There are various instances of odd fandom. One thesis documents the followers of Ted Bundy and notes those attracted to "Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson," and others. This scholar characterizes the fandom as a "pattern of fascination" and notes that “crime is no longer a bar to celebrity; indeed, it is as close to a guarantee of celebrity as one can find."
My discovery of such academic insight was driven by recent examples of citizens celebrating criminal behavior.
Luigi Mantioni admitted to shooting Brian Thompson in the back on a New York street. PBS reported that he pled guilty to the killing and admitted he knew what he was doing was illegal. It noted that "he expressed no contrition (or) remorse."
The shooter has supporters. Some even profess feelings of love for the killer. There is a feeling among some of them that killing someone in cold blood is a heroic act and that such killers are "martyr" material.
Online contributors, according to The Dallas Express, raised over $1.5 million for his defense. The fundraiser attracted about 28,000 donations. The contributions were characterized there as necessary "in pursuing justice for Mr. Mangione." The choice of words is careful. The desire is "justice," and in this phraseology, Mr. Mangione is cast as the victim.
The Sunday Times reported in 2025 that young people's heroification has been driven or "shaped by the internet." One psychologist quoted there concludes that some young people are drawn to "extreme 'binary thinking.'" This is antithetical to "rational thinking" and is contributed to by the internet and social media.
He explains that "spectrum thinking looks at nuance and the grey area in between." But the inverse, "binary thinking," is more prone to "black and white" and "thrives on polarity and extremes." There may thus be value in one promoting a polar perspective, and others may be drawn to that light like a moth to flame.
The implication is that while killing is wrong or criminal, there is a tendency among some to cast their conclusion depending on who was killed. This has become a Hollywood trope, with examples such as Payback (Icon 1999), The Equalizer (Sony 2014), Death Wish (Paramount 1974), and Taken (Europacorp 2008).
We collectively cheer for the underdog. Perhaps we reflexively cheer for the underdog. We are drawn in these cinematic examples to the protagonist, who is the sole investigator, judge, jury, and executioner. And we continue to cheer despite the growing trail of bodies they leave behind.
But perhaps not.
Perhaps it is "all about perspective"; see A Hero? (January 2026). We all have predispositions that challenge us. In my latest book, Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025), I have tried to overview how we may find ourselves viewing and interpreting information even without our conscious engagement.
The Hero post also may raise questions about how we associate or acclimate various people. Do we use personal touchstones in our decision-making? Do we acknowledge we are doing so?
Why do people care when one person is killed and yet cheer for the killer of another? There is the potential here to discuss Moral Disengagement. That is "a psychological and sociological concept that describes how individuals rationalize and justify immoral behaviors."
Causes or explanations for Disengagement may include "individual psychological traits," "societal influences," and perceptions of how others are reacting. That might come from the news, social media, or social associates (friends, neighbors, classmates).
There is also the chance that our reaction is driven by "in-group bias," a tendency to feel for people who are like you in some manner(s), but to feel less empathy for those who are not in such a group that drives your feelings. This is akin to tribalism, where someone favors the "us" and cares less or nothing for "them."
Some argue that reactions are a form of "Cognitive Dissonance." This is a reaction that may cause ignorance or apathy about the actions of someone viewed or perceived as being like us or on our side of an argument or feeling.
Dissonance comes because it is painful to accept that someone like you or affiliated with you would commit an atrocity. Their atrocity might implicate us by association, subconsciously, and so we deflect from the seriousness of their action or even blame their victim.
These same implications may drive both perceptions and reactions to a variety of alleged behavior. The allegations currently roiling Cornell University are perhaps a corollary. There is significant collective outrage and support for the victim there, and yet also those who defend the accused. Some vernacular from both camps has been abrasive. Emotions and tension persist.
There are likely deeper pools into which such analysis might delve. I am no psychologist. But the bottom line is that killing is wrong. Shooting an unarmed man in the back on a street is not consistent with society. Hard stop. The same is true of rape. These are lines we have decided, societally, cannot be crossed.
And yet, there is evidence of underreporting of crimes like rape. There are at least perceptions of victim blaming. There is involvement of social media and our subconscious conclusions or reactions tinged by perception, innuendo, the media, commentators, and more. We have seen many tried in the media.
Whether one identifies with the shooter, finds some affinity for their motivation, or not, shooting an unarmed man in the back on a street is not American. It is not right. It is not heroic. Society's very future rests on sharing the conclusion that killing people, any people, is wrong.
Similarly, rape is wrong. This is true in America regardless of whether one's personal culture or conclusions respect the equality of women or not. Women are equal. Rape is wrong. These are societal conclusions. Infractions like rape and killing remain wrong regardless of the perpetrator's identity. Defenses may be raised, and the law must be followed, but violence is wrong.
Nonetheless, we have witnessed a great tendency to forget or ignore the victims. Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and more were implicated in the Me Too movement. And yet, Hollywood has strongly advocated for admitted child rapist Roman Polanski (he has been accused by others).
Big-name stars have continued to work with him, defend him, and Hollywood even awarded him the "Best Director" Academy Award in 2002. His supporters have derided the judge and criticized the legal process, perhaps with good cause. Yet, if the process is wrong, if the judge is the problem, then there are available avenues, processes, and appeals.
One can hold the truth that these acts are wrong and still believe any accused killer or rapist is entitled to a defense and their day in court. But drawing distinctions that some killer is a hero while another is a villain, based on the news and tweets, is a slippery slope that defies reason. As observers, we do not know the evidence in the way a judge and jury will.
The same goes for accusers. All are entitled to access our justice system, their "day in court." They are entitled to a fair and thorough investigation of their allegations. Institutions and society owe this to both alleged victims and perpetrators. And institutional and societal dignity and respect depend on that fairness and thoroughness.
Individually, however, we have similar responsibility. We have to challenge institutions honestly. Only we can demand fairness and thoroughness for the victims or accused. We can stand impartial, insist on impartiality, and accept that our human imperfections, personal and collective, will produce imperfect results. Despite this, we can nonetheless strive for better, if not perfect, outcomes.
In the end, there will be outcomes with which we will individually struggle or disagree. Our emotions, feelings, and conclusions may be influenced by the coverage provided, our predispositions, and a raft of other factors. Nonetheless, wrong will remain wrong, and we should each struggle with how our predispositions influence our perceptions and conclusions.