I Want Your Opinions and Observations!!!!

How many here think that television has heavily contributed to problems in America with reality based shows, like those Detective programs that show you what the police look for in the way of clues, how they locate blood spatter even after its been cleaned up and ways criminals have disposed of bodies? Then, the Internet providing information on home built weapons, ways to build bombs and even make the explosives? Then TV programs showing not only how the bombs were built, but how the police trace their parts.

To me, this is simply a great way to instruct criminals how to avoid the mistakes their compatriots got caught by. I, for one, never knew you could start a car with Vice Grips used on the ignition to sheer off the locking pin nor what lever was in the steering column that you pushed to start a car but I do now.

How about TV movies concentrating on various races to make them look like they do most of the crime in the US, run most of the drugs, kill indiscriminately and glorify gang life? Racial exploitation which leads into the target race starting to copy the cool, tough image they saw on the screen?

Everyone seems to defend such programs over freedom of speech, but Television Stations will show almost anything for ratings and profit, as proven by HBO, which started the whole thing by bringing ‘reality TV’ and blood and guts movies into the home to be watched by anyone. It seems to me that many forms of crime did not exist until this form of TV showed up, nor did the many, many copycat crimes, like school shootings, until news programs and documentaries started going into great detail over the incidents, over and over again.

I might be wrong but I have noticed direct increases in certain types of crime since the ‘reality’ documentaries and similar programming have appeared. Including programs that capitalize on selling repossessed homes to you, or encouraging you to buy into crops that have suffered from some form of drought or problem because when they go to market, the price will be high and you’ll make a great return on your money, but do not mention that you will be pushing the counter price up for the general public?

What have you observed? I would be most interested to know. Have you seen any correlation’s between certain types of TV programming and previously unseen behavior in people? Changes in attitude? Changes in general opinions?

OK, first of all, I think you are using the term “reality TV” quite differently than the way it’s used, well, anywhere else. “Reality TV” is the category of shows like Survivor or Cops or The Real World, or even game shows. It’s not CSI or Law & Order, which are the types of shows you actually seem to be referring to.

Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s address your main points. Frankly, the main thing here is that while you, a law-abiding citizen, might not have known these things, what do you want to bet that most criminals in that line of work already did? It’s not like car theft is new. And if they didn’t already know it, I’m sure they have plenty of time to learn the tricks of the trade in prison after being caught the first time.

Moving beyond that, even though CSI, for example, is new, there have been mystery novels for years (decades) that go into detail about how crimes are solved.

In other words, the information is out there. It will always be out there in a free society. If anything, maybe shows like CSI will deter a criminal by showing how high-tech everything is and how, as the lead character says, “There is always a clue.” OK, I doubt it would actually deter anybody, but I find that more likely than the possibility that a bunch of criminals will sit there and study their methods, taking notes to avoid later capture.

Then, LightTracer, is your solution to restict what people are allowed to read and watch?

I just want to take this opportunity to state that since many of us (myself included) do not have cable, network TV should provide more T&A. Thank you for your time.

Well, considering that students are less likely to die in school shootings now than in 1990, and that overall violent crime has decreased since the inception of these programs, I would suggest that you should base your view of how things affect society by observing the real world.

The programs I’m talking about are things like Forensic Science, Medical Detectives, Real Detectives, and - I don’t know what to call these types of programs - but shows displaying actual cases that have been solved, displaying actual tape and photographs of clues, weapons, crime scenes, crime scene inspections and the materials used to find clues.

Programs like those with real retired car thieves showing how to break into cars, disable alarms, get through the Club, show what levers in steering columns start the car, how to use screwdrivers or vice grips to snap the locking pins in ignitions.

Programs detailing serial killers, how they got caught, how the detectives found them, what mistakes they made and what profiles are used. Like White serial killers select a race and tend to stick with it while Black serial killers tend to cross the racial lines. This knowledge can be used by budding serial killers to confuse the law by using different techniques, learning by the mistakes of those who got caught and learning how not to leave clues laying about.

Dahlmer got careless and kept the bodies about in stinking drums of acid. Another one kept killing in his car and leaving very distinct fibers on the corpse, while another kept wearing the same shoes with distinctive tread patterns and one guy had 3 different types of tires on his car and insisted on dumping the bodies off of dirt roads, near his car.

A lot of killers were caught because they held onto evidence, like spools of duct tape, cord, blood stained clothing, and allowed bodies to bleed out into trunks where no amount of cleaning could get up the traces. All of these mistakes were detailed. Even how blood soaks into car seats and can be cleaned up off of the surface materials, but soaks into the padding and stitches used on the seams.

One show explained exactly how to remove the serial numbers on a gun so they could not be raised at all and showed how simple filing or grinding them off allows them to actually be raised with an acid. Another show not only showed how a killer shot a guy with a shotgun, which he later cleaned and kept, knowing that buckshot and no rifling in the gun barrel made it nearly impossible to trace, but he kept the leftover shells, which could be traced back to the shop they were bought at, and matched with the charge fired into the dead guy. They also showed how different types of bullets could be traced back to the manufacturer and then to gun shops because of trace elements bullet makers add to their gunpowder to identify their brand.

I never knew that before.

I never knew how letter bombs could be made until they had a detective show detailing how a bomber was caught and showed how he made the simple ignition contacts out of tinfoil. On another show, dealing with pipe bombs, they showed how they traced the bomber through the serial numbers in the end caps of the pipe he used, showing that each piece was bought at the same store. I never knew metal piping was registered. In the same show they showed how he built the bomb and made the detonation trigger from cardboard, batteries, tape and tinfoil as well as how he layered the bomb with nails and tape for shrapnel.

They even mentioned places where one could buy the black powder to make the bomb, and then pointed out that all black powder is traceable back to the maker and then to stores which carry it.

Over thirty years of TV, programs have gone from hiding key details to displaying everything and I have noticed a whole lot more copycat crimes showing up after something spectacular happens. When the first school shooting happened, I knew that there would be another and sure enough, it came about.

See, my feeling is that there are enough idiots and psychopaths out there that they will look at something on the news or on these programs and say ‘cool, that looks like fun’ and go out and do the stuff. Especially kids. Now, not only are programs showing how crimes were committed, but the mistakes the criminal made to get caught and what methods used to detect evidence. In short, if you wish to commit a perfect crime, watch TV and learn by the mistakes of others.

You want to be a serial killer? Keep changing your races, methods, and dispose of your clothing, wear gloves, don’t slaughter them in your car, don’t keep rolls of materials used in the murders, don’t handle plastic bags with bare hands and don’t keep the roll of bags either because they can match tear off lines. To dispose of trace DNA you’ll leave behind in a murder rape, burn the body. Don’t leave their clothing laying about, change your shoes, don’t leave cigarette butts, and frequently change the type of rope you use and don’t keep it laying about your house.

If you shoot someone, buy the shells out of town and don’t keep the extras laying about, buy a cheap gun from a gun show at the end of the day from a private owner willing to give you a bill of sale without your name on it or no bill of sale at all and not require you to fill out papers. Then remove the serial numbers in the way shown to prevent the gun from ever being traced and check it for additional numbers.

You see what I mean? These programs are teaching devices for criminals to be. How Not To Get Caught, 101.

They showed the entrapment cars for car thieves, and anyone smart enough would know to roll the window down before starting the car to provide an escape rout if the car turns out to be rigged. If the windows do not go down, then abandon the car, fast. If power windows, hold the door open, start the car and roll the windows down then.

I find these programs fascinating and impressive, but after a time, I realized that they had taught me a whole bunch of ways to not get caught doing crimes and how to steal cars, get through sliding glass doors and what signs cops usually see on a car that indicate it quite possibly will be stolen.

I’m just asking your opinions how you feel about this and what you think should be done. We all have read stories about kids learning how to make pipe bombs off of the TV, going out and making some just to see if it could be done and getting almost blown up when they screwed up.

I even know how to make a pipe bomb out of wooden matches! Where to buy assorted fuse by the yard, and how to use a cigarette as a time delay ignition source.

So, all opinions are welcome because I’m in the process of writing an article about this and realized that I would like the opinions of others to round things out.

Thanks.

you can get the same knowledge from oh say… the Internet.

The MO you’re describing (basically plan ahead and destroy as much evidence as you can) is something you would know even without tv-shows or other sources. Many things you could find out by simple deduction. The specifics (e.g. exactly how to remove a gun-id) you would have to learn. However… there are many sources where you can pick this stuff up: TV documenatries, the net, spy novels, even FBI training manuals. None of these (ok, I can’t be sure about the net) intends to give you recipe for a crime spree. bad publicity and all that.
Basically what these sources have taught me is that not getting caught is hard work. that’s one good reason not to comit crimes.
IMHO, any media coverage is bound to romanticise crime in some way. It’s just too sexy not to. This conflict is, I think, you’re main objection to these shows.
But even without including details, the story still has a certain amount of sex-apeal. So short of not covering high-school shootings at all, leaving out details will not lead to less high-school shootings.
Is not covering crime stories at all a solution? I don’t know. Certainly there are a lot (too many?) of these kind of documentaries. Is it nescesary to cover everything? probably not. Does that mean these shows should be cancelled?

A while ago I read an incredibly fascinating book called “Mind Hunter” by John Douglas and Mark Olshaker: Douglas was the head of the FBI Serial Crime Unit , and responsible for “hunting down” serial killers and helping develope the methods used to do so.

Essentially this book describes many actual cases involving the capture of serial killers, and the profiling and proactive techniques used to capture them. One of the things that Douglas mentions repeatedly in his book is that his book is not a “How To”, and more importantly, it can’t even be used as such regardless of how detailed his descriptions got.

The reason why is that every aspect of a murder scene indicates something about the perp, even if it’s the absence of evidence. So the knife that was used to stab the victim 350 times in the left eye is missing? Well, clearly the perp KNEW (at some level) that leaving the knife could lead to capture. This indicates “x” type of personality. It doesn’t even matter if you understand every aspect of the process used to profile a perp: that very knowledge is a clue, and helps create a profile of you.

This doesn’t really address any of your other examples, but at least in the case of Criminal Profiling, and specifically serial offenders, there’s really not much to be lost by describing the “method of capture”. It’s a GREAT book (though it’s not “lunch reading”), and I found that particular point fascinating.

LightTracer”?
Darn it, now I’m gonna get all confused about which one of us is me.

I too have considered the exact thing…that television shows such as those that you mention might act as a “home study” course for current or would-be criminals. I am quite sure that the information given on these shows, as well as that from other media, has been used to make investigating a crime scene much more difficult on a number of occasions. I’d suspect this is the case particularly for serial killers, who tend to be semi-intelligent.

However, I know a couple of San Jose cops, a Sherriff in Colorado, and an LAPD officer, and they all agree on something that I take great comfort in:

For the most part, criminals are criminals because they’re too stupid to make a living in the straight world.

Bear in mind anyone who is pre-disposed to this type of activity will do his own homework and come to his own ways and means with or without television. As others have said, the information is out there, whether in books, movies, or the internet.

Also, the mind-set of a serial killer is not such that he will learn anything new, necessarily, from watching these shows, or that he will be able to alter his own MO to try to evade capture. Douglas’ books are a great study on the serial killer mind, and how certain things must be done a certain way, to satisfy the particular need of the particular sociopath. Put simply, some killers do things a certain way because they feel they have to; it’s one of the keys with which profilers can identify them.

Quixotic said:

Exactly.

I mean, pretty much anybody can figure out how to smash in a house window and rob the place, but that doesn’t mean everybody does. Similarly, just watching CSI isn’t going to make somebody into a murderer, and it isn’t even going to make them a better one if they weren’t already looking for information on that topic (which they could have found anyway).