Her alimony income was reported as $258,000 annually. She could have (and obviously Should have) afforded institutionalization.
But, but - that limits WhackoBoy’s rights sobs the Libtards. My answer to the Libtards is, “Call the Whaaambulance.”
Rights must be balanced. In this case her maternal behavior caused many deaths, including her own because she made a seriously wrong decision. But, with freedom to make choices comes responsibility for those choices. She chose to take the risk of her son’s known violent behavior and she died because of that choice. Her choice.
Where I feel she made a seriously evil choice was not recognizing that allowing her son’s known serious propensity for violence endangered others who had not made the conscious choice to risk their life or the lives of others because Mommie wanted to deny the risks her son posed.
Conclusion: Bad DNA can not be fixed, and must not be inflicted on others against their will.
You sound intelligent, and I believe that you mean well, but you are totally off-base in your assumptions.
The Lanza perp was over 18. His mother could not “institutionalize” him against his will unless he was found by a court to be a danger to himself or others. Obviously, we know now that he was dangerous, but there’s no way to prove that until he actually demonstrated it. We don’t lock people up pre-emptively.
Perhaps you think we should, but there’s no way it happens now, even for parents who wish it. So your gripe is with the law as it stands.
It has NOTHING to do with his mother’s or father’s finances, but rather with how the mental health system operates, including the inability to remove the dangerous prior to the act.
You can use silly words like “libtards” and “Whackoboy” and you can blame the parents, but I would prefer a serious and respectful discussion of how we address the problem of how to prevent seriously mentally ill people from endangering us all.