As with another recent case (whose location I can't recall, but it was within the past several months and we discussed it here, upthread...was it New Zealand, maybe?), it appears the Norwegian bow-and-arrow killer was "known" to law enforcement, and they had concerns that he'd been "radicalized".
Which somehow makes it worst, in that it wasn't some random fruit loop who "snapped", but someone that they were already aware of/had on their radar for whatever reason(s). And he
still manages to kill people. Law enforcement is good at coming in after-the-fact to clean up and piece things together. But they seem to drop the ball on front-end prevention, even when they know there's someone they should be keeping tabs on.
I guess it's like those cases we've all heard about where people (yes, primarily women) are stalked/harassed by an vengeful ex or obsessed co-worker, but "we can't do anything until he kills you; in the meantime, we'll issue a toothless restraining order that won't mean two swinging fucks to a deranged person looking to do you harm. But do give us a call the minute he plunges a knife into your chest, or pulls the trigger."
There's
got to be a better way, some sort of reasonable middle-ground, in these types of scenarios where you know there's a valid, looming threat just waiting to strike. Otherwise what's the point? Five people in Norway are dead because...? Where do the "rights" of known troublemakers/threats end and those of innocent citizens begin? I guess that's for the legal scholars to debate.
Because any overlap seems to be a losing, shitty proposition for the innocent citizens, time and again. These five people didn't wake up deserving this, or ever dreaming such a thing would be how they died.
Some more info/details.
