In my ideal world there would be a short line. I don't think there's any doubt this guy did it. Among the questions would be why he did it. As long as I'm sure it's him...I don't have too much sympathy for a crime that horrific.

Come on Brock, that's not the same thing and you know it. Why would you say something like that? If I slip on a banana peel and break my neck, do you think we should ban bananas? Do you think what happened in Aurora was just an unfortunate accident? Let's stay focused.

This is a horrible tragedy. I am not for vigilante justice, but Colorado has only executed one person since 1976 (Method of execution in Colorado is lethal injection). In comparison, Texas has executed 483 since 1976. Truly hope the bereaved families of those killed or wounded in this senseless act find some measure of justice, but I have my doubts.

I agree with above posts, definitely looked as though the accused was doing the Thorazine shuffle in his court appearance this AM. Probably already laying the groundwork for an insanity defense.

I feel no sympathy for this man.

That analogy (and a few that were similar earlier in this thread) just doesn't seem like a rational statement to me, even if the truck deaths were intentional and not accidental. If all motorized vehicles disappeared, our civilization and economy would fall apart. If all high capacity firearms in private hands disappeared, I think we would do just fine.

His point was, when people want to kill other people, they'll find a way no matter what. They can use box cutters and air planes (9/11), ammonium nitrate and nitromethane (Timothy McVeigh - Oklahoma City bombing), cyanide-laced Kool Aid (Jim Jones), etc, etc, etc. I could give many examples of mass murder that was carried out by ways other than a gun. What are we going to do, ban anything that has ever been used as a means to kill people? Come on.

Edited to add: So, once again, let's quit focusing on how the nut jobs are killing people and focus on why the nut jobs are killing people. Maybe then we can stop it.

David - have you tried bringing box cutters on a plane lately (or tried bying a very large quantity of ammonium nitrate)? In contrast to what you have said, since those disasters the "methods" used have been an objective of regulation and substantially increased governmental scrutiny. While not foolproof, clearly some degree of success has been achieved.

Keep in mind that Jim Jones enforced his mass poisoning with automatic firearms.

If you want to hear other bad news, just this past week by where I live, a 16 and 15 year old are being charged with murdering two other kids that were 16 and 13. Right now they believe it to be over money and drugs and they think that the 15 year old was the trigger man.

Ummm, underwear bomber? Shoe bomber? Fortunately these two idiots were stopped. My point is that the nut jobs will always find a way to kill people in masses. But you fail to understand my point. And, as long as you (and others) do, more senseless tragedies will occur because you want to focus on the how and not the why. You can have the last word. I'm done.

The Thorazine shuffle? Do you even know what Thorazine is for? It's used to treat Schizophrenia, which is a mental illness. If this man was in the middle of his first manic break as a schizophrenic, then he's mentally ill and was not acting with his own mind. First mental breaks normally occur for schizophrenic men in their 20's, and they are generally exceptionally intelligent and creative people, and the illness manifests itself as anger. Prior to the attack, there might have been some eccentric behavior, but no family wants to think their son is mentally ill, so it gets ignored. When the person comes down from the break (which might not even happen with a schizophrenic), they are generally horrified at what they have done.

Basically, if he's mentally ill, executing him is not going to give the family members any sense of justice. It will only give internet forum members a sense of justice.

But you're not alone - the only time an American generally has any desire to discuss mental illness is when something like this happens, and their solution is generally the same being suggested on this board - lethal injection. Any manifestation of mental illness that is less than horrible, is ignored, which is why Seattle and other cities have so many mentally ill people living on the streets.

But of course, he could simply be a sane, evil person who somehow managed to hide his murderous tendencies for his entire life. I'm sure it's possible.

This was premeditated for months and months. That is not an episode. Otherwise I tend to agree.

As to the underwear & shoe bombers, I said, "While not foolproof, clearly some degree of success has been achieved." I think that is right.

I understand your point - you are saying that because targeting methods is not perfect, it should not be done, and we should only target "why" (as if that would produce better results). I don't think that is logical. I did not say targeting methods was perfect, I said it can be effective. Shoe bomber and underwear bomber notwithstanding, targeting methods clearly has been very effective with respect to the examples you presented.

The reference to an antipsychotic for treating schizophrenia and bipolar disorder was what got my reaction. Like everyone else here, I obviously don't know what caused this man to do what he did.

But, yes - an 'episode' can actually last for 6 months or even a year, during which time the person's brain is quite different - his mental functions may actually get better in a lot of ways (more creative, artistic, quicker thinking, etc); however, there should have been some hints that he was having a problem.

Edited to add: Any time someone murders, people want justice. You can't get justice by executing someone who is insane, which is why people want insanity please to be bogus. But what if the person really is insane? Do you execute anyone who commits murder, whether they did it while in their right mind or not? I would argue that someone who accidentally runs his car into a crowd of people and kills 11 people is acting while in their right mind, while an insane person who plans the murder of 11 people is not. A person who was drunk and kills 11 people 'by accident' was acting in their right mind when they began drinking while their car keys were in their pocket.

David, it seems to me even more quixotic to try to eradicate all mental illness (or, if he's sane, to eradicate all the horrible life experiences that lead people to break with society) than to control guns. I agree with the goal, but it seems unachievable. Suppose we learn that he was an abuse victim. What do we do with that knowledge?

I think you have to work both ends. Based on the facts available at this point, it seems there were no hints that this guy had any problems, which means that anything less than testing everyone for 'mental illness' genes would not have stopped him from doing 'something' evil. But on the other hand, some amount of gun control could have prevented the lethality of what he did. True, you can't stop people from committing horrific acts, but you can at least take the grenades and assault weapons out of the equation.

David is right that as a society, we tend to focus on the 'how' (symptoms) rather than the 'why' (problems). NYC reacting to children bringing guns to school by putting in metal detectors is an example that comes to mind. The problem is most likely lack of parental guidance at home, not gun control. You can't keep people from living their lives, which is what some are proposing by asking "how can we make movie theaters safer?" Fix the problem and you won't have to fix as many symptoms.

Scott, how, short of a totaletarian state, do we force parents to be more attentive, or to make sure everyone with mental illness is appropriately treated (or confined if necessary), etc.? Sometimes all you can fix is the symptom.

+1 Very well said...

Yes, an episode can last 6 months.... Actually much much longer if no one cares to notice. Just ask the homeless man talking to the telephone pole. I am very close to someone who suffers from schitzophrenia. People who fake being sick to cover for a crime are the worst. Definetly not great spokesmen for those wih real problems.

If he's sick, he's in for a rude awakening.

Also, it's a damn shame the only medication available for mental illness basically turns people into zombies.

You provide more beds in psychiatric facilities, and more psychiatrists - the mentally ill are frequently kicked out of such facilities during their initial 72-hour observation period, simply because of lack of funding. Additionally, because of HIPPA laws, the patient often makes the decision to hit the streets, despite not being in their right mind. Because of the same laws, patients can ONLY be given antipsychotics while in the hospital, despite the fact that they actually need mood suppressors. They get just enough medication to appear 'sort of' sane when they go before a judge, are then released, then slip back into their mania. Lack of education about mental illness allows this, and that's partially because of lack of funding. Courts are so worried about getting sued for violating civil rights, that if there is any chance that someone is sane, they are released.

You educate. Most of you have no idea that what I wrote in the previous paragraph is even true - few will support, or get educated about, anything that doesn't directly affect them. The jails frequently release inmates from the psychiatric areas of their jails, simply because they lack space and the knowledge that the people they are releasing are on the verge of a psychotic episode (or are actually in one). The jailers are ignorant of their 'patients', and the psychiatrists who supposedly visit the inmates in the psychiatric area, seldom ever show up.

In each of the above examples, mentally ill people are released onto the streets AFTER their families have sought treatment, and then commit crimes (or murders), at which time you can fix the symptom by punishing these people for being mentally ill, rather than treating them.

That's not actually the case. I can promise you, if this guy is in the middle of a schizophrenic or bipolar episode, there is no way he is going to take anything other than an antipsychotic, which can be legally injected into him and yes, may give him a zombie-like appearance. That's because such people do NOT think there is anything wrong with themselves - the part of the brain that is affected by the illness is also the part that gives insight, meaning that they are incapable of knowing that they are ill. With schizophrenics, getting them to take medication is an ongoing problem, as they never get insight. But there are medications that allow some of these people to function fine - sometimes with no side effects, and actually better than before their break.

I apologize if my posts have insulted anyone's intelligence, but I have met more schizophrenics and others with bipolar disorder, than I ever could have imagined, and the stories that their loved ones tell are heart-wrenching. I know that the family of the Cafe murderer here in Seattle, had been trying to get him help for a long time, but he refused it and was 'protected' from his family's and acquaintances' help by the HIPPA laws. The outcome was murder of several innocent people.

But again, the Colorado guy might be a different situation. I'm sure we'll find out at some point.

Scott, you obviously know and have thought a lot about all this, but I am uncomfortable on many levels with the notion of courts making more decisions to force people to take medications. I can imagine all sorts of situations where that would happen inappropriately, although I admit it's a trade off between type 1 and type 2 errors.

Peter, it's a very difficult situation. I could give you many examples where the court has been very compassionate with the mentally ill, and I know helped them. Other situations have not been so great. It's a trade-off between protecting civil rights and protecting the person from themselves, and protecting society from them. In Washington State, we have gone overboard with protecting civil rights, and the people who are put in charge of the mentally ill (in hospitals, jails, courts) are sadly ignorant and underfunded.

Regarding medications, the hospitals here in Washington have proven to be so ignorant at diagnosing mental illnesses, and then at choosing the appropriate medications, that I would have to agree with you. They are allowed to give anti-psychotics only to keep a patient from physically harming others, not to actually help the patient come down from their mania. In other words, a manic or psychotic individual can have their civil rights taken away for 72 hours by a judge, but then is allowed to keep the civil rights which allow them to reject medication to help alleviate the reason that they were incarcerated against their will. So, they are crazy enough to be locked up, but sane enough to not be healed. If I thought the psychiatric facilities had knowledgeable psychiatrists on hand, then I would say "let them diagnose the person and start them on antipsychotics (if they are psychotic) and mood suppressors if they are manic." To me, that is logical. But I didn't write the HIPPA laws, and I'm not a hospital in fear of lawsuits that is overreacting to every little line in said laws.

The notion of relying on psychiatrists and judges to make correct decisions about people's medication status is frightening. And it isn't just schizophrenia. Do we force depressed people to take anti-depressants? Do we keep forcing kids to take ritalin and the like over their parents' objections? Where does Big Brother's reach stop?

Could you please in form me of these miracle drugs? I've spent a solid chunk of the last 15 years researching every single possible alternative to Zyprexa to no avail. Some drugs, like Geodon, Have actually drastically made things much worse.

I've been to every Board and Care in southern California. Every single individual living in these places resemble a zombie to me. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I actually really hope you know something that I don't.

-Matt

You are right. But given the HIPPA laws, the only person who is allowed to make the decision is the mentally ill person - the person who is not in their right mind and who is the least capable of making the decision.

I have a cousin in law who passed away recently and he was a full blown schizophrenic. When anyone was around him, on his meds or not, they knew he was a bit off. I am sure there are different degrees of it but I wouldn't buy this shooter having it. If someone has schizophrenia, at least in my experiences, you know it. This guy was functioning in society fine and was not on medication. Sorry, in this case I am just not buying it (nor has that been a defense yet). I also think his demeanor in court today was a pre-plan for the start of an insanity plea. As I said on the phone yesterday, we really have to look at each individual situation. If I were the judge I would probably, if there were a way, let the victim's families decide his fate. (pipe dream, I know)

Mark, argumentative is okay :)

I'm guessing you know all of this, as my experience is limited, but what I said is more true for those with bipolar disorder, as many can eventually get off the antipsychotics, leaving them on mood suppressors such as lithium, that in many cases have few, if any, side effects.

Schizophrenia is much more difficult because antipsychotics are always necessary, and too often cause side effects. Also, what helps one patient may be ineffective for another, and there may be other conditions that have to be treated at the same time, requiring a 'cocktail' of drugs. Finding something that reduces symptoms AND has few side effects, can be a lifetime battle. Zyprexa (olanzapine), from what I've seen, is pretty horrible for a lot of patients - muscle rigidity, hand tremors, general dullness. Haldol can also have very bad side effects. I've seen risperidone used with no side effects at all, but the dosage was low - possibly too low for a schizophrenic patient. I've seen schizophrenic patients who showed few side effects (if any), but I didn't know their baseline personality, or what they were on.

If you want to stay in touch about this, PM me. I have good resources to ask questions of, and I'll ask about antipsychotics and their side effects.

I'll reserve an execution sentence until I know more facts, but I very much appreciate our talk the other day and I tend to agree that he probably isn't mentally ill, for the same reason you gave.

Legal systems have always struggled with the definition of insanity as a defense. Does it mean the inability to tell right from wrong? Or does it mean the inability to control one's actions? Or something else? I think for most people, including myself, it's hard to believe someone who for months carefully plans a crime is not "sane" by any definition. On the other hand, if he truly believed he was The Joker, well, I don't know.

I think most people struggle with the term 'insane', as well. To me, anyone who commits the premeditated murder of people he doesn't even know, must be 'insane' on some level. Tough call (or should be).

Interesting that you brought up "the inability to control one's actions". Antipsychotics can be used to bring a manic patient down to a state where they can fake sanity well enough to get through a competency evaluation so that they can testify in their own behalf. Despite this, they are still mentally ill, and once off their meds are likely to re-enter their psychotic state.

Scott, to me premeditation and planning is more consistent with being evil (knowing right from wrong but choosing to do wrong) than insane. But of course it's a case by case inquiry, in an imperfect world, where ultimately people make that judgment based on conflicting testimony of paid psychiatrists, and of course their common sense.

Thank you for the offer, Scott. I will be contacting you when I run into my next hurdle. BTW, injectable meds that are effective for a month is the latest thing, and somewhat promising to me.

Peter, IMO, schizophrenia should show up in a ct scan, otherwise, if it were up to me, the insanity plea shouldn't be allowed for people just having a bad day.

Leon, you raise a valid argument, if it turns out there is something wrong with this guy, the arms dealer should be prosecuted as well... It doesn't take a psychologist to see.

Uh, Runscott, I am a Certified Nurses Assistant. Yes, I know what thorazine is used for. Also, a punk rock fan and the song, "thorazine shuffle", has been covered by everyone from the Sex Pistols to Government Mule. My words may have been poorly chosen, my point was he seemed to be heavily medicated in court. I agree with your general premise, mental illness is often neglected or ignored by those around sometimes with tragic consequences.

There was no way of me knowing that. I responded to your words, which is what I always try to do.

Edited to add: To me, if he was heavily medicated, this would be an indication that he was manic and had to be sedated for safety reasons. Is it true that people are given antipsychotics simply to make them look insane? I have never heard of that.

I think you are probably right, but it seems odd that there was no prior indication of evil. Many people don't realize that a mental break does not necessarily affect one's ability to premeditate and plan, and in many cases cognitive abilities improve - many people do some of their best work while in a manic state.

The judgement made by people using their 'common sense' is really what would be of concern to me, as most people really don't understand mental illness. Another curiosity is that in situations where there is a choice, the mentally ill will often ask for a jury trial, trusting the 'common sense' of such jurors over a judge, who they perceive as being the enemy, when in fact the judge (especially in mental health court) will have far more insight into their condition.

(Edited to remove possibly offensive statement)

There is a guy down in Tacoma who will do brain scans that show the damaged areas very clearly - same guy who did this for NFL players who had suffered brain trauma. I know someone who got one done for their schizophrenic son and showed it to him - that was how he got the insight to realize he had a damaged brain and needed to take meds, so it will definitely show the damage of a mental break.

I'm pretty sure this is the guy: http://www.amenclinics.com/?p=5823&o...ess&Itemid=204

Medications, brain scans, psych exams, etc are one way to deal with loons; arming yourself and being prepared is another. I choose the latter and apparently so do a lot of other folks in Colorado:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/24...t-since-movie/

In Arizona you don't even need a permit. Why didn't anyone take down Jared Loughner, surely people in that large Arizona crowd had guns. My supposition -- when it happens that fast, it's a lot easier to react in theory than in practice.

When maybe a dozen people in a theater start pulling guns, who do you shoot? How do you discern the good guys from the potential accomplices? Do you shoot at the guy already firing or at the guy next to you waving a gun around, who may put a couple of rounds in you? Unrealistic to believe that, with a dozen or two guns going off, in such a chaotic situation, that even more innocent people wouldn't be killed or injured by the wanna be good guys. Even trained, disciplined cops, have shot one another in gun battles with criminals or have shot undercover cops because they couldn't tell they were one of their own.

Well said, Bob. To expand on that, yes, Peter, Arizona does have an open carry law. However, that law does not apply to all places. I'm guessing that a political event is one of those places in which the open carry law doesn't apply. I may be wrong on that and somebody can take the time to look it up if they feel they need to prove me wrong, but it's just a guess.

It doesn't surprise me that in the wake of this incident, some are calling for stricter gun laws, and others suggest more Americans should go out and get guns. It's our great divide.

And as Bob just pointed out, can you picture a pitch black movie theatre where dozens of spectators are armed, and all start shooting at who they think is the bad guy, without really being able to see clearly, and with kids and adults running in all directions...not to mention the stress each of them is dealing with under such horrific conditions. I don't know what the answer is, but that hardly looks like a great choice.

Yes, many of the folks in South Central LA feel the same way. Most of the gang related homicide cases end up manslaughter due to there being no real proof as to who was just defending themselves... Too bad for the kids that get caught in the crossfire. Maybe they should be armed too. I totally agree with "a lot of other folks in Colorado" We need more guns. If people had guns that night they could have shot back... He did have body armor though, so the next time you bring your family out to the movies, make sure everyone has their gun and body armor on. There, problem solved.

Preserved to remind me of the public mentality toward "dealing with loons". Thanks for your insight David.

No. Typically a 72 hour mental health evaluation and civil commitment hearing are necessary to medicate someone involuntarily. He would not be given psychotropics for the sake of appearance by any responsible health professional. It would be necessary only if he was a danger to himself or others, which in this case is a statement of the obvious.

My guess is he was evaluated by mental health officials over the weekend prior to his arraignment on Monday, and it was deemed necessary to pacify him. Thorazine is a powerful, older, antipsychotic and rarely used because of its side effects, more likely he was sedated with haldol. Seeing the suspect in court he did exhibit some symptoms of psychotropics including heavy eyelids, dizziness (head bobbing), enlarged pupils, and shuffling (though that may be from the leg irons).

Peter, there was indeed a young man at the Tucson shooting who was armed and I believe he even drew his weapon coming out of the Safeway. He was asked why he didn't fire and he stated something to the effect that the chaos and speed at which events were happening made him at first uncertain of his target and then concerned that he might hit others. I don't want to put words in his mouth so I am sure you can get better info through googling, but I remember seeing his TV interview and that was the gist of what I recall. I know I was glad he didn't fire given the way he described the scene, and I remember that the topic of an armed crowd was discussed, with law enforcement commenting how that scenario would almost certainly have made things worse.

Edited to add: the crowd was not that large, it was just a meet and greet outside of a grocery store on a Saturday morning, and I do not believe it was even all that widely publicized

It was a rhetorical question, based on your insinuation that he was given thorazine in order to prepare for an insanity plea, which might not be an obviously ridiculous statement to some on this board.

I hate threads like this, as they just create angst for everyone - I am certain that I should have never posted, but feel compelled to respond to the resulting comments. This guy killed a bunch of people and hundreds of relatives and friends are grieving - my heart goes out to them. It also goes out to the family of the perpetrator. I understand the gun control debate, but some of the comments about mental illness are just mind-numbing. They make it clear what a huge road we have ahead of us if we are going to address the problem of mental illness in any meaningful way.

The big problem in our country is that people and the media want to dig into the psychology of these killers, not only that there is analysis in detail on the news and newspapers and people talking about the killer and what made him tick and his private life. Everyone wants to know what he was like, What are his interests? What is his mental illness? Why did he kill so many with out remorse?
Because our society showers so much attention on these killers, then other sickos will kill as well because they want to be heard. These sickos like to have their faces on the news, they like people to want to learn about them. They crave the attention. These are more than likely angry individuals that want to lash out and show the world what they are all about. They lead insignificant lives and are starving for attention. Sadly our society keeps on feeding into this stuff and keeps wanting to learn more about it. If we show eagerness that we want to learn about these killers, more of them will emerge to take innocent lives. I for one have no interest on what made this guy shoot everyone, I just want to see him brought to justice. If we as a society did not pay so much attention to all these sick killers, then maybe there would be less situations like this.
There is a reason why many University Officials do not want to talk about this and it's because they don't want to feed the fire. Ever since our society has paid attention to serial killers and shooters, there has been a rise in these type of killings.

Been hearing a lot of talk about gun control. I don't think it would have impacted what happened. The guy bought all of his weapons legally and had no criminal history at all. Even with the strictest gun control laws, he still would have been able to purchase the weapons.

Bottom line is if people are going to kill other people the law isn't standing in their way. Murder is illegal and it happens every day. You can't control people with rules.

My condolences to the victims and their families, this is a senseless tragedy that no human being should ever have to experience.

God Bless America. Guns now, free speech later?

Sincerely, Clayton

Wow, now I finally understand. Thanks Zack!

Anyone want to form a posse?

Scott,

I have a question for you. How were the mentally ill treated say 100 years ago? In other words, if a person was diagnosed with a mental condition what was done with them?

We don't need a posse, just a rope.