Colorado shooter: a high achiever's abrupt descent

Reuters ^ | July 23, 2012 | Stephanie Simon and Dan Whitcomb

[Mrs. Don-o]

For most of his 24 years, James Holmes seemed to be doing everything right.

He worked for a summer as a counselor at a camp for needy kids, guiding them through activities designed to teach empathy, compassion and good citizenship. Another summer, he snagged a prestigious internship at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies.

He attended church with his family in their quiet, upper-middle-class San Diego neighborhood, listening to his sister play bass in the worship band. He breezed through high school and college, taking a strong interest in science and graduating with honors from the University of California, Riverside.

Friends and acquaintances of Holmes say they had no inkling that anything was awry with him --

"It's absurd. It's so out of character for this young man," said Jerry Borgie, senior pastor at Penasquitos Lutheran Church in San Diego, where the Holmes family worshipped. "James had goals. He was going to succeed."

But a few hints have emerged in recent days that Holmes may have struggled far more than those around him realized.

His summer internship at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California, in 2006 might have been impressive on paper, but...

[Persevero]

“I have long thought that the legal system’s attitude about insane murderers is itself insane.”

The Bible does not offer an insanity defense, either. Those who murder are to be put to death, regardless of their mental state.

Exceptions are given for true accidents; I am talking about deliberate murder.

[ETL]

JULY 19th, 2012 MOVIE REVIEW:

“The Dark Knight Rises,” the third and final installment in director Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, pushes the ideological envelope even further than before. It’s impossible not to feel Nolan’s disgust at Occupy Wall Street a movement the film paints as both incoherent and violent courtesy of a class warfare villain armed with nuclear weaponry.

“The Dark Knight Rises” never mentions the 99 percent or other overt Occupy Wall Street slogans. But Nolan clearly summons the spirit of the ragtag movement with a propensity for violence. Bane’s henchmen literally attack Wall Street, savagely beat the rich and promise the good people of Gotham that “tomorrow, you claim what is rightfully yours.”

http://www.pibillwarner.com/2012/07/occupy-black-bloc-member-james-holmes.html

[ETL]

"Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at"
--Bill Ayers (1970), quoted in New York Times, September 11, 2001:

"Dig It. First they killed those pigs [ie, rich people], then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach! Wild!"
-Weather Underground leader and wife of Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, referring to the Manson murders

[ETL]

It’s always made sense to me that a criminal must have opportunity, means and motive. What is missing here is motive, which suggests the possibility of insanity to me.

Please refer to my posts on this thread. There is a STRONG potential political motive here.

[Persevero]

I agree a lot more with Diogenes than trailhkr, but I’d like to address a couple of points.

“Human beings are not animals,” No, we’re not, and that’s why when a coyote kills a squirrel we don’t try him for murder. It’s when a PERSON gets killed that a murder occurs. Biblical law requires, if an animal attacks and kills a person, it is to be put to death.

which leads me to. . .

I don’t think the main point of the death penalty is a deterrent, although it may be a powerful deterrent. It’s really not perfectly proveable. What I do think it is is JUSTICE, and that is what is required, here.

The fact that people were supposedly burnt for being insane in the past is not relevant to this discussion. Murder occurs all the time. People were burnt at the stake for any number of reasons. It doesn’t therefore follow that the death penalty is worthless.

No one here is advocating for anyone with a mental illness to be punished just because they are mentally ill. But when they cross the line and kill someone or harm them, they should be punished. They have gone from mental illness to criminal behavior.

[DiogenesLamp]

3. I think people who commit crimes like this shooter should be locked up for life.

I think people who believe that murderers should be kept alive at tax payer expense should have to pay for the entire cost by themselves. Those of us who believe they should be killed ought not be forced to pay for a policy with which we vehemently disagree.

4. We should be more proactive with these people rather than reactive as another poster suggested.

And what does that mean? Since we don't know who will commit a crime before the fact, it appears you are suggesting the creation of a "Department of Pre-Crime" as was demonstrated in the movie "Minority Report." I suggest that killing murderers will prevent future crime without the need to predict who will commit it before the fact.

4. It's been proven that many people who are violent have a chemical defect or portions of their brain missing that cause these outburst which normal people do not have. I suspect 50-60 years from now we will be able to treat people with mental illness before they go off..maybe even in the womb through medication.

I don't care. It concerns me not at all WHY they did it. I am only interested in the fact that they have demonstrated themselves to be a threat to others around them. We shoot rabid dogs, and we do not think it an injustice because the dog didn't mean to be rabid.

Lettuce be real, the death penalty is not a deterrent. Murders only have remorse and are afraid of the death penalty only after they get caught.

Nonsense. The death penalty is not a very strong deterrent the way *WE* have been implementing it. Given that it takes a decade to execute someone, whatever deterrence effect it would have on criminally minded people is severely diluted. The way it used to be implemented, it was a very good deterrent. Look at murder statistics from prior to the Courts becoming liberal.

[henkster]

I agree that whether nuts or not, dangerous people should be locked up. The finding of “not responsible by reason of insanity” is not, in theory, intended to set people free. Instead, the defendant gets turned over to the Department of Mental Health for regular commitment proceedings. The underlying theory is not per se invalid; if a person is mentally screwed up so badly that they cannot form criminal intent, then lock them up in a mental institution instead.

The problem is in the practice, and it’s two-fold. First is the idea of “temporary insanity,” in other words “I was nuts when I killed them, but I’m OK now.” As you might suspect, this defense usually does not fly, but there are occasions where the jury of whack jobs lets them go. There is no basis for a mental health commitment and thus they do get off completely free. The other problem is that for the past generation, the states closed down virtually all the mental health facilities and turned them out into the streets. So after a person found not responsible by reason of insanity is committed to the Department of Mental Health, they can flatten them out with drug cocktails for a few months and then say “all better now” and turn them loose.

That’s more a structural problem with how we treat the chronically mentally ill rather than a criminal legal problem.

[airborne]

Seems like an appropriate time to change my tagline.

[Chickensoup]

I wish we did. Insane people who kill will kill again. We have had that proven in this state.

[henkster]

The legal concept of “insanity” came from British Common Law in the 1800’s, in “M’Naughton’s Case.” There are two elements to every crime that must be met: the criminal act (actus reaus) and the intent to commit the act (mens rea). Without an intent to commit the act, you cannot convict of a crime. Thus, in the law, there is no “crime” of “negligent homicide.” Having your head up your ass and causing an accident that kills someone is not criminally culpable, although that is becoming more blurred. Today, it seems there are prosecutors who believe everything bad that happens to anyone is a criminal act on somebody’s part, and an increasing number of American jurors are buying it. This is bad.

M’Naughton’s case involved a man with serious mental issues, and was decided before Freud started labeling mental illnesses. There were two wings to the original insanity defense in M’Naughton: inability to appreciate wrongfulness of conduct and “irresistable impulse.” Nobody recognizes “irresistable impulse” as a defense, only whether a person is so gravely disabled by mental disease or defect that they are incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of their conduct.

In your case, it could be that they are unaware of what they are doing, or it could be that they are completely aware of what they are doing, but are so screwed up they don’t see it as wrong.

Case in point; the one murder case I prosecuted where the defendant was found not responsible by reason of insanity. Fifty-two year old Alice Gray shot her husband in the kitchen of their home. She had a documented history going back over 20 years of chronic, and progressively worsening, paranoid schizophrenia. She sincerely believed she was descended from Egyptian pharaohs, and as royalty, she had a right to kill her husband, who was a mere commoner.

The court-appointed shrinks said she was crazy. The jury agreed. I didn’t like it but under facts and the law, it was a proper verdict.

[ETL]

For whatever his point was, he went about it very efficiently. He’s not crazy by any means; far from it. This took quite a bit of research, forethought and precision.

It's mainly the Left that's trying to dismiss any possibility at all that he was politically motivated. They make no mention of the fact that the movie (Dark Knight...) bashes the Marxist 'Occupy' movement. That Holmes said to arresting police officers: "I am the Joker", the enemy of pro-Capitalist, pro-Conservative Batman. But even people here are automatically rejecting the possibility. Seems they have short memories and don't recall that most of these lunatics do ultimately turn out to be members of the far Left. Giffords shooter was a Leftist, as was triple-murderer Amy Bishop, the nut who crashed a plane into the IRS building, the 'unabomber', etc, etc.

[PapaBear3625]

Nonsense. The death penalty is not a very strong deterrent the way *WE* have been implementing it. Given that it takes a decade to execute someone, whatever deterrence effect it would have on criminally minded people is severely diluted. The way it used to be implemented, it was a very good deterrent. Look at murder statistics from prior to the Courts becoming liberal.

The increase in CCW and Stand Your Ground is resulting in more criminals being killed by private citizens than are executed, and likely has a bigger effect on criminal behavior.

I think a large factor in the rise of crime is the increase of kids being raised by single moms, thanks to welfare (fatherless kids are more likely to turn criminal) plus the tendency of the overloaded justice system to keep letting criminals plea bargain themselves out of serious jail time until they finally kill somebody.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Bible does not offer an insanity defense, either. Those who murder are to be put to death, regardless of their mental state.

Exceptions are given for true accidents; I am talking about deliberate murder.

An Accident is not a murder. Even reckless endangerment resulting in death is not a murder. As you say, a murder is the deliberate killing of people. These people should be put to death regardless of what motivated them.

[justice14]

I just did a search on google and it gave me different results for tear gas grenades. I can’t click on the links b/c I am at work and my web filter won’t allow me to. But they are available.

[DiogenesLamp]

The increase in CCW and Stand Your Ground is resulting in more criminals being killed by private citizens than are executed, and likely has a bigger effect on criminal behavior.

I think a large factor in the rise of crime is the increase of kids being raised by single moms, thanks to welfare (fatherless kids are more likely to turn criminal) plus the tendency of the overloaded justice system to keep letting criminals plea bargain themselves out of serious jail time until they finally kill somebody.

I agree completely. As a matter of fact, I just made this same argument to others on another website two days ago.

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=88104&highlight=dice#88104

[lonevoice]

I honestly think there are more people that believe in demonic posession on FR than that believe it’s possible for there to be chemically, structurally, or genetically based mental illness.

Maybe, though I see a lot of FR comments that tell me there are more posters here that believe in goobermint Manchurian candidates than believe in either demonic posession or mental illness.

[lonestar]

I read somewhere that James Holmes was adopted. It would be interesting to know more about his biological gene pool.

[trailhkr1]

These people should be put to death regardless of what motivated them.

Some people have such severe psychosis they don't understand what they did or their brain is so wacked out it is not their fault.These are the ones that truly see in their mind you or I as a monster out to get them.

Are you saying the Bible(God) say's we should punish these people with death even though it is 100% out of their control?.....and yes people have such psychosis it is out of their control.

[trailhkr1]

And what does that mean? Since we don't know who will commit a crime before the fact, it appears you are suggesting the creation of a "Department of Pre-Crime" as was demonstrated in the movie "Minority Report." I suggest that killing murderers will prevent future crime without the need to predict who will commit it before the fact.

No, but if they should develop a test that shows a baby/young adult is not producing the chemical in their brain that keeps them predesposed from being violent and a medication or other treatment is available that treats this condition then it should be done...just as thousands of medical conditions of all types are currently being used to treat illness.

[DiogenesLamp]

Some people have such severe psychosis they don't understand what they did or their brain is so wacked out it is not their fault.These are the ones that truly see in their mind you or I as a monster out to get them.

I don't care. I care only that they are a dire threat to those around them and that they have already killed someone.

Are you saying the Bible(God) say's we should punish these people with death even though it is 100% out of their control?.....and yes people have such psychosis it is out of their control.

I am saying that we should execute mentally ill people who kill ESPECIALLY because they are out of control.