|
This has become our most popular ever thread! At least on the new forum. I think we got up to 16 pages a couple of times on the old one. Certainly this is the most read one. So let's make it count!
Most people who plan a murder do not end up carrying it out, or even in the end trying to carry it out. Its the same kinds of odds as suicide. How many suicide attempts actually work? Precious few. Of course one big difference is that if a murder succeeds, then you can do it again. But I digress somewhat.
The point is that just because someone plans a murder doesn't mean that they are going to do it. Its a huge stretch actually. That guy that planned in minute detail about a year long killing spree, who wrote letters describing it, police didn't even raise an eyebrow over. Of course, they were quite incompetent to not do much, but the thing is that it doesn't lead to very much very often. People say these things, but how often do they mean it?
People who write in blogs about killing people very rarely actually mean it. There might be 10 people who write about it that don't mean shit for every 1 that does.
So we are probably looking at a 1% chance, if we didn't consider any other factors, that someone who wrote a blog post with no disclaimers whatsoever, like Snowspinner did, was actually going to murder someone (or had already murdered someone). 1%. Not very likely at all.
Then we take in to account what we know of Snowspinner. We know his behaviour on Wikipedia, that he bullies people, bans people galore and works to destroy the project, whilst professing to be "above the law".
Now, most people would argue that that makes him less likely to be a murderer. However, some people argue that it makes him more likely.
So, the end result is that the odds of Snowspinner being a murderer, based on what we know of him, and this journal post, are between 0.5% and 2% likely. Not very good odds at all. In all likelihood, he is not a murderer.
However, police are entitled to investigate based on a 2% chance, or a 0.5% chance even. They might not always do it, but they are certainly entitled to, over such a serious issue as murder.
They are not entitled to force Snowspinner to give his DNA and fingerprints. But they didn't force him. They asked.
Snowspinner's refusal, and complaining about it increases the likelihood that he is a murderer, in most people's minds. From a 0.5% to 2% chance, it probably goes up to about a 5% chance. Still, he most likely isn't a murderer, but refusing to engage in a process that could clear his name isn't exactly the actions of an innocent person. Nor is writing to complain of supposed police harassment.
And for a reminder of what real police harassment is - something that happens all over the world.
Real police harassment is like when police follow someone around, ask them questions constantly, hit them, pin crimes on them that had nothing to do with them, bring them in for questioning under false pretences, and put them in jail in the hope that they might talk. Police harassment is very serious, and it happens a lot. It happens in USA, it happens in Australia, it happens everywhere.
But what Snowspinner is describing is not police harassment. He is describing a situation of police acting on a tip off and acting appropriately. You can argue that police shouldn't have checked based on such a slim chance of it being true, but then again you could also argue that they should have done it to be thorough.
Knowing the situation that I went through, I wish that police had been thorough. They could have saved a lot of lives if they'd been thorough. People died because police thought that I was likely making it up. We had the worst mass murder in Australian history because police didn't think to check things out.
When police are thorough, its a good thing. Those officers should be commended. And I hope that they are not frightened off by Snowspinner's bullying, and that they continue to monitor him just in case. 5% is enough to be mindful of.
|
Snowspinner muses about stalking and murder, He's "edgy" and "artistic"
