a reply to: DJMSN
I have no problem with a long and detailed answer DJMSN, and I apologise for making it necessary for you to reiterate your original point. Forgive me,
the sun is out, and therefore I am not at my ideal operating temperature!
So, the assailant was aware of the presence of the individuals he targeted, because information on their whereabouts was common knowledge. And, from
what you were saying, the targets were likely present in the motel at the same time, because options in the area were limited, as to affordable
lodgings. The only query remaining to my mind, is whether or not these individuals had completed their sentences, or whether they had been released as
part of some initiative or program, like some kind of probationary system (likely designed to save money for the state, rather than as a genuine
effort to reduce recidivism.
The thing is this:
It is not a popular thing to say, it is not a pleasant fact to consider, but it will always be more important that innocent people are protected from
predators, than it ever is to protect predators from the consequences of their actions. People who have extensive history of commission of sexual
offenses are rarely, if ever, capable of rehabilitation, or so the current understanding of sexually motivated criminal behaviour goes. Kiddy
fiddlers, rapists... these are things a person does not stop being, just because one has completed an insufficient sentence, handed down by a judge
who has shares in the prison system. Sicknesses of that sort only end, when the person "suffering" them does. Because of the nature of the mental
malady effecting individuals prone to committing sexually motivated crime, it seems wrong to suggest that the offender is the one who suffers
anything. Only their victims matter, only their victims pain, sorrow, suffering, or indeed their lives matter.
The lives of those whose only possible future contains more sexual violence toward innocent people, do NOT matter. They are unimportant, beneath
notice and rightly should be. Once a person has been effected by their experiences badly enough, that they can see their way to forming a habit of
criminal behaviour involving sexual assault on ANYONE, of ANY age, for ANY reason, its pointless to wring hands, and express concern for those
individuals. Regardless of how well they are treated from a certain point onward, they will re-offend. People that sick do not GET better.
That being said, the assailant in this case clearly had his head screwed on wrong. He would have been arrested for simply killing these people, using
a more acute, specific, less broadly dangerous method. He could have stuck a knife in those people, or battered them with a brick, but instead chose
fire, a weapon well known for being difficult to control the spread of. He endangered innocent lives, not just those he specifically wanted to end.
His electing to use this method makes me wonder whether his intentions were as "noble" as he would have the police believe. Surely, if one is
determined upon killing sexual predators, one does so from a position of wanting to protect people from the deviants. Given that motivation, one would
assume a careful, zero collateral approach would be in order. But this mans actions put a lot of lives and property at risk, other than the lives he
claims to have been after taking.
I wonder, given his choice of methodology, whether the assailant was not just calling for help himself. Clearly, something is very wrong with his
decision making processes.