Alright, here's a question- how many "black serial killers" manage to go without being labeled as such due to the nature of "random gang/street violence?" At this point, people aren't worried so much about them being "serial killers" so much as "people who would murder you over nothing at all."
There's a stereotype going back to at least the 80s that a rough ratio of rounds fired to victims (or just rounds fired, period) tells you the race of the perp.
Eh, probably more a personal problem with you rather than whether it's factual. Though I'm surprised how badly he lost his cool simply because you responded.
The problem isn't the lack of label, but the lack of interest really. Serial killers are a brand, that is designed as the top of the "true crime" genre.
So the media picks the sexy, fun ones (which are always either the hottest, grimiest, or most insane) and turns them into icons. Black serial killers rarely check any of those boxes, because they are either gang killers or just kill hookers instead. Lonnie Franklin is probably the most well known one, and that's only because he was recent in his hooker killing.
We don't think about black serial killers because unless you have your ear to the ground it's impossible to separate it from the background noise of black on black gang murders.
The only black serial killer I immediately think of is the sniper that was shooting people from inside his own car. He'd flip down the plate and lay in the backseat/trunk and fire the gun, then flip the plate up and drive away.
Malvo [spotter] believed Muhammad [shooter] when he told him that the $10 million ransom sought from the U.S. government to stop the sniper killings would be used to establish a Utopian society for 140 homeless black children on a Canadian compound
The couple was sentenced to death and Coleman [the man] was executed in 2002. However, Brown’s death sentence was overturned after the attorney general attributed her actions to a mental disability
Unfortunately serial killers are overwhelmingly men.
This is probably less the case than it seems. Everytime a female serial killer (whether solo, or more commonly with her partner) comes up she is granted huge amounts of immunity and lesser sentencing. Which stands to reason we probably don't even know about many simply because they don't get charged worth a damn and the media doesn't care to report on it.
Like I don't doubt its still the majority men, but the seemingly overwhelming number could be a classic "the law is lighter on them, so we don't have accurate reports" cycle.
Given their basic MO, it's likely more of them have not been caught. Dead people in the nursing home is not nearly as suspicious as dead hooker bodies being found. Which is normally how they find out about a uh regular serial killer.
Also true, they go for far less extravagant methods and victims. Things like poison and overdosing that women prefer are far harder to catch as malicious instead of accidental. Same with killing old folks or children, which are two groups well known to either just die on their own or do something dumb that ends up in tragedy, aka not getting a real investigation.
Methodology may play into that. It's an old trope how the actions men take vs the ones women take are significantly different in terms of both potential bodily harm and risk.
Suicides by men often result in so much damage to a body the only chances of an open casket funeral are whether the head is intact enough to stick on the top half of a mannequin. Jumping infront of a train doesn't leave much except lasting PTSD for the train operator.
Suicides by women however are more likely to leave the body whole, if damaged in limited locations such as the wrists, eyes, mouth, and superficially the skin.
With enough makeup a mortician can hide the visible signs of someone drowning or ODing. Can't say the same if someone ended up in so many small pieces the best you can do for transporting is a bucket.
So when considering how serial killers may operate both the intention behind their actions as well notable differences in behaviour between sexes can influence actions.
Poison is historically and conceptually considered "a woman's weapon" to quote Ned Stark from Game of Thrones. Not only can it be difficult to detect but it removes the need for the killer to be present when the victim is poisoned, lessening the chances of being found out as well as removing the risk to the killer should the victim have a physical advantage.
When compared to something more direct like a stabbing the act of poisoning might fail to be lethal if the dose involved isn't correct but not only does that let further attempts be made, but unlike with a stabbing there will be no defensive actions taken by the victim which can end up indicating the killer.
In addition to this the reasons why a serial killer takes action can be important to consider. The more overt an action the more likely it will eventually lead back to the perpetrator. So someone who kills to send a message will want their actions to be known, which will significantly increase the likelihood of being eventually stopped. Conversely someone who kills because they want to kill will likely want to keep killing. In this case methods which prevent alerting anyone are better suited.
This isn't to say "all shooters are men" or "all poisoners are women", Harold Shipman is a very high profile example of a man poisoning his victims and using his status as a doctor to facilitate his murders, but the typical distributions of each and similar methods will conform to sex of the killer.
On top of all this is the idea that "the best thief in the world is the one nobody knows about". This relates to the idea about what "the perfect crime" is. The simple answer to that is a crime nobody ever knows is committed.
As such the "most famous" serial killer isn't necessarily "the best" because the infamy involved is likely a fact from after being stopped. The "best" will be the one who is never caught, never found out, and keeps killing until they stop for reasons outwith their own.
So taking all of this, and considering various stories that crop up from time to time about nurses who poison patients, the number of serial killers out there who are women is very likely significantly greater than is reported simply because most of them don't get found out.
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. They exist in much larger numbers than we know as the public because they are less likely to get caught and even if they are, they aren't charged like male killers so they end up either not being "officially" one or simply never getting any media coverage that the public can pick up on.
Alright, here's a question- how many "black serial killers" manage to go without being labeled as such due to the nature of "random gang/street violence?" At this point, people aren't worried so much about them being "serial killers" so much as "people who would murder you over nothing at all."
How many gang shootouts go unreported because they shoot several hundred rounds at each other and nobody gets hit?
There's a stereotype going back to at least the 80s that a rough ratio of rounds fired to victims (or just rounds fired, period) tells you the race of the perp.
Let me guess, that's when the gangsta sideways hold became popular amongst "certain demographics?"
I was floored when I saw a promo pic for OH LAAAAWD DEM RAAAANGZ with the darkie elf and he was doing the same thing with a goddamn bow lmao
Eh, probably more a personal problem with you rather than whether it's factual. Though I'm surprised how badly he lost his cool simply because you responded.
Fuck off retard.
Fuck off.
CRIPPLE FIGHT!
I don't think you understand that I'm going to tell you to fuck off every time you reply to me yet.
A classic joke, but a good one.
The problem isn't the lack of label, but the lack of interest really. Serial killers are a brand, that is designed as the top of the "true crime" genre.
So the media picks the sexy, fun ones (which are always either the hottest, grimiest, or most insane) and turns them into icons. Black serial killers rarely check any of those boxes, because they are either gang killers or just kill hookers instead. Lonnie Franklin is probably the most well known one, and that's only because he was recent in his hooker killing.
We don't think about black serial killers because unless you have your ear to the ground it's impossible to separate it from the background noise of black on black gang murders.
Which the ruling classes don't give a damn about.
The only black serial killer I immediately think of is the sniper that was shooting people from inside his own car. He'd flip down the plate and lay in the backseat/trunk and fire the gun, then flip the plate up and drive away.
Dude even had a spotter.
That story has some truly retarded aspects to it.
Is there any way to read this without thinking he was going to set up a paedo cult?
That's the one.
WE WUZ SERIAL KILLERS N SHEIT!
New despite has dropped: "despite making up 53% of murderers, blacks only make up 1% of serial killers"
B-based?
The root is garbage. I’m surprised they aren’t defending these killers in the name of racial justice
And you'll love this part:
1/6 of serial killers being female is probably a vast overrepresentation in the list, compared to the actual occurrence of female serial killers.
Or institutionalized white knight syndrome is keeping them from being convicted for serial killing offenses.
You should listen to Sword & Scale, he’s always going on about how lenient the justice system is on female murderers.
Unfortunately serial killers are overwhelmingly men.
Men are better than women at everything, murder included.
This is probably less the case than it seems. Everytime a female serial killer (whether solo, or more commonly with her partner) comes up she is granted huge amounts of immunity and lesser sentencing. Which stands to reason we probably don't even know about many simply because they don't get charged worth a damn and the media doesn't care to report on it.
Like I don't doubt its still the majority men, but the seemingly overwhelming number could be a classic "the law is lighter on them, so we don't have accurate reports" cycle.
Given their basic MO, it's likely more of them have not been caught. Dead people in the nursing home is not nearly as suspicious as dead hooker bodies being found. Which is normally how they find out about a uh regular serial killer.
Also true, they go for far less extravagant methods and victims. Things like poison and overdosing that women prefer are far harder to catch as malicious instead of accidental. Same with killing old folks or children, which are two groups well known to either just die on their own or do something dumb that ends up in tragedy, aka not getting a real investigation.
Yeah a woman usually has to kill multiple of their own kids before someone figures it out.
Methodology may play into that. It's an old trope how the actions men take vs the ones women take are significantly different in terms of both potential bodily harm and risk.
Suicides by men often result in so much damage to a body the only chances of an open casket funeral are whether the head is intact enough to stick on the top half of a mannequin. Jumping infront of a train doesn't leave much except lasting PTSD for the train operator.
Suicides by women however are more likely to leave the body whole, if damaged in limited locations such as the wrists, eyes, mouth, and superficially the skin.
With enough makeup a mortician can hide the visible signs of someone drowning or ODing. Can't say the same if someone ended up in so many small pieces the best you can do for transporting is a bucket.
So when considering how serial killers may operate both the intention behind their actions as well notable differences in behaviour between sexes can influence actions.
Poison is historically and conceptually considered "a woman's weapon" to quote Ned Stark from Game of Thrones. Not only can it be difficult to detect but it removes the need for the killer to be present when the victim is poisoned, lessening the chances of being found out as well as removing the risk to the killer should the victim have a physical advantage. When compared to something more direct like a stabbing the act of poisoning might fail to be lethal if the dose involved isn't correct but not only does that let further attempts be made, but unlike with a stabbing there will be no defensive actions taken by the victim which can end up indicating the killer.
In addition to this the reasons why a serial killer takes action can be important to consider. The more overt an action the more likely it will eventually lead back to the perpetrator. So someone who kills to send a message will want their actions to be known, which will significantly increase the likelihood of being eventually stopped. Conversely someone who kills because they want to kill will likely want to keep killing. In this case methods which prevent alerting anyone are better suited.
This isn't to say "all shooters are men" or "all poisoners are women", Harold Shipman is a very high profile example of a man poisoning his victims and using his status as a doctor to facilitate his murders, but the typical distributions of each and similar methods will conform to sex of the killer.
On top of all this is the idea that "the best thief in the world is the one nobody knows about". This relates to the idea about what "the perfect crime" is. The simple answer to that is a crime nobody ever knows is committed. As such the "most famous" serial killer isn't necessarily "the best" because the infamy involved is likely a fact from after being stopped. The "best" will be the one who is never caught, never found out, and keeps killing until they stop for reasons outwith their own.
So taking all of this, and considering various stories that crop up from time to time about nurses who poison patients, the number of serial killers out there who are women is very likely significantly greater than is reported simply because most of them don't get found out.
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. They exist in much larger numbers than we know as the public because they are less likely to get caught and even if they are, they aren't charged like male killers so they end up either not being "officially" one or simply never getting any media coverage that the public can pick up on.
You couldn't prove your case when it came to serial killers, so you retreated to your usual raving about 'murder of children'?