Failure of suicide is failure. (Of suicide.)

Jeff Goldstein has not only honored me by linking two of my posts in one day, but he's made me think again about the "shift" in language by Oklahoma University Dean Boren (who's now specifically refusing to call Hinrichs' death a suicide).

I think Dean Boren's shift merits another look at the facts. If we assume that the Hinrichs death was not a suicide, then it must mean legally that it was either a deliberate homicide, or some sort of accident. If it was a deliberate homicide, the fact that Hinrichs was blown up would have to mean that someone unknown activated a remote detonator.

If it was an accident, the inquiry is even more complicated, but I'll try to follow it out anyway. According to the man's father, he had a lifelong interest in explosives that went too far. I suppose it's possible that he was a thrill seeker with no suicidal intentions who just strapped on a bomb and decided to stroll around near the football stadium, but is that credible?

Reason and common sense suggest it's more likely that he wanted to kill other people; probably a lot of other people. If Dean Boren has information pointing away from suicide, perhaps he has reason to believe that either:

  • a) Hinrichs had no intention of killing himself, but wanted to plant the bomb where it would go off later; or
  • b) Hinrichs had decided to blow himself up, but wanted to take as many people with him as possible.
  • Option b is confusing, but here's my legal hypothesis as to how such a murder-suicide goal might have resulted in accidental death. Suppose I decided that I wanted to blow up myself along with all the patrons of a large business enterprise when it was full of customers. Suppose I managed to hide myself somewhere inside the place after it closed with a goal of staying there overnight, then detonating myself at 10:00 a.m. Suppose further that because of the instability of my ingredients, the bomb went off inside the building at night, and it killed only me. Would that legally be called a suicide? I'm not so sure; in fact, I think it wouldn't be, because I had no intention of dying at that time. My suicide would have been conditioned on events that never happened. Similarly, if I bought, loaded, and concealed a gun, intending to open fire in a crowded shopping center and then shooting myself, but the gun went off in my waistband and shot me through the heart, that would no more be a suicide than it would have been suicide had Eric Harris's gun gone off accidentally and killed him before he and Dylan Klebold opened fire at Columbine High. (Hope that's nowhere near Wasson High, as I hate bad influences....) Link via The Trenchcoat Chronicles.

    Obviously, any failure of suicide doesn't even have to be coupled with the intention of killing other people. If I loaded up a syringe with a fatal overdose of drugs, fully intending to inject myself at midnight tonight, but in my excitement to hide my "suicide stash" I lost my balance, fell onto the needle, and killed myself, that would not be suicide. I had not yet performed the final act, and I might have changed my mind at any time.

    (I guess I've beaten this issue to death.)

    Oh well. Another day, another legal hypothetical.

    posted by Eric on 10.05.05 at 02:55 PM





    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2864






    Comments

    Apropos of this story's vanishing from the MSM, it may interest you that Thomas Friedman's generally well-regarded think tank/private intelligence service Stratfor devotes today's "Daily Terrorism Brief" to the strange demise of Mr. Hinrich. Subscription only, but a brief quote: "Coincidences are rare in counterterrorism, however. A blast occuring less than 100 yards from a stadium packed with over 84,000 people certainly has the hallmarks of a terrorist attempt." Indeed.

    This strongly reminds me of the public and media reaction to the Washington Sniper (I work in DC). As soon as it became apparent what was happening, a very perspicuous friend with a military background diagnosed this as the terrrorist equivalent of the "walk-in" in intelligence work--the unsolicited volunteer--while the media and police continued to pursue the conventional profile of a serial killer (white, male, indigenously American). And of course, that's exactly what the snipers turned out to be.

    I suggest Hinrichs is in the same general mold--malcontents adapting the radical terrorist ideology du jour to their personal pathologies, rather like the epidemic of pointless anarchist violence around the turn of the last century. (The Shoebomber was probably another.) We have to face the fact that this ideology that combines world-transformation with self-immolation will continue to exert a powerful attraction for some elements in our society. So far, we seem to be trying to avert our eyes to judge from how this story's been treated.

    Also, just want to say how much I appreciate the way you just throw a cold bucket of pure reason on everything. One of my favorite blogs.

    Best wishes.

    Anne Angstadt   ·  October 5, 2005 05:52 PM

    "while the media and police continued to pursue the conventional profile of a serial killer (white, male, indigenously American). And of course, that's exactly what the snipers turned out to be."


    Umm, you might want to check this bit out again.

    Mick   ·  October 5, 2005 08:48 PM

    Mick, I had the same reaction at first, but I think you need to ignore the parenthetical bit, which only explains what the police were looking for:

    As soon as it became apparent what was happening, a very perspicuous friend with a military background diagnosed this as the terrrorist equivalent of the "walk-in" in intelligence work--the unsolicited volunteer.... And of course, that's exactly what the snipers turned out to be.

    I take Anne's comment to mean that sometimes people don't fit the profile because they've consciously adopted a pattern of behavior.

    Dennis   ·  October 5, 2005 10:40 PM

    I didnt mean that to suggest it refuted her argument, and I probably should have said so in my post. Just pointing it out is all.

    Mick   ·  October 6, 2005 11:32 PM

    Sorry, my comment was rather poorly worded on that point. What I meant to say was that the snipers turned out to be what my friend predicted--"walk-ins" inspired by a radicalism developed outside the US, in contrast to the home-grown serial killer pathology that was the initial focus.

    Anne Angstadt   ·  October 7, 2005 08:45 AM

    Anne, thanks for coming. I appreciate the kind words!

    Eric Scheie   ·  October 7, 2005 05:30 PM


    December 2006
    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
              1 2
    3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    10 11 12 13 14 15 16
    17 18 19 20 21 22 23
    24 25 26 27 28 29 30
    31            

    ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
    WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


    Search the Site


    E-mail




    Classics To Go

    Classical Values PDA Link



    Archives




    Recent Entries



    Links



    Site Credits