Why the question mark on “serial”? From your link:
Not counting the other charged murders and attempted murders for which evidence was insufficient to secure conviction. If that doesn’t count as a serial killer, not sure what does.
I’m not entirely sure why I added the ". I guess my thinking was that I’m not an expert, so I wasn’t sure if there was some qualification she might have missed to be classified as a serial killer. But if the BBC says she is, I can’t disagree. Blame early morning bleariness.
Generally a serial murderer kills people in different instances over a long period of time. If you kill a bunch of people in one instance it’s called being a mass-murderer, and if you kill people in different instances in a short period of time it’s called being a spree killer. At least that’s my understanding.
Which would mean state laws don’t protect him, either. So it an irate relative of the victim or even some passing stranger should murder him, well, sux to be him. What’s he gonna do, call the cops?
His victim called the cops twice before he was murdered, for all the good it did him.
I note with interest that the sword is described as a “Samurai-type” sword, but that the victim was stabbed to death. One doesn’t stab people with the long sword, one slashes them or cuts off their head. And the only person one stabs with the short sword is oneself (before slicing ones guts open and hopefully having a very competent second to slice off one’s head quickly afterward).
Well, the slashing or beheading as correct technique assumes the sword-wielder knows how to use it properly and isn’t just some nutcase with anger issues.
One of my favorite science fiction authors wrote a book in which the legal system on the planet of New Texas had an interesting idea. People elected to public office were fair game. If you gunned one down yoy were only punished to the extent that you might have endangered bystanders. Of course they could defend themselves and shoot back, or disarm their assailant any way in which they could. The system was supposed to remind public officials that they were not there to oppress people or take away rights. One guy who proposed an income tax was killed with a machete.
I read that story not that long ago, but for the life of me I can’t recall the author’s name or the story’s title.
Better/Worse yet: what you see on the intertubes and in the “news of the odd” stories are those sovcits nutters who are basically practicing. They might not realize that’s what they’re doing or they may. Those who don’t realize it are providing valuable information to the truly dedicated and dangerous sovcits. Those who do realize it are taking that information and preparing. This is something that judges, LEOs, and even certain civil servants cannot forget: sovcits are damned dangerous.