Breivik Trial.....

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by tuffy52, Apr 16, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The trial has started of Anders Breivik today.The prosecution outlining the evidence at the moment,Breivik's only show of emotion was tears of pride at the video he had made...Is he mad or what?....
     
  2. Was he an arrser, or just an arrse?
     
  3. Was watching an AFP link where, if the translation was correct, he pleaded "Not Guilty - Self-defence" To say I am shaking with anger would be an understatement.
     
  4. That's his point though, he says he's not. Doesn't recognise the Court as they're appointed by the Govt etc. The case relies on whether he was mad or not as he says it's self defence. He admits doing the killing. If found criminally insane, he loses the 'upper hand' as it were. Nutter shoots lots of people. If he is not found criminally insane, he's a murderer and then there's the possibility of legal arguments whether shooting all of those people could be classed as self defence.

    Either way, he gets lots of publicity for his 'cause.'

    Personally, I think he's completely 'fruit loop'
     
  5. Well he's admitted his killed all those people but citing self defense, I fear if he was a little more unsure of his sexuality he'd be dangerously close to being EDL leadership material.

    Oh and someone should tell the vain bugger he's looking not just bald but porky.
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. We destroy "mad dogs" for biting people, perhaps that is what this individual needs.
     
  7. Shooting a lot of people may or may not be an insane act; in terms of motivation shooting a thousand is no different from shooting one. He's arguing that shooting activists of that political party was to stop them handing his country over to Mohammedan rule, and that Mohammedan rule would be a direct threat to him.

    If he'd shot one man on those grounds, would you still think him a lunatic as opposed to wrong, evil, without proper justification etc?
     
  8. Or not true.

    If you shake with anger at events in other countries that bear little or no consequence on your life what so ever I suggest you visit a shrink.
     
    • Like Like x 16
  9. Same here. I read last week that he'd been found to be of sound mind (or whatever term they use) and would stand trial as such.
     
  10. Wordsmith

    Wordsmith LE Book Reviewer

    I think Breivik is sane in that his actions were that of a person thinking rationally. I doubt anyone clinically insane could have planned and executed a diversionary car bomb and a mass shooting.

    I think he's a sociopath in that he carried out his killings with no sign or remorse or regret.

    Looks like he's going to have 50 years in segregated confinement to reflect on his actions - in which case he could go mad. That would be poetic justice.

    Wordsmith
     
  11. What is the trial for?
    He did it
    He said he did it
    Self defense is a bollocks argument, so what's to discuss
    The only thing that jumps out at me which must have been looked at, is it seem a heck of a lot for one man to plan and do without any other parties being involved at any level. Not impossible but unlikley.
    So just lock him up for ever or hang him, or in Norways case release him in about 15 years as his treatment is inhumane.
     
  12. One lot of shrinks said he's mad, one lot said he's sane. The court has to decide between them, probably at the sentencing stage as he's not using insanity as a defence. Not sure of the specific rules on that country, but in most, if you're sane enough to assist in your own defence and understand the charges against you, you're tried as a criminal.

    That doesn't stop them declaring you mad after the verdict or even after sentencing. You may recall that the prosecution were willing to accept Peter Sutcliffe's insanity defence, and the judge didn't let them, saying the jury had to decide. The shrinks were made fools of by the prosecution, he was found guilty of murder as a criminal by the jury, but as soon as he was sentenced the shrinks carried him away to hospital anyway.
     
  13. Wordsmith

    Wordsmith LE Book Reviewer

    An 'insane' ruling would have suited some in the political establishment as it might have prevented:

    1) Detailed questions being asked in court about the response time to the shootings on Utoya.

    2) Breivik bringing up the level of immigration in Norway as part of his defence. (Immigration levels have been high and created tensions in Norwegian society.

    So, I suspect the first group of psychiatrists were hand-picked in the expectation that they would come up with an 'insane' ruling. (If you want the right result, pick the people giving it).

    There was a public outcry in Norway at this ruling - and Breivik loudly protested his sanity. So a second group of psychiatrists were picked and came up with a 'sane' result. It's this second verdict that the judge used to rule he was not insane and could stand trial on that basis.

    Breivick should have his day in court just so people can see first hand how insane or otherwise he is.

    Wordsmith
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Err, some low watt EDLer who shivs the local news agent because Big Lance told him all brown people smell funny and want to rape his sister is a bit different from an educated, well orf chap who publishes quite lucid tracts of bigotry and spends years preparing to massacre an entire generation of the Norwegian elite. The former is a sad reflection of a society of dimwits but might be able to argue diminished responsibility the latter may be a deluded narcissist like OBL but really does not have a defense of being a socially dysfunctional mad person in need of treatment.