Champion kayaker killed in XC-skiing accident

"Pieter Litchfield" wrote in message . ..
Of course, if you look at a snowmobile news group, you will see questions
and comments like "I wonder if he was wearing reflective clothing." In the
absence of a lot of facts, or in this case, almost all of them, suggesting
murder can be slanderous and irresponsible. For the sake of making both
activities safer, I'd like to see someone do a "root cause analysis" of this
accident and them broadcast the findings. Throwing around accusations isn't
part of that process.

"Terje Henriksen" wrote in message
...

"John Forrest Tomlinson" skrev i melding
news
Seem top to me this should be called a "snowmobile accident", or
perhaps just an "accident".

What is the probability to hit i skier on a big lake? Seems like murder to
me.

--
Terje Henriksen
Kirkenes

Let's not throw around words like Murder, a better description would
be a tragedy.

Trust me, I will keep on top of this and post the facts/results of the
investigations when I hear them.

John

"Griss" skrev i melding
...


I agree it's a snowmobile accident, not a skiing accident. I'm not
intending to be an apologist for the snow mobiler, but let's reserve
judgement. Some possible explanations:

Skier could have been skiing on established packed track on lake that is
also (or maybe even exclusively) used by snowmobiles.

Skier could have been wearing dark, non-reflector clothing.

Snowmobiler could have been going at a reasonable cruising speed. From my
experience driving to work in the morning, it's very tough to see kids in
non-reflectorized clothing, even going very slowly it's dangerous. A
collision between a machine and a skier even at a slow speed, like 20 MPH
could be fatal.

Of course, the skier could be completely faultless, but I'm just urging
everyone not to assume the worst (and this from me who really doesn't like
snowmobiles).

Of course.

--
Terje Henriksen
Kirkenes

"John Hart" skrev i melding
om...

Let's not throw around words like Murder, a better description would
be a tragedy.

Trust me, I will keep on top of this and post the facts/results of the
investigations when I hear them.

In my opinion, such things should be investigated as possible murder, and
not the opposite, since in our days murder often is covered as accidents.
Such "tragedies"/"accidents" are often caused by people who because of their
own actions and other peoples (psychologists, psychiatrists) lies, have
problems with the spirit of certain living beings who have the spirit of
God.

It may seem strange to you, but it is my experience that satanists, nazis,
certain psychologists and psychiatrists avec fartfolio kill spiritually
gifted people, in other words, the devil is killing God. This has been going
on through all ages.

I always suspect murder in such "accidents" unless otherwise proved. A
psychiatrist will probably define me as paranoid, since they will force
people to think accident first an rule out murder in all cases.

The WTC "accident" may never have happened if people were more paranoid.

I write a lot about these things in norwegian newsgroups, but this and
further discussion is off topic in this group. I would just give you a hint.

BTW, the link doesn't work anymore.

--
Terje Henriksen
Kirkenes

If we all climb on this logic train for a moment, why not call it "suicide"
and not an "accident?" Why do we assume the snowmobiler is a "murderer"
when, in fact, the skier might have been "suicidal?" I, like John Hart,
would suggest we not attribute motivation to any party before the facts are
known.

"Terje Henriksen" wrote in message
...

"John Hart" skrev i melding
om...

Let's not throw around words like Murder, a better description would
be a tragedy.

Trust me, I will keep on top of this and post the facts/results of the
investigations when I hear them.

In my opinion, such things should be investigated as possible murder, and
not the opposite, since in our days murder often is covered as accidents.
Such "tragedies"/"accidents" are often caused by people who because of
their
own actions and other peoples (psychologists, psychiatrists) lies, have
problems with the spirit of certain living beings who have the spirit of
God.

It may seem strange to you, but it is my experience that satanists, nazis,
certain psychologists and psychiatrists avec fartfolio kill spiritually
gifted people, in other words, the devil is killing God. This has been
going
on through all ages.

I always suspect murder in such "accidents" unless otherwise proved. A
psychiatrist will probably define me as paranoid, since they will force
people to think accident first an rule out murder in all cases.

The WTC "accident" may never have happened if people were more paranoid.

I write a lot about these things in norwegian newsgroups, but this and
further discussion is off topic in this group. I would just give you a
hint.

BTW, the link doesn't work anymore.

--
Terje Henriksen
Kirkenes

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:18:12 GMT, "Terje Henriksen" wrote:


"John Hart" skrev i melding
. com...

Let's not throw around words like Murder, a better description would
be a tragedy.

Trust me, I will keep on top of this and post the facts/results of the
investigations when I hear them.

In my opinion, such things should be investigated as possible murder, and
not the opposite, since in our days murder often is covered as accidents.
Such "tragedies"/"accidents" are often caused by people who because of their
own actions and other peoples (psychologists, psychiatrists) lies, have
problems with the spirit of certain living beings who have the spirit of
God.

It may seem strange to you, but it is my experience that satanists, nazis,
certain psychologists and psychiatrists avec fartfolio kill spiritually
gifted people, in other words, the devil is killing God. This has been going
on through all ages.

I always suspect murder in such "accidents" unless otherwise proved. A
psychiatrist will probably define me as paranoid, since they will force
people to think accident first an rule out murder in all cases.

The WTC "accident" may never have happened if people were more paranoid.

I write a lot about these things in norwegian newsgroups, but this and
further discussion is off topic in this group. I would just give you a hint.

BTW, the link doesn't work anymore.

What do they call "trolling" in the norwegian newsgroups?

Ben

"Pieter Litchfield" skrev i melding
news
If we all climb on this logic train for a moment, why not call it
"suicide"
and not an "accident?" Why do we assume the snowmobiler is a "murderer"
when, in fact, the skier might have been "suicidal?"

What looks like suicide might also be murder.

I, like John Hart,
would suggest we not attribute motivation to any party before the facts
are
known.

Yes, but by not assuming the obvious and investigate with all possibilities
in mind, one might find the right solution and not only the one someone want
you to think is the right one. By assuming accidents, you may not find the
correct solution. The obvious is not always the solution. It is a bad
principle these days because murderers hide murder as accidents or suicide.

--
Terje Henriksen
Kirkenes

"Ben Kaufman" skrev i melding
...


What do they call "trolling" in the norwegian newsgroups?

"Troll" is a norwegian word.

--
Terje Henriksen
Kirkenes

My point was that assuming "murder" (by defintion) casts the blame on one
party and only one party. You can't run an investigation by assuming a
specific person is at fault. That's for the facts to reveal.
In some jurisdiction, any unexplained death is assumed to be (and labelled
as) "foul play" or "murder." This allows the police to keep an open case
file forever, even if there was no specific evidence of foul play. Clearly
this is not the case here. We know the cause of death. We know the cast of
characters. So we can't argue that labelling the event "murder" is only for
the purpose of keeping a file open on an unexplained death. "Murder" by
defintion implies some motivation, however fleeting, to cause harm. That is
a big leap unsupported by anything but the poster's emotional reaction to
the event. "Manslaughter" or "vehiclular homicide" would better describe
the circumstances where operator behavior, but NOT intent, caused harm. For
example, operating a snowmobile at a very high speed in the dark in a
crowded place or on an x-c ski trail would qualify, I think. I am NOT
arguing that this was the case here. But it cannot be labelled as murder
without evidence that there was some pre-existing motivation to cause harm.
"Terje Henriksen" wrote in message
...

"Pieter Litchfield" skrev i melding
news
If we all climb on this logic train for a moment, why not call it
"suicide"
and not an "accident?" Why do we assume the snowmobiler is a "murderer"
when, in fact, the skier might have been "suicidal?"

What looks like suicide might also be murder.

I, like John Hart,
would suggest we not attribute motivation to any party before the facts
are
known.

Yes, but by not assuming the obvious and investigate with all
possibilities
in mind, one might find the right solution and not only the one someone
want
you to think is the right one. By assuming accidents, you may not find the
correct solution. The obvious is not always the solution. It is a bad
principle these days because murderers hide murder as accidents or
suicide.

--
Terje Henriksen
Kirkenes

"Pieter Litchfield" skrev i melding
...
My point was that assuming "murder" (by defintion) casts the blame on one
party and only one party.

No.

You can't run an investigation by assuming a
specific person is at fault. That's for the facts to reveal.

Yes. But you have to find all the facts, not only a few.

In some jurisdiction, any unexplained death is assumed to be (and labelled
as) "foul play" or "murder." This allows the police to keep an open case
file forever, even if there was no specific evidence of foul play.

Yes.

Clearly
this is not the case here. We know the cause of death. We know the cast
of
characters. So we can't argue that labelling the event "murder" is only
for
the purpose of keeping a file open on an unexplained death.

Yes we can. We can also watch the victim and understand that this is a
person that nazis and worshippers of the devil would kill.

"Murder" by
defintion implies some motivation, however fleeting, to cause harm.

Yes, and we have to find them.

That is
a big leap unsupported by anything but the poster's emotional reaction to
the event.

Experienced reaction.

"Manslaughter" or "vehiclular homicide" would better describe
the circumstances where operator behavior, but NOT intent, caused harm.

All things should be taken into consideration, also the past of the driver
of the vehicle, his interests, his connections, his reactions to people like
the one he just killed etc. And also the victims last words during the weeks
before the accident. Has he told someone some dangerous secrets? Did he come
to near the truth about some people and their doings?

For
example, operating a snowmobile at a very high speed in the dark in a
crowded place or on an x-c ski trail would qualify, I think. I am NOT
arguing that this was the case here. But it cannot be labelled as murder
without evidence that there was some pre-existing motivation to cause
harm.

No, it must be investigated as possible murder; not labelled. One must also
envestigate how what seem like accidents or suicide could be murder. How do
the murderers make the murder look like something else.

In this special case, I will still consider it as murder, because the person
who was killed would be a problem for people who have problem with the
spirit of God. Among them are psychologists and psychiatrists, satanists and
nazis.

--
Terje Henriksen
Kirkenes

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 03:16:20 GMT, "Terje Henriksen" wrote:


In this special case, I will still consider it as murder, because the person
who was killed would be a problem for people who have problem with the
spirit of God. Among them are psychologists and psychiatrists, satanists and
nazis.



TROLL-O-METER

|---------|
| 10 |
| 9 |
| 8 |
| 7 |
| 6 |
| 5 |
| 4 |
| 3 |
|-2 |
| 1 |
| 0 |
|---------|

Hey, thanks for playing. Better luck next time.