Previous Post
Next Post


As armed Americans, it behooves us to know our enemies, too. So, do you understand the criminal mind? To my mind it’s pretty simple: criminals want what someone else has and they don’t fancy working to get it. Saying that, that pretty much describes how government works. And there are a lot of hard-working criminals in this world (you try erecting a communications tower for a Mexican drug cartel in the desert in August). So let’s try that again. Who cares how the criminal mind works? Rather than getting into the theoretical psychology that makes Criminal Minds such a fantastic show—literally—armed citizens should focus on a few basics: how, when and where criminals attack. That’s my take. How do you view the criminal mind?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. To understand the criminal mindset,one need only watch the City Council sessions in Chicago.

    Put simply,crime is the natural result of people who rationally decide to forcibly deprive others of life and property for their own purposes.You’ll note the FBI and the ATF have that in common with their criminal targets.

  2. Pretty simple. The criminal mind is oriented 100% around self-centered thinking, to the point that they have no regard for the efforts, property, or the lives of others. It’s the ultimate sense of entitlement bred by a culture that eschews personal responsibility.

    I am a criminal prosecutor and I can tell you that 99% of the problem’s I see every day with criminals could have been prevented in their child hood’s by a few spanking’s, i.e., attitude adjustment’s, being taught to work for what they want, and being told “no” when they wanted something they couldn’t or shouldn’t have. One of the biggest contributors for this I see in males is a lack of a real father-figure to teach them respect, discipline, and responsibility. That applies do all demographics.

    The benefit of the above mentioned psychological orientation is that it makes all criminals necessarily cowardly and generally risk averse. Therefore, the best crime deterrent I have found is to look alert, look ready to defend yourself, and appear sure in that readiness. A criminal presented with a hardened target almost always seeks a weaker victim.

    • So there was no crime before entilements or the social safety net?

      Funny, I’d always thought it existed even before FDR.

      Guess I just learned something.

      • Russ,

        Of course violent crime existed before Presidents Roosevelt and Johnson. What you will notice, however, is that violent crime rates correlate to entitlements: the more entitlements there are, the more crime there is.

        Can you offer a better explanation of how violent crime rates began to explode shortly after all the new entitlements were enacted during President Johnson’s time in office? Think about it. The violent crime rate peaked in the early 1990s which is roughly 28 years after the big expansion of entitlements. That sounds like just about the right amount of time for children raised under entitlements to become old enough to perpetrate criminal activity.

        • Perhaps that is part of it, but those entitlements were expanded in response to a new economic reality in which “the Beave” didn’t get the country he was promised.

          When a bus driver could no longer feed a family of five, things started going downhill fast.

          I see it as largely an effect of a consumer economy, rather than one based upon production. A few folks do better, most of us do worse and a lot of new criminals get minted

        • Darned editor!

          The wave of white-collar criminals β€” including marketroids who feed investors’ funds into a veritable slot machine β€” are usually not products of “entitled” families.

          To many, crime is seen as the only way out.

          Hell, even the entire country with war as an energy policy β€” our illegal invasion of Iraq on trumped up charges was just that, and a symptom of the cultural cancer.

          When Uncle Sam goes bindlestiff, is it any surprise people do?

        • When the government puts money out to fix problems , it only buys more of the same. Government was created to handle what we a people can not, like just measurements and the dealing with other nations, by making sure we have FAIR and FREE trade for all. not health care, not gun controls, not taxes on income, not education, not even telling you what to eat, drink, think, or even say, Our government is about 300 % LOST and we are at this time only about 45 % free , Wake Up Amerika you are going fast…

      • Russ, I spent about 30 minutes writing a detailed response thoughtfully detailing the definitional principals upon which I based my statements that would have answered all of your questions regarding the premise of my statements. But for some reason when I hit the submit button they did not appear on the board.

        Long story short, I think we are agreeing but that your reply assumes my post contains premises that it does not, and that it points out my assumption that the intended audience would already accept and understand certain definitional principals, even though I do not contend that you do not accept or understand them yourself.

        Primarily, when I said the word “entitlement” it referred to the culture of entitlement (“Give me, give me, give me”rather than “Work, work, work”) that has GENERALLY been handed down from the last generation to the present. I did not refer at all to governmental or institutional entitlement programs. However, had I referred to institutional entitlement, the question of whether crime did not exist before entitlement programs is obviously answered in the negative. Just like fire existed before gasoline (an accellerant), so too did crime exist before government programs that encourage people not to take responsibility for their actions, or for their futures, or for raising their children responsibly, or to respect the hard work and sanctity of the lives of others, thereby also encouraging and enabling them to engage in criminal conduct isolated from a sense of belonging to a civil society.

        I also do not contend that certain social “safety net” programs are inexorably bad. They can certainly be good if they help a person through a hard time while also teaching that person how to stay out of those situations in the future, and if they are eventually aimed at cultivating the individual not to continue needing that “safety-net.” To the extent that their policy’s affect and encourage the continued dependency of an individual on that program, in order to justify the program’s further existence and expansion, then they are certainly bad, regardless of whether the program’s administrator is a government, church, charitable organization, or any other patron.

        • Y’know, this is a very cool site – except for the whole comment-eating-monster lurking in the wings.

          One of these days, I hope to buy you a drink.

      • Russ,

        I am glad we are getting along. I see from your other comments that we are coming at the same question from slightly different directions. But from what I have seen of your comments here and on other various topics I have seen you discuss, I am confident that yours and my variations in the way that we present our thoughts in this thread has mostly to do with the way we individually define specific value-laden, sometimes emotionally-loaded, terms.

        When I read your posts in the context of their entirety, and in the entirety of the other topics I’ve seen you comment on, I rarely differ with your underlying premiss, even though you tend to stress different elements than I usually do. That is not to say that we necessarily differ in opinion, but only that we place emphasis on different elements within the same logical equation. When I make broad statements of opinion they usually, as I said, assume that the reader understands my underlying definition of terms and places a similar weight on the same elements that I do in any given logical equation.

        I am encouraged to see that when two reasonable minds make an effort to clearly state the definition each-other’s terms to one another, and that when the two also account for the elements emphasized by the other in those opinions (really just the strong point’s in each-other’s arguments), those two minds can understand the other’s argument and let logic reconcile what might otherwise appear to be a difference of opinion into carefully reasoned agreement.

        I bet if we keep batting it back and fort here long enough, we’ll definitely get a chance to buy each other a frosty brew.

    • I don’t know that cowardice is uniform. Any Preadator will seek easier prey; it’s natural.

      Not that they’re paragons of bravery or any such, but neither is coward universally applicable.

      One had best not presume that they’ll just run; some won’t, so don’t depend on preconceptions to bear out under test.

      • Russ, your point is well taken and does not conflict with my premise.

        Let me clarify, because I think we agree, but my statement was made under the assumption that the potential audience would already have studied and accepted some definitional principals. I am not saying you don’t understand or accept those definitional principals, but that your post was tailored to point out the my assumption that the audience already accepts and understands them.

        Regarding your reference to the uniformity of cowardice among criminals, I do believe that cowardice is actually uniform among criminals as a moral virtue or lack thereof. That is why I qualified my statement regarding their cowardice with the subsequent statement that they are “generally” risk-averse. The word “general” meaning that the premise allows for the possibility of criminal activity that could seem, to a non-criminal, to violate the usual rule of risk-adversity.

        Indeed, there are many reasons that a criminal might assail a non-crominal who presents a potentially superior force to the criminal. However the reason a criminal might take a risk of assailing a better armed non-criminal is USUALLY (see me qualifying this statement again) attributable to the criminal’s perception that the potential consequence of not assailing the better armed non-criminal could be worse, in the criminal’s mind, than the gravity of the potential harm presented by better armed non-criminal. An example would be a criminal who would rather die than be denied their narcotic high. But that is still a cost-benefit analysis in the mind of the criminal to the extent that he sees the potential of withdrawal as being more grave than the potential of being horribly mutilated or possibly killed. In putting a greater weight on the former, the criminal still acts in what he thinks is a self-preserving manner and, therefore, such an act cannot be called “brave” in the least when you step back and look at it from the outside, rather than simply as a potential victim who is unaware of the criminal’s motives. This also does not conflict with the uniformity of criminal cowardice because cowardice the lack of moral virtue rather than a course of conduct. Their cowardice remains uniform in that they refuse to accept responsibility for themselves, they refuse to recognize the needs of others as equal to or greater than their own, they refuse to act in self-sacrificial ways to end their cycle of criminality, and the list could go on in to perpetuity.

        As to your question of whether my premise presumes that crime did not exist before the existence of entitlement programs, the answer is obviously in the negative. Furthermore, my comment did not refer at all to “entitlement programs” but referred only to the lack of moral culture that is being handed from one generation to the next regardless of the cause. The “entitlement” I referred to was not an institutional entitlement but a cultural sense of entitlement. Assuming, arguendo, that I was referring to institutional entitlement then the answer to whether crime did not exist before those programs is still the negative. Just like fire existed before gasoline (an accelerant), so too did crime exist before the existence of programs that disproportionately encourage people not to take responsibility for their actions or their own future, thereby encouraging criminal conduct.

        As to your final point that a pretense of preparation is insufficient as a reliable means of avoiding criminal attack, I whole heartedly agree. A dog that barks had also better have teeth. That is why in addition to maintaining an aware and invulnerable posture, I wholeheartedly also advocate that each individual equip and prepare themselves to apply efficient and decisive force in self-defense in the face of a threat of death or serious bodily injury. I tried to edit my comment to add another mini-paragraph stating that people must actually be prepared to act rather than just appearing prepared to act in case the appearance of preparation is insufficient to ward off that rare criminal who is willing to attack a hardened target. However, someone commented on my post before I had the chance to submit my edit and I was foreclosed from being able to post my additional comments by the rules of the comment board.

        So thank you for pointing out that pretense in-and-of-itself is not enough to ward off all criminal attack, and that one must be prepared to actually act in self-defense. That is unquestionably true. My comment, incomplete though it was, was simply that the appearance of preparedness to act in self-defense significantly reduces one’s chances of having to actually act in self-defense since criminals GENERALLY don’t like taking the risk of assailing someone that could potentially limit their future capacity to assail others.

        • This is the comment I made early one yesterday and it appears to have finally materialized on the board after disappearing all of yesterday. It makes a mess of this thread to see it here now with all of my other fragmented posts.

          I hope any potential reader understands that why my posts seem all out of order is exactly because whatever computer program that is governing our conversations here seems to have added my comments out of order with significant delays in some cases, while adding my comments immediately in other cases.

          Sorry folks.

      • In my post my I use the word “cowardice” meaning lack of moral virtue, not referring to a specific course of conduct. I also said that a criminal’s behavior GENERALLY risk-averse.

        THerefore, prefacing the statement that a criminal behaves in risk-averse ways with the word “generally” leaves open the possibility that a criminal can, under some circumstances, behave in ways that do not seem risk-averse, at least to the victim. Behaving in seemingly non-risk-averse ways does not make a criminal not a coward, e.g. a criminal who attacks an obviously better armed non-criminal because the criminal perceives the gravity of potential drug withdrawal as worse than the possibility of being killed or horribly maimed. Such action may seem non-risk-averse to the victim, but in the mind of the criminal the risk of withdrawal was worse than the risk of death, therefore he actually did behave in a risk-averse manner from the criminal’s perspective. Does that mean that the criminal was possessed of the moral virtue of bravery? To the contrary, the criminal lacked the moral virtue, i.e. was possessed of cowardice, that he perceived his life as more valuable than that of his victim, and therefore acted thereupon. If he had been “brave”, he would have possessed the moral virtue to recognize the needs of the potential victim as being equal to or greater than his own need for a fix, and, therefore, would have behaved self-sacrificially, i.e. bravely, and faced the gravity of withdrawal instead rather than exposing a some other person to the potential of death or serious bodily injury. My submission remains that criminals are uniformly cowardly, even though they may act in was that appear the opposite to their victims.

        Lastly, I totally agree that the pretense of preparedness to act in self defense is insufficient to deter all criminal activity. That is why I advocate that everyone be as equipped and prepared as possible to act efficiently and decisively in self-defense when faced with the threat of serious bodily injury or death. My original post was only meant to convey the idea that appearing to criminals to be prepared to act decisively in self-defense greatly reduces one’s risk of actually ending up needing to actually act in self-defense since criminals USUALLY (see me qualifying this statement again) do not want to take the risk of assailing someone who would disable them from assailing others in the future.

      • I agree, Russ. I am by nature a lazy man, but I always did whatever was necessary to support my daughter, but not my ex.

        It’s not so much that I hate work, but that I have always hated jobs.

        • I am just briefly commenting to say that the discourse between Colby and Russ is why I respect the TTAG commentary so much. Intelligent and respectful discourse is sorely lacking in our society. It exists here. For now.

    • To be honest, isn’t everyone self centered in their thinking? Even when you’re doing something that benefits someone else, you’re doing it for your own reasons. I do things for my family because I love them and it makes me happy. I do things for my community because I want to live in a better place. Etc, etc….
      Pehaps it would be more accurate to say that the criminals self centered thinking is less forward thinking, more immediate, and more twisted. They’re not thinking of the future consequences.

    • I’ve long been of the thought that the demise of our great country began the day they took the paddle out of the principal’s office.

    • You nailed it sir. The lack of fathers and family is the biggest contributor to the down fall of society and the criminal character in my opinion.

  3. “… focus on a few basics: how, when and where criminals attack. That’s my take. How do you view the criminal mind?”

    Pretty much the same. It’s irrelevant (and technically unknowable) what anyone else is thinking – what matters is what’s observable.

  4. We all fall short.

    As such, in our incomprehensible Gifts, not by our own fruition, but to that of something much more tangible, we all can somwwhat relate to perversity of mind. I not, in any way, mind you, exclusionary from that litmus. So furthermore we can understand the true path of madness that goes by making those life decisions, yet in a certain way not, by mindfully following that way of life into it’s derision of reality.

    Mind led imaginary Ventures into madness is understanding madness.

  5. With few exceptions (Ted Bundy et al) criminals are profit maximizing individuals. Sure they enjoy stealing, a fun beat down or a good rape. They may even be willing to kill, but the bottom lines is they want to keep doing it. So when presented with any kind of serious resistance they beat feet. They leave their buddies behind. They are only out for themselves. That’s why most DGUs end without firing a shot and why multiple home invaders run away when one of their team goes down in heap.

  6. This comment is probably too long, but I’ll make it anyway.

    I don’t think it’s necessarily as simple as “they don’t want to work.” They might be willing to do a lot of work – they just don’t want to do it in a way that’s respectful of others. I’d say there are at least a few different types of criminals (perhaps more?) as far as their mentality goes:

    (1) they have had insufficient moral grounding (perhaps due to lack of a father figure, or simply horrible parenting), so they do not see crimes against people as wrong – violence is just a way to “do business” in the same way we might think a purchase order is a way to do business …

    (2) they have been led to believe that those they are committing crimes against actually deserve it somehow – for example, getting revenge against a particular race for a wrong they committed (whether it’s white politicians in power, or the Asian store owners who moved into the area, or black families escaping a city who have moved to a formerly white-only area, or something else) …

    (3) their brain is fried from drug use and/or injury, and any moral compass they used to have is all screwed up;

    (4) they have some moral grounding, but they are in such a desperate situation (perhaps destitute) that they see no other option than to commit a crime in order to survive …

    (5) they are agents of a government, and they are committing crimes against people “for their own good” … this, perhaps, is the most difficult group to stop, since they have the law on their side.

    For criminals in groups (1) and (2) and (3), I think a person cannot trust anything they say, and must seriously consider the possibility that they are willing to use deadly force against you.

    For criminals in group (4), they might actually be able to be reasoned with, especially if they’re willing to accept help. However, assuming someone is actually in group (4) is detrimental to your safety. Someone in one of groups 1-3 could be pretending to be in group (4). One has to assume someone who acts this way is probably part of one of the first three groups.

    For those in group (5) … there is, in theory, the court system to attempt to receive justice. Physical resistance is very dangerous. So many police raids are done by SWAT teams nowadays that the chances of successfully physically repelling an attack are slim at best, and even if an attack is repelled, they’ll come back with more people.

    As far as your “basics” question – how, when and where criminals attack, I think groups 1-4 behave in similar ways. They attack whenever and wherever they think they have an advantage over a potential victim. That could be a dark alley they are familiar with, or a parking lot in which someone has their hands full of bags, or a tourist area where a vacationer is not paying attention to those around them. Just because their morality is skewed does not mean they don’t use logic.

    Group (5) tends to attack you anytime a legislature is in session. They are irrational, not logical, and often impervious to reason and common sense. This is something we see with the anti-gunners all the time.

    I think that covers my thoughts, at least for now.

    • LOL! Well said about group #5 — unfortunately two to the body and one to the head cannot be used without also going to Jail. Only getting out the vote and hope the new replacement is better will work and often it will need to be done frequently.

    • I like what you wrote, but I am lazy by nature. I have never stolen anything I can think of, and have been willing to suffer from my own laziness, You need to factor that into your equation.

    • That chubby blonde girl would be more likely to play serious snugglebunnies with Rachel Maddow than with you, if you get my drift.

      Not that there’s anything wrong with it.

      • I’ve never seen the show, but I should like to think that the chubby blonde gal would have better taste.

        Also, while my actual name (above) is hardly gender-neutral, “in Memphis” is equivocal. Could be a Ms…

        • Were I at gunpoint, I’d choose the former, close my eyes and think of Kansas β€” as things like my thing just ain’t my thing.

          However, I’d far rather neither. I’ve no interest in Mad-Cow. None whatsoever. No siree.

  7. TO: All
    RE: I Have an Idea

    The idea is that many ‘criminals’ actually call themselves ‘progressive’ or ‘liberal’ or ‘Democrat’.


    [The Truth will out…..if only people would see it…..]

    • Unfortunatley that is the problem. The people who need to see it dont care. Since it is “gun” violence it must be a “gun” nut, thefore a conservative redneck. Doesnt help thay many are also white. Just like SOME people on our side associate all liberals as gun grabbers, most of them probably associate all shooters to be white trash, conservative, Christians.

  8. A thing that’s important is that many criminals β€” new and recidivist β€” go that way from desperation and hopelessness. It’s all well and good to moralize, but there are some pretty harsh roads and shoes out there.

    There are several possible responses on their part when you corner some yoot going through your stuff β€” or coming through your perimeter.

    1 – Resigned fatalism, a “Here we go again. At least they’ll feed me.”

    He’ll likely just sit, wait for transport and try to make small talk, apologize and not try anything.

    2 – Resigned fatalism, an “I’ve nothing to lose; might as well go for it.” Since nothing really matters, this type can be very dangerous.

    3 – Anger or bravado, “This world and your ass are mine!” A truly bad guy, without whom we’re all better off.

    The reason I mention these is that the latter two might act like the former as a lull. Don’t buy it, even at two for a nickel.

    We’re nice people, wanting to believe and do the best. With some sociopathic exceptions, we don’t want to shoot anyone. Don’t let that be your downfall.

    I’ve only shot someone once β€” with a bolt rather than a bullet, and he lived β€” so am hardly an expert, but I will say that your attacker is human and is expecting you to be more human. Be human, but with as little emotion as possible. Love and hate have no place in a defensive situation.

    Any which way, you’re in a hot condition red and should take nothing for granted.

  9. Some are in the criminal game truly out of desperation trying to feed themselves or their families (think vagrants and illegal immigrants), some are drug addicts with nothing to live for beyond their next fix and will use anyone around them to get it (I roomed with one of these for 2 years, don’t ask), many are complete sociopaths who don’t care how they profit off of others as long as they can get away with it (politicians, high-powered corporate types and a fair chunk of law enforcement are “legitimate” forms of this), and some are idiots with poor decision making skills and are in it for the thrill of Doing Something Bad.

    With the occasional exception of group #1 I have zero sympathy for any of them. You sh!t your own bed, stealing from or killing me for some short sighted gain or to satisfy some sick urge isn’t going to fix your predicament and I will make damn sure of that.

  10. I think it is absolutely critical to have an awareness of the criminal mind. Why? Countless people — especially civilian disarmament gun control advocates — completely fail to understand just how totally warped many criminals are.

    I cannot overstate how dangerous it is to assume that warped criminals function anything close to “normal”. Some criminals have absolutely no regard whatsoever for human life. To them other human beings are no different than a log or a bowl of mashed potatoes. Other criminals believe that they are doing society a favor when they eliminate “weak” victims. Still other criminals blame the victims who submit to their attacks thinking that the victims “wanted it” or else they would have fought back. And then we have the sadistic sorts that take pleasure in the suffering of their victims. The potential depravity is endless.

    Once you have an awareness of just how depraved a violent criminal can be, you realize that negotiating with a criminal is a bad idea. You realize that trusting a criminal is a bad idea. You realize that you cannot appeal to a criminal’s “good graces” because they have no good graces. And that totally changes your mindset, tactics, and potential response to a violent criminal attack.

    Are there some criminals who are not completely depraved? Sure. The trouble is that a victim has no way of knowing whether a violent criminal attacker is just a lazy person hoping to intimidate their victim into handing over valuables … or if the violent criminal attacker wants to make a lamp shade out of their victim’s skin. Whatever the case, it is better for the victim to err on the side of caution and assume any violent criminal attacker is a totally depraved rabid animal.

  11. Criminals like those for profit colleges giving kids next to useless degrees that won’t actually get them a job?

    Public universities might be moral wastelands, but if you’re smart enough to stay away from any major that has “studies” in the name you can generally expect to at least increase your chances for living wage, entry level employment.

  12. We also now have a NEW problem and that is good is now called evil and evil is called bad… Where does this come from the government, the news media, and our education systems… So much so that all we get is lies. So that they can live in sin and evil… This country has gotten so far from the basics of our founders, and Yes a moral society will have less CRIME. Our system of liberty and freedom only works for a moral people… The police can never keep the peace, and at the same time an unmoral government will never ever work, Force can not make it work, sample under communism the people had no will to work for the state… All goes back to step one liberty and freedom only work , if government let’s people be rewarded for your work, that is why noting is working in Amerika… God is not mocked, Crime will only keep going up, no matter how many bad guys you shoot. and I can see all the jokes that will come on this post! In their WISDOM they became FOOLS… that is where we are at now. Will we learn from history ??? If history is a teacher , we never learn from history! THINK on that!

  13. I liked this statement from the source:

    “The sophisticated setup was put in place by the former Mexican special forces soldiers who comprise the heart of the Zeta cartel by using communications specialists to install, run, and update the network.”

    So… Former Special forces solder’s are at the heart of the Zeta Cartel? Hmm. So that’s where all those full auto M4 type weaponry are coming from. I thought those full auto M4’s were coming from Arizona gun dealers??? – That’s what the Mexico gov has been saying anyways.

  14. As a former Criminal Justice teacher, I know you won’t find out much about the criminal mind in one of those classes. The criminology text I was forced to use was written by an ivory tower academic whose knowledge of crime apparently solely came from discussing it with other sociologists while sipping wine and eating cheese that smells like other people’s feet. None of them had ever looked real evil in the face. As I told my students, “At the moment you meet a criminal on the attack he is no more like you than a tiger is like your pet kitty.” However, those classes may lead you to a career in law enforcement or as a prosecutor or criminal defense lawyer. Then you’ll find out the truth.

  15. Not sure about before arrest, but by the time these criminal masterminds are brought into the ER for jail clearance, they’re a bunch of spineless blabbering crybabies claiming they’re innocent, set up, arrested on racial prejudice, victims of the police.
    In prison they are heroes that had to kill the drug dealing child rapist because the police failed to act. At least when I worked both the county hospital and state prison that’s what I saw first hand. To sum it up, they are losers!

  16. I’ve worked in a prison and dads side of the family was full of violent criminal types. Think Sons of Anarchy. Only with less attractive and less moral people.

    I’ve come to the conclusion that I’d rather not know how a criminal mind works. That may be why I’ve stayed out of serious trouble and never been arrested.

  17. What gun grabbers fail to realize is that criminals are criminals because they disrespect the law, natural and otherwise. Therefore, laws against magazine capacities, weapon types, and all that other anti-gun nonsense mean nothing to them, except for more prey to seek.

    They also come from cultures that idolize violence, sloth, and irresponsibility. No strong father figures, more base and violent impulses. The criminal mind cannot be reasoned reasoned with our reasonably resisted, it must be contained or destroyed.

    I prefer destroyed myself.

  18. The criminal mind has an unshakeable belief that it has the right to do as it pleases and that “right” supersedes those of anyone else. It also has an absolute conviction that no one else has the right to resist its uncontrolled behavior because, in its mind, it is never guilty of any wrongdoing and has no reason to ever admit to any wrongdoing. Acts that appear cowardly are really driven by its adamant, delusional insistence, “I am innocent!”.

  19. Think selfishness. I want, I need, I deserve, I don’t have…couple this with an interesting lack of morals.
    If you could eliminate that selfishness, you’d eliminate at least half the crime.
    Take away drugs like methamphetamine and cocaine (not pot), and you just eliminated another 20-25%. Meth makes people do very weird things. It triggers the same region that is coupled with the big O. Only meth takes you to a 100, not a 10 like an O does. So then you spend day after week after month trying to get there again. Pretty soon you have no job, no kids, no spouse and you’ll steal your grandmothers teeth to pawn them off for the next Baggie.
    Toss out the crime of passion. Guy kills his wife because he came home early and she’s in bed with the neighbor. (Then again, if they weren’t selfish???). Some folks just trip offline for a few minutes/hours.
    Step up to the serial killer. Forget it. As soon as a Zodiac killer disappears, a green river killer appears. He’s gone, Jeffrey Dahmer comes along.
    Child sex offenders? My opinion only, they need to be executed. Immediately. There is less than a 1% cure rate for those ‘people’.
    I’m in supply/logistics/sales now. I like not having to empathize with a pedophile during an interview just to get him to confess. I do miss taking down meth labs.

    • I can’t discuss the ramifications of society, entitlement programs, progressive parenting etc on the criminal mind because I don’t know very much about it. I only worry about the criminals that populate my neck of the woods, mostly meth heads. They are criminals because they need money to buy their drugs. The easiest way for them to get money is to take it from others. Sometimes that means a gun to the ribs while you are withdrawing money from an ATM, sometimes it means your house is broken into and stuff stolen for resale to a fence. Those are the criminals I have to worry about. My plan to defeat them is to have good security on the house, taught my wife when and how to shoot, and not use ATMs at o’dark thirty in out of the way places. Also, being a people watcher, I’ve come to recognize the attitude of the predator on the hunt vs. the condition white sheep that wander around oblivious to their surroundings. When there is a commotion at the mall, on the street, in the park ,etc. I do NOT wander over to see what is happening, I look for an exit in the opposite direction and go. I guess the best thing to know about the criminal mind is that they are among us and we need to have situational awareness, plus avoid doing stupid things in stupid places with stupid people.

    • “If you could eliminate that selfishness, you’d eliminate at least half the crime.”

      If you eliminated selfishness, then what’s left wouldn’t be human. Or you could maybe call it “human,” but it wouldn’t live very long.

  20. If you want to know the criminal mind watch the show “Gangland” it aired in 2008/9 I believed.After watching that show you’ll want to carry two guns.It was on Spike TV.

  21. “Criminal Mind” describes someone of such low morals and suspect character that they actively seek out government employment.

    • You nailed it Hooda. . . the mindset of criminality is as varied as the crimes. The only commonality is that in a certain time and place and circumstance that person is willing to violate the law. There is use in looking at patterns, they can inform us where not to be and what not to do to avoid being victims, but in the end crime is a series of unique situations with only overlapping themes.

      In the US there are so many laws we are all criminals. Crime is divorced from even having a victim and criminality is commonplace. When the law lacks legitimacy everyone becomes a criminal.

  22. Spiritually, they are of their father (the devil) and are described as follows: “A liar, the father of lies” and “A murderer from the beginning”. Tbe Bible is a litany of crimes and gives great insight into the criminal mind. From Cain to Judas, to the Pharisees, every shade of murder and betrayal is outlined, along with fraud, deception and sharp practice. Therefore every modern business model is portrayed accurately, and misgovernment as well as other criminal activity currently before the courts.

    To avoid sharing the fate of those who engage in these activities? Keep his commandments and have the testimony of Jesus. Otherwise we are all in the same boat. At least in the meantime in America citizens generally have the right to show some resistance to criminal predators. Avoiding the clutches of scheming fraudsters and Government stooges requires alertness and discernment. Trust in God. Check everyone else out.

  23. Read “The Gift of Fear” by Gavin De Becker. This is a very insightful dissection of the development of a violent act and the mentality of those committing it.

  24. I have faith that is amongst the lots crucial facts to me. With this particular happy mastering a person’s article. Having said that must assertion with handful of staple items, The positioning preference is best, your reports is really outstanding : Deborah. Superb hobby, all the best


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here