Norweigian Claims He Killed 77 in "Self-Defense".

[Broomstick]

Norwegian mass murderer claims self-defense for killing 77 unarmed people

Oslo, Norway (CNN) -- The man accused of killing 77 people in a bomb and gun rampage in Norway last summer admitted Monday that he had committed the acts but said he was not guilty.

"I acknowledge the acts but do not plead guilty, and I claim I was doing it in self-defense," Anders Behring Breivik told a court in Oslo, Norway. The court recorded a plea of not guilty for him.

As his trial opened earlier in the day, he raised a clenched fist and said he did not recognize the authority of the court.

He objected to the judge's friendship with a former justice minister, calling the trial political, Norwegian media reported.

He then listened impassively as prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh read the charges against him, describing how dozens of teenagers and young people died from shots to the head and body.

Breivik, in a black suit and jawline beard, read the indictment as the prosecutor spoke, showing no reaction as she listed the injuries the victims suffered on Utoya Island.

He was not physically restrained in court.

Breivik was charged last month with committing acts of terror and voluntary homicide. He is accused of killing eight people in a bomb attack in Oslo and then going to Utoya Island outside the city and systematically gunning down 69 more people, many of them teens and young adults.

Prosecutors outlined his life before the killings, showing a photo of the messy room where he lived at his mother's house, listing his six failed businesses and referring to his many hours playing the online game "World of Warcraft."

Prosecutors said he had "no job, no salary, no money from the government" and was "living off his savings."

He smiled briefly when his "Warcraft" character was shown, one of thew few times he showed emotion on Monday.

He also appeared to be overcome with emotion, fighting back tears, when part of his video manifesto "Knights Templar 2083" was played in court.

Breivik's trial is expected to last up to 10 weeks. If he is convicted, his punishment will be based on the determination of his sanity. It may not be possible for him to receive the maximum punishment, if he is deemed insane.

"It's going to be 10 weeks of hell ... to hear this man, to hear his explanation of why he did it and how he did it," said Trond Henry Blattmann, whose son was killed on Utoya Island.

In November, prosecutors said psychiatrists had determined that Breivik was paranoid and schizophrenic at the time of the attacks and during 13 interviews experts conducted with him afterward.

However, the court sought a second opinion because of the importance of the question of sanity to Breivik's trial.

In a report released this month, two court-appointed psychiatric experts said Breivik was sane at the time of the alleged crimes.

Authorities have described Breivik as a right-wing Christian extremist. A 1,500-page manifesto attributed to him and posted on the Internet is critical of Muslim immigration and European liberalism, including Norway's Labour Party.

The victims on Utoya Island were among 700 mostly young people attending a Labour Party camp.

It was the same camp Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg said he had attended every summer since 1974.

"I think that one of the main messages from Norway after the tragedy ... was that we were going to protect our democracy. And part of our democracy is the divisions of responsibilities between the government and the courts. It's up to the courts to decide whether this man is going to be sentenced or not, whether he is insane or not. It's not a question which is going to be decided by politicians. That's part of our democratic society," Stoltenberg said.

Breivik insists that nobody could believe that he was insane and describes questions about his mental condition as ridiculous, his attorney, Geir Lippestad, has said.

Breivik claims the shooting rampage was meant to save Norway from being taken over by multicultural forces and to prevent ethnic cleansing of Norwegians, Lippestad said.

Tore Bjorgo, a terror expert and professor at Norwegian Police University College, said Breivik appears to be overly concerned about his self-image and sees himself in the role of a "fantastic, great person who will save Europe."

"It's we who should decide what kind of a society we want; it's not the terrorists. And the logic of terrorism is to try to provoke responses to get people to act in ways the terrorists want and it was important that we didn't do that. We didn't go down that road, and that was, I think, a big victory," he said.

So... he's not insane, just such a raging bigot he can justify mass-murder and shooting the unarmed as "self-defense". Assuming he is convicted in a court of law, how long can Norway lock this guy up? Life? He would seem to be too dangerous to be allowed to roam free regardless of mental status.

[PeZook]

As his trial opened earlier in the day, he raised a clenched fist and said he did not recognize the authority of the court.

That's really too bad, Breivik. I'm sure the court will feel humbled and disperse in shame.



I'm sorry, but that sounded so over the top that I had to say SOMETHING.

[Themightytom]

Okay I am NOT convinced he is at all sane, but rather that his crime was so heinous nobody wants to excuse it, and there is no proper system for declaring someone insane and still holding them accountable. His strategy of claiming self defense is not rational, the indirect justification he maintains SERIOUSLY looks like paranoia, his preoccupation with appearance, and the potential delusions it represents is not rational, his GAF would probably be low too as he is unemployed, living with his mother and has multiple failed business ventures. I'd love to see the psych eval that determined him sane at the time of committing the massacre, I would have thought he'd be in a psychotic state at the time.

[PeZook]

Actually, psychiatrists can't seem to agree on his sanity, either.

[mr friendly guy]

I doubt he is rational, in the sense that rational = logical. However as for the other sense of the word, ie rational = not having a mental illness, that is debatable.

A psychotic person has "an altered sense of reality". Usually things like hallucinations are obvious. Delusions are another aspect that can be used, but its difficult since the delusions accepted in psychiatric, aren't the same as the common usage of the word.

[dragon]

He knows what he did was wrong by goverment law so that makes him sane and insane at the time. Here's one was Bin Laden insane when he planed and executed the 9/11 attacks

generally a person is considered insane and is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of the offense, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts.

link

[Aharon]

@Sentence
Max if the court finds him sane is 21 years, if the court finds him insane, psychiatry, probably for life.

@Business ventures
The last one (selling forged diplomas etc.) was successful enough to live from for several years.

@Sanity
He did have delusions. It is extremely likely that the Templar Order he believes himself to be a member of doesn't exist. However, he was functional and capable of meticulous planning in pursuit of his goal. I think this will be a very hard case for the judges.

[Johonebesus]

This is why I've sometimes thought we should change the wording to guilty due to mental illness. As Aharon pointed out, people found not guilty due to insanity typically spend more time locked up than they do if convicted. I don't know what it's like in Norway, but in the U.S. there is a powerful reluctance to find murderers or rapists "not guilty," regardless of the outcome. To me it's not just about mercy. If someone is psychotic or has an uncontrollable compulsion, I'd rather see him locked up forever than released back onto society without effective treatment.

[Themightytom]

I doubt he is rational, in the sense that rational = logical. However as for the other sense of the word, ie rational = not having a mental illness, that is debatable.

A psychotic person has "an altered sense of reality". Usually things like hallucinations are obvious. Delusions are another aspect that can be used, but its difficult since the delusions accepted in psychiatric, aren't the same as the common usage of the word.

I really would like to see how the psychiatrist negotiated that in the second report.

[Sea Skimmer]

@Sentence
Max if the court finds him sane is 21 years, if the court finds him insane, psychiatry, probably for life.

Norwegian sentencing laws are bullshit. If they find him guilty and throw him in prison they can still keep him locked up for life by declaring him a threat to the public. The 21 year limit just means he'd get a hearing at the end of that at which point they'd declare him a threat and extend the confinement without trial. This guy is never going free.

[mr friendly guy]

@Sentence
Max if the court finds him sane is 21 years, if the court finds him insane, psychiatry, probably for life.

Norwegian sentencing laws are bullshit. If they find him guilty and throw him in prison they can still keep him locked up for life by declaring him a threat to the public. The 21 year limit just means he'd get a hearing at the end of that at which point they'd declare him a threat and extend the confinement without trial. This guy is never going free.

Ah, how is not letting a mass murderer out bullshit? Is if the fact they even bother to review his case every 21 years that is bullshit? Does he deserve to be released eventually. I am a bit confuse as to which part you have an objection to.

[mr friendly guy]

I doubt he is rational, in the sense that rational = logical. However as for the other sense of the word, ie rational = not having a mental illness, that is debatable.

A psychotic person has "an altered sense of reality". Usually things like hallucinations are obvious. Delusions are another aspect that can be used, but its difficult since the delusions accepted in psychiatric, aren't the same as the common usage of the word.

I really would like to see how the psychiatrist negotiated that in the second report.

Agreed, it would be interesting to see that. Believing that Multiculturalism is TEH EVEL and Muslims are taking over (even though demographics numbers and maths don't support it) would most probably not be counted as delusional in the psychiatric sense, even though they certainly don't conform to reality. However if its true he believed himself to be part of a templar order, which didn't exist, and he was speaking literally and not figuratively, arguably that would be a stronger case.

[Sea Skimmer]

Ah, how is not letting a mass murderer out bullshit? Is if the fact they even bother to review his case every 21 years that is bullshit? Does he deserve to be released eventually. I am a bit confuse as to which part you have an objection to.

The fact that the a sentence is not a sentence and Norwegian officials are openly stating that he'll never get out. Its perversion of a system. Allowing life sentences, with the possibility of parole would be a far more honest approach instead of removing the true sentencing power from the court and judge of conviction. The State of California in the US is trying to do the same thing with sex offenders, and has a mountain of pending lawsuits over it.

[SpaceMarine93]

Can't we just assume he's rational and sane and go along with it? There are 77 families and an entire nation demanding justice (and his guts) and the Norwegian judicial system needs to deliver. Hell, anyone who could plan and execute a terror attack by himself that well is bound to be sane.

[weemadando]

Can't we just assume he's rational and sane and go along with it? There are 77 families and an entire nation demanding justice (and his guts) and the Norwegian judicial system needs to deliver. Hell, anyone who could plan and execute a terror attack by himself that well is bound to be sane.

And this is why we don't let teenagers anywhere near the justice system.

[Zaune]

Hell, anyone who could plan and execute a terror attack by himself that well is bound to be sane.

Word to the wise, kiddo. Just because somebody is criminally insane doesn't automatically mean they're also stupid.

[Formless]

Can't we just assume he's rational and sane and go along with it? There are 77 families and an entire nation demanding justice (and his guts) and the Norwegian judicial system needs to deliver. Hell, anyone who could plan and execute a terror attack by himself that well is bound to be sane.

And this is why we don't let teenagers anywhere near the justice system.

Clearly he has never read Catch 22.

[The Infidel]

Just want to add that Sea Skimmer got it mostly right. This... traitor to the nation and mass murderer of children has done something unheard of in Norway in peace time. The maximum sentence in Norway is 21 years, and with good behavior he could theoretically be out after 15 years, but that will not happen. The court could sentence him to "forvaring" (custody) or 21 years then custody (I think. Not quite sure if these sentences can be combined). Custody means that he will be sentenced to 5 years in prison, then checked if he is safe to let out (which will likely not happen) and if not, he will get another 5 years. This can go on indefinitely. I think what Breivik has done is challenging the Norwegian justice system. No one has ever done anything even remotely this bad.

[Pendleton]

Can't we just assume he's rational and sane and go along with it? There are 77 families and an entire nation demanding justice (and his guts) and the Norwegian judicial system needs to deliver. Hell, anyone who could plan and execute a terror attack by himself that well is bound to be sane.

How about we just take him into the town square and shoot him in the head (or maybe the stomach)? After all, he admits to doing the act, and we all want justice vengeance, right? Let the fucker suffer.

Or, we could follow the rule of law and not base the justice system on emotional tantrums, even if they come from people who suffered at the hands of the person being convicted.

[Norseman]

The fact that the a sentence is not a sentence and Norwegian officials are openly stating that he'll never get out. Its perversion of a system. Allowing life sentences, with the possibility of parole would be a far more honest approach instead of removing the true sentencing power from the court and judge of conviction. The State of California in the US is trying to do the same thing with sex offenders, and has a mountain of pending lawsuits over it.

Each 5 year lengthening of the sentence has to be confirmed by a court no less than three months prior to the end of said 5 year sentence. Although it is not the sentencing court who does it there is still judicial supervision of the process, the prosecution has to demonstrate that the subject is still a threat to society. Of course in the case of Anders Breivik demonstrating this will not be a problem untill he's so old that he's physically incapable of being a threat.

[Sea Skimmer]

Just want to add that Sea Skimmer got it mostly right. This... traitor to the nation and mass murderer of children has done something unheard of in Norway in peace time. The maximum sentence in Norway is 21 years, and with good behavior he could theoretically be out after 15 years, but that will not happen. The court could sentence him to "forvaring" (custody) or 21 years then custody (I think. Not quite sure if these sentences can be combined). Custody means that he will be sentenced to 5 years in prison, then checked if he is safe to let out (which will likely not happen) and if not, he will get another 5 years. This can go on indefinitely. I think what Breivik has done is challenging the Norwegian justice system. No one has ever done anything even remotely this bad.

Quisling selling out the entire country and helping register and round up its Jews for deportation kind of was this bad, and much worse. He was executed for murder and treason.

Each 5 year lengthening of the sentence has to be confirmed by a court no less than three months prior to the end of said 5 year sentence. Although it is not the sentencing court who does it there is still judicial supervision of the process, the prosecution has to demonstrate that the subject is still a threat to society. Of course in the case of Anders Breivik demonstrating this will not be a problem untill he's so old that he's physically incapable of being a threat.

Its still double jeopardy and should not be permitted in any system.

[Steel]

Each 5 year lengthening of the sentence has to be confirmed by a court no less than three months prior to the end of said 5 year sentence. Although it is not the sentencing court who does it there is still judicial supervision of the process, the prosecution has to demonstrate that the subject is still a threat to society. Of course in the case of Anders Breivik demonstrating this will not be a problem untill he's so old that he's physically incapable of being a threat.

Its still double jeopardy and should not be permitted in any system.

It isn't being retried, guilt has been determined. This is like a life sentence with parole hearings every 5 years.

[Sea Skimmer]

It isn't being retried, guilt has been determined. This is like a life sentence with parole hearings every 5 years.

If it was a life sentence it should be called one. It is in fact a system of retrial on the basis of being found guilty of being a 'threat to the public' every five years, which sounds like a psychological diagnosis to me in the first place to me (meaning anyone you label that way should be in a hospital anyway, this is BTW how the California system works, extension of sentence is always in a hospital setting) so they can feel all happy and enlightened about how they don't have life sentences. Its just stupid at best. In any event I think the court is most likely just going to rule him insane so they can skip over the issue.

[Alkaloid]

Given that Norway has a prison system with markedly lower recidivism rates than most western ones, I don't think you can just say it's terrible. If the goal of the prison system is reformation rather than punishment (which is the case with most western prisons, despite the bullshit they spout otherwise) then I don't really think it's unreasonable to say that while we think he should be released back into the community in x number of years, he may not be, so we will conduct a hearing at that point in order to decide whether or not to release him.

If it was a life sentence it should be called one

It's not like its a secret. That's the sentence, x years plus potential to be increased if you are found to be unfit for release into the community. Springing it on someone would be unjust, but a different type of sentencing isn't wrong just because things are different in the US.

[Sea Skimmer]

No, its wrong because its uncertain and unequal. Norway is in the minority on this, not the US.