The bodies were found Friday inside the Grand Haven residence, police said, and the children were 5 to 15 years old.

A man fatally shot his wife and their six children before he set the Michigan home they shared ablaze and turned the gun on himself, authorities said Monday.

Kristopher Karolkiewicz, 47, killed his wife, Amanda, 39, and their children, ages 5 to 15, Ottawa County Sheriff’s Capt. Jake Sparks said at a news conference.

They were found dead after first responders arrived at the home in Grand Haven, on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan, late Friday morning, Sparks said. Autopsies showed all had been shot, he said.

all 84 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 62 points 3 months ago (32 children)

I'll never understand a man's reasoning for doing that. How can one be an arbiter over the lives of your partner and kids...

  • source
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 68 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    While Lemmy loves their memes and jokes about the government and the economy, this is what real world stress results in. I'm sure they will find a rich online life for this guy and recent financial trouble.

    For every 1% increase in unemployment, 40,000 people die in a country with no social net. That's what a shit hole is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Ironically I just went through a deep dive about this guy reading multiple news sources and they all say he recently lost his job as a vp for the sales department of the American heart association.

    So yeah. Dude was stressing and I get it but, fuck. So much unnecessary death just because people willingly vote against their own self interests.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    People who live in shitholes love to deny they live in a shithole. Bump in suicide rates after 2008...and climbing. Males and females. But that's just suicide.

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db464.htm

    In shitholes, when you lose your job, you lose your healthcare, so more people die because they can't afford treatment or diagnosis. Then of course, in shitholes, the solution is typically opioids until they are dead.

    So people can be pedantic but do all the math and 40,000 for 1% is conservative.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 16 points 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 26 points 3 months ago

    In many if not most cases of family annihilation, it's a loss or perceived loss of social or financial status. Dad or Mom or whoever can't stand the idea of their kids growing up poor (or even just slightly less rich) and decide to not only take themselves, but everyone with them "to spare them the pain".

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    "reasoning" is not going to be the right word for whatever was going on in this guy's head.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    I remembering seeing something similar happen in my state, father had lost their job and murdered their whole immediate family to prevent them from becoming homeless.

    Nuts, but there are a lot of homeless around here and it does not get easy to pull yourself or your family out of that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    It's a disturbingly prevalent mindset really. The idea that the patriarch, the pater familias, literally owns the family. That his wife and children are possessions to do with as he pleases. In ancient Rome it was litteral. He could kill them if he wished. Not even unique to Rome. Its still around today. A sick aspect of conservative ideology that persists and infects society the world over.

    Its the sickening undercurrent to conservative "parents rights" arguments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Is it that, or is it that he's the sole earner and losing his job means hardships for them he wants to spare them from?

    Not saying it's not a fucked up thing to do, but maybe, just maybe, we need better support for mens mental health instead of assuming it's because their evil.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    I'm not entirely sure you meant to respond to me since none of your comment really seems to match up with mine. Particularly that second half.

    However if you did mean to respond to me, I find your first sentence incredibly telling. Look how you worded that. He wants to spare them. He wants. You've betrayed the exact mindset I'm talking about. The idea that he owns them. That he gets to take make decisions on behalf of them because he owns them. That's exactly what I'm talking about. A pervasive mindset that family is property to the father. That children are property of their parents in general.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (12 children)
  • [+] -12 points 3 months ago (12 children)
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Can't we just agree that all family annihilation is bad?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 3 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    I'm not trying to derail the conversation. My initial post was directly relevant to the post it responded to, which was also building out from the original topic. That's how conversations work.

    You may not like where all conversations go, but you really must stop trying to be internet-policeman when other people are talking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 3 months ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    You jumped in to present a case as a way to say “not all men”.

    That's not at all what I said, or implied. You seem quick to jump to that conclusion, but no. (I'm wondering how you even think that that reading makes sense in context)

    I'm allowed to respond to that.

    It would be great if you'd respond to what people actually say.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    You're not going to win with her. She's always all over posts with her "men bad" mentality. I thought I'd blocked her because I was sick of her whining and hate, but nope. I will be in a few moments, though!

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -2 points 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    For the record? Anyway...

    Firstly, I saw several pieces of news coverage on the grandmother case before all of the details came out, and in the end the story was more grim than I had anticipated. Early in the coverage, I had assumed that one of the two parents of the children was responsible. Soon, it became clear that the father was not involved, which left only the mother, grandmother, or possibly one of the children. I admit that I did not want to consider it possible that it would be the grandmother, and was horrified to find out that it was. I could not, and cannot, conceive of anyone killing her child and the children of her child. I do not know what circumstances drove her to do this, but my thoughts of course went to mental illness, dementia, substance abuse etc.

    Then, today I see the post you've quoted above and the first sentence - what a weird way of phrasing this. I mean, wouldn't you have a hard time understanding anyone's reasoning? The sentence seemed so "needlessly gendered". Unless the poster finds such murders committed by women reasonable, or thinks that women don't commit such murders, or finds the motives of men especially baffling, then what is the point of phrasing it in this way?

    I'd hoped that my post would nudge the original poster into explaining, but "somehow" that conversation was derailed and I haven't gotten a reply.

    All of these cases are sad, and I saw no discussion at all on the grandmother case. From your comments, you seem to prefer to look at tragedies like these through a gender lens. I just don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Ok, is there a point you’re making aside from “men are bad”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 3 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (4 children)
  • [+] -12 points 3 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago* (3 children)
  • [+] -8 points 3 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    There really isn’t much to learn from misandry

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago

    Is it being "honest about these kinds of stats" when you very specifically attack someone mentioning a part of these stats? You call it "whataboutism" and claim they're "derailing the conversation" all while you completely derail the discussion with your own whataboutism and act like some innocent victim. It's incredibly toxic.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    I did read them, and there’s just a lot of you echoing men are bad.

    Look deeper than gender finger pointing at what conditions of our society led to this outcome. Why do we live such isolated lives from our communities that allow these situation to occur?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 25 points 3 months ago

    Why are the killings always in the wrong order…

  • source
  • [–] 35 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Was she going to divorce him or something? These pieces of shit always lose their minds over women leaving.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Its usually caused by either that or money. Says she was a substitute teacher.

    I bet it was money related.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 13 points 3 months ago

    Why can't these absolute cunts do themselves in before taking out their families?

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    So like. What happened right before this? I'm not trying to justify it I'm just genuinely curious.

    Was this just a crazy man who finally snapped? A crazy man pushed too far by outside influence? A spur of the moment murder suicide?

    Outside of mental issues I'm not really coming up with many ideas on how this shit occurs

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Seems like he was essentially the sole breadwinner and lost his job.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    Oh boy the USA really is some shithole if people are offing themselves (and others) over something trivially as loosing a job.

    Also, if this one job is the thread at which everything hangs, why even make children? So they can enjoy the same poor life? Awesome.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 13 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 42 points 3 months ago (16 children)

    This happens so much, their is a name for it "Family annihilation" or Familicide. It's almost always the patriarch who does this. Women do it too, Andrea Yates comes to mind, but that's much more rare.

    I've always found it interesting that while men do familicide often, we forget about it. (Psychology Today puts the rate at 1 every 5 days in the US) Meanwhile women who do the crime like Yates or Smith become notorious for decades. Admit it, you've forgotten the name Kristopher Karolkiewicz from the article you just read, but you remember Susan Smith from 30 years ago.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    I don't remember like any names of stuff like this, but it seems like the general understanding among all the people I've ever discussed these topics with is that it's primarily men who do this shit.

    just chiming in to say anecdotally that maybe people have a better understanding of things now

    what always surprises me, though, is the rates. the US is big, but 1 every 5 days still seems so fucked up to me

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (11 children)
  • [–] 16 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familicide

    You don't have to kill yourself to be classified as family annihilation killing multiple members of your family fits the criteria.

    That men are the ones who do it most is no doubt but that other person is wrong with their comment I don't remember any of their names in fact the only one I remember is the dude who did that and lied and they made Amityville Horror about it.

    Only one I remember killing kids that's a woman is Casey Anthony but it was really because of how broken the US justice system was that let hergo.

    We can all acknowledge men are the prime perpetrators statistically with this type of crime without making up sexist things like "everybody only ever remembers the 2 women who do it" that isn't true.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 3 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

    Yes I never said she was I said "the only woman killing kids I remember" is her.

    Which kind of proves a point that I don't even remember one single woman family annihilators name. Just one woman that killed her kids (I know that isn't the same) and only because the whack ass justice system let her go Scott free.

    And yeah that's why I said that other persons comment wasn't correct.

    And I don't even remember the dudes name Amytiville Horror is about either I just rememevr the movie and what really happened

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    Ok so multiple children died and this person says

    "PEOPLE ONLY EVER REMEMBER THE NAMES OF WOMEN WHO DO THIS"

    and you said "great comment"

    So I pointed out that I don't know the names of any family annihilators and only one name of a woman who killed her kid at all and it was only because they just let her walk away with no repercussions.

    That seems very on topic with the comment that was made.

    Also your handful of anecdotal evidence doesn't prove his comment correct either, and neither does theirs.

    The claim about moslt men doing it is 100% corect and provable. The claim that "people only remember the women who do this" is anectdotal and not provable at all.

    It was kind of weird to turn an article about children being murdered into an opinion piece on how society treats men and women different, to be honest.

    Now if there was a whack court case and they let him go or something I could very much see why someone would make the comment but out of the blue to voice an unprovanle opinion like that sure was weird on an article about multiple children being murdered.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    That user never stated that you made that claim. You left all the context out of your quote for some odd reason...

    That men are the ones who do it most is no doubt but that other person is wrong with their comment

    But then you go on to edit your original comment and claim this user is "being salty"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    great comment

    Why, because it portrays men as evil? Because that seems to be your whole point, simplifying the problem to be based around sex, and not overall societal concerns. And what does entitlement have to do with 90-95% of family annihilators being male, are you labeling all men as entitled?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    What kind of nonsense is this? Nobody is claiming all men kill their family.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    It's like you didn't even read a single word of my comment, kinda funny.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    I read the entire thing (it's not that long), and that's what I'm responding to. And in it, you seem to be complaining that people are calling all men evil and entitled, which is not something anyone said. Just that the majority of family murderers are men, which is simply a fact. In fact, I strongly suspect the majority of any kind of murderers are men. But that doesn't make all men murderers; that's a fallacy and not a logical conclusion to draw.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    that's a fallacy and not a logical conclusion to draw

    Which is exactly my point, as the person I was replying to was clearly implying that being male had something to do with the problem. If you don't see that with their phrasing, then you're being intentionally obtuse.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 8 points 3 months ago

    "Amanda Karolkiewicz was a substitute teacher" as someone who substitutes while unemployed I can say it does not help much. They make it sound nice but more than likely she would have liked a full time position. No mention of the fathers job situation. It could be the typical thing but with the us having dumped on what few bits of help low income people have I kinda wonder.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    dang he went full yolo

  • source
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    I agree, but what's really weird for me is this part:

    he wouldn’t say whether a firearm has been recovered from the fire-damaged residence

    Yet the autopsies show that they were all shot. I imagine that the autopsies also show that he was the one to do it based on time of death, but odd that the article doesn't present that evidence.

  • source
  • parent
  • 1 comment in c/usnews@beehaw.org view that post
    [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    What is selfish thing to do. RIP Amanda Karolkiewicz and her kids.

  • source