Shooter kills 2 news crew members on live TV

[Reba]

One thing to consider is how did the gunner know when and where the broadcast was going to take place? If you think about it the area is empty except for the reporters and crew so it's not like it was some public event.

So clearly he wasn't insane in the sense that he decided to just shoot people up for the hell of it. He figured out the time and place and even set up a camera to videotape himself. Not only that after that he faxed a suicide note.

While it's not right that he shot the people one has to consider that according to his mental state what he was doing was the right thing to do, no matter how twisted it seemed.

Insane people can (and at times do) make very intricate plans.

Insanity can manifest itself in many ways.

 

[Reba]

So the guy who killed those people in the cburch was crazy too?

What is your definition of crazy?

Being not rational and full-out crazy don't need to be the same thing.

Ive done time with murderers...and though it sucks to really admit...they actually were sane people...
Belive it or not.

Why wouldn't I believe it? Evil people can be sane or insane. Also, not all insane people do evil things.

Sane people kill every damn.day for all sorts of ressons...revenge is one, money another, ideology another, so on so forth...it doesnt paint a nice picture of humanity i grant. A better picture would be every one who kills is sick and crazy...and needs medical help because they are crazy..
But
That picture just wouldnt be true.

Never said it would be.

He was fired two years ago, and sure i admit he could of waited for two years to get his revenge..alright.
Thing is he stated he killed them in his manifesto for revenge for the kilkings in rhe church..i understand full well why no.one really wants to accept.this...its easier to accept he was a playing with his lips madman...because killing over a politicaly motivated event, raises the stakes. Rather then just some hair pulling blabbering lunatic..i get that..i do
He was evil...but not every evil man is a sick crazy lunatic. Most evil bastards are saner then sane.

Explain to me the rational of killing former coworkers as revenge for the deaths of totally unrelated people in another state.

That may have been his reason but it certainly isn't rational.

 

[Nic]

Insane people can (and at times do) make very intricate plans.

Insanity can manifest itself in many ways.

A specific example of what Reba said would be a serial killer like Jeffrey Dahmer. There is absolutely no way someone could say Dahmer was sane, I just can't buy that. But methodical? sure. Thought out, yup. Sane? no chance.

It comes down to what definition of sane you accept. The definition says Insane is defined as: in a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction.

Someone could argue that it is actually "normal" to murder people when they're insulted, but I'd argue that's not at all normal. If this behavior was normal it'd be a LOT more common than it is. How many times a day is a person somewhere in this country insulted? The overwhelming majority of those insults do not lead to murder.


I think the terms Insane and Psychotic are being confused. Psychosis is a medical condition that causes a disconnection from reality. A psychotic person having a psychotic episode (being mad) wouldn't know what they're doing. An insane person can know what they're doing. In this case, the guy very well could have suffered from Psychosis too. He very well might not have been aware of what he was doing, driven by delusions, hallucinations, or whatever else.

Edit: Actually it looks like psychotic and insane are often used interchangeably, so I'm probably just wrong about all this.

 

[A Nihilist]

I think the confusion here on sanity ultimately comes down to a court proceeding. If the killer underwent trial, would it be likely that he can just use the insanity plea? My bet is no, because, again, he clearly knew what he was doing and why and how. It's not like he was sleep walking and then woke up to realize he accidentally killed some people.

I do agree that the killer is definitely delusional and not of right mind. No arguments there. My only point I was trying to bring home is that according to the killer's mind he was doing the right thing.

 

[Nic]

I think the confusion here on sanity ultimately comes down to a court proceeding. If the killer underwent trial, would it be likely that he can just use the insanity plea? My bet is no, because, again, he clearly knew what he was doing and why and how. It's not like he was sleep walking and then woke up to realize he accidentally killed some people.

I do agree that the killer is definitely delusional and not of right mind. No arguments there. My only point I was trying to bring home is that according to the killer's mind he was doing the right thing.

This is true too. Legal sanity is different from what I'm talking about. That's a good point and easily miscommunicated.

Insane, psychopath, schizophrenics, I think they all think they're doing g the right thing. That's what makes it insanity though. It's not the right thing but they honestly believe it is. Thus insane because a sane person knows its wrong.

 

[rnock30]

If someone had used racist comments against him (which they didn't), it would still not be "logical" to shoot and kill them. What kind of sick logic says that a person "deserves" to be killed in revenge for racist remarks? That is not normal.

Which they did. It happened made that angry man coming for them anyway. deserved revenge. revenge is bad and wrong he deserved to death row.

 

[A Nihilist]

Yeah that's one of the frustrating problems of dealing with mentally ill people, how do you show them the light?

A lighter side, this reminds me of a funny article: http://www.cracked.com/article_2027...ction_type_map=["og.likes"]&action_ref_map=[]

There was a study on the effects of having people who think they're Jesus in the same room. Hint: it did not go well

 

[hoichi]

[

What is your definition of crazy?al.

We shouldnt use our own pet definitions here, i understsnd its a post modern world, as such we can define any term any way we like. But that doesnt help the discussion.
So if we are going to use the term insane, considerng this is a case of murder, we should use either. The medical definition of insanity, thus i asked what evedence do we have from qualified doctors that he indeed was mentally ill and insane, or use the legel definition of insanity.
Are you really arguing every murderer is eaither of those? If so then how can the state put in prison the truly sick?
If he lived would you be arguing for him to be found legally insane?
Weird as this is...in this me and the prosecution would be agreeing.
He was not sick. He was not insane. He full well knew right from wrong, he planned it. He acted..he murdered.

Being not rational and full-out crazy don't need to be the same thing.


Why wouldn't I believe it? Evil people can be sane or insane. Also, not all insane people do evil things.


Never said it would be.al.

So what are you trying to argue? That he was irrational or that he was insane?
Why woulndt you belive what? That men are fully capible to kill eachother and still be found in the right mind? Is that what your asking?

Explain to me the rational of killing former coworkers as revenge for the deaths of totally unrelated people in another state.

That may have been his reason but it certainly isn't rational.

Explain to me the rational of flying planes in two buildings, killing thousands for an event unrelated and on the other side of the world?
He states why he did it.
I can see no reason to ignore his statements and indeed cop it up to a babbling madman.
His revenge was politicaly motivated, just as the guy who killed those people in the church was politicaly motavated.
Why are we not dismissing his manifesto and ignoring his statments also?
Did he kill those people because he is sick and insane, or did he kill them for exactly why he claims he killed them? Why take his word for it, and not this guys?

 

[Foxrac]

Oh wow, I'm enough with killing over races.

Yes, mental health is very big issue.

 

[Reba]

We shouldnt use our own pet definitions here, i understsnd its a post modern world, as such we can define any term any way we like. But that doesnt help the discussion.

You used the word "crazy." That's not a medical, psychological or legal term, so I had to know what you meant by that before I could give an answer to your question.

So if we are going to use the term insane, considerng this is a case of murder, we should use either. The medical definition of insanity, thus i asked what evedence do we have from qualified doctors that he indeed was mentally ill and insane, or use the legel definition of insanity.
Are you really arguing every murderer is eaither of those?

You must be confusing me with another poster. I've never said that every murderer is insane. In fact, I believe, and have stated, quite the opposite. I said they are evil. Some murderers might also be insane but I definitely don't believe that they all are.

If so then how can the state put in prison the truly sick?

I certainly don't believe they are all truly sick. Those who are criminally insane, and are found so in court, are dealt with accordingly.

If he lived would you be arguing for him to be found legally insane?

No.

Weird as this is...in this me and the prosecution would be agreeing.
He was not sick. He was not insane. He full well knew right from wrong, he planned it. He acted..he murdered.

I don't believe he was criminally insane. Yes, he knew right from wrong, and yes, it was premeditated and planned. I never said otherwise.

So what are you trying to argue? That he was irrational or that he was insane?

I'm not arguing anything. Sane people can very well commit irrational actions.

Why woulndt you belive what? That men are fully capible to kill eachother and still be found in the right mind? Is that what your asking?

I never said that. Of course I believe sane men are fully capable of killing each other. It happens every day.

Explain to me the rational of flying planes in two buildings, killing thousands for an event unrelated and on the other side of the world?

I can't explain it as a rational act because it wasn't rational. It was committed by evil men for evil purposes; rationality had nothing to do with it.

Same as this shooter. There was no rational reason for him to kill and wound those people.

He states why he did it.

He states what he wants to about his reason. No one knows what he really believed. It could have been that or it could have been that he was trying to rationalize his irrational behavior, to justify in his own mind the actions he was about to undertake.

I can see no reason to ignore his statements and indeed cop it up to a babbling madman.

You are truly confused if you think I ever made that kind of statement.

His revenge was politicaly motivated, just as the guy who killed those people in the church was politicaly motavated.

Ahem--in your own statement you call it revenge yet you also state that it was politically motivated. Which is it?

Why are we not dismissing his manifesto and ignoring his statments also?

"We" are not.

Did he kill those people because he is sick and insane, or did he kill them for exactly why he claims he killed them? Why take his word for it, and not this guys?

He killed those innocent people because he was evil.

 

[hoichi]

[

You used the word "crazy." That's not a medical, psychological or legal term, so I had to know what you meant by that before I could give an answer to your question.vil.

Alright,but in common parlance crazy is used for insane...well,when i grew up anyway...who knows now

You must be confusing me with another poster. I've never said that every murderer is insane. In fact, I believe, and have stated, quite the opposite. I said they are evil. Some murderers might also be insane but I definitely don't believe that they all are.vil.

Alright fair enough

I certainly don't believe they are all truly sick. Those who are criminally insane, and are found so in court, are dealt with accordingly.


No.


I don't believe he was criminally insane. Yes, he knew right from wrong, and yes, it was premeditated and planned. I never said otherwise.


I'm not arguing anything. Sane people can very well commit irrational actions.


I never said that. Of course I believe sane men are fully capable of killing each other. It happens every day.vil.

Thats not what i asked though, of course men kill eachother every damn day but most of those doing the killing are not insane medically or legally. They are in their right mind when they do the deed

I can't explain it as a rational act because it wasn't rational. It was committed by evil men for evil purposes; rationality had nothing to do with it.vil.

Terrorism either the american tar and feathering of loyalist during rhe revolution, or the mass carpet of bombings of civlians in wwii, or the al qeada attacks on 911, are actually cslculated rational acts, towards a certain political goal, the goals in the examples are different,but the calculus is not. The use of violence to sway a governments opinjon or action by the effects of the violence

Same as this shooter. There was no rational reason for him to kill and wound those people..

Yes there was,in his calculus to spark a race war

He states what he wants to about his reason. No one knows what he really believed. It could have been that or it could have been that he was trying to rationalize his irrational behavior, to justify in his own mind the actions he was about to undertake.vil.

Right so why out right dismiss what he claims is the motive for his actions?

You are truly confused if you think I ever made that kind of statement..

Alright

Ahem--in your own statement you call it revenge yet you also state that it was politically motivated. Which is it?.

Both, politocal violence is often tied to the impulse of revenge. They do not negate eachother..on the contrary, they feed eachother

"We" are not..

Not sure what you mean

He killed those innocent people because he was evil.

The plm here is if he sis this because he is evil, and the church shooter sis that cuz he is evil, and every murderer murders cuz theyvare evil, it doesnt help us mucb in descerning individual motives..
Murdering 9 innocents in a church, a serialkiller, a gangbanger, a guy who snaps, one who kills for money,another who kills hookers, or this guy who killed rreporters..911, ect ect,are all murderers...
But just being evil doesnt really give us any idea what so ever as to motives..

 

[Reba]

Thats not what i asked though, of course men kill eachother every damn day but most of those doing the killing are not insane medically or legally. They are in their right mind when they do the deed

Please read what I posted carefully:

". . . I believe sane men are fully capable of killing each other. It happens every day."

Terrorism either the american tar and feathering of loyalist during rhe revolution, or the mass carpet of bombings of civlians in wwii, or the al qeada attacks on 911, are actually cslculated rational acts, towards a certain political goal, the goals in the examples are different,but the calculus is not. The use of violence to sway a governments opinjon or action by the effects of the violence

Yes there was,in his calculus to spark a race war

It's rational only if there is a reasonable chance the terror tactic will achieve the desired effect.

Examples that were not rational acts because they did not achieve the desired political goals.

Neither the attack on Emanuel A.M.E., nor the attack on the news crew started a race war.

Right so why out right dismiss what he claims is the motive for his actions?

I didn't. I explicitly stated that "No one knows what he really believed. It could have been that or . . . Note "or."

It could have been either reason, or neither reason. We don't know.

Being open to other reasons is not the same as outright dismissing something.

Both, politocal violence is often tied to the impulse of revenge. They do not negate eachother..on the contrary, they feed eachother

In this case, he either had a political goal (start a race war) or get revenge for what he believed were slights against him (personal).

Unless you mean he hoped to start a race war and personal revenge was just a bonus.

Not sure what you mean

I mean don't include me in your statement.

The plm here is if he sis this because he is evil, and the church shooter sis that cuz he is evil, and every murderer murders cuz theyvare evil, it doesnt help us mucb in descerning individual motives..
Murdering 9 innocents in a church, a serialkiller, a gangbanger, a guy who snaps, one who kills for money,another who kills hookers, or this guy who killed rreporters..911, ect ect,are all murderers...
But just being evil doesnt really give us any idea what so ever as to motives..

Being judged evil doesn't mean motives are ignored. It means motives don't excuse evil.

 

[hoichi]

[

Please read what I posted carefully:

". . . I believe sane men are fully capable of killing each other. It happens every day."

Alright

It's rational only if there is a reasonable chance the terror tactic will achieve the desired effect.

Thats not how terrorism works...terrorism has a long history of different stragies of tension on a state for political goals, the effects of the acts are nor always soon felt nor descerned. A reasonable chance of success is one part of the calculus, revenge, and punishment of percieved or real greviences is another...

Examples that were not rational acts because they did not achieve the desired political goals.

Neither the attack on Emanuel A.M.E., nor the attack on the news crew started a race war.

But if this guy murdered these reporters for what he states he did, then it has started a tit for tat race struggle,if their is now or later a srring of murders by a white and the guy states he id it for revenge for this...then i think its a safe bet to state, its starting...

I didn't. I explicitly stated that "No one knows what he really believed. It could have been that or . . . Note "or."

It could have been either reason, or neither reason. We don't know.

Being open to other reasons is not the same as outright dismissing something.

Alright

In this case, he either had a political goal (start a race war) or get revenge for what he believed were slights against him (personal).

Or he had a goal politicl..and he also wished revenge, meaning he wished revenge, and his radicalization gsve him the courage to do it, so he choose the targets, white reports he already had a beef with, and murdered them for his political cause..its not hard to undeestand at all..allot of politcal viokence is fuelled by the primal i,pulse for.revenge as well as a political ideology...

Unless you mean he hoped to start a race war and personal revenge was just a bonus.

I think both in his mind came into play, and feed eschother

I mean don't include me in your statement.

Alright

Being judged evil doesn't mean motives are ignored. It means motives don't excuse evil.

Right, but leaving it at they sre evil doesnt allow us to look and descern their motives. Not everyone will agree to use evil as a term, the evil or not isnt in dispute with me, im interested in the motives.
Im certain this what ever itis,is just starting...and will get worse...allot worse..

 

[A Nihilist]

Right, but leaving it at they sre evil doesnt allow us to look and descern their motives. Not everyone will agree to use evil as a term, the evil or not isnt in dispute with me, im interested in the motives.
Im certain this what ever itis,is just starting...and will get worse...allot worse..

Yes I'm on the fence if the killer was truly evil. I think he simply just had a warped sense of reality and did not accurately gauge other people's intentions. Basically he assumed that everyone was a racist and did not give others the benefit of the doubt. I read about the killer's job history and it's spotty in that he bounces around barely lasting more than 2 years due to anger issues.

One cannot help but notice a trend, I would understand if he had a falling out with a crappy boss and then did well in other companies. But when you see a pattern of constant firings over a period 10+ years something is definitely wrong with the killer.

And using the theory of intentions/motives try to put yourself in the mentally ill killer. If you truly thought that every person you see is a racist and that no one is doing anything about it what would you do? I read that the killer took his former employers to court based on allegations of racism but they were all dismissed.

I mean how would you feel if taking the peaceful option isn't working? I'm not condoning that it was the right option but can you understand how you'd feel if you thought everyone was racist toward you for 10+ years and you couldn't do anything about it? I bet you'd be inclined to do a shootout.

In my opinion if he truly was evil he would have shot those coworkers for no valid reason. And as he fled the scene he would have shot everyone he saw creating a chaotic situation. He ended up committing suicide rather than engaging a shootout with the police. Why didn't he shoot the police too?

He ONLY focused on his former coworkers, implying that it wasn't a nonsensical killing. He had a motive and only focused on his enemies in his warped world.

It's too bad really, one can only hope maybe the killer's soul will understand his mistakes.