• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Anders Behring Breivik found to be sane and fit to stand trial

timhau said:
How is that part about prevention usually interpreted in courts? I'd kind of assume it is prevention against an immediate attack as per Dirty Harry criteria ("When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross"), not prevention in the sense of "If I don't kill these kids now, Norway will be a caliphate by 2040".
Click to expand...

Usually the wording says something about "averting an immidiate serious threat to someones life"



Hans
 
The invasion of Iraq was sold to the USA and UK public in the name of self defence, even though the Saddam government did not pose a threat. It seems like something of a precident. Maybe Breivik was even influenced by the needless bloody violence inflicted by the USA/UK in recent years - it's not as though "the good guys" haven't killed innocent civilians in the process of acheiving their objectives.
 
MRC_Hans said:
I think that the question of Breivik being sane or not is more a question of whether or not we have a name for his insanity; no truly sane person could do what he did.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time coming to terms with anyone doing what he did and being termed "sane". But then again, we instruct young men in war to go and fight and if necessary kill the enemy. What differs is the belief system.

So, if Breivik isn't actually hearing voices from his bedside lamp instructing him to go out and massacre folk, but simply has a value set which is at odds with the majority, then I suppose one would have to declare him sane.

However, sane or not, if he's a continuing danger to society, he can hardly be freed anytime soon.
 
The man who carried out a bomb and gun attack in Norway last year that left 77 people dead has gone on trial in Oslo.

Anders Breivik attacked a summer youth camp organised by the governing Labour party on the island of Utoeya, after setting off a car bomb in the capital.

He gave a closed-fist salute, and said he did not recognise the court because it was dependent on political parties who supported multiculturalism.

Breivik has confessed to the killings, but denies criminal responsibility.

If the court decides he is criminally insane, he will be committed to psychiatric care; if he is judged to be mentally stable, he will be jailed.

In the latter case, he faces a sentence of 21 years, which could be extended to keep him behind bars for the rest of his life.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17724535

What a weirdo.
 
AdMan said:
Clearly, Breivik is delusional
Click to expand...
I haven´t followed the details, but murderous zeal to defend your country from foreign immigrants is not a delusion, it is not an illness. It is a political opinion, a very regrettable one though. I would make some good use of death penalty here.
 
Well, the circus has started. There's an explosion of news right now, so it's hard to pick out what to report on or not.

But apparently Breivik cried in court, during the reading of the indictment. There are hundreds of opinions as to why he cried, so I won't speculate.
 
Matthew Best said:
The Guardian reports that he was in tears after watching his own propaganda video, not after listening to the indictment.
Click to expand...

There are some reports saying that too. From my understanding, they showed his video right after reading the indictment.
 
Here's RT footage. It's cut together but it seems like he was in tears when they showed the Templar crap in his youtube video, perhaps overwhelmed by the "holyness" of his mission. Psychopath.

 
Bad Lieutenant said:
The invasion of Iraq was sold to the USA and UK public in the name of self defence, even though the Saddam government did not pose a threat.
Click to expand...

More precisely, fabricating "evidence" of a nonexistent threat through the Ofice of Special Plans in order to "fit the intelligence around the policy" of a war crime: invading a government you feel like changing for a combination of unjustifiable reasons.

But this is hardy precedent for anything. It is simply the abject hypocrisy of political criminals killing millions and getting away with it while we get apopleptic about a delusional mass spree killer who took out nothing by comparison.

Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker:

Serial Killers do on a small scale what governments do on a large one
Click to expand...

Ramirez learned at the knee of a Vietnam veteran who committed war crimes recreationally in Vietnam and got away with it, and he told us the same thing another Veteran (Timothey McViegh) did:

Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches
Click to expand...

Brevik too is just doing what my government is doing all over the globe: we are killing people to effect political change.

Brevik put togther his uniforms and patches, all these pseudo-patriotic dressings about his endeavor just like my government. The difference is that political criminals are elected. The crimes are sanctioned and glorified that way I guess - so long as a sufffficient number of the electorate is like-minded with the war crime. You get the same kind of delusional tears you see in Brevik watching his own propaganda film. God and Country. Onward into battle.

Insanity for purposes of establishing legal liability is generally a question of whether you knew what you were doing was wrong. Brevik went months concealing what he was up to, so that seems like a no-brainer. Brevik did not want an insanity plea because that would have discredited his political message. This guy is definitely sane for purposes of legal liability. Psychopaths/sociopaths do not escape criminal liability just because they are psychopathic killers.
 
Ryokan said:
Yes, pretty much. He doesn't outright say it, but it's obvious from reading between the lines that this defence goes against the advice of his defence lawyer. He has no choice, he says, than to follow the wishes of his client.
Click to expand...
He could have refused and said to his client "seek another lawyer". Unless appointed by court, a lawyer has the right to not take on a client or to part ways with his client when there are irreconcilable differences. And with Lippestad's background - Labour party member, chair of "Youth for Understanding" - he would have every reason to, for that "self defence" argument implicitly says he, Lippestad himself, should have been shot as well by Breivik.
 
ddt said:
He could have refused and said to his client "seek another lawyer". Unless appointed by court, a lawyer has the right to not take on a client or to part ways with his client when there are irreconcilable differences. And with Lippestad's background - Labour party member, chair of "Youth for Understanding" - he would have every reason to, for that "self defence" argument implicitly says he, Lippestad himself, should have been shot as well by Breivik.
Click to expand...


The article linked to says Lippestad "was appointed as defence counsel" for Breivik. Was that the court appointing him?

The wiki article on the trial, on the other hand, mentions that Lippestad accepted a request from Breivik to defend him, so how did that happen? If this is true, why did Breivik choose him in particular? Just because of his notoriety?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom