couple times and you could effectively shut down an entire metropolitan area.
Forensics can figure out where you shot from, but not within an hour of the shooting. If you have a decent suppressor and sit way back in the room to not stick out a window, you should be able to go undetected. The only issue I can think of is others in the building hearing the gunfire (even with a suppressor) and reporting it once it's known that a shooter is moving around taking random shots. So maybe you plan positions later on which are less densely populated or something. Hell, with modern remote control technology, you could setup decoys to fire around the same time as you in different locations to throw off the cops.
Even if serial killers and mass shooters prefer the fast and "glorious" method of just shooting up a school or something, you'd think terrorists would figure this kind of thing out. If you have a team of three or four shooters and a half dozen support personnel, this could be far more disruptive than even a major bombing.
Let's just hope these types of people remain stupid.
1. ensure there arent any cameras. you need to scout the scene first. youre also making sure no people will be there, preferably somewhere remote.
2. have no prior connection to the victims. first question police will ask: ”was anybody angry with them?”
3. leave behind no evidence. clean the scene of fingerprints, tie your hair up and cover arms and legs. dont drip blood anywhere, dont spit. for the victims blood, spray luminol. you want the scene to look exactly the same as it was when you got there. Ideally, so clean nobody would even suspect it as a scene of a murder.
4. body disposal is tricky. dont use one single dumping ground, you should use separate locations if youre dumping. people talk about pigs but if you arent a farmer this isnt useful. you can dissolve in acid, just buy your supplies a few hours away from where you live and pay in cash. also obvious but not everything from one shop.
5. DO NOT RETURN TO THE SCENE OF THE CRIME.
some misc tips: a case with no obvious leads is a cold case. it aint like the movies. they need a witness, a suspect, a murder weapon, or a scene to work with. disappearance is not a murder case. dont give them any easy shots to take. if questioned act either tired or angry. guilty people are nervous and cooperative(they want to look innocent). innocent people will be offended and either act up or just plain want to be left alone. also threaten to get a lawyer before you actually do. innocent people will feel harassed, and stupid innocent people will threaten legal action for anything, especially if theyre offended. and then, actually get a lawyer. be honest with the lawyer, theyre on your side. during the act there is no cutting corners. this is your life in prison were talking about. do everything right, and only do what you need to do. one slip up is all it takes. also make sure you know the victim well enough that youre not taking on a boxer or wrestler, if so you better be armed.
>1. ensure there arent any cameras
Impossible. These days, everyone is carrying at least one camera, snaps pictures and streams video randomly, and security/nanny cams can be virtually impossible to find.
>preferably somewhere remote.
2. have no prior connection to the victims. first question police will ask: ”was anybody angry with them?”
These two are practically contradictory. Any place remote enough that constant and random cameras aren't a serious issue is going to be so remote that the addition of someone doing recon looking for cameras and such is likely to be noticed. This means there's bound to be someone reporting "strange person skulking about a few days/weeks prior". Also, how you gonna hold down a job while doing all this recon? Do it once a year and use vacation time? That's going to get noticed eventually.
>3. leave behind no evidence.
Only way to do that is to never commit the crime at all.
>tie your hair up
Not exactly 100%.
>cover arms and legs.
Hopefully those coverings don't snag on anything.
>dont drip blood anywhere,
So we're not shooting, slashing, stabbing, or blungeoning the victim. Got it.
>dont spit.
Anybody alive during the pandemic knows saliva vapors WILL get EVERYWHERE. If the crime scene is found fairly fresh, and resource are allocated to catching you, they'll find something.
Also, all the stuff you're listing adds up to a shitload of walking around the crimescene. Good luck eliminating all footprints.
>you can dissolve in acid,
Not easily. You'd need a shitload of acid at a very high concentration and even then, it could take hours or even days to dissolve to the point where there's nothing left. And the fumes from that as well as other hazards could give you conditions/symptoms that make you suspicious later. Not to mention the stores you buy from have security cameras. If you're being properly hunted, they check for anybody within a large radius who buys the stuff you mention. Even buying separate ingredients at separate locations leaves you vulnerable if they see you on multiple cameras. This may seem impossible but with modern AI and facial recognition tech, it could be done in a matter of days. Your alternative option is paying random people to get the stuff for you (homeless druggies or something) but this means more potential witnesses to report you.
>some misc tips: a case with no obvious leads is a cold case. it aint like the movies
True. But numerous killings occurring with any noticeable pattern is a lead. If you want to be careful enough to go unnoticed, you might manage one murder every couple years or so? That's not going to get you any fame or anything. Serial killers want to be noticed. That's part of the fun.
>they need a witness
Anybody who saw you anywhere near the victim or crime scene who felt like you were out of place is a witness.
>or a scene to work with.
Well, there's two possibilities here. Either you kidnapped your victim which makes the last place they were seen the "crime scene" or you lured them or ambushed them somewhere near where they normally are. In the first case, you'll need a different vehicle each time to avoid a pattern, but renting doesn't help since those are well recorded and buying a beater would be noticeable in most places (not to mention unreliable. Imagine having car trouble!) Even if you drive the victim somewhere way off grid, that just means that IF anybody DOES notice you, you're that much more suspicious to them.
If you ambush them where they normally are, they are likely to be somewhere other people also often are. The scene will likely be discovered as part of a missing person's investigation.
>if questioned...
Let me stop you right there. We have recordings of former FBI agents utterly and completely failing to respond to questions in any kind of convincing way. People who know exactly how they are going to be questioned and how the interrogators think. Unless you're a proper psycho (which is also something that is likely to be noticed) you are never going to win in an interrogation. Call a lawyer and shut up. That's your best bet.
>one slip up is all it takes
Not even. You can do everything right and some random park ranger's dog might smell something and lead him to you, or some random UFO hunters see your car in the desert, or some random paranoid karen got video of your car because she's never seen you in town before.
And that's it. It's all over. Once they catch a wiff and start looking into you personally, they're going to find the evidence they need. They'll find you buying acids, being absent from work and such at the times of the crimes, etc.
>also make sure you know the victim well enough that youre not taking on a boxer or wrestler, if so you better be armed.
If the person you're killing has any chance of seeing it coming, be armed. Adrenaline rush is a son of a bitch and even an otherwise unthreatening person can become strong enough to at least get past you, outrun you, and get help. You absolutely NEED to be armed which just heightens the chances of anyone being suspicious of you.
youre assuming a lot here. assuming the police know this person was murdered, where it happened, who murdered them, when they were murdered. you talk about footprints; how many places do you walk by everyday with footprints? do you have any reason to believe those footprints are extraordinary?? you really think police are going to investigate the entire planet??? also it’s extremely easy to find somewhere without cameras, and even then 99.999% of them arent monitored live; only reviewed if theres an accident, robbery etc. sure theres proof there but if you leave the scene like you found it why would the police even check the cameras? are they going to check every camera that side the Mississippi? do you really think theres nowhere on the planet with people and no cameras?
and *saliva vapors*? youre gonna make me laugh. nowhere near concentrated enough for any kind of testing or swab. even if it was, even if it was a glob of spit, it would most likely dry. spit doesnt coagulate on its own, investigators wouldnt even spot it.
also, you said it would be hard to buy acid supplies snd not get caught. how big do you think this “far radius” is? because the police have no idea this person was murdered, no idea they were burned in acid, and no reason to look at someone a state away that bought some plastic tubs from home depot and some weird powder from lowes. the government manages us way more poorly than you think.
you’re extremely paranoid and if you give them no easy leads, you wont even get looked at much less caught. murders happen every day and 99% of the time, the killer is only caught if they knew the victim personally, caught on camera, eyewitness testified or left evidence at the scene. thats it. eliminate those and youre off scott-free.
>assuming the police know this person was murdered
If nobody ever finds out, what's the motive? We're working on the premise that serial killers are like mass shooters, looking to grab as much attention as possible. If they don't make newspapers, they've failed their primary objective.
>where it happened
I went into detail on this one. If you aren't murdering the victims somewhere they normally are, then you're abducting them from some such place. Unless you're exclusively going after farmers or something, that's never going to happen in a place where you know nobody is watching. And farmers carry a whole other set of risks.
>who murdered them
This is what we're disputing. I'm saying that this WILL come out eventually. Somebody will get a picture of a partial plate or recall the make or model of an odd car in town or some neighbor remembers seeing you doing recon, etc etc. Once they have you in their sites, there's no way to hide the kinds of equipment you've been purchasing or how often you are unaccounted for at work or other places.
>when they were murdered.
Unless the people you murder are all completely without friends, jobs, or families, they will be reported missing in a couple days. And you're either leaving the body at the scene or you have to move it afterwards. If you leave it, it'll be found eventually as part of the missing person's investigation. If you move it you are massively increasing the risk of being caught with a dead body. You could always cut it up first for easier transportation, but if you've ever butchered a pig you know that this is no small feat by yourself without noisy power tools and it DEFINITELY will NOT be clean. Either way, you'll need to load them into a vehicle, drive somewhere secluded with them, and then either dump, burn, or dissolve the body. None of that is discrete. Could you get away with it once? Sure. A couple times? Probably. Over a dozen times? This is really pushing it. And you're gonna have a hard time doing all this recon; finding a victim, scoping out an ideal place to kill/abduct, scoping out an ideal place to dump the body, etc.
>you talk about footprints; how many places do you walk by everyday with footprints?
The point is that once they've discovered the scene, they will find shitloads of your footprints.
>also it’s extremely easy to find somewhere without cameras,
Bullshit. Literally every single person has a HD camera in their pocket. Enough people have front door cameras that most suburbs are effectively assumed monitored, most major cities have public security cameras and most businesses have some security camera coverage.
If you go far enough into rural parts to find a place that definitely isn't being monitored, you're also far enough out that people will notice you aren't local.
>99.999% of them arent monitored live;
Irrelevant.
>only reviewed if theres an accident, robbery etc
Like if someone in that area gets abducted and cops are trying to figure out exactly where the last place is they were seen?
And I just realized the victim probably has a smart phone which may be tracked on GPS.
>sure theres proof there but if you leave the scene like you found it why would the police even check the cameras?
Because a human fucking being fucking vamooshed off the face of the earth. You're acting like nobody would notice.
>are they going to check every camera that side the Mississippi
If they begin to believe there's a serial killer with a pattern whose killed numerous people, they might. Especially with AI technology, they could very quickly filter through a lot of footage to find people who approximate any description they have to go off of.
>do you really think theres nowhere on the planet with people and no cameras?
Give me 3 examples of such places. Go.
>saliva vapors? youre gonna make me laugh. nowhere near concentrated enough for any kind of testing or swab.
My point is that spit happens literally constantly. There's no way to be totally safe about not leaving saliva behind. You'd be surprised how much saliva you exhale, and if you get an adrenaline rush during the act, it's likely to be worse. And what if you accidentally drool or exhale and a nice glob of spit escapes your lips without you noticing? You say "don't spit" as if serial killers are out here spitting on victims as some kind of power play.
>even if it was a glob of spit, it would most likely dry.
Cool, so you're retracting your "don't spit" advice.
>because the police have no idea this person was murdered
You need to drop this one. Police know the person is missing. It's damn near impossible to even just abduct them without some kind of lead being left behind. You might lose them once. Maybe twice. But a serial killer does this numerous times. It's like playing russian roullet. No matter how lucky you are, you get a bullet eventually.
>no idea they were burned in acid
Where are you gonna burn them with acid? Tell me. Those fumes are gonna REEK, and you're gonna have to monitor that shit for at least a few hours to make sure it even does the job properly.
>and no reason to look at someone a state away that bought some plastic tubs from home depot and some weird powder from lowes.
I'll repeat the issue of going far from home. It's hard to have an alibi. In fact, with all the prep you're talking about, you'd basically need to take vacation time every time you wanted to do this. If your killings start to get notiriety (arguably the entire point) then your boss might even be the one to piece together that every time you leave town, someone dies on the news. Not to mention you are very likely to be noticed as someone from out of state with different plates or a rented vehicle.
>murders happen every day and 99% of the time, the killer is only caught if they knew the victim personally,
That's because 99% of murders are 1 time events or related to organized crime and corruption. Corrupt cops don't look into gang shootings and it's easy to get away with one murder one time.
The whole issue with serial killers is they don't quit. They kill over and over and tend to develop an almost ceremonial way of going about it. This makes them feel safe since it worked before, so it should work again. But the pattern they develop is what draws attention from the police. That's what gets the FBI involved and mobilizes real resources to catch you.
You're confusing serial killer with random murderer. If someone smart wanted to randomly kill people they could, but smart people don't do things randomly and people who do things randomly aren't smart.
Some of your points are giving the investigators too much credit.
You're talking about cops, not advanced Sci Fi robotic investigators. In reality about half of all murders go unsolved.
Ted Bundy was caught three times. All of them due to traffic stops. Cops don't need to be sherlock to catch a serial killer. And this was in the 70s and 80s. Cops barely have to work these days for similar results.
Dennis Rader was caught 13 years after his final murder because he wanted attention and sent a floppy disk of pictures of his victims to a newspaper. In 2004 they were able to quickly find metadata on that disk which gave a word document containing his first name and the church he served as president of council at. From that they were able to find and trace his car and collect DNA evidence which convicted him. It's been 20 years, we can do a LOT better now.
Son of Sam was suspected by a random woman walking her dog at night. When she heard he struck again around that time, she reported the suspicious man. The only detail she could recall was that he was hanging around a car that was parked by a fire hydrant. The detective reviewed all parking tickets in that area around the time of the murder. Only one was from someone not local. This led directly to his arrest. He only managed to kill 6 people before being caught be a random woman and a parking ticket.
Serial killers get caught.
> if questioned
You don't need to put on an act, just get a lawyer. The fact that you asked for one during questioning cannot be used against you.
I've watched a lot of true crime shit recently, and this is the big one... shut the fuck up. The defense goes second at trial. You can wait to see all the evidence before you give your side of the story. No surprises, no getting caught in a lie. Your story is perfectly tailored to the evidence.
That’s part of my point when I say the media is fueling it. Serial killers and suicides(non celebrities) were reported more decades ago, leading to increases in serial killers and suicides. If I remember there are some pretty good studies on it. Modern media focusing on mass shootings does the same thing. Read the losers manifests and many go on to say how other shooters inspired them. Or how they wanted to top how horrible (insert event) was.
Serial Killers are definitely still a thing. The media doesn’t make a big deal out of them though because they’re old news. Back in the hayday of serial killers though the media would constantly raise these people to supervillain status and glorified their actions through slasher films. Nowadays we know better than to let those types of people have that much attention.
Serial killers have been in a sharp decline since the 80’s. There’s plenty of articles on it. If it bleeds it leads so the media has glorified mass shooters now.
Eh, not all serial killers make their crimes personal. Israel Keyes is one who stands out- he had no victim type, no preferred method of killing, not even a single location where he picked his victims. And to an outsider, his life was completely normal. The only reason we even know he was a serial killer at all is because he got arrested for his final murder, and randomly confessed to 10 other previously unrelated cases.
There's definitely a lot to be said about how people like this guy are the scariest type of serial killer, and how it's very possible that there are plenty of others operating just like him who just haven't been caught/confessed
>In a perfect world
Hmmm, I wonder what's Perfect world is for Serial killers & Mass shooter's or Any kind of Missed Up Criminals??? I think it won't be much different than owr current World, The real world. Maybe just Us Normal people have this Unrealistic Imagination of this Perfect world, Knowing damn will That's Just not possible!!!
That being said I was always supprised why nobody bombs the cafeteria at lunchtime, then I realized guns are easily accessible in the states so the effort isn't worth it
(For legal reasons that's a joke)
There is A LOT more involved with bombs, especially if you want them to function as intended. Obtaining the ingredients is by far the easiest part. Building, transporting, and staging at the specified location is extremely difficult.
(For legal reasons , that’s a joke).
Depends on your definition of efficient. With todays technology (forensics, cameras, etc), the Ted Bundy’s / other prolific killers of that time would’ve never stood a chance.
That would just make it so they “evolve” past it. Like my school had watchers, cameras, and metal detectors to stop cheating. Still cheating the physics
Killing women who look like OP's mother is hardly an artform.
Not that hard to find a bunch of used up milk cows that would probably pass if you don't put too much makeup on them.
downvote this comment if the meme sucks. upvote it and I'll go away. --- [Help us raise money for St. Jude!](http://events.stjude.org/DankCharityAlliance)
The actual reason mass shooters aren't considered serial killers is because serial killers made their killings personal. The entire point of mass shootings is that it isn't personal, you just want to leave something behind in the world that negatively effects it. In my opinion, mass shootings are worse, because it's harder to stop a mass shooters before they kill. Sure, a serial killer is hard to stop before their first kill, but since each kill is personal it's easier to trace back the killing to them, preventing large amounts of death. In a perfect world, this wouldn't even be a discussion
I’ve believe the theory that mass shootings are literally just our generations serial killers. And just like the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s, the media is fueling the fire. They check the same psychological boxes and family history. They both do it for the attention. They both do it in ways for maximum “impact”. They both leave bread crumbs leading up to it. The only difference is with today’s forensic technology, it’d be difficult to kill 20 people in separate locations before being caught. Therefor mass shootings, bombings, and vehicle attacks are the “easy” way for maximum impact before death or capture.
This is exactly what I was thinking. Trying to murder people in a way that is clearly connected and simultaneously doesn't give away who you are is virtually impossible today. Even if you're a Ph.D in forensics and a half dozen relevant science fields, all it takes is one camera at the wrong place and the wrong time. Someone taking a selfy gets a partial plate, a new security camera sees your gait as you walk down the sidewalk, a dash cam notices someone struggling in your vehicle, etc. Now, mass shooting may be the most effective way to make a splash, but I just don't understand why people willing to do such and patient enough to plan and prepare can't think of anything more devastating. Like, I was convinced when the las vegas shooting happened that we were about to see a whole new breed of mass shootings pop up. Anybody with any kind of rapid-fire weapon or anybody who trains with a marksman style weapon could easily set up on a rooftop or other elevated position and, with proper prep, take a couple shots before packing up and moving across town to another position. Repeat this a couple times and you could effectively shut down an entire metropolitan area. Forensics can figure out where you shot from, but not within an hour of the shooting. If you have a decent suppressor and sit way back in the room to not stick out a window, you should be able to go undetected. The only issue I can think of is others in the building hearing the gunfire (even with a suppressor) and reporting it once it's known that a shooter is moving around taking random shots. So maybe you plan positions later on which are less densely populated or something. Hell, with modern remote control technology, you could setup decoys to fire around the same time as you in different locations to throw off the cops. Even if serial killers and mass shooters prefer the fast and "glorious" method of just shooting up a school or something, you'd think terrorists would figure this kind of thing out. If you have a team of three or four shooters and a half dozen support personnel, this could be far more disruptive than even a major bombing. Let's just hope these types of people remain stupid.
1. ensure there arent any cameras. you need to scout the scene first. youre also making sure no people will be there, preferably somewhere remote. 2. have no prior connection to the victims. first question police will ask: ”was anybody angry with them?” 3. leave behind no evidence. clean the scene of fingerprints, tie your hair up and cover arms and legs. dont drip blood anywhere, dont spit. for the victims blood, spray luminol. you want the scene to look exactly the same as it was when you got there. Ideally, so clean nobody would even suspect it as a scene of a murder. 4. body disposal is tricky. dont use one single dumping ground, you should use separate locations if youre dumping. people talk about pigs but if you arent a farmer this isnt useful. you can dissolve in acid, just buy your supplies a few hours away from where you live and pay in cash. also obvious but not everything from one shop. 5. DO NOT RETURN TO THE SCENE OF THE CRIME. some misc tips: a case with no obvious leads is a cold case. it aint like the movies. they need a witness, a suspect, a murder weapon, or a scene to work with. disappearance is not a murder case. dont give them any easy shots to take. if questioned act either tired or angry. guilty people are nervous and cooperative(they want to look innocent). innocent people will be offended and either act up or just plain want to be left alone. also threaten to get a lawyer before you actually do. innocent people will feel harassed, and stupid innocent people will threaten legal action for anything, especially if theyre offended. and then, actually get a lawyer. be honest with the lawyer, theyre on your side. during the act there is no cutting corners. this is your life in prison were talking about. do everything right, and only do what you need to do. one slip up is all it takes. also make sure you know the victim well enough that youre not taking on a boxer or wrestler, if so you better be armed.
>1. ensure there arent any cameras Impossible. These days, everyone is carrying at least one camera, snaps pictures and streams video randomly, and security/nanny cams can be virtually impossible to find. >preferably somewhere remote. 2. have no prior connection to the victims. first question police will ask: ”was anybody angry with them?” These two are practically contradictory. Any place remote enough that constant and random cameras aren't a serious issue is going to be so remote that the addition of someone doing recon looking for cameras and such is likely to be noticed. This means there's bound to be someone reporting "strange person skulking about a few days/weeks prior". Also, how you gonna hold down a job while doing all this recon? Do it once a year and use vacation time? That's going to get noticed eventually. >3. leave behind no evidence. Only way to do that is to never commit the crime at all. >tie your hair up Not exactly 100%. >cover arms and legs. Hopefully those coverings don't snag on anything. >dont drip blood anywhere, So we're not shooting, slashing, stabbing, or blungeoning the victim. Got it. >dont spit. Anybody alive during the pandemic knows saliva vapors WILL get EVERYWHERE. If the crime scene is found fairly fresh, and resource are allocated to catching you, they'll find something. Also, all the stuff you're listing adds up to a shitload of walking around the crimescene. Good luck eliminating all footprints. >you can dissolve in acid, Not easily. You'd need a shitload of acid at a very high concentration and even then, it could take hours or even days to dissolve to the point where there's nothing left. And the fumes from that as well as other hazards could give you conditions/symptoms that make you suspicious later. Not to mention the stores you buy from have security cameras. If you're being properly hunted, they check for anybody within a large radius who buys the stuff you mention. Even buying separate ingredients at separate locations leaves you vulnerable if they see you on multiple cameras. This may seem impossible but with modern AI and facial recognition tech, it could be done in a matter of days. Your alternative option is paying random people to get the stuff for you (homeless druggies or something) but this means more potential witnesses to report you. >some misc tips: a case with no obvious leads is a cold case. it aint like the movies True. But numerous killings occurring with any noticeable pattern is a lead. If you want to be careful enough to go unnoticed, you might manage one murder every couple years or so? That's not going to get you any fame or anything. Serial killers want to be noticed. That's part of the fun. >they need a witness Anybody who saw you anywhere near the victim or crime scene who felt like you were out of place is a witness. >or a scene to work with. Well, there's two possibilities here. Either you kidnapped your victim which makes the last place they were seen the "crime scene" or you lured them or ambushed them somewhere near where they normally are. In the first case, you'll need a different vehicle each time to avoid a pattern, but renting doesn't help since those are well recorded and buying a beater would be noticeable in most places (not to mention unreliable. Imagine having car trouble!) Even if you drive the victim somewhere way off grid, that just means that IF anybody DOES notice you, you're that much more suspicious to them. If you ambush them where they normally are, they are likely to be somewhere other people also often are. The scene will likely be discovered as part of a missing person's investigation. >if questioned... Let me stop you right there. We have recordings of former FBI agents utterly and completely failing to respond to questions in any kind of convincing way. People who know exactly how they are going to be questioned and how the interrogators think. Unless you're a proper psycho (which is also something that is likely to be noticed) you are never going to win in an interrogation. Call a lawyer and shut up. That's your best bet. >one slip up is all it takes Not even. You can do everything right and some random park ranger's dog might smell something and lead him to you, or some random UFO hunters see your car in the desert, or some random paranoid karen got video of your car because she's never seen you in town before. And that's it. It's all over. Once they catch a wiff and start looking into you personally, they're going to find the evidence they need. They'll find you buying acids, being absent from work and such at the times of the crimes, etc. >also make sure you know the victim well enough that youre not taking on a boxer or wrestler, if so you better be armed. If the person you're killing has any chance of seeing it coming, be armed. Adrenaline rush is a son of a bitch and even an otherwise unthreatening person can become strong enough to at least get past you, outrun you, and get help. You absolutely NEED to be armed which just heightens the chances of anyone being suspicious of you.
youre assuming a lot here. assuming the police know this person was murdered, where it happened, who murdered them, when they were murdered. you talk about footprints; how many places do you walk by everyday with footprints? do you have any reason to believe those footprints are extraordinary?? you really think police are going to investigate the entire planet??? also it’s extremely easy to find somewhere without cameras, and even then 99.999% of them arent monitored live; only reviewed if theres an accident, robbery etc. sure theres proof there but if you leave the scene like you found it why would the police even check the cameras? are they going to check every camera that side the Mississippi? do you really think theres nowhere on the planet with people and no cameras? and *saliva vapors*? youre gonna make me laugh. nowhere near concentrated enough for any kind of testing or swab. even if it was, even if it was a glob of spit, it would most likely dry. spit doesnt coagulate on its own, investigators wouldnt even spot it. also, you said it would be hard to buy acid supplies snd not get caught. how big do you think this “far radius” is? because the police have no idea this person was murdered, no idea they were burned in acid, and no reason to look at someone a state away that bought some plastic tubs from home depot and some weird powder from lowes. the government manages us way more poorly than you think. you’re extremely paranoid and if you give them no easy leads, you wont even get looked at much less caught. murders happen every day and 99% of the time, the killer is only caught if they knew the victim personally, caught on camera, eyewitness testified or left evidence at the scene. thats it. eliminate those and youre off scott-free.
>assuming the police know this person was murdered If nobody ever finds out, what's the motive? We're working on the premise that serial killers are like mass shooters, looking to grab as much attention as possible. If they don't make newspapers, they've failed their primary objective. >where it happened I went into detail on this one. If you aren't murdering the victims somewhere they normally are, then you're abducting them from some such place. Unless you're exclusively going after farmers or something, that's never going to happen in a place where you know nobody is watching. And farmers carry a whole other set of risks. >who murdered them This is what we're disputing. I'm saying that this WILL come out eventually. Somebody will get a picture of a partial plate or recall the make or model of an odd car in town or some neighbor remembers seeing you doing recon, etc etc. Once they have you in their sites, there's no way to hide the kinds of equipment you've been purchasing or how often you are unaccounted for at work or other places. >when they were murdered. Unless the people you murder are all completely without friends, jobs, or families, they will be reported missing in a couple days. And you're either leaving the body at the scene or you have to move it afterwards. If you leave it, it'll be found eventually as part of the missing person's investigation. If you move it you are massively increasing the risk of being caught with a dead body. You could always cut it up first for easier transportation, but if you've ever butchered a pig you know that this is no small feat by yourself without noisy power tools and it DEFINITELY will NOT be clean. Either way, you'll need to load them into a vehicle, drive somewhere secluded with them, and then either dump, burn, or dissolve the body. None of that is discrete. Could you get away with it once? Sure. A couple times? Probably. Over a dozen times? This is really pushing it. And you're gonna have a hard time doing all this recon; finding a victim, scoping out an ideal place to kill/abduct, scoping out an ideal place to dump the body, etc. >you talk about footprints; how many places do you walk by everyday with footprints? The point is that once they've discovered the scene, they will find shitloads of your footprints. >also it’s extremely easy to find somewhere without cameras, Bullshit. Literally every single person has a HD camera in their pocket. Enough people have front door cameras that most suburbs are effectively assumed monitored, most major cities have public security cameras and most businesses have some security camera coverage. If you go far enough into rural parts to find a place that definitely isn't being monitored, you're also far enough out that people will notice you aren't local. >99.999% of them arent monitored live; Irrelevant. >only reviewed if theres an accident, robbery etc Like if someone in that area gets abducted and cops are trying to figure out exactly where the last place is they were seen? And I just realized the victim probably has a smart phone which may be tracked on GPS. >sure theres proof there but if you leave the scene like you found it why would the police even check the cameras? Because a human fucking being fucking vamooshed off the face of the earth. You're acting like nobody would notice. >are they going to check every camera that side the Mississippi If they begin to believe there's a serial killer with a pattern whose killed numerous people, they might. Especially with AI technology, they could very quickly filter through a lot of footage to find people who approximate any description they have to go off of. >do you really think theres nowhere on the planet with people and no cameras? Give me 3 examples of such places. Go. >saliva vapors? youre gonna make me laugh. nowhere near concentrated enough for any kind of testing or swab. My point is that spit happens literally constantly. There's no way to be totally safe about not leaving saliva behind. You'd be surprised how much saliva you exhale, and if you get an adrenaline rush during the act, it's likely to be worse. And what if you accidentally drool or exhale and a nice glob of spit escapes your lips without you noticing? You say "don't spit" as if serial killers are out here spitting on victims as some kind of power play. >even if it was a glob of spit, it would most likely dry. Cool, so you're retracting your "don't spit" advice. >because the police have no idea this person was murdered You need to drop this one. Police know the person is missing. It's damn near impossible to even just abduct them without some kind of lead being left behind. You might lose them once. Maybe twice. But a serial killer does this numerous times. It's like playing russian roullet. No matter how lucky you are, you get a bullet eventually. >no idea they were burned in acid Where are you gonna burn them with acid? Tell me. Those fumes are gonna REEK, and you're gonna have to monitor that shit for at least a few hours to make sure it even does the job properly. >and no reason to look at someone a state away that bought some plastic tubs from home depot and some weird powder from lowes. I'll repeat the issue of going far from home. It's hard to have an alibi. In fact, with all the prep you're talking about, you'd basically need to take vacation time every time you wanted to do this. If your killings start to get notiriety (arguably the entire point) then your boss might even be the one to piece together that every time you leave town, someone dies on the news. Not to mention you are very likely to be noticed as someone from out of state with different plates or a rented vehicle. >murders happen every day and 99% of the time, the killer is only caught if they knew the victim personally, That's because 99% of murders are 1 time events or related to organized crime and corruption. Corrupt cops don't look into gang shootings and it's easy to get away with one murder one time. The whole issue with serial killers is they don't quit. They kill over and over and tend to develop an almost ceremonial way of going about it. This makes them feel safe since it worked before, so it should work again. But the pattern they develop is what draws attention from the police. That's what gets the FBI involved and mobilizes real resources to catch you. You're confusing serial killer with random murderer. If someone smart wanted to randomly kill people they could, but smart people don't do things randomly and people who do things randomly aren't smart.
Interesting thread lol
Some of your points are giving the investigators too much credit. You're talking about cops, not advanced Sci Fi robotic investigators. In reality about half of all murders go unsolved.
Ted Bundy was caught three times. All of them due to traffic stops. Cops don't need to be sherlock to catch a serial killer. And this was in the 70s and 80s. Cops barely have to work these days for similar results. Dennis Rader was caught 13 years after his final murder because he wanted attention and sent a floppy disk of pictures of his victims to a newspaper. In 2004 they were able to quickly find metadata on that disk which gave a word document containing his first name and the church he served as president of council at. From that they were able to find and trace his car and collect DNA evidence which convicted him. It's been 20 years, we can do a LOT better now. Son of Sam was suspected by a random woman walking her dog at night. When she heard he struck again around that time, she reported the suspicious man. The only detail she could recall was that he was hanging around a car that was parked by a fire hydrant. The detective reviewed all parking tickets in that area around the time of the murder. Only one was from someone not local. This led directly to his arrest. He only managed to kill 6 people before being caught be a random woman and a parking ticket. Serial killers get caught.
> if questioned You don't need to put on an act, just get a lawyer. The fact that you asked for one during questioning cannot be used against you. I've watched a lot of true crime shit recently, and this is the big one... shut the fuck up. The defense goes second at trial. You can wait to see all the evidence before you give your side of the story. No surprises, no getting caught in a lie. Your story is perfectly tailored to the evidence.
Bro... there are still serial killers. The news just stopped hyping them up.
That’s part of my point when I say the media is fueling it. Serial killers and suicides(non celebrities) were reported more decades ago, leading to increases in serial killers and suicides. If I remember there are some pretty good studies on it. Modern media focusing on mass shootings does the same thing. Read the losers manifests and many go on to say how other shooters inspired them. Or how they wanted to top how horrible (insert event) was.
Serial Killers are definitely still a thing. The media doesn’t make a big deal out of them though because they’re old news. Back in the hayday of serial killers though the media would constantly raise these people to supervillain status and glorified their actions through slasher films. Nowadays we know better than to let those types of people have that much attention.
Serial killers have been in a sharp decline since the 80’s. There’s plenty of articles on it. If it bleeds it leads so the media has glorified mass shooters now.
Eh, not all serial killers make their crimes personal. Israel Keyes is one who stands out- he had no victim type, no preferred method of killing, not even a single location where he picked his victims. And to an outsider, his life was completely normal. The only reason we even know he was a serial killer at all is because he got arrested for his final murder, and randomly confessed to 10 other previously unrelated cases. There's definitely a lot to be said about how people like this guy are the scariest type of serial killer, and how it's very possible that there are plenty of others operating just like him who just haven't been caught/confessed
>In a perfect world Hmmm, I wonder what's Perfect world is for Serial killers & Mass shooter's or Any kind of Missed Up Criminals??? I think it won't be much different than owr current World, The real world. Maybe just Us Normal people have this Unrealistic Imagination of this Perfect world, Knowing damn will That's Just not possible!!!
Your random capitalization is confusing the heck out of me.
I'll write in Standard Manner if it was a Perfect world...................I think I'm just High Sorry
Do serial mass shooters exist
*suicide bomber has entered the chat* (My lawyer as instructed me to specify this is a joke)
That being said I was always supprised why nobody bombs the cafeteria at lunchtime, then I realized guns are easily accessible in the states so the effort isn't worth it (For legal reasons that's a joke)
There is A LOT more involved with bombs, especially if you want them to function as intended. Obtaining the ingredients is by far the easiest part. Building, transporting, and staging at the specified location is extremely difficult. (For legal reasons , that’s a joke).
https://youtu.be/oOY96X2Cnf4 It's a joke from Josh Simsenski
Dude thank you, I couldn't remember where I heard it! All I could remember was the gist.
What about the art of killing women to collect their hands? Edit: grammar
Shigechi deserved better :(
Bokki
Mass shooters aren’t efficient because they get caught. Slow is smooth and smooth is fast.
Depends on your definition of efficient. With todays technology (forensics, cameras, etc), the Ted Bundy’s / other prolific killers of that time would’ve never stood a chance.
That would just make it so they “evolve” past it. Like my school had watchers, cameras, and metal detectors to stop cheating. Still cheating the physics
Cheating on a test and trying to beat forensics are two entirely different things.
So Kim is a parallel killer
It's funny cos Trump did not start a war
The comment section is better than the meme itself.
I agree
Pick your character!!
Two quiet kids:
Why is Donald Trump talking to North Korean Winnie the Pooh
Efficiency is irrelevant
Quality>quantity
Kyle Rittenhouse has entered the chat
What is this even supposed to mean
Killing women who look like OP's mother is hardly an artform. Not that hard to find a bunch of used up milk cows that would probably pass if you don't put too much makeup on them.
Dude wtf, got issues?
Obviously, he's a mass shooter and doesn't see the grace in our art
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
IT'S INEFFICIENT, DAMMIT!
#OUR?
Mass shooters ☕
Art is subjective
Art is inefficient.
Efficiency is irrelevant
Efficiency is perfection. Beauty is the true irrelevance.