rustyfalcon52 said:Sean Hernandez5 I agree we need to dive deeper into this, but... (it feels a bit like a wild goose chase😉)
For instance, how would you define someone who constantly evades the long arm of the law while manipulating anyone they encounter along the way? Does that automatically make them a serial killer?
In my view, no—even if they have committed several murders where the victims simply happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I have to admit, I might be missing something here, but I’m struggling to follow your logic. On one hand, you mention that serial killers are such rare outliers that they get so much attention, but then you suggest we don't actually know their true numbers—which implies there could be many more out there. (And if that's the case, they aren't exactly rare anymore, are they?🙄 )
Well, how is it not serial if there is a series?🤣
The term "serial killer" isn't actually a legal definition. That’s the whole point. I am not sure where you would even categorize such a thing, but since there is no precise definition, it makes discussing statistics difficult—because, frankly, I don't know exactly what we are talking about.
Take Ted Bundy, for instance; he targeted young women (which fits the initial premise here). Then you have Son of Sam—if I recall correctly, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong—who killed both men and women somewhat randomly, sometimes using a gun when the voices told him to. He is still titled one of the most famous serial killers ever. So, how does that fit your logic?🙂
rustyfalcon52 said:Sean Hernandez5 I agree we need to dive deeper into this, but... (it feels a bit like a wild goose chase😉)
For instance, how would you define someone who constantly evades the long arm of the law while manipulating anyone they encounter along the way? Does that automatically make them a serial killer?
In my view, no—even if they have committed several murders where the victims simply happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I have to admit, I might be missing something here, but I’m struggling to follow your logic. On one hand, you mention that serial killers are such rare outliers that they get so much attention, but then you suggest we don't actually know their true numbers—which implies there could be many more out there. (And if that's the case, they aren't exactly rare anymore, are they?🙄 )
I am not buying it.
😍
The entire issue is that nobody has actually defined what a serial killer is here. Instead, everyone is busy offering theories about their psyche or why they pick certain victims.
You all are just focusing on a few famous butchers, but that barely scratches the surface of the topic, because serial killing isn't limited to just people who use knives.
By the way, everything you wrote (as a critique of me) is accurate; I don't see what part is unclear.😕