Talk:John Allen Muhammad

"Spree killer" or "serial killer"

"Serial Killer" appears to be a more appropriate label. Even the link to "Spree Killer" offers a definition that is inaccurate for this entry: "The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics defines a spree killing as 'killings at two or more locations with almost no time break between murders.'[1] According to the FBI the general definition of spree murder is two or more murders committed by an offender or offenders, without a cooling-off period; the lack of a cooling-off period marking the difference between a spree murder and a serial murder." In contrast, the Beltway Sniper Attacks lasted approximately three weeks, and only ended with arrests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.69.35 (talk) 09:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. That jumped out at me immediately when I was reading the article. Tithonfury (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is that serial killers are nearly always associated with sociopathic personalities, i.e. killing as part of a weird ritual of some kind. These guys seemed to be doing it for political reasons. It appears to have been de facto terrorist attacks, and they certainly succeeded in creating terror in the public, but I don't think the media called them terrorists as such. In an odd way, their plan reminds me a little bit of John Brown, who was also delusional and also ended up getting put down, by a rope instead of a needle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of "politically-motivated serial killer" would be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.59.117 (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The media did not necessarily refer to them as "terrorists" ... but I believe that "terrorism" was one of their official legal charges. Thanks. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

The Beltway Sniper Attacks lasted approximately three weeks, but there was no significant cooling-off period in between the murders. He also didn't have a type, which serial killers usually do. Among [most] experts on the topic of serial killers, he certainly wouldn't be defined as one. Spree killer fits him best, which is why I altered the lead to this. Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

@Flyer22. Those observations are vague and arbitrary. Please provide sources which suggest "no significant cooling-off period" and quotes of "experts" who would "certainly" not define him as a serial killer. As to having a "type" of victim, neither did David Berkowitz (Son of Sam), who, per Wikipedia, is classified as a "serial killer." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.172.133 (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing vague and arbitrary about it. There are perfectly reliable sources in the Serial killer article and the lead (intro) of the Spree killer article to show you what a serial killer is. If we went by your and some others' definition of a serial killer, then there would be no such thing as spree killers; they would all be classified as serial killers by experts. But just to indulge you on whether there was a significant cooling-off period for these two individuals, all one needs to do is look at the dates of their attacks. No source is needed to establish that there was no significant/true cooling-off period between the murders. And as for "type," I said "usually" (serial killers usually have a type). Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Due to the Maintaining a difference between serial killers and serial murderers discussion on the Serial killer talk page some months ago, I changed the lead to this. As Legitimus states: The Beltway Sniper's typology is debated even by experts in the very books we're reading. The Crime Classification Manual contains them as a case study, and implies they are both spree and serial. They are mentioned directly under Spree Killer, yet the case study contains this statement: "The thirteen victims, ten dead and three wounded, qualify this crime as serial, given the cooling-off period between each of the shootings. It could also be argued that the crime was a group cause given that Malvo has been directly implicated in at least two of the shootings and the actions were committed by two individuals who arguably had similar ideologies."

I still say that there was no true cooling-off period, per my reasoning in the linked discussion, and that most experts would not classify these two as serial killers, but anyway... The current lead still labels Muhammad as a spree killer first, seeing as he is even placed under that category in the Crime Classification Manual, but also notes the seemingly apparent debate among experts about what to call him (a spree killer or a serial killer). If needed, another source could likely be found showing that some experts may disagree on which category to place him in...or that they may place him in both. It would also be a good idea to have a section on this in the article, since it is so debated by the public...or rather so many people have never heard of a spree killer. Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

@Flyer22, Please, don't put words in my mouth: I'm not proposing "my" defintion of a serial killer but referring to the FBI's definition (if you would take the opportunity to fully read what I wrote). In addition, I'm not asking for "indulgence" but that you do what any half-rate scholar would do: Cite a credible source as I did. I see loads of self-referencial pronouns ("I still say...", "I believe...") but few outside sources in your argument. As to the "cooling off period" this is a very subjective term as no quantitative interval is supplied in the FBI's definition. Is it one hour? One day? Subsequently, the FBI, through a symposium composed of academia and law enforcement officials, has worked to revise this definition: "Central to the discussion was the definitional problems relating to the concept of a cooling-off period. Because it creates arbitrary guidelines, the confusion surrounding this concept led the majority of attendees to advocate disregarding the use of spree murder as a separate category. The designation does not provide any real benefit for use by law enforcement" (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder). As to "type," I supplied an example of a murderer, typicially classified as a serial killer (Berkowitz), who did not have specific "type." So there's the black swan to your premise. As to the _Crime Classification Manual_, there's a start, a credible source, good find--perhaps he could be identified as both (as Berkowitz). So, why assume the burden of proof applies to his status as "serial killer" and assume that he is a priori a "spree killer"? (Conversely, we could identify him as a "serial killer" in the first sentence and afterwards mention that some (e.g., Flyer22) might identify him as a "spree killer" but I assume you would find this presentation objectionable). Nonetheless, the FBI symposium, offered the following: "The different discussion groups at the Symposium agreed on a number of similar factors to be included in a definition. These included:

• one or more offenders

• two or more murdered victims

• incidents should be occurring in separate events, at different times

• the time period between murders separates serial murder from mass murder

In combining the various ideas put forth at the Symposium, the following definition was crafted:

Serial Murder: The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events" (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.91.117 (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

IP, I do not feel that I put words into your mouth. And I use "self-referencial pronouns" such as "I still say" and "I believe" to counter what you still say and believe. You say "do what any half-rate scholar would do: Cite a credible source as I did." I did cite a credible source, as even you have admitted. My source specifically mentions John Allen Muhammad as a spree killer. Your FBI source does not. We go by WP:Reliable sources here. Not interpretations (aka WP:Original research) of what the FBI means when they define serial killer. Not to mention, the FBI is not the only authoritative source to go by with regard defining a serial killer. As for the concept of the cooling-off period, I have never seen a reliable source define it as one hour or one day; the period is usually defined as "significant." And while what is "significant" can also be debated, it goes without saying that one hour or one day is not a significant cooling-off period for serial killers (at least it goes without saying for those who have thoroughly studied this subject). That's why the term spree killer even exists. Attendees advocating to disregard the use of "spree murder" as a separate category doesn't mean that it's been discarded. If "serial killer" was only defined as the "unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events," then the term would apply to everyone who has unlawfully killed two or more people, except for mass murderers. But that isn't the case. As I mentioned in the Maintaining a difference between serial killers and serial murderers discussion, multiple murders are often committed by gang members and mob bosses, but these people are hardly ever defined as serial killers. There's more that goes into the definition, even if arbitrary to you and some members of the FBI. And once again, as for "type," I said "usually" (serial killers usually have a type). The type factor is supported by various scholarly sources (both old and modern), so I'm not sure why you are debating that aspect of my comments again...mentioning Berkowitz yet again (this time as a "black swan to [my] premise"). Furthermore, as shown above, I'd already compromised on this topic by having the lead label Muhammad as a spree killer first, seeing as he is even placed under that category in the Crime Classification Manual, but also having it note the debate among experts about what to call him (a spree killer or a serial killer). So why you felt the need to show back up after all this time (only "after all this time" if you weren't also this IP who kept getting reverted[1][2][3]) and revert back to "serial killer" while rewording the hidden note and removing the reference is perplexing to me...other than you wanting Muhammad to be defined as a serial killer first and foremost. I've had the lead label him as a spree killer first because, like I stated, he fits that definition more accurately than he fits "serial killer." But I am obviously willing to compromise. Are you? We could refrain from definitively defining him as a spree or serial killer in the first line, and simply let the "Although" line and/or a section on it take care of this. The "Although" line could be tweaked to include "spree killer," going like this: "Although the pairing's actions were classified as psychopathy attributable to serial killer characteristics by the media, whether or not their psychopathy meets this classification or that of a spree killer is debated by researchers." Flyer22 (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

reason for killings

I was just made aware of this tonight, since his wife told the story at Mizzou's (University of Missouri, Columbia) campus tonight. (thurs. sept 30, at 7pm) The reason for the killings is because he was after his wife. He had kidnapped their three children, and lost the trial for custody. He then decided to go after his wife. He proclaimed that he was innocent the whole time. The day of his execution hsi children asked to speak with him, but he never contacted them, and the execution went on that night. It was later revealed the reason he didn't speak to his children is for fear of being asked the question 'why?' because it would've broken him and the facade he put up to stay confident in his belief of his innocence would have crumbled.

Misleadingly "Islamic" feel to article due to questionable source material

Regarding this sentence near the beginning of the article: "Drawings by Malvo describe the murders as part of a "jihad" (Arabic for "struggle in the way of God")."

I think this is very misleading, (1.) because the the style and some of the words expressed in the source material are scarily Islamophobic, and further sources are not given in that linked article to make it seem authentic (2.) The article implies the drawings were made by John Muhammad's partner after the incident and while in prison. By not including these facts in the sentence AND putting it in the very beginning of the article, it gives John Muhammad too Islamic of a flavor that he didn't even claim to have or want, at least as far as I can tell from all the other information as well as what we have already proven to know on the talk page.

To keep the information we have in there now, it NEEDS a better source than the one provided. Notice my changes in the history that were revoked. I included a line that the information was subject to media biases, and it was removed basically saying that the fact that the source was biased is not information given by the source itself.. Okay, I understand... But let's find a better source about Malvo's drawings, until then I propose that the "jihad" reference be removed entirely, or, at the very VERY least, as supported in the reference, it should be mentioned that these drawings were supposedly found after the fact and not before, and this should be moved to elsewhere in the article. Otherwise, at it stands, it is very misleading. Sawyer207 (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)