Referring this thread, and don't want to derail it anymore than it is.

Has anyone actually looked up that statement? Or are they just parroting what they heard?

A quick internet search (which I did my best to avoid racist websites) seemed to turn up less-than-absolute answers.


African Americans and Serial Killing in the Media The Myth and the Reality





Cite:
http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Psyc%20405/Student%20Notes%20-%20Serial%20Killers.pdf

According to the above, 32.33% of serial killers are black, which is significantly disproportionate to the demographic of a little over 12% of the US population.



I found that to be rather interesting, and not quite what I've been hearing for decades...

All I Know is that it must take a lot of effort to be a serial killer... That's a lot of prep and research.

Not that serial killers should be glorified.

I hear ya.
I guess being bat-shit-crazy is its own reward.

There's some real prolific ones in S. America....but guess technically they may be white....depends on your politics

Well, if 33% are black, and 5% asian, and 62% white, then most serial killers would be white.  Blacks would certainly be overrepresented, but most serial killers would be white.  But you'll never see a newspaper print the part in red.
 

It's a factor of intelligence.

Interesting. I was under the same impression. Matter of fact I had never even heard of a black serial killer until now. I mean I figured there had to be some, but I never heard of any like you do Ted Bundy, Green river killer, John Wayne Gacy etc.

They're generally pretty intelligent.





 

<arftard>"You're racist for noticing skin color, and I'll somehow prove it by doing the exact same thing"</arftard>

They're clowns. They will scream "racist!!!", and if you attempt to have a logical conversation with them they continue to scream racist, insult you, and if you post too many times, accuse you of being "racially obsessed" for simply responding to them.

Wayne Williams comes to mind. For month and months young black boys were being murdered and the media kept spewing out that it had to be a white guy who was racist that is why he was killing young black boys. Then it ends up being a black man named Wayne Williams.

A White man in a white van.

Well, statistics such as that are, really, rather racist. You'll note that the question you posed, and the data you cited, only really reference the United States.

What's 300 million out of a world of 7 billion? Whites are what, 10% or so or less of the world's population? It's really just an example of ethnocentrism that you're only concerned about the definition of serial killers in the United States.

Now, think about this for a moment - the African warlord that skins and eats kids, is he a serial killer? The secret police in totalitarian regimes that actively enjoy "disappearing" people and actively look for excuses to liquidate people, are they serial killers? Are they serial killers because they're driven by a deep, diabolic urge to murder, torture, and control other human beings or do we only consider someone a serial killer if they're a secretive little madman existing on the edges of a civilized society while carrying out his malefic deeds in secret? Is the serial murderer not a serial killer unless he's part of a sophisticated society?

If someone like, say, Ted Bundy was born and raised in a third world shithole, do you think he might have sought out some "legitimate" way to exercise his homicidal and cannibalistic urges? If the society he was born into routinely allowed local political leaders or military members to rape, torture, murder, and consume people... why would he risk flying under the radar when he could just hoist his psychopathic flag from the nearest flagpole and make a public living doing the sick things he enjoyed?

Hell, speaking of totalitarian regimes, we all think of Hitler as the embodiment of pure, murdering evil, but that in itself is a view largely motivated by ethnocentrism and incipient racism. His contemporaries that handily outlived him, Mao and Stalin, murdered ten times as many people. But ask yourself if we as a society really don't really give a shit, if perhaps those murdering bastards get a pass because they and their victims weren't Europeans or Americans? Is it possible that your definition of serial killer is hopelessly ethnocentric, and ignores the fact that the vast majority of people in the world live in areas where murdering psychopaths are frequently able to operate openly, with the tools of government at their beck and call?

It's a scientific fact that 20% of the people who describe themselves as "anti-serial killer" are serial killers themselves.

Actually, no. On average they are... average.

Its true, white males make up a majority of the population of serial killers.  Simply because white people are a majority in this country.  It is also true that black males are overrepresented based on their population in American society.

When people parrot that line they hear on TV about white males, its pretty much bullshit and true at the same time.  If you're an investigator and parrot that line you should be fired.  Discounting a demographic based on the fact that the odds are a minority isn't a serial killer is pretty stupid.

Never thought about it....still not thinking about it.

Very rarely are they smart, listen to some audio of BTK and the Iceman. The Iceman is just a goon who got lucky. And BTK thinks demons are in his head. Smart wouldn't be the word I would use to describe them.



 

The ones that get caught (and we have statistics on) are the ones of normal intelligence.

I thought Iceman was a sociopathic hit man, not a proper serial killer?

The very best serial killers never get caught and in fact, nobody even realizes the killings are the work of a serial killer.



A really intelligent killer works totally alone,  blabs to NOBODY, and never does anything the same way twice.  This time it'll be with a shotgun,

next time, a knife.  Then, a drowning.  Then a bizarre gardening accident.  Then an apparent death by animal action.  All in different places,

at different times,  for different apparent motives...and never any hard evidence.





I have no doubt that there are some such "perfect" serial killers running around.  And they may never be caught.





CJ

I think it's more a matter of preying on people that no one cares about.  Prostitutes, runaways, etc.  No one misses them, not much effort made to find them.  



 

I think one of y'all should start a minority crime thread here like they have on Stormfront.  Never mind that they're racists, fuck them; facts can't be racist, so it shouldn't be a big deal, right?  If you feel this is important and the information is factual, why be opposed to it?

Factor in that the dumb ones get caught before they score enough to get interesting.
So the big name ones would tend to be smarter than average.

 Bravo.



 

He was both, the definition of serial killer is someone who has more then three victims in a short amount of time. Iceman killed people just because he didn't like the way he looked sometimes.





 

I wonder how many have savant-like hemispherical brain disorders.

Or to test out his weapons, supposedly.  It's hard to tell which of his anecdotes are true, since he loved to fuck with interviewers.





 

Hmmm...you have thought hard about this, and YOU LIVE IN FLORIDA.

Jessie and Al told me it only matters when a black man dies if a white man killed him.

You are correct in that the cited reference solely focuses on the USA.  However, it seems appropriate within the parameters of my opening post.  As I stated in that post, I've (as well as most of you) have always heard that statement regarding white serial killers within the context of –– presumably–– the US population.

To bring in the rest of the world–– which would in itself alter the demographic greatly towards non-Caucasians, I would fully expect to see a tremendous increase in non-Caucasian serial killers simply out of the effect of a greater pool to draw from.

This, is exactly what the statistics in the cited text shows regarding Caucasian serial killers in the US.  While there are more Caucasian serial killers, one should expect that considering the demographic makeup of the USA.  Yet, when we take the statistic on a per capita basis, the old adage of "more white serial killers" utterly falls apart–– or at least may be used in a less-than-honest way for whatever purposes.

i was just going to say the same.

I really don't think I understand what you are getting at.

Are you insinuating that I am racist for starting this thread?  Or are you saying that it is racist to even examine the statement that we've all been hearing tossed around as gospel for a couple decades now?

Or are you saying that those against this examination are approaching it from a racist perspective?


As I said, I simply decided to do a quick internet search based upon a "fact" cited numerous times on another thread to satisfy my own curiosity as to whether the statement was valid.

Turns out–– based upon my quick search–– that it IS valid, but salient information is left out of the statement that allows the statistic to be used for racist purpose in itself.

So, I ask you.... what is the worst offense?  That half the information is routinely cited in order to make a racial point, or that the information is more closely examined, and it is discovered that there could be implications that look less-than-favorable for another race?

I feel that the former is worse.  Whenever half-truths are used to reinforce arguments, it becomes intellectual dishonesty, and serves agendas.  Whenever that information has EVER been quoted in my presence, it has ALWAYS been used to further an argument founded in race.

I'm simply saying that if we ARE going to have that discussion, we better damned well be honest.



–– John

Pretty sure child molesters are in the same boat.
 

Serial killers have to be: a) noticed b) not defended/suppressed because they are some important family c) caught.

 

Ignore him.  Calling other racist is his trolling schtick.  That's pretty much all he did in the Trayvon Martin death thread. (The second thread has lots of examples.)

 

That's just one of the three most mentioned risk factors.
1) cruelty to small animals
2) history of bed wetting
3) history of setting small fires

Three out of three is fairly consistent.

Google, Harold Schecter.  He has written some really good books on some of the worst of these people; Ed Gein, Albert Fish and the guy (can't remember his name) who built the "murder mansion" in Chicago during the time of the Chicago World's Fair in the late nineteenth century (when was that? 1890? or so).  It has been years since I have made this subject the focus of my studies.

I love the games we can play with "most", "1 in 5", etc......

You can make numbers say anything you want so long as you omit the qualifiers.

Another false claim I hear a lot is "more white people are on welfare than black people (raw numbers)".  Not true.

Something that scares the fuck out of me is that there is endless twitter (and other social media outlets whose names escape me) accounts full of images and posts glorifying serial killers.

There's one girl who's quite attractive and at least claims that she wishes she could have had ted bundy's child.

I'm hoping most of these people are just stupid kids who like the shock value thing and have never experienced or seen what a sociopath can do to someone, but I'm sure a few if not many are adults who are way off the deep end and are just waiting for the right "push" to send them all the way.



Also, something I don't get about serial killers. There's so many worthless people in the world (drug dealers, purse snatchers etc etc etc) and generally besides the whole murder and rape thing, most serial killers seem to be upstanding non-criminal people. Why not kill worthless fuck bags like pimps and drug dealers instead of some 18 - 24 year old cheerleader in her prime?


The whole thing doesn't make sense to me. I don't have a problem if someone wants to go all vigilante, whatever.

But people who prey on the innocent and defenseless need to be fed their own nut sack before they're executed by fire.

Methodical and clever is not necessarily intelligent, but many serial killers are genius level.

Answered your own question, didn't you?

This part makes your post rather creepy.

All of the people quoting the "majority of serial killers are white" as some kind of racial statement, and all y'all getting sandy over it, are missing the point.
The statement is properly and accurately used only in the context of profiling.
Where it is valid as long as it's not exclusionary; where they messed up on the dude in Atlanta and theDC snipers.

How's that creepy? an 18-24 year old person, male or female would be considered to be in their prime, would they not?

I find this more interesting than the serial killers themselves.  Lots of fan sites out there.

Just as an aside, analysts makes a distinction between spree killers, (Shooting up your local mall) and serial killers.  (Each murder a separate action)

I remember a tidbit from some textbook. There are,  between 50-75 serial killers active in the US at any one time.

Just do a search for unidentified bodies in your state. Notice how many of them are along major highway routes?


Take a look here.  http://www.doenetwork.org/uidlinks.html

There are indeed people like that, who visit criminals in prison...marry them and whatever else.





I'm not into glorifying SKs, but no secret I do collect art/letters/photos from certain notorious individuals.





There is nothing cool about SKs.
 

Go to Eric Hickey (http://erichickey.com/publications.html).

He's "da man" concerning serial murderers and is an old friend.

One of my FTOs told me that kids that habitually play with fire masturbate a lot.

He's a lie! I masturbate a lot and I put fires out!