On July 26 2011 05:04 TokO wrote: Just want to clarify, most youth politicians I know are intelligent people who are actively contributing to democracy in Norway. I'm actually insulted that Glenn Beck would even make that ignorant statement given the situation. People are there voluntarily because they agree with their respective party, and most of all, they want to make Norway a better country. They all are an inspiring group of people for the democratic world.
I'm equally insulted that one off-the-cuff comment during a 3 hour radio show generates the headline "Glenn Beck On Norway Killings: Children Like 'Hitler Youth" (Huffingtonpost headline). Using this tragedy to score a cheap political win with a sensationalist and misleading headline for an off-the-cuff comment taken out of context is equally outrageous, imo. I'm no fan of Beck, but it's clear to me that he's not the only one out of line here.
He was not out of line comparing a summer camp for youth, which by most accounts is just as much a place to pick up girls/boys as it is about politics, with the hitler jugend? What planet are you living on? You either have no idea what kind of camp this was, or you have no understanding of history and what the hitler jugend actually was and represented - or all of the above. And there was nothing "off the cuff" about Beck's comment. He had heard about the situation before going on air and had time to form an opinion on the matter before making the comment. He'll take any chance to take a random stab at a social democratic society, because that's just what he does
Not sure if this has been posted already, but here is picture of Anders with his sister and mother.
that's EXTREMELY unproffessional of The Telegraph. His mother and sister are entitled to as much anonymity as they can get at this point, this situation has already ruined their lives. His mother even needed emergency psychiatric help (which I assume means she was contemplating or had attempted to take her own life)
I said he was out line.
You also said it's out of line to make a big deal of a person being way out of line... which imo isn't the case
No, I said it was out of line to use a sensationalist and misleading headline just to score a cheap political victory in the wake of this tragedy.
This incident, brutal as it may be, has only reinforced my belief in humanity and our (Norwegian) values. Everyone has pulled together in search for love and understanding, not hate and retribution, and it's so beautiful.
I will never be the same person again -- this has changed me -- but in a positive way. My new goal in life is to spread happiness and love. There is no better feeling in the world than bonding with another human being, as I have experienced these past few days.
Fitting song (not sure if posted yet): Til Ungdommen // For The Youth In Norwegian, but translated in the description.
Sang and played this on guitar earlier and broke down in tears multiple times, but it helps. I feel better for every tear shed.
OSLO — When a man dressed in a police uniform began slaughtering young people at a Norwegian summer camp last week, one of the first to be killed was a real police officer named Trond Berntsen, who for years had worked in security at the camp.
Whether Officer Berntsen tried to stop the gunman is still being debated. But facing a man carrying multiple guns and ample ammunition, there was little he could do. Like most other police officers here, he had no weapon.
“Criminals are now carrying weapons, so some people now think that police officers should have weapons as well,” said Gry Jorunn Holmen, a spokeswoman for the Norwegian police union. Though she said it was too early to make any assessments, Ms. Holmen said the union had formed a commission to explore the issue. For the police, she said, “it’s getting tougher.”
It took police SWAT units more than an hour to reach the camp, on Utoya island, after reports of the shooting came in. Officers had to drive to the shore across from the site of the shooting attack, and use boats to get to the island. A police helicopter was unable to get off the ground; news crews that reached the island by air could only watch as the gunman continued the massacre.
Anne Holt, Norway’s former justice minister, told the BBC: “That makes him a person that killed one person every minute. If the police had actually been there just a half an hour earlier, then 30 young lives would have been saved.”
Now, I was berated and seethed at several pages back for broaching this topic. However, now that a respectable publication has brought it to light, I feel that it is acceptable to raise the issue under a new, more focused light. I'm not posting this to share my own opinion, but rather, to provide legitimate insight from an underrepresented perspective.
The article rightly mentions that the crime rate suggests having better-prepared police isn't necessary in general [in Norway and similar countries]. So, with that said... Would it be worth it to set aside some spending to ensure a better outcome in the future in all nations with similarly under-prepared response units? Would the fact that many lives could be saved justify the increase in spending - even if the event is a rare event?
On July 26 2011 04:18 Senx wrote: For him, this is a success. He attracted massive attention to his manifesto and political views, 20 years of prison? NP. He's out again in his mid 50s.
This guy planned this out very well, he's didn't just randomly go and kill a bunch of people, it was targetted to get his point across and to get most possible attention to himself and his views.
That this guy is ONLY given 21 years for what he's done is just a testiment of norweigan law system that is so extremely mild and forgiving.
Its like any psychos heaven to go to norway and commit crimes, they know they'll get a mild punishment in comparison to whats in other countries and continents.
For god's sake, read the damn OP. You're like the 1000th person not doing that.
But after the 21 years they need to determine if he's still dangerous to the society and can't be released, and when doing that his past crimes(murder of ~76 people) shouldn't have an effect on the decision.
He killed about 100 people if the people still missing are dead. No one is going to set him free after 21 years. If he killed his wife's lover in a rage, then yes, but this man killed more than 80 people in cold blood, preparing the deed for over 9 years and whatnot else.
He'll never be free. And even if he goes free, that will be because he finally realised what he has done which will have shattered his soul. He'll be safe to release then. I would have no problems with that as his conscience will be enough punishment for the rest of his life. Doubt that's gonna happen though.
This is a terrorism crime, that's different from murdering your wife.
As I said, at that moment(in 21 years), they're supposed to objectively judge if he'd be a danger to the society, regardless of the crimes he's done in the past. These aren't my ideas by the way, I think some finnish law expert said this.
Now, if they just hold him there anyway without doing as the law says you're supposed to, it kind of defeats the purpose, and they should just implement life sentence.
The guy spent 9 years planning this. he lied to every single person in his life and did everything conceivable to hide his plans from everyone. he has shown himself capable of living two lives where he openly expresses thoughts and actions diametrically opposite of his true thoughts and feelings. considering that his life has consisted of lies and deceit for a 9 year period, he has forever lost emotional credibility. He will never pass a "test to see whether he is now fit for society again" - his track record ensures that he can never convince prison staff of his rehabilitation. thus, "forvaring" can be justifiably used to keep him in prison for life without altering or abusing the law.
in addition to this point, I feel I must also adress what sort of camp this was. somehow, it was at some point mistranslated into "socialist youth camp" - but this is not even remotely accurate. It's the "summer camp for members of the youth organization of the labour party" - socialism or any variant of the word is never mentioned. This is a summer camp which has some political aspects (leading figures of the labour party having speeches, people have political discussions and most people who are there are more interested in politics than the average citizen), but most people who are there are there to socialize with friends in a really beautiful area. The party advocates social-democracy, but any notion that this is a camp for socialist indoctrination is retardedly ignorant at best. furthermore, it is a strictly voluntary affair, and for many of these youths it is the highlight of their summer. And mostly all participants are at least 15 years old.
and lastly, I have to say that I am thoroughly impressed with the response of my fellow norwegians. the press has mostly been good. the speeches given by the major of oslo (used to think he was a clown), and by leading figures of the labour party, have been absolutely amazing. but what has truly impressed me has been the response by the norwegian people. everyone is shocked, people have openly expressed their sadness, and the nation is hurt. but the few voices shouting for blood have been completely drowned by the massive response of love. watching pictures of oslo where people are just, hugging eachother, crying, putting roses everywhere, and being there for eachother, strike me as enormously beautiful. everybody knows that maybe the police could've been there faster. everybody knows that we must make alterations regarding the police and how fast they can respond to catastrophies. but everybody also knows that this is not the time to discuss those topics - this is the time for mourning and expressing our love for eachother. So far, everything has gone in the opposite direction of what anders breivik intended, instead of instigating hatred, suspicion and separation, he has been the greatest catalyst of togetherness Norway has experienced since the end of world war two.
He was not out of line comparing a summer camp for youth, which by most accounts is just as much a place to pick up girls/boys as it is about politics, with the hitler jugend? What planet are you living on? You either have no idea what kind of camp this was, or you have no understanding of history and what the hitler jugend actually was and represented - or all of the above. And there was nothing "off the cuff" about Beck's comment. He had heard about the situation before going on air and had time to form an opinion on the matter before making the comment. He'll take any chance to take a random stab at a social democratic society, because that's just what he does
So in one sentence it was not an off the cuff comment, two sentences later it was a "random stab at a social democratic society."
If you're going to throw out a heaping helping of manufactured self-righteous indignation, at least be coherent about it. You're just as ignorant as Beck is was BlackJack's point, and he was right. There are already those "on the left" trying to take advantage of this massacre by smearing "the right" with Breivik's ideas and words, don't sit there and act like you are just so indignant about Glenn Beck and he is some kind of special case, he isn't, he is a run of the mill rabble-rouser.
in addition to this point, I feel I must also adress what sort of camp this was. somehow, it was at some point mistranslated into "socialist youth camp" - but this is not even remotely accurate. It's the "summer camp for members of the youth organization of the labour party" - socialism or any variant of the word is never mentioned. This is a summer camp which has some political aspects (leading figures of the labour party having speeches, people have political discussions and most people who are there are more interested in politics than the average citizen), but most people who are there are there to socialize with friends in a really beautiful area. The party advocates social-democracy, but any notion that this is a camp for socialist indoctrination is retardedly ignorant at best. furthermore, it is a strictly voluntary affair, and for many of these youths it is the highlight of their summer. And mostly all participants are at least 15 years old.
He murdered all those people on the island specifically because to him it was striking a blow at the Labor Party.
I don't think it really matters just what kind of camp it was whether it was just a way to get laid or politically based or whatever, adding any kind of political element at all to it made it a target. Youth camps or retreats or anything like that run by or affiliated with political parties should understand that in today's world they can be a target and should think about appropriate security, I mean apparently there were off-duty police on the island on "voluntary overtime" or whatever acting as guards but were unarmed, things like that have to change. Anyone and anywhere can be a target these days =(
On July 26 2011 10:05 FallDownMarigold wrote: With regard to previous discussion concerning whether or not Norway's police are aptly equipped in the event of what we saw unfold recently, here is a very relevant piece: New York Times: After Killings, Unease in Norway, Police & Guns...
OSLO — When a man dressed in a police uniform began slaughtering young people at a Norwegian summer camp last week, one of the first to be killed was a real police officer named Trond Berntsen, who for years had worked in security at the camp.
Whether Officer Berntsen tried to stop the gunman is still being debated. But facing a man carrying multiple guns and ample ammunition, there was little he could do. Like most other police officers here, he had no weapon.
“Criminals are now carrying weapons, so some people now think that police officers should have weapons as well,” said Gry Jorunn Holmen, a spokeswoman for the Norwegian police union. Though she said it was too early to make any assessments, Ms. Holmen said the union had formed a commission to explore the issue. For the police, she said, “it’s getting tougher.”
It took police SWAT units more than an hour to reach the camp, on Utoya island, after reports of the shooting came in. Officers had to drive to the shore across from the site of the shooting attack, and use boats to get to the island. A police helicopter was unable to get off the ground; news crews that reached the island by air could only watch as the gunman continued the massacre.
Anne Holt, Norway’s former justice minister, told the BBC: “That makes him a person that killed one person every minute. If the police had actually been there just a half an hour earlier, then 30 young lives would have been saved.”
Now, I was berated and seethed at several pages back for broaching this topic. However, now that a respectable publication has brought it to light, I feel that it is acceptable to raise the issue under a new, more focused light. I'm not posting this to share my own opinion, but rather, to provide legitimate insight from an underrepresented perspective.
The article rightly mentions that the crime rate suggests having better-prepared police isn't necessary in general [in Norway and similar countries]. So, with that said... Would it be worth it to set aside some spending to ensure a better outcome in the future in all nations with similarly under-prepared response units? Would the fact that many lives could be saved justify the increase in spending - even if the event is a rare event?
One person a minute is based on the overall time frame and people killed, which has nothing to do with reality. The point though, that more people could have been saved if the police had apprehended the terrorist faster, is of course correct, but evaluating how they spent their time without having a good insight in their methods and comparative data with other strike teams in similarly problematic situations, it's rather pointless. Thus the article's implied point in that a more well-funded police force would have prevented loss of life in this situation is too generalising. Throwing money at a problem isn't neccessarily solving it, as american school funding has shown.
That being said, now that we're aware of the situation and problems, we can of course work to improve the points that have been lackluster, but simply putting aside funds for fringe events such as this would be a too narrow focus on spending. Rather, what they should try to develop, and probably will, is more general approaches to a wider variety of situations based on their experiences with this double-pronged event, hiring in the needed researchers and trainers to complete this, but strictly increasing funding and aiming at securing oneselves against specific events such as these is mostly pointless.
I don't think it really matters just what kind of camp it was whether it was just a way to get laid or politically based or whatever, adding any kind of political element at all to it made it a target. Youth camps or retreats or anything like that run by or affiliated with political parties should understand that in today's world they can be a target and should think about appropriate security, I mean apparently there were off-duty police on the island on "voluntary overtime" or whatever acting as guards but were unarmed, things like that have to change. Anyone and anywhere can be a target these days =(
Yes, any political camp can be a target of an attack. Also, any public transportation can be a target of an attack. And private shuttle services. And public meeting places. And private homes. And so on. And so forth. The entire threat of acts of terrorism is that it can strike anywhere at any time, depending on the mind of the terrorist. It can only be predicted and prevented so much - something will always slip through, and tragedies will happen. Increasing security at every aspect of life will not stop terrorists from killing people or blowing up buildings. And increasing the weaponary of security forces will not stop terrorists - it will force them to become more violent, more terrible. In addition, there's the entire thing of what damages these secrurity measures do to our lives in the process.
Some states react badly to terrorism and live in perpetual fear. I don't want Norway to react in that way.
On July 26 2011 05:04 TokO wrote: Just want to clarify, most youth politicians I know are intelligent people who are actively contributing to democracy in Norway. I'm actually insulted that Glenn Beck would even make that ignorant statement given the situation. People are there voluntarily because they agree with their respective party, and most of all, they want to make Norway a better country. They all are an inspiring group of people for the democratic world.
I'm equally insulted that one off-the-cuff comment during a 3 hour radio show generates the headline "Glenn Beck On Norway Killings: Children Like 'Hitler Youth" (Huffingtonpost headline). Using this tragedy to score a cheap political win with a sensationalist and misleading headline for an off-the-cuff comment taken out of context is equally outrageous, imo. I'm no fan of Beck, but it's clear to me that he's not the only one out of line here.
He was not out of line comparing a summer camp for youth, which by most accounts is just as much a place to pick up girls/boys as it is about politics, with the hitler jugend? What planet are you living on? You either have no idea what kind of camp this was, or you have no understanding of history and what the hitler jugend actually was and represented - or all of the above. And there was nothing "off the cuff" about Beck's comment. He had heard about the situation before going on air and had time to form an opinion on the matter before making the comment. He'll take any chance to take a random stab at a social democratic society, because that's just what he does
Not sure if this has been posted already, but here is picture of Anders with his sister and mother.
that's EXTREMELY unproffessional of The Telegraph. His mother and sister are entitled to as much anonymity as they can get at this point, this situation has already ruined their lives. His mother even needed emergency psychiatric help (which I assume means she was contemplating or had attempted to take her own life)
I said he was out line.
You also said it's out of line to make a big deal of a person being way out of line... which imo isn't the case
No, I said it was out of line to use a sensationalist and misleading headline just to score a cheap political victory in the wake of this tragedy.
it's a headline in norwegian news as well - from news organisations with no interest in scoring "cheap political victories" in US politics. What Beck said was outrageous and the media are only doing their job when they report just how much of a fuckwit he is.
The whole 21 years thing had me outraged too, then I came here and read about the forvaging. Unfortunately the American media likes to sensationalize it by just headlining the "21 years" making it seem really soft, especially compared to our laws. I don't know the circumstances of his surrender, but cops here would have just shot the guy, maybe rightfully so. It's a horrible thing to be sure.
Maybe you ask in fear, uncovered, open: with what shall I fight what is my weapon? Here is your defense against violence here is your sword: the belief in our life, the worth of mankind.
On July 26 2011 10:05 FallDownMarigold wrote: With regard to previous discussion concerning whether or not Norway's police are aptly equipped in the event of what we saw unfold recently, here is a very relevant piece: New York Times: After Killings, Unease in Norway, Police & Guns...
OSLO — When a man dressed in a police uniform began slaughtering young people at a Norwegian summer camp last week, one of the first to be killed was a real police officer named Trond Berntsen, who for years had worked in security at the camp.
Whether Officer Berntsen tried to stop the gunman is still being debated. But facing a man carrying multiple guns and ample ammunition, there was little he could do. Like most other police officers here, he had no weapon.
“Criminals are now carrying weapons, so some people now think that police officers should have weapons as well,” said Gry Jorunn Holmen, a spokeswoman for the Norwegian police union. Though she said it was too early to make any assessments, Ms. Holmen said the union had formed a commission to explore the issue. For the police, she said, “it’s getting tougher.”
It took police SWAT units more than an hour to reach the camp, on Utoya island, after reports of the shooting came in. Officers had to drive to the shore across from the site of the shooting attack, and use boats to get to the island. A police helicopter was unable to get off the ground; news crews that reached the island by air could only watch as the gunman continued the massacre.
Anne Holt, Norway’s former justice minister, told the BBC: “That makes him a person that killed one person every minute. If the police had actually been there just a half an hour earlier, then 30 young lives would have been saved.”
Now, I was berated and seethed at several pages back for broaching this topic. However, now that a respectable publication has brought it to light, I feel that it is acceptable to raise the issue under a new, more focused light. I'm not posting this to share my own opinion, but rather, to provide legitimate insight from an underrepresented perspective.
The article rightly mentions that the crime rate suggests having better-prepared police isn't necessary in general [in Norway and similar countries]. So, with that said... Would it be worth it to set aside some spending to ensure a better outcome in the future in all nations with similarly under-prepared response units? Would the fact that many lives could be saved justify the increase in spending - even if the event is a rare event?
One person a minute is based on the overall time frame and people killed, which has nothing to do with reality. The point though, that more people could have been saved if the police had apprehended the terrorist faster, is of course correct, but evaluating how they spent their time without having a good insight in their methods and comparative data with other strike teams in similarly problematic situations, it's rather pointless. Thus the article's implied point in that a more well-funded police force would have prevented loss of life in this situation is too generalising. Throwing money at a problem isn't neccessarily solving it, as american school funding has shown.
I agree that in some cases it's hard to objectively solve a problem. In fact, it's hard to diagnose a problem in many cases. You school analogy does not work because with schools there is no obvious concrete parallel. In this case, as the article points out, there is:
1) Unarmed officers on scene - helpless -> Implies that if armed they could have confronted the killer 2) Dysfunctional police helicopter (primary reason for delayed response) -> Implies that more helicopters on hand or better-maintained helicopters could have expedited the mission
Both of those problems highlighted CAN be solved with extra funding or a policy shift, as expressed by the police spokeswoman. And I think you should read the article - it implies that fixing these points WOULD in fact fix a large variety of possible future situations. You're being too vague saying "well yes we should increase funding somewhere, but not there, it would be pointless". Would it be pointless to begin arming police officers? I thought it was interesting that Norway values national pride, in particular, being a comparatively peaceful nation. However, from a purely logic based perspective I wonder if it would be better to make concessions in this area in favor of mitigating the steadily but slowly rising presence of guns and foreign, violent criminal activity in Norway (per the article).
That's what I'm curious about. The article raises a strong point here - one that can't be countered with an analogy to American school funding and under-performance (that issue is not based upon 2 or 3 simple/objective facts).
edit: And yeah of course the one person/minute point is... well... obviously not perfectly factual, but it's a rough average. The killings, according to interviewees, occurred sporadically throughout the ordeal. Picking at their frequency is not worth much value in my opinion. It's easier to simplify it to 1 kill/minute. In this case I fully agree with the logic (presented by Norway's former justice minister).
On July 26 2011 05:04 TokO wrote: Just want to clarify, most youth politicians I know are intelligent people who are actively contributing to democracy in Norway. I'm actually insulted that Glenn Beck would even make that ignorant statement given the situation. People are there voluntarily because they agree with their respective party, and most of all, they want to make Norway a better country. They all are an inspiring group of people for the democratic world.
I'm equally insulted that one off-the-cuff comment during a 3 hour radio show generates the headline "Glenn Beck On Norway Killings: Children Like 'Hitler Youth" (Huffingtonpost headline). Using this tragedy to score a cheap political win with a sensationalist and misleading headline for an off-the-cuff comment taken out of context is equally outrageous, imo. I'm no fan of Beck, but it's clear to me that he's not the only one out of line here.
He was not out of line comparing a summer camp for youth, which by most accounts is just as much a place to pick up girls/boys as it is about politics, with the hitler jugend? What planet are you living on? You either have no idea what kind of camp this was, or you have no understanding of history and what the hitler jugend actually was and represented - or all of the above. And there was nothing "off the cuff" about Beck's comment. He had heard about the situation before going on air and had time to form an opinion on the matter before making the comment. He'll take any chance to take a random stab at a social democratic society, because that's just what he does
Not sure if this has been posted already, but here is picture of Anders with his sister and mother.
that's EXTREMELY unproffessional of The Telegraph. His mother and sister are entitled to as much anonymity as they can get at this point, this situation has already ruined their lives. His mother even needed emergency psychiatric help (which I assume means she was contemplating or had attempted to take her own life)
I said he was out line.
You also said it's out of line to make a big deal of a person being way out of line... which imo isn't the case
No, I said it was out of line to use a sensationalist and misleading headline just to score a cheap political victory in the wake of this tragedy.
it's a headline in norwegian news as well - from news organisations with no interest in scoring "cheap political victories" in US politics. What Beck said was outrageous and the media are only doing their job when they report just how much of a fuckwit he is.
I don't know why this is making headlines in your country but I highly doubt it's just reporters doing their job on calling out an American radio host for a stupid comment that he made. The reason it is making some headlines in our country is because sensationalist media sells and our media is driven by profit. The reason it is making headlines on Huffingtonpost is because anytime they post a story about Glenn Beck or Fox News they are guaranteed to get 100k hits on it and start rolling in the ad revenue.
btw here's the Beck quote again:
"There was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like, you know, the Hitler youth. I mean, who does a camp for kids that's all about politics?"
It's extremely obvious that he was saying "I don't know anything about this camp, other than that it's a political camp for youth and that sounds a little like Hitler youth."
What's the point in calling his comment ignorant when he is openly stating that he doesn't know anything about the camp? Who is expecting him to not be ignorant of a camp in Norway as if he could possible be up to date on what happens in a random camp in Norway? He hosts a 3 hour radio show and it's his job to make controversial gut reactions without knowing all the facts, so it's hardly news when he makes a controversial gut reaction without knowing all the facts.
edit2: and when I see a Norwegian post that "Glenn Beck is comparing the camp victims to Hitler Youth" and I see headlines that say "Glenn Beck: Shooting victims like Hitler Youth" I expect to find some hate filled rant against socialists and indoctrination, not one gut reaction comment that is suddenly international news.
He was not out of line comparing a summer camp for youth, which by most accounts is just as much a place to pick up girls/boys as it is about politics, with the hitler jugend? What planet are you living on? You either have no idea what kind of camp this was, or you have no understanding of history and what the hitler jugend actually was and represented - or all of the above. And there was nothing "off the cuff" about Beck's comment. He had heard about the situation before going on air and had time to form an opinion on the matter before making the comment. He'll take any chance to take a random stab at a social democratic society, because that's just what he does
So in one sentence it was not an off the cuff comment, two sentences later it was a "random stab at a social democratic society."
It's random in terms of the context it was presented in, but Beck saying things like this absolutely fits with his MO. In that sense there's nothing random about it. He is politically obliged to take any stab at "socialism" that he can and it is also what his audience wants to hear from him.
If you're going to throw out a heaping helping of manufactured self-righteous indignation, at least be coherent about it.
Where do you get the idea that my indignation is manufactured? I couldn't be more sincere. Him comparing the AUF summer camp to nazi germany forced hero worship is so far beyond absurd. What's even more absurd is that when a media outlet points out how fucked up it is, in the US climate, it is somehow a political cheap shot. What the fuck?
You're just as ignorant as Beck is was BlackJack's point, and he was right.
You'e trolling hard here, but I'll bite. Beck clearly doesn't even know what kind of camp this was, so how could I possibly be as ignorant as him. I probably have a better understanding of Nazi germany and the hitler jugend than he does, simply by cultural osmosis and stories my grandfather told me from when he was in the resistance movement.
There are already those "on the left" trying to take advantage of this massacre by smearing "the right" with Breivik's ideas and words, don't sit there and act like you are just so indignant about Glenn Beck and he is some kind of special case, he isn't, he is a run of the mill rabble-rouser.
I have no idea what you're trying to get at here. After you're done trying to smear me as an indignated leftie, maybe you could try and explain that doozie of a sentence.
On July 26 2011 10:13 Liquid`Drone wrote: [...] and lastly, I have to say that I am thoroughly impressed with the response of my fellow norwegians. the press has mostly been good. the speeches given by the major of oslo (used to think he was a clown), and by leading figures of the labour party, have been absolutely amazing. but what has truly impressed me has been the response by the norwegian people. everyone is shocked, people have openly expressed their sadness, and the nation is hurt. but the few voices shouting for blood have been completely drowned by the massive response of love. watching pictures of oslo where people are just, hugging eachother, crying, putting roses everywhere, and being there for eachother, strike me as enormously beautiful. everybody knows that maybe the police could've been there faster. everybody knows that we must make alterations regarding the police and how fast they can respond to catastrophies. but everybody also knows that this is not the time to discuss those topics - this is the time for mourning and expressing our love for eachother. So far, everything has gone in the opposite direction of what anders breivik intended, instead of instigating hatred, suspicion and separation, he has been the greatest catalyst of togetherness Norway has experienced since the end of world war two.
I think I've said it before, but I can't state it enough how truly impressed I am with how Norway as a whole reacted. It should be a guide for any country how to react to such horrible things (even tho I doubt it will be for many. Actually, I think there are only very limited - if any - countries that could react the way norway did.)
I've read so many cries for revenge, even people asking for changing the law to hit him harder (even tho it's and should be impossible in any modern country to apply a new law after the crime had been done) but barely any norwegian did.
How Norway as a whole reacted to this situation by standing together and by their values, and not only doing so, but saying it over and over again to all the people who can't or don't want to understand, is as said in the beginning, truly impressive.
I'm really proud of Norway's reaction thus far, though, and I hope that they continue to deny that individual any air-time. I also hope that they "forvar" his ass forever.
To all you Norwegians out there: stay the course and keep being the naive, idealistic, open-armed ballers that you are. It would absolutely kill me to see his methods bring his visions one inch closer to reality.
On July 26 2011 10:05 FallDownMarigold wrote: With regard to previous discussion concerning whether or not Norway's police are aptly equipped in the event of what we saw unfold recently, here is a very relevant piece: New York Times: After Killings, Unease in Norway, Police & Guns...
OSLO — When a man dressed in a police uniform began slaughtering young people at a Norwegian summer camp last week, one of the first to be killed was a real police officer named Trond Berntsen, who for years had worked in security at the camp.
Whether Officer Berntsen tried to stop the gunman is still being debated. But facing a man carrying multiple guns and ample ammunition, there was little he could do. Like most other police officers here, he had no weapon.
“Criminals are now carrying weapons, so some people now think that police officers should have weapons as well,” said Gry Jorunn Holmen, a spokeswoman for the Norwegian police union. Though she said it was too early to make any assessments, Ms. Holmen said the union had formed a commission to explore the issue. For the police, she said, “it’s getting tougher.”
It took police SWAT units more than an hour to reach the camp, on Utoya island, after reports of the shooting came in. Officers had to drive to the shore across from the site of the shooting attack, and use boats to get to the island. A police helicopter was unable to get off the ground; news crews that reached the island by air could only watch as the gunman continued the massacre.
Anne Holt, Norway’s former justice minister, told the BBC: “That makes him a person that killed one person every minute. If the police had actually been there just a half an hour earlier, then 30 young lives would have been saved.”
Now, I was berated and seethed at several pages back for broaching this topic. However, now that a respectable publication has brought it to light, I feel that it is acceptable to raise the issue under a new, more focused light. I'm not posting this to share my own opinion, but rather, to provide legitimate insight from an underrepresented perspective.
The article rightly mentions that the crime rate suggests having better-prepared police isn't necessary in general [in Norway and similar countries]. So, with that said... Would it be worth it to set aside some spending to ensure a better outcome in the future in all nations with similarly under-prepared response units? Would the fact that many lives could be saved justify the increase in spending - even if the event is a rare event?
One person a minute is based on the overall time frame and people killed, which has nothing to do with reality. The point though, that more people could have been saved if the police had apprehended the terrorist faster, is of course correct, but evaluating how they spent their time without having a good insight in their methods and comparative data with other strike teams in similarly problematic situations, it's rather pointless. Thus the article's implied point in that a more well-funded police force would have prevented loss of life in this situation is too generalising. Throwing money at a problem isn't neccessarily solving it, as american school funding has shown.
I agree that in some cases it's hard to objectively solve a problem. In fact, it's hard to diagnose a problem in many cases. You school analogy does not work because with schools there is no obvious concrete parallel. In this case, as the article points out, there is:
1) Unarmed officers on scene - helpless -> Implies that if armed they could have confronted the killer 2) Dysfunctional police helicopter (primary reason for delayed response) -> Implies that more helicopters on hand or better-maintained helicopters could have expedited the mission
Both of those problems highlighted CAN be solved with extra funding or a policy shift, as expressed by the police spokeswoman.
That's what I'm curious about. The article raises a strong point here - one that can't be countered with an analogy to American school funding and under-performance (that issue is not based upon 2 or 3 simple/objective facts).
edit: And yeah of course the one person/minute point is... well... obviously not perfectly factual, but it's a rough average. The killings, according to interviewees, occurred sporadically throughout the ordeal. Picking at their frequency is not worth much value in my opinion. It's easier to simplify it to 1 kill/minute. In this case I fully agree with the logic (presented by Norway's former justice minister).
Yes, the school parallel is not directly related, of course. It was meant as a general comparison of where spending =! result. The comparison works in the general line of thought that higher security spending would equal better security, as this wouldn't neccessarily be the case.
And about the officer - he was the first one to meet the terrorist on the island (together with the camp arrangement caretaker, I think), and according to witness descriptions, these two were the first ones shot. The officer having a weapon wouldn't have helped, as one can assume that the terrorist had his weapon much more at the ready than the officer, who would have had no reason to distrust the "SWAT officer" before he got within shooting range of said's gun.
There's of course also the point that the officer on the island was there during his vacation, as an off-duty guardsman to make people feel safe rather than perform his job as a police officer. He would probably not be carrying a weapon during his vacation even if he had a weapon in his day job.
As for the two points of the article - yes, I agree with the second one, as if the police actually had a proper helicopter that couldn't operate as intended due to lack of maintenance due to funding, then yes, more funding would help that. From what I've read and heard though, the helicopter the police had available was a one (or two)-man recon helicopter, not an assault team deployment thing. Even if they had a helicopter, I find it very unlikely that PST would send one guy alone onto the island without backup to face the terrorist.
As for the first point, this is a part of the escalation mechanics I was describing earlier. If the officer had a weapon, then the terrorist would know the officer had a weapon and would take the proper precautions through escalation of force. How can you then expect what he would do in that case? And how would the police react - up their security level again, through more weapons, more personell? And have the terrorists react again, by further escalations?
I feel the article's points are very much based on knowledge that could in no way have been asserted beforehand, and even if these points were ensured, other things could have been equally detrimental to the police efforts. While I agree that they should go over any procedures, as they undoubtably are continuously, and were before this, one simply cannot predict everything. Pointing at something in hindsight, I feel, is arrogant, and not very constructive.
Edit: Arrogance in the article of course, not the poster.
On July 26 2011 10:05 FallDownMarigold wrote: With regard to previous discussion concerning whether or not Norway's police are aptly equipped in the event of what we saw unfold recently, here is a very relevant piece: New York Times: After Killings, Unease in Norway, Police & Guns...
OSLO — When a man dressed in a police uniform began slaughtering young people at a Norwegian summer camp last week, one of the first to be killed was a real police officer named Trond Berntsen, who for years had worked in security at the camp.
Whether Officer Berntsen tried to stop the gunman is still being debated. But facing a man carrying multiple guns and ample ammunition, there was little he could do. Like most other police officers here, he had no weapon.
“Criminals are now carrying weapons, so some people now think that police officers should have weapons as well,” said Gry Jorunn Holmen, a spokeswoman for the Norwegian police union. Though she said it was too early to make any assessments, Ms. Holmen said the union had formed a commission to explore the issue. For the police, she said, “it’s getting tougher.”
It took police SWAT units more than an hour to reach the camp, on Utoya island, after reports of the shooting came in. Officers had to drive to the shore across from the site of the shooting attack, and use boats to get to the island. A police helicopter was unable to get off the ground; news crews that reached the island by air could only watch as the gunman continued the massacre.
Anne Holt, Norway’s former justice minister, told the BBC: “That makes him a person that killed one person every minute. If the police had actually been there just a half an hour earlier, then 30 young lives would have been saved.”
Now, I was berated and seethed at several pages back for broaching this topic. However, now that a respectable publication has brought it to light, I feel that it is acceptable to raise the issue under a new, more focused light. I'm not posting this to share my own opinion, but rather, to provide legitimate insight from an underrepresented perspective.
The article rightly mentions that the crime rate suggests having better-prepared police isn't necessary in general [in Norway and similar countries]. So, with that said... Would it be worth it to set aside some spending to ensure a better outcome in the future in all nations with similarly under-prepared response units? Would the fact that many lives could be saved justify the increase in spending - even if the event is a rare event?
One person a minute is based on the overall time frame and people killed, which has nothing to do with reality. The point though, that more people could have been saved if the police had apprehended the terrorist faster, is of course correct, but evaluating how they spent their time without having a good insight in their methods and comparative data with other strike teams in similarly problematic situations, it's rather pointless. Thus the article's implied point in that a more well-funded police force would have prevented loss of life in this situation is too generalising. Throwing money at a problem isn't neccessarily solving it, as american school funding has shown.
I agree that in some cases it's hard to objectively solve a problem. In fact, it's hard to diagnose a problem in many cases. You school analogy does not work because with schools there is no obvious concrete parallel. In this case, as the article points out, there is:
1) Unarmed officers on scene - helpless -> Implies that if armed they could have confronted the killer 2) Dysfunctional police helicopter (primary reason for delayed response) -> Implies that more helicopters on hand or better-maintained helicopters could have expedited the mission
Both of those problems highlighted CAN be solved with extra funding or a policy shift, as expressed by the police spokeswoman.
That's what I'm curious about. The article raises a strong point here - one that can't be countered with an analogy to American school funding and under-performance (that issue is not based upon 2 or 3 simple/objective facts).
edit: And yeah of course the one person/minute point is... well... obviously not perfectly factual, but it's a rough average. The killings, according to interviewees, occurred sporadically throughout the ordeal. Picking at their frequency is not worth much value in my opinion. It's easier to simplify it to 1 kill/minute. In this case I fully agree with the logic (presented by Norway's former justice minister).
Yes, the school parallel is not directly related, of course. It was meant as a general comparison of where spending =! result. The comparison works in the general line of thought that higher security spending would equal better security, as this wouldn't neccessarily be the case.
And about the officer - he was the first one to meet the terrorist on the island (together with the camp arrangement caretaker, I think), and according to witness descriptions, these two were the first ones shot. The officer having a weapon wouldn't have helped, as one can assume that the terrorist had his weapon much more at the ready than the officer, who would have had no reason to distrust the "SWAT officer" before he got within shooting range of said's gun.
There's of course also the point that the officer on the island was there during his vacation, as an off-duty guardsman to make people feel safe rather than perform his job as a police officer. He would probably not be carrying a weapon during his vacation even if he had a weapon in his day job.
As for the two points of the article - yes, I agree with the second one, as if the police actually had a proper helicopter that couldn't operate as intended due to lack of maintenance due to funding, then yes, more funding would help that. From what I've read and heard though, the helicopter the police had available was a one (or two)-man recon helicopter, not an assault team deployment thing. Even if they had a helicopter, I find it very unlikely that PST would send one guy alone onto the island without backup to face the terrorist.
As for the first point, this is a part of the escalation mechanics I was describing earlier. If the officer had a weapon, then the terrorist would know the officer had a weapon and would take the proper precautions through escalation of force. How can you then expect what he would do in that case? And how would the police react - up their security level again, through more weapons, more personell? And have the terrorists react again, by further escalations?
I feel the article's points are very much based on knowledge that could in no way have been asserted beforehand, and even if these points were ensured, other things could have been equally detrimental to the police efforts. While I agree that they should go over any procedures, as they undoubtably are continuously, and were before this, one simply cannot predict everything. Pointing at something in hindsight, I feel, is arrogant, and not very constructive.
I agree with that general line of thinking, but I think you're still too quick to discredit the article (perhaps because it points to slight disagreement with your line of thinking). You can't really say that there would be an "arms race" of sorts between potential shooters and policemen. Knowing police have guns, you ask, what would shooters do in response? Well... Nothing more than what this man already did, to be blunt. He made use of incredibly powerful explosives. Check. He made use of an incredibly powerful rifle. Check. I suppose knowing police are armed he could have brought 2 incredibly powerful rifles? But that wouldn't actually increase his firepower, so never mind that idea. The arms race idea does not apply to criminals that are already utilizing the top of the food chain in weapons.
I'm still not convinced that Norway, along with the other 2 countries in the world that uphold it, should refrain from arming police officers due to national pride concerning a peaceful reputation &c. In 1965 Sweden - another similar nation - re-armed police officers. I'm having trouble being logically persuaded against that type of move. I'm still going to have to agree with the opinion of Norway's police spokeswoman here, and disagree with that of one of Norway's professors.
Thanks for your input though - I do feel that it's an issue that should be handled cautiously, nonetheless, even if the longterm inevitability seems...well...unavoidable (better prepared police officers).
I like your idea of thinking hard about addressing changes, though. Having some long-thought research would be excellent. It's tough to say nothing should be done, but equally tough to say exactly what should be done. I agree that my points about getting more X or doing concrete Y aren't end-all-be-all solutions. They're a start though.
And at the same time, I can't help but empathize with Norwegian peaceful pride. Seeing armed officers WOULD be difficult after so much time without them. Logic may say it's a necessity, but heart says otherwise. It's tough either way. Hmm, the more I edit, the less sure I am about what I think!
On July 26 2011 10:05 FallDownMarigold wrote: With regard to previous discussion concerning whether or not Norway's police are aptly equipped in the event of what we saw unfold recently, here is a very relevant piece: New York Times: After Killings, Unease in Norway, Police & Guns...
OSLO — When a man dressed in a police uniform began slaughtering young people at a Norwegian summer camp last week, one of the first to be killed was a real police officer named Trond Berntsen, who for years had worked in security at the camp.
Whether Officer Berntsen tried to stop the gunman is still being debated. But facing a man carrying multiple guns and ample ammunition, there was little he could do. Like most other police officers here, he had no weapon.
“Criminals are now carrying weapons, so some people now think that police officers should have weapons as well,” said Gry Jorunn Holmen, a spokeswoman for the Norwegian police union. Though she said it was too early to make any assessments, Ms. Holmen said the union had formed a commission to explore the issue. For the police, she said, “it’s getting tougher.”
It took police SWAT units more than an hour to reach the camp, on Utoya island, after reports of the shooting came in. Officers had to drive to the shore across from the site of the shooting attack, and use boats to get to the island. A police helicopter was unable to get off the ground; news crews that reached the island by air could only watch as the gunman continued the massacre.
Anne Holt, Norway’s former justice minister, told the BBC: “That makes him a person that killed one person every minute. If the police had actually been there just a half an hour earlier, then 30 young lives would have been saved.”
Now, I was berated and seethed at several pages back for broaching this topic. However, now that a respectable publication has brought it to light, I feel that it is acceptable to raise the issue under a new, more focused light. I'm not posting this to share my own opinion, but rather, to provide legitimate insight from an underrepresented perspective.
The article rightly mentions that the crime rate suggests having better-prepared police isn't necessary in general [in Norway and similar countries]. So, with that said... Would it be worth it to set aside some spending to ensure a better outcome in the future in all nations with similarly under-prepared response units? Would the fact that many lives could be saved justify the increase in spending - even if the event is a rare event?
One person a minute is based on the overall time frame and people killed, which has nothing to do with reality. The point though, that more people could have been saved if the police had apprehended the terrorist faster, is of course correct, but evaluating how they spent their time without having a good insight in their methods and comparative data with other strike teams in similarly problematic situations, it's rather pointless. Thus the article's implied point in that a more well-funded police force would have prevented loss of life in this situation is too generalising. Throwing money at a problem isn't neccessarily solving it, as american school funding has shown.
I agree that in some cases it's hard to objectively solve a problem. In fact, it's hard to diagnose a problem in many cases. You school analogy does not work because with schools there is no obvious concrete parallel. In this case, as the article points out, there is:
1) Unarmed officers on scene - helpless -> Implies that if armed they could have confronted the killer 2) Dysfunctional police helicopter (primary reason for delayed response) -> Implies that more helicopters on hand or better-maintained helicopters could have expedited the mission
Both of those problems highlighted CAN be solved with extra funding or a policy shift, as expressed by the police spokeswoman.
That's what I'm curious about. The article raises a strong point here - one that can't be countered with an analogy to American school funding and under-performance (that issue is not based upon 2 or 3 simple/objective facts).
edit: And yeah of course the one person/minute point is... well... obviously not perfectly factual, but it's a rough average. The killings, according to interviewees, occurred sporadically throughout the ordeal. Picking at their frequency is not worth much value in my opinion. It's easier to simplify it to 1 kill/minute. In this case I fully agree with the logic (presented by Norway's former justice minister).
Yes, the school parallel is not directly related, of course. It was meant as a general comparison of where spending =! result. The comparison works in the general line of thought that higher security spending would equal better security, as this wouldn't neccessarily be the case.
And about the officer - he was the first one to meet the terrorist on the island (together with the camp arrangement caretaker, I think), and according to witness descriptions, these two were the first ones shot. The officer having a weapon wouldn't have helped, as one can assume that the terrorist had his weapon much more at the ready than the officer, who would have had no reason to distrust the "SWAT officer" before he got within shooting range of said's gun.
There's of course also the point that the officer on the island was there during his vacation, as an off-duty guardsman to make people feel safe rather than perform his job as a police officer. He would probably not be carrying a weapon during his vacation even if he had a weapon in his day job.
As for the two points of the article - yes, I agree with the second one, as if the police actually had a proper helicopter that couldn't operate as intended due to lack of maintenance due to funding, then yes, more funding would help that. From what I've read and heard though, the helicopter the police had available was a one (or two)-man recon helicopter, not an assault team deployment thing. Even if they had a helicopter, I find it very unlikely that PST would send one guy alone onto the island without backup to face the terrorist.
As for the first point, this is a part of the escalation mechanics I was describing earlier. If the officer had a weapon, then the terrorist would know the officer had a weapon and would take the proper precautions through escalation of force. How can you then expect what he would do in that case? And how would the police react - up their security level again, through more weapons, more personell? And have the terrorists react again, by further escalations?
I feel the article's points are very much based on knowledge that could in no way have been asserted beforehand, and even if these points were ensured, other things could have been equally detrimental to the police efforts. While I agree that they should go over any procedures, as they undoubtably are continuously, and were before this, one simply cannot predict everything. Pointing at something in hindsight, I feel, is arrogant, and not very constructive.
I agree with that general line of thinking, but I think you're still too quick to discredit the article (perhaps because it points to slight disagreement with your line of thinking). You can't really say that there would be an "arms race" of sorts between potential shooters and policemen. Knowing police have guns, you ask, what would shooters do in response? Well... Nothing more than what this man already did, to be blunt. He made use of incredibly powerful explosives. Check. He made use of an incredibly powerful rifle. Check. I suppose knowing police are armed he could have brought 2 incredibly powerful rifles? But that wouldn't actually increase his firepower, so never mind that idea. The arms race idea does not apply to criminals that are already utilizing the top of the food chain in weapons.
I'm still not convinced that Norway, along with the other 2 countries in the world that uphold it, should refrain from arming police officers due to national pride concerning a peaceful reputation &c. In 1965 Sweden - another similar nation - re-armed police officers. I'm having trouble being logically persuaded against that type of move. I'm still going to have to agree with the opinion of Norway's police spokeswoman here, and disagree with that of one of Norway's professors.
Thanks for your input though - I do feel that it's an issue that should be handled cautiously, nonetheless, even if the longterm inevitability seems...well...unavoidable (better prepared police officers).
Heh, amusing mental image of a guy wielding two assault rifles. I don't think that'd help him too much, no.
I agree that it's difficult to imagine how the terrorist in this event could escalate his force considering how much force he already brought to the table. I can imagine though that if he knew the policeman there was armed, he would have made a plan for dealing with that. If that'd cause more damage or not is (even more) pure speculation (than the rest of this). What would happen though, would be regular criminals being forced to escalate their usage of power, as the policemen they'd now meet daily would be armed. The reaction of increased force from the police to combat the terrorist threat would affect the criminal milieu, causing the escalation there instead of directly to the terrorist (in this case). Still though, the escalation would happen, at the disadvantage of everyone else.
I disagree that increased usage of weaponary for the police is the answer to things like this, and I firmly believe it would create a much more dangerous society than it would prevent.
You would, of course, have to also take into account the number of unnecessary deaths 24/7 armed officers would create.
For example, if arming officers 24/7 accidentally caused five deaths/year through mistaken shootings and deaths caused by non 24/7 weapons reached 50 deaths every decade, arming officers would be a bad idea. Yes, the numbers are equal, but it takes money to buy and maintain that many guns, money that could otherwise go into correctional facilities or healthcare or something.
I'm guessing that it's much more complicated than the NYTimes article suggests, and that Norway has run studies on this suggesting that their checkout system for police weapons is better for their society as a whole. Rather than, say, forcing policemen to carry weapons.
Norway will definitely make sure that the CT response will be much faster for the next incident, however. Helicopter failures are not a good thing in any situation.
EPT
