A mutilating is analogous to an arsonist

Today saw Germany's pictures in a German magazine, I saw Cologne. I remembered some friends I knew in the 80s We from time to time was in the public design workshops (painting nudes). And every time the coffee break, we stopped to chat. The main subject was always what more we worry, or so called our attention. And in one afternoon what he called our attention were films almost documentaries. He spent a film that seemed a lesson for those who would be tempted to enter the world of criminal investigation.They very intelligent, thought strange, human behavior, and analyzed like any ordinary human being, but were influenced by the film to be criminal investigators just because they are women and see the day to day newspaper pages in police matters, that women were becoming increasingly vulnerable.I that day was quiet, peaceful. We are not always inspired.So I explain the sense that many times a movie has the influence of an institution of any rich country.It is not always looking for new supporters. But always the factor of teaching the reader or viewer, that the problem should be referred to the level of taking care. but not hysterical care. But the to collaborate care. Fear of government institutions fall in the law of silence, as we speak in street slang. Where the institutions end up running out of witnesses. No employees worried about their country or region. Finding that veiling the crime, can be protected for life.then I quoted some very old movies, that was perceived institution as Scotland Yard, sponsoring films or books like Agatha Christie, which show that the cooperation of society makes the institution has a faster and more practical purpose.Among the crimes that leave women vulnerable and this led her to see that maybe she was not worried about being a researcher recruited for a good placement of the request of the institution collaboration. I mentioned two types of crimes, which even if not vulnerable, movies, and books were engaging and just learning a little.And then I introduced the risks to a company of a place that has Scotland Yard.The cases of mutilating and raping.And then I introduced as via the hypothesis of institution and concern.A mutilating is analogous to an arsonist.He always needs to show that it is violent and truculent. And it always comes back to see if the victim is cornered and afraid. It is the main modus operandi, parallel or analogous to the arsonist. The incendiary, always back to see the fire. I learned that in my childhood by Britannic school. Scotland Yard as I mentioned, always puts on films, documentaries these parameters.The problem is that the mutilating is a rare case in humans. Not that the arsonist is not uncommon. But it takes an arsonist to be incendiary often not dementia. In a documentary, then in 1969, they made a point of showing several films of police type, where the arsonists were not demented, but people who wanted to take advantage of the legal system, and gain the legal oversight at the time of expertise. Win after losing in fire the gains you have made the fire. The financial scheme to earn the insurance policy. It was a period in which firefighters had films, had chances to show the world with lectures its value and how much should be public collaboration, not in the case of calls them. But not to get in the way. People wanting to see the fire, sometimes hinders more than imagine a fireman.

Returning, the mutilating is not a common criminal. the films show the schizophrenic side, the psychotic side. When you show it, it would be to show a quiet population in a movie. It would show that the medical logic, the numbers are small in the world population. Numbers would be almost 1 million for 1 person.One sees the film, suffers, and then gets quiet that in their society does not have many. I could only have a maximum of 1 or 2 who escaped.This is the biggest problem institutions as MI 16, or Scotland Yard, I said to her. When they begin to teach that there is a kind of crime, and this crime is rare. they are perhaps wanting to collaborate population that does not increase. ie, be sure to increase.When you start to see many criminals of the same type of crime, the problem is that it must have a school that is worshiping, producing more than normal. The fruit is problematic for a rich country. Mainly because they are criminals deemed insane.The question would be: Why demented are increasing?A stimulus Criminological Research. Or a spur Medical Research, Sociological.A well built response time may be within the population, and not within the institution, which in turn has endless criminal cases to see.Sometimes, a Scientist, a Doctor, or Sociologist or Historian or Biologist, or even why not Nuclear Physical, may have the answer. There is the classic case of the British Army in the 19th century war with the natives in South Africa. They did not understand how they with cannons, training rules, and well armed, were defeated by unarmed natives, coming against the danger, visible that would make anyone stop. They found with Biochemical collaboration, and Botanicals that the natives were violent because they were drugged with a derivative that they could isolate the native plants of the region.Collaboration is encouraged when the institution shows the problem that people do not like to see. They are the people outside the closed institution. Just feel the crime. They open their files and lets writers, editors, writers do novels, essays, and documentaries to see his the public may have an answer.
 I tell her to always observe this topic. Otherwise they, Scotland Yard did not bother to link this kind of education for children, adolescents and adults in the decade 60-80.Going back to the initial problem of the conversation, I explained well by my angle of view:If leaves mutilating are important, not only to say they are criminals. And yes, say, to let them win is let them be winners. If winners are culture changes.Children and young people will want to be mutilating, raping, passionate criminals, and this is wrong.Please note that children and young people, although not appear because they are impulsive, impetuous, they risk more than adults. When there is the presence of the dark. They are fragile. Is the meaning of us wanting more give protection.We defend them, because we remember our nightmare nights, fear, horror. And it's always good time we have someone who saves us.And they turn for wanting to risk, they will always use the example.The incentive not to let a criminal beat with his usual crime, is because more young people can fall in risk society.His youth wanting to follow suit because they feel fear.

 The hysteria perfect for those who want to change the culture. Would be to fear too much, youth wanting to protect someone like following example.If what influences hysteria, leads the population to fear, and it is a criminal, he will get many young people fall in the risk of going against wanting to be like them, not to enter the risk of being victims.In psychology there is the term Stalker.The stalker is not only a rapist, one mutilating. He also wants to make faithful, to protect in your paranoia of wanting to be normal.

The Scotland Yard would fear to have a number of people becoming worms.And begin to spread worms to do more, because each has the shame of being "alone worms."It would be "many" trying to hide who made it. Since the laws define it is a crime and do not want to get chain.A mutilating trying to hide the crime, a problem observed him in concern. It is all the time trying to hide the crime committed.Deduce a lot of people who mutilating Culture produced, start not want to be defined as criminal, not to catch chain. It would be uncontrolled. The imbalance!(Advantage:.. What is learned in documentaries, it is that mutilating leave traces It's easy to find them They fall into psychosis, and will leave traces of attempt to erase the crime committed)The problem and disadvantage arises if ... they leave traces, and sports!It is because someone wants a culture.This practice and then demonstrates the success (try to observe examples where there really is a demonstration a method of explanation), the victory that the crime became the winner.Enticing.Then I asked: You're still worried about being taken to be a researcher, or ... You're worried about the institution factor want a response that round your city?She smiled.I said: The worst thing is if mutilating is "taken" to be an icon.coffee we left and went back to the studio to draw in summer late afternoon.Then she offered me the invitation to take and go to Cologne. I laughed!Now is the time of admission to university, and examinations are heavy. Unfortunately, I can not accept the invitation.She smiled again. And he showed a case.That was a few weeks after the conversation.It was a couple fighting in the street.

I looked in silence. And we laughed.

She looked at me and said. This is the answer, absurd. I can not see naturally.
I laughed and said: It worries me sometimes.

She left. And I went to ticket more try at the university (By the way it worked, just entering the university two years later, but I was without my conversation with smart German women  in the late afternoons.)

Good times was in 1988.

Hugs 
Benedito Ubirata da Silva