This incident gives me pause

Absent any allegation that there was, or might have been, a member of a gang or some small-time street criminal present, it is difficult to see this as anything but random.

On the subject of killing for its own sake, there is a tremendous sense of power for those thow snuff out another life, its "in your face" to the ultimate degree. Without the sorts of socializing which prevents most of us from engaging in violence, it is entirely possible that someone would simply see the objections of society to murder to be meaningles, if you don't get caught. For those raised in a violent household, rather than simply raised with neglect, it could represent "revenge" against a society which seems to have failed to protect the individual.

I dunno, Boss, what do you think?

I dunno...enviornment could very well be a part of it in certain cases, but it still boggles my mind. In some ways, I find it easier to understand the horridly disturbed individual with the crappy life shooting up a McDonald's and then killing himself than I do a simple cold-blooded thrill killer. Even serial killers make more sense, in a twisted way. I would think that those raised in violent households would indeed tend to be violent themselves, but pathologically, I would think they would take it out on their abusers, or those who resemble their abusers, but I have little knowledge on the subject.

Socialization is a huge part of it. I know two killers personally, one better than the other. Both live in a really rough part of L.A. The one I know better -- a client of mine -- was small, deaf, nice-looking and funny, but at a tremendous disadvantage. He had to join a gang just to get along in his nighborhood, to avoid getting robbed, beat up, etc., on a daily basis.

And once you're in a gang, there are things you need to do to stay there. Kill or be killed, quite literally.

I lived in Burlington Ontario when a gas station attendant was covered with a garbage bag and beaten to death with a fire extinguisher by 3 'juveniles'.
Two boys, one girl. The one boy was about to turn 16 and so it was imperative that they commit the murder before he reached the age of being tried as an adult.
Motive?....they wanted to know what it felt like to kill someone.

A woman I used to work with was a passenger in a car stopped at a city stoplight. A total stranger walked up to the car and shot the driver dead. Just on a whim. It happens.

It makes me wonder where the moral compass in North America is, especially in the USA. Other countries have their murders, and some are indeed random, but the US seems to have an inordinately high number of these incidents. Hey, the terrorists may kill, but at least they have a reason, however misguided. I think killing another human being is just wrong in general, but to do it for no reason whatsoever makes me want to change laws, quite frankly, especially regarding juvenile prosecution and the death sentence.

What do you do about the gangs, Cav?

It's not all moral compass. My client was horrified by the experience, but felt he had no choice. Constantly reliving it.

Potent question, sozobe, what DO you do about the gangs? That is something I have no answer for.

truth
Are we asking about REASONS--what reasons do killers have for random killings--or about CAUSES. In the latter case killers may have no reasons, no future goal to motivate their actions. They are pushed by causes, antecedent conditions, to perform their actions. The killers may rationalize their actions with "reasons", but their actions are caused, and they may have no clue as to what it is.

So the question still remains, how do we handle/deal with this situation?

These "killing for the experience" perps seem almost autistic in their lack of empathy. There seem, obviously, others things at work here, but I always have these equal but opposite thoughts when it comes to mistreating others even when I feel totally justified that the object of my dislike so deserves. How would I feel if somebody keyed my car, slipped a laxative in my coffee, and so on? Interestingly, these thoughts are more deterred by the threat of legal prosecution and its consequences then my deeply held moral beliefs. (This refers to my query in the last paragraph of this post: Are some individuals little Martin Luthers?-- There they stand unable to have done differently?)

What is disturbing to me is: I would never dream of mistreating an animal, but humans seem fair game to such evil thoughts (of mine). Is this some tribal or competition thing from the evolutionary past?

But do these people actually think what it might be like to be seriously beaten or worse? Do they, for at least a second, mentally turn the tables upon themselves? If not, why? Maybe sozobe has intimated the reason hidden in her gang examples...the peer thing as it were. But, I am sure she would be the first to admit this does not apply to lone serial killers. Strange birds these humans!

I have participated in other forums with those posting here and have found their comments enlightening and so I look forward to further reading here but my contributions, I am afraid, will just be more questions.

As regards the miscreants in question here, the answer directed towards the behavior explanation that these individuals manifest stating that they are merely sick is uninformative. We humans carry a lot of baggage in our DNA but that could be the simple half of the answer for our behavior. The other half explained by "nurture" seems ever more serpentine. But when one realizes that the two halves are always acting in concert and are never mutually exclusive, the mystery deepens.

To the original question of random incident: It doesn't matter to the law (other than the specific charges to be filled), nor does it matter to the relatives of the victim. One does not discharge a firearm without some responsibility being attached to one's actions. Such weapons, by definition, are intended to destroy life. It is not that difficult to figure out the consequences of their employment. Defense lawyer's pleas for their clients "innocence" because they "didn't mean it" would, for my part, go unheeded. Was the person unfortunately at the wrong place at the wrong time? Yes, if you're the accused murderer, for the mere word "unfortunate" implies randomness and therefore lack of personal responsibility. But, Alternately, not at all for the victim just going about her intended routine. Her intent surely did not include the quick deceleration of a deadly missile by her voluntarily employing her spinal cord. The intent of the discharger of the weapon was to send that bullet on its way knowing full well its use and potential.

One may introduce the concept that some humans, individually, are more or less responsible for their actions but strangely these questions only seem to arise when courts of law are holding such culprits' feet to the fires of punishment. Somehow, those accused of crimes never have a problem asserting their personal freedom and free will before the fact. Then, it is always a question of rights and personal freedom which they accept willingly. It is not until after it is quite clear that the facts of a criminal act point towards their guilt and subsequent punishment that they eschew the other side of the freedom question: responsibility for one's actions. The wisdom of litigators aside, you can't have freedom and civil rights without responsibility. That, in my mind, extends all the way down to elderly women juggling hot McDonalds coffee in moving vehicles...but that's a different thread altogether.

JM