Firstly, I want to emphasize that I'm not endorsing murder of any type here. I just wanted to discuss how we- or rather, mainly journalists talk about it.
This came to mind after reading a post by @DarkRange55 about the recent shooting of CEO Brian Thompson by suspect Luigi Mangione. The article they quoted claimed the murder was in 'cold blood'. I tend to interpret that to mean the murder was passionless- cold but, more importantly, perhaps motiveless.
I'd argue that the two go hand in hand. You're only really going to feel passionless about an act so extreme as murder if there was no reason to kill them- in most cases I imagine. If there's a reason (in their mind) to kill them- then surely- they would feel some emotion about it. Anger, a need for retribution or revenge for instance.
I think 'in cold blood' often refers to cases where the victims aren't known personally to the perpetrator. That would be true in these kinds of cases. But- he didn't just happen upon this guy randomly- surely?
From what we know, this was a targetted attack as a comment against capitalist/ corporate systems that exploit and hurt regular people. (That's the impression I got anyway.) It sounds like the accused shooter in this case had written a manifesto to this effect.
So- how was this truly 'in cold blood'? An actual cold blooded killing to my mind would be something like a robbery gone wrong. People end up getting shot because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time- they literally could have been anyone. Again, I'm not trying to excuse the behaviour here. Just the reporting of it.
I'd even go so far as to say the victims of a terrorist attack are killed in cold blood but the motive behind the attack is anything but. I imagine most terrorists and this man also, are responding to a grudge they have against a perceived injustice. What could be more passion fuelled than willing to kill relatively unknown people to make a point?
As to why I think these semantics even matter: I hope I've got the reference right here... I once read a book titled 'The Banality of Evil.' It explained that we are so frightened and apalled by 'evil' acts that, we like to dissociate from them. We like to see them and the criminals that perpetrate them as being 'other'. So, calling someone a 'cold blooded killer' makes them out to be inhuman and hopefully- more of a one-off.
I don't think this is useful at all to society. Because- it tends to assume they don't have a motive (or rather, we don't agree with that motive,) they're just some nut case lashing out irrationally. I don't think that's useful. People like this, people who join terrorist organisations do so for a reason. Often, they feel isolated but they have also experienced or feel connected to those who have experienced gross injustices. It's not to say their actions are justified but to them at least- I don't think they are motiveless.
It's unhelpful (to my mind) to view them as 'monsters'. We probably ought to be brave enough to look at why they're so angry too because, it may well have been actions carried out by our own governments that caused them their pain and anger. Again, not justifying it. I'm just saying that it's most likely lots of people who are guilty in the end. Not just the actual perpetrators.
Any thoughts? What do you see as a 'cold blooded' killing? Simply something that doesn't seem to induce emotion in the killer? Maybe they have got a point though. I suppose it is possible for relations to kill one another simply for the inheritance without seeming to show much emotion. I suppose that really would be cold blooded.
This came to mind after reading a post by @DarkRange55 about the recent shooting of CEO Brian Thompson by suspect Luigi Mangione. The article they quoted claimed the murder was in 'cold blood'. I tend to interpret that to mean the murder was passionless- cold but, more importantly, perhaps motiveless.
I'd argue that the two go hand in hand. You're only really going to feel passionless about an act so extreme as murder if there was no reason to kill them- in most cases I imagine. If there's a reason (in their mind) to kill them- then surely- they would feel some emotion about it. Anger, a need for retribution or revenge for instance.
I think 'in cold blood' often refers to cases where the victims aren't known personally to the perpetrator. That would be true in these kinds of cases. But- he didn't just happen upon this guy randomly- surely?
From what we know, this was a targetted attack as a comment against capitalist/ corporate systems that exploit and hurt regular people. (That's the impression I got anyway.) It sounds like the accused shooter in this case had written a manifesto to this effect.
So- how was this truly 'in cold blood'? An actual cold blooded killing to my mind would be something like a robbery gone wrong. People end up getting shot because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time- they literally could have been anyone. Again, I'm not trying to excuse the behaviour here. Just the reporting of it.
I'd even go so far as to say the victims of a terrorist attack are killed in cold blood but the motive behind the attack is anything but. I imagine most terrorists and this man also, are responding to a grudge they have against a perceived injustice. What could be more passion fuelled than willing to kill relatively unknown people to make a point?
As to why I think these semantics even matter: I hope I've got the reference right here... I once read a book titled 'The Banality of Evil.' It explained that we are so frightened and apalled by 'evil' acts that, we like to dissociate from them. We like to see them and the criminals that perpetrate them as being 'other'. So, calling someone a 'cold blooded killer' makes them out to be inhuman and hopefully- more of a one-off.
I don't think this is useful at all to society. Because- it tends to assume they don't have a motive (or rather, we don't agree with that motive,) they're just some nut case lashing out irrationally. I don't think that's useful. People like this, people who join terrorist organisations do so for a reason. Often, they feel isolated but they have also experienced or feel connected to those who have experienced gross injustices. It's not to say their actions are justified but to them at least- I don't think they are motiveless.
It's unhelpful (to my mind) to view them as 'monsters'. We probably ought to be brave enough to look at why they're so angry too because, it may well have been actions carried out by our own governments that caused them their pain and anger. Again, not justifying it. I'm just saying that it's most likely lots of people who are guilty in the end. Not just the actual perpetrators.
Any thoughts? What do you see as a 'cold blooded' killing? Simply something that doesn't seem to induce emotion in the killer? Maybe they have got a point though. I suppose it is possible for relations to kill one another simply for the inheritance without seeming to show much emotion. I suppose that really would be cold blooded.
