Tweet
Cross posted from Frederick Leatherman Law Blog.
James Eagan Holmes allegedly killed 12 people and wounded 58 at the midnight opening of the new Batman film at a movie theater in Aurora, CO.
He had recently dropped out of the University of Colorado Medical School where he was enrolled in the Neuroscience doctoral program and we now know that he was a patient of Dr. Lynn Fenton, a psychiatrist and member of the medical school faculty specializing in the causes and treatment schizophrenia. She also is in charge of Student Mental Health Services.
Given his red and orange hair that he had recently dyed, he apparently believed himself to be or he assumed the role of the Joker, Batman’s arch enemy.
The Telegraph reports:
Police have said that he planned the attack meticulously, ordering ammunition and paramilitary supplies over the internet and buying four weapons legally at gun-stores in the Denver area over two months.
He also rigged his apartment with potentially lethal explosive devices that investigators believe were intended to kill police officers when they arrived to search his home.
The Telegraph reports that Holmes claims he does not recall the incident.
He is scheduled to appear in court Monday at which time he will be formally charged.
Colorado is a death penalty state and likely will seek the death penalty.
Like Jared Loughner, who potentially faces the death penalty for killing six people in Tucson, AZ, including U.S. District Court Judge John Roll and a 9-year-old girl, as well as wounding 14 others, including U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Holmes may not be competent to stand trial.
A person cannot be tried for a crime unless they are competent to stand trial.
To be competent, they must be oriented as to time and place, comprehend the charges against them, appreciate their legal peril, recall the events that caused them to be charged, and be able to communicate with and assist their attorneys to defend them.
According to the Telegraph, Holmes claims that he does not recall the incident. If that is true, he is incompetent to stand trial.
Should he become competent, he probably will assert the insanity defense.
Colorado combines the M’Naughten Rule with the irresistible impulse rule defining legal insanity as follows:
Whether as the result of a mental disease or defect, the defendant is unable to distinguish between right and wrong and conform his conduct to the requirements of law, or if he can distinguish between right and wrong, is he unable to stop himself from committing the crime.
The biggest stumbling block to satisfying the legal test for insanity is establishing that the defendant could not tell right from wrong. Any behavior that indicates an effort to conceal evidence or the crime itself demonstrates that, however delusional and psychotic a person may have been, they still knew they had committed a crime and sought to escape responsibility for it.
Many people use the word evil to describe people like Jared Loughner and James Eaton Holmes and the acts they allegedly committed.
But what constitutes evil?
Does evil exist?
Is evil something dark and satanic that exists somewhere out “there?”
Does it possess people?
If so, how does that happen?
If it does not exist out “there, where does it exist?”
Are people born evil?
How should the criminal justice system deal with evil, or should it ignore it?
Assuming evil exists, does it increase or diminish personal responsibility for committing crimes?
Assuming for the sake of argument that Jared Loughner committed the crimes charged, is he evil?
If convicted, should he be sentenced to death?
Assuming for the sake of argument that James Eaton Holmes committed the crimes charged, is he evil?
If convicted, should he be sentenced to death?
Finally, what about George Zimmerman?
Is he evil?
61 Comments
Mason,
Looks like you have the beginnings of an excellent book, should you care to write your thoughts in answer to your many good questions.
My thoughts:
The secular conception of “evil” is a mode of agency(ies) which metastasizes suffering and death. Warfare, for example, is evil.
Just as moods are contagious, this mode is.
The criminal justice system is based on punishment and individual responsibility. It would not be sufficient for mitigating evil even if it were not a class-biased institution. Moreover, for it to adjudicate whether an individual was capable of resistance to evil influence would not be efficient nor would it be capable of analyzing evil influence in the case of elite crime.
Once a “personification of evil” is convicted for his crimes, there is little legal utility to this label and especially if the justice system could accurately predict recidivism or assess sanity.
I think that answers the questions. I would like to add that, in the evil mode, the agents are anesthetized to comprehension of their destiny. If you are cognizant that evil is encroaching, you still have a chance. On the other hand, if you embrace evil, whether for survival or gain, you were lost aforehand.
Discuss.
tzar–
Thank you for the link to “Zimmerman’s Call.” I’ve read some of it, and bookmarked it, so that I can finish it.
I need all the help that I can get, in order to “play catch up.” :-)
MAH
I think psychopath is a working equivalent of evil where the individual disregards restraint or consequences. Schizophrenia would not allow those distinctions in a functional sense, if one is flagrantly and actively in a schizophrenic state, from what I understand. Harmful as Holmes and Loughner clearly have been, it appears that their mental states were very different from Z, who has not claimed schizo and seemed
aware of what he was doing….Evil? Seems to me. All terrible costs and tragic whatever the label.
Mason–
Interesting questions. I’ll have more to say tomorrow, ’cause I’m pushed for time, now.
Generally, I don’t believe that people are born evil (assuming that “evil” exists).
According to my own personal belief system, a person who meets the legal definition of insane (a person who is unable to distinguish right from wrong, at the time of the commission of a crime, and who doesn’t have the capacity to control their impulse to commit a crime) should not be considered “evil,” if they commit a crime under the circumstances noted above.
Later.
Mad As Hell
Oh, and Zimmerman. If he’s not insane (and I don’t guess he’ll claim to be), and he’s guilty, he’s evil (if you buy into the concept).
Highly recommended. And thanks.
MAH
I’m not certain whether I believe in evil, but to the extent that I do, I think George Zimmerman displays it far more than Jared Loughner and James Holmes, who are seriously mentally ill with psychotic delusions over which they obviously have no control.
Zimmerman is in control, totally self-centered, and remorseless.
Many neuroscientists believe our consciousness is locked inside our head and the “external reality” that we perceive is merely the product of a chemical reaction that takes place within our brains. This reductionist view isolates and alienates us from each other and the universe.
As Mr. Holmes slipped into psychotic delusions as real to him as our perception of reality is to us, did he even realize that he wasn’t in Kansas anymore?
Did he get lost in a vast and impersonal universe where there is no right or wrong, up or down, and everything is what it is?
Is madness a loss of boundaries and with their loss, a loss of the self?
Does he even know what he did, or is he trapped in a comic book adventure that passes for a life?
I have seen evil defined as a lack of empathy and that definition works pretty well for me.
I also believe that our finest trait is empathy and it will carry us through the trials and tribulations that face us.
But it’s going to be tough and we are going to have to rely on each other to make it.
Of course, when one toys with the application of “evil” one invades the domain of theocrats:
And so one enters their territory of spiritual management.
Brooks and elite commentators are remunerated to compound this message.
“Evil” applies at higher scale, where responsibility is divorced from reward, where murderers profit.
No, comrade?
An evil person in my opinion is anyone who is destructive to the livelihood and freedoms of society, the earth or his fellow man, while determined to maintain the integrity of his own health or intellectual supremacy or false righteousness through intentful and/or undemocratic action(s).
I believe that genetics only partially affect evil actions. I think if we ever figure out the genetics of empathy it will be related to the preponderance or quality of “mirror neurons” in the given subject’s mind.
One such “evil” person among good people would not survive. Rather, an epidemic of them is evil.
totally agree and my response at 12 intimates that
an “epidemic” only reveals that an ideology that sanctions evil attitudes and actions-as described in my original response-has taken hold of the culture. The agents carrying out said actions are evil because of their actions, essentially people are evil because of what they do.
So that “ideology” is not evil?
Are the infected evil but the infection goes undiagnosed?
Evil or not, we dare not allow perpetrators of such acts an opportunity to commit more of them, i.e., they must, at a minimum, be incarcerated for the rest of their lives.
Comrade, thank you for reminding us that’s the minimum that can be done.
100% agree
the ideology is evil, the actions are evil
I don’t subscribe to the idea “thought crimes” but I do subscribe to the idea of “propagation of evil thoughts” crimes.
Our consciousness may not be so locked in our heads actually, behold the mirror neuron and its implications on human empathy.
As it happens this topic came up in Omnipotent Poobah’s posting There is No True Justice in the Colorado Shooting Case.
There is in law the concept of mens rea which Latin phrase is translated into English as “guilty mind” or more properly “guilty state of mind”. What this means is that in a criminal prosecution assuming a defendant competent to stand trial the prosecution is required to prove that the defendant committed the actus reus while in a certain state of mind. Actus reus refers not only to the act itself but also the circumstances and consequences of the act which are cognisable by a duly constituted court or tribunal for liability for the offence in question. To simplify the actus reus are all the elements of a crime other than the mental element.
There are three states of mind which jointly or severally can constitute the necessary mens rea which together with the actus reus constitute a criminal act or offence. These states of mind are:
1. Intention
2. Recklessness
3. Negligence
Depending on such factors as the jurisdiction involved and the legislation under which a defendant is charged it may be that the legislature has made clear in the definition of a criminal offence which of those three mental states is appropriate. However it is also the case that court decisions are needed to set forth the requirements of the definition more precisely.
Intention
Intention can consist of:
1. Direct intent (sometimes called “purpose intent”).
or
2. Oblique Intent (sometimes called “foresight intent”).
Direct intent is where the consequences of the defendant’s actions were desired by the defendant. Oblique intent is where the defendant foresaw a grievous consequence as virtually certain and although not desiring the consequence went ahead and committed their actions which led to the grievous consequence(s) anyway.
Recklessness
Recklessness is the taking of a risk which is so unjustified as to constitute a criminal act. On this side of the Atlantic there are two broadly accepted definitions of recklessness.
1. Subjective Recklessness (“Cunningham” Recklessness see R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396. )
2. Objective Recklessness (“Caldwell” Recklessness see MPC v Caldwell [1982] AC 341.)
Subjective Recklessness:
The prosecution is required to prove that the defendant knew the risk, was willing to take it, and took it deliberately.
Objective Recklessness:
In this form of recklessness the risk must be obvious to a reasonable man, any reasonable man giving thought to the matter would have realised the risk. Thus a defendant who commits an act is said to have a mens rea when they performed an act that created an obvious risk and that while performing it they either have given no thought to the possibility of the risk arising or recognised that the risk existed but went on to take it. As I mentioned above this test was established in MPC v Caldwell [1982] AC 341. However you should note that in two cases:
1. Elliott v C [1983] 1 WLR 939
and
2. R v Coles [1994] Crim LR 820.
The courts have held that risk must be obvious to a reasonably prudent person that it need not be obvious to a defendant.
Negligence
Negligence consists of falling below the standard of the ordinary reasonable person. The test is based upon the hypothetical person, and involves the defendant either doing something that a reasonable person would not do, or failing or refusing to do something which the reasonable person would do.
Simply put it does not matter if a defendant was unaware that something dangerous might happen, if a “reasonable person” would have realised the risk, and taken steps to avoid it then the defendan’t ignorance is no defense. The legal expression “knew or ought to have known” expresses this concept admirably.
A defendant who was psychotic at the time they committed their offense(s) is incapable of having had a “guilty mind”. A person who is psychopathic or sociopathic however is capable of having a “guilty mind”.
I doubt whether the word “evil” is helpful in cases where the defendant is psychotic. The word itself can help obscure our understanding of what took place when the act was committed. But this very expressivism can also be useful in that in helps keep our horror at what was done in view. From my point of view there is and should be something unspeakable about evil. Violent acts of the type you discuss above can merit the word evil so long as you know what you mean by the word.
For me as a Catholic the answers to your questions are as follows:
Does evil exist? - Yes.
But what constitutes evil? – A conservative Catholic (and a Thomist to boot) such as myself will reply that the important point about evil is that it is solely negative. It is a lack – a lack of what is good. Thus evil for Thomists is not the opposite of good it is the absence of what is good. When I was a boy the Jesuits responsible for my moral welfare used the analogy of coldness to help explain the concept of evil. Acquinas taught that evil is to goodness as cold is to warmth. It is an absence. Evil emerges when the goodness is drained or removed from a person much as something becomes cold when all of its heat is removed.
Is evil something dark and satanic that exists somewhere out “there?”
Does it possess people?
If so, how does that happen?
If it does not exist out “there, where does it exist?”
Are people born evil?
Yes evil exists, the idea of “possession” tends to be bandied about but it is in the context you have used it actually a defense, in that it is possible that an entity that is evil could take over somebody and force them to commit acts against their will that they would not ordinarily commit and indeed would recall from. You might like to note that even in medieval times the defense of “the devil made me do it” was rarely accepted.
No people are not born evil.
How should the criminal justice system deal with evil, or should it ignore it?
One of the purposes of the criminal justice system is retribution for criminal and thus by extension evil acts.
Assuming evil exists, does it increase or diminish personal responsibility for committing crimes?
If, as I believe, evil exists then it neither increases nor diminishes personal responsibilty for committing crimes, to become evil a person must embrace evil. The person who has embraced evil has a state of mind constituting a mens rea.
Assuming for the sake of argument that Jared Loughner committed the crimes charged, is he evil?
It would depend on whether or not he had a “guilty mind”.
If convicted, should he be sentenced to death?
No, this is one case where I agree wholeheartedly with Catholic doctrine which holds that in a modern society the capacity exists to enact retribution by incarceration. That this incarceration also protects society from the evil doer. That the death penalty is therefore excessive in a society such as the USA. In a society where those conditions do not obtain the death penalty may be justified.
Finally, what about George Zimmerman?
He is as yet an unconvicted defendant.
Is he evil?
We don’t know. He is as yet an unconvicted defendant.
In all of this I find it regrettable that you did not mention the opposite of evil and that is good. I do not think you can discuss one without the other. As I’ve gone on far too long already I’ll confine myself to slightly rewriting the old antiphon:
mfi
I would like to see rather more than just one (uncited and unlinked) study quoted in an article by somebody who is and I quote:
A graduate of American Institute of Holistic Theology, she holds a Bachelor of Science in Metaphysics.
She could well be right but I would like to see somewhat firmer evidence than just her word for it.
mfi
for
read
mfi
Mason–
I concur with your definition of “evil,” over the biblical definition (which I know well, but will not go into).
Zimmerman doesn’t get a pass from me. (I’m just new to his case, and truthfully, uncertain as to whether he’s planning to use an “insanity” defense.)
Zimmerman (or Holmes or Loughner) are “evil,” as you define it, IF they were not insane at the time that they committed their respective crimes. I have no argument with anyone, on that one.
MAH
wigwam–
I agree that convicted murderers must be kept away from society at large, after the commission of heinous crimes.
I do not believe, however, that a state or federal penitentiary is appropriate for those who are mentally ill, and are not able to protect themselves from other inmates (or predators).
At one time, there were wards for the “criminally insane” in state mental institutions. And I do believe that it is appropriate to place these criminals in that kind of institution. (Admittedly, I don’t know if Reagan’s decimation of our state mental institutions, also did away with those specialized wards.)
Mad As Hell
The thing that has puzzled me from the Holmes shooting is why was he still in the parking lot when the police arrived? Why didn’t he run? Was he so mentally confused that he didn’t realize what was about to happen?
The defense probably will argue that he was so mentally ill that he could not tell right from wrong and made no effort to flee because he could not appreciate the nature and quality of his act.
That may be true, if he believes he’s living inside a comic book and everything is make believe, including the characters he shot and killed.
They may not have been real people to him.
a) Where German people evil under fascism?
b) Will people be driven to intentional/reckless/negligent criminal acts if under long influence of cultural evil?
c) Is not the desire that there “should be something unspeakable about evil” in fact fetishistic? For the evil, there may be something unspeakable about good or their evil; likely there is something unthinkable about their evil as well. So, is your desire wise?
d) Is “the absence of good” definitive or reliable, particularly in light of the failures of the Catholic Church’s judgement?
e) Surely an organization can be evil though all it’s agents are not?
Dancing on the heads of pins, imho.
Needles, please, needles :-)
mfi
You mean it’s “God’s” job to answer those questions?
Curiously incurious, hmm?
Let the record show that the witness is being evasive.
As my response to RevBev should have indicated to you I’m not impressed by puerility. Try coming up with a herrings of a different colour.
mfi
Thanks, Mark, for taking the time and effort to provide such detail in your answers to my questions.
I am not convinced that evil exists, but as you point out, how can one have a discussion about evil without mentioning good.
I believe people engage in good behavior and bad behavior. No one engages in all good or all bad behavior.
That is, good and bad behavior are opposite sides of a metaphoric coin I shall call “behavior.”
I recognize, however, that good and bad behavior are only partially dependent on the mores and values of the times.
For example, most humans do not have to be told about the Golden Rule, as it is, or should be intuitively obvious, perhaps due to our capacity for empathy. Indeed, the concept of natural law presupposes the existence of a set of values and morals that is intuitively obvious to all humans everywhere at all times, whether they choose to abide by them or not.
In that sense, good or natural law may be said to exist in the collective unconscious of human consciousness in that sense that we are all connected at a deep level. However dimly, we sense that we are One.
Might good be the presence of light, as in illumination, and evil be the absence of light?
I agree we cannot make any judgments about how Zimmerman fits into this picture until his trial has been completed, and perhaps not even then.
Let us assume for the sake of argument, however, that X did what GZ has been accused of doing. Would such behavior be evil?
Assuming X had a rational functioning mind that decided to kill, I would answer, “Yes, that was evil;” whereas, I would not say that about Holmes or Loughner because they were apparently delusional.
Mainly, I object to using the word “evil” in describing human behavior because it is so inextricably tied to superstition and the supernatural.
For that reason, I prefer to use the labels good and bad.
I had not read the Omnipotent Pooh Bah’s article. Thanks for providing the link.
And I am disgusted by authoritarianism cloaked in righteousness.
mfi – pffft.
There’s a concept in military intelligence of the hard-hearted empath (or sometimes cold-hearted empath) it refers to somebody, typically an embedded military intelligence officer, who can relate to their subjects while not actually caring anything about them or their prospects. But yes in general I would agree that our capacity for empathy leads to an instinctive appreciation of the golden rule.
I agree that mostly we are discussing behaviour although not always. Sometimes we need to discuss a person’s character and circumstances. Laws exist mostly to protect us from ourselves – but then I tend to take a perhaps somewhat dimmer view of humanity and what we can get up to than you do.
You asked whether we can be born evil, to which I replied no, but it is possible, I think, to have a predisposition to evil or to good.
I don’t agree that we are one – I would contend instead that we are many and diverse and I revel in that fact. I celebrate it and our differences. There’s a Surah in the Holy Qur’an which expresses this very well:
which translates as follows:
.
(translation mine, and yes a lifetime spent amongst Muslims has coloured my view!)
As to your hypothetical X.
If X were to be convicted of hunting down and killing an underage male on the basis that the male in question was of a different race and that moreover it was manifest that X felt no remorse whatsoever for his deed.
Then yes one could argue that that was an evil act. I would take the argument further and say that it was evidence that X had in this respect at least embraced and become evil.
The case is different for a Holmes or a Loughner if indeed it is the case that they were so mentally ill at the time they committed the acts of which they are accused then were they to be cured or to experience a remission of their illness it is possible that they would experience horror and remorse at their actions, even ‘though they could not be held accountable for them.
mfi
Try to imagine how little I or the other adults in the room care. EOD.
mfi
Utterly off topic: Twain’s presence in this discussion reminds me that back in the days when I posted here crane-station enjoyed my postings about the Drakensberg Boys’ Choir. Or to be more accurate that she enjoyed their singing.
She might be interested in this posting on my site which features their latest upload to YouTube:
Drakensberg Boys Choir: Peze Kafe – 14 March 2012 – YouTube | Saturday Chorale
mfi
What, no threats of physical harm?
mfi – I am an arse.
Jared Loughner, and James Eaton Holmes seem to me to be severely lacking the ‘normal’ mental capacity to control their behavior or appreciate the consequences thereof.
My uninformed guess is that they ‘deserve’ perpetual custodial supervision to prevent future negative impact on society, but that they are not evil.
George Zimmerman IMHO, seems to be willfully lacking certain executive mental faculties, in particular, he knows that society sees things differently than he does, and has different expectations of proper, and legal behavior, but he prefers his own set of rules and feels free to behave as he sees fit.
I think GZ’s condition is pathological, but not an incapacity.
GZ finds himself facing the consequences of his willful actions, and now seeks to avoid those consequences by concocting a story that obscures his actual thinking, and his actual behavior, and substitutes in their place an alternate story that comports with society’s rules.
GZ seems to know, at least in hindsight, that his behavior was at least reckless and negligent, that, combined with what seems to be a habitual denial of the nature of his intentions, leads me to think that GZ is evil.
I really wish you were right about that but would you not agree that there is a fairly hefty number of Americans who think he was perfectly within his rights to do as he did and who would do the same if they thought they could get away with it?
Remember he very nearly did get away with it.
mfi
“a habitual denial of the nature of his intentions” – wow, that ropes in a lot of people.
It seems clear to me that you feel yourself to be something of an ‘authority’ as regards a certain sphere of knowledge, and that you feel somewhat ‘self-righteous’ within that sphere.
Does this special knowledge inoculate you against the collective guilt you see in those around you, or are you also guilty, but think yourself less hypocritical than the rest of us?
I continue to love watching these talented young men and always appreciate you for bringing them to my attention. Also watched some others at your place yesterday. Thanks, Mark.
Well, I will dare to respond to your question, when others scamper from mine. Does I get some credit for that?
First, what is the “certain sphere of knowledge” to which you refer? I suggest instead that you are confused as to my stance.
Have I been willing to make sacrifices in the face of the collective insanity I see around me? Certainly. Do I now have your approval to critique that insanity?
So, tell me about your hypocrisy, comrade.
The issue there is actual behavior.
Thinking that GZ is right, and that you would or could do the same thing, is different than doing it.
We can further divide those folks into those who believe that what GZ did was legal, and those who think it ‘should’ be legal.
I believe that GZ knows what he did was illegal, wishes it was legal, and now faces the consequences of acting on his own wishes.
The fact that he is so obviously ensnared in his own story-telling is, IMHO, the evidence of his guilt.
So it is for all those who supposedly ‘support’ GZ to choose for themselves whether their personal convictions permit breaking the existing law.
We’ll take each case as it comes.
GZ, by his actions has crossed that line, but doesn’t appear to be standing up and taking responsibility for those actions, he would have us believe that he thinks and behaves differently than he really thinks and behaves.
Now we will see if a jury believes his ‘story’.
I do not.
Neither Mason nor I believe him and both of us would just love the chance to cross examine him. Mason in your system wouldn’t necessarily get the chance to do that courtesy of that pesky 5th Amendment.
(Over here defendants can be forced to testify in certain circumstances and if they refuse to testify the court is entitled to draw inferences from that refusal. You can also be held and interrogated for up to 48 hours by the police if you’re suspected of certain offenses without the benefit of the presence of a lawyer to advise you but that’s another story).
The issue is as you say actual behaviour and the actual behaviour of Zimmerman’s local police force was to release him and do nothing.
One of the benefits that would come from a conviction were Zimmerman to be convicted is that police forces in former confederate states might be less inclined to believe that they’ll get away with doing nothing or performing their duties negligently when a young black man is murdered. It might also act as a deterrent to those who as you put it supposedly ‘support’ GZ.
People in my experience are not particularly deterred by harsh sentences for offenses what they’re afraid of is getting caught. This in my opinion would be the prime social benefit of a conviction in this case. The likelihood of getting caught (of not getting away with it) would go up and so would the deterrent effect.
mfi
I don’t think I’m much confused as to your stance, that is, that most, if not all of us, are not in fact fighting fascism and the empire, we are all compradores, if not outright fascists.
As for my own hypocrisy, for most of my adult life I believed that in abandoning the promise of a military education and career offered me by my country, I was both staying true to my class, and avoiding the fate that befell some, like Colin Powell for instance.
I’ve now come to understand that I haven’t really done much if anything to fight the fascist empire, but then again, I’ve only come to truly understand that reality relatively late in life.
I’ve come to accept my own less-than-heroic life in the empire, and I don’t feel any need to point out the similar failures of my fellow men and women.
My interests here are in finding my/our way forward, and a little fellowship in the face of the ever more stark results of the dominance of ‘our’ system, whatever you call it.
Wow, I just realized there is another stunning inconsistency in GZ’s statements to police. Forgive me if I’m overlapping comments from this thread with Mason’s own blog but GZ told police he didn’t realize he had shot TM and was not aware of it until an hour later when he was informed of such at the police station (we will not discuss the absurdity of not knowing you shot someone when it was close range). However, I distinctly remember from some early reporting that GZ asked a friend/neighbor to call his wife and tell her he shot someone, while still on the scene. That quote has stuck with me because, well, I’m not sure how exactly someone informs a spouse of such news, but relaying it through a neighbor seemed odd, and seemed to imply SZ would “understand” what had happened.
In other news, if you are not aware, SH pleaded not guilty to perjury charges on Friday and does not have to appear at her arraignment on Tuesday.
Thanks for your comments.
My own interest in this case is some slight hope that we can turn the present momentum which is pushing the passage of SYG laws across our country.
This case clearly demonstrates that these type of laws can and probably will result in widespread vigilante violence if passed.
The fact that ALEC is coming under increased scrutiny for the sort of legislation it is pushing (some of it because of this case) gives me a bit of hope.
Colin Powell, comprador, chose his fate, it didn’t just “befall” him. You might well ask, what does Ludwig think he gains by condemning compradors?
Ludwig believes he is doing some cleansing. When compradors can admit they should have been more cautious, and begin to lose comfort in collective guilt, Ludwig will be much more pleasant.
Thank you for your sense of integrity, by which you avoided becoming an imperial mercenary. And surely, fighting the fascist empire requires a consciousness which has been, of course, suppressed. We have a ways to go.
But next time I call some arsehole a righteous authoritarian, please don’t take it personally.
From here: Did Zimmerman Confess When He Said, “I Took my Gun Aimed it at him and Fired?” | MyFDL
mfi
It’s amazing GZ’s inconsistencies have their own inconsistencies.
What he should have done is gotten a copy of his original statement and memorized it.
The exact quote can be found here:
I’ve posted this quote by a well-known American lawyer before:
Or in the immortal words of Joe Dolce Shaddap You Face
mfi
mfi
That’s an absolutely extraordinary claim to make, isn’t it?
I’m surprised he didn’t deny killing TM on the ground that he only aimed and fired the gun. The bullet did the rest, so blame the bullet.
here is a segment from wikipedia entitles Doubts concerning mirror neurons
it’s part of a general review on Mirror Neurons with lots academic references.
I am quite impressed with the implications of the original research involving the mirroring of the motor cortex and this:
There is a potential issue in the Holmes case involving his psychiatrist, Dr. Lynn Fenton.
Apparently, he sent her or dropped off a notebook that may have contained a detailed outline of his plan to shoot up the theater and the people in it at the Batman premier.
Don’t know any more details.
Most states now have laws that impose an obligation on mental health professionals to notify police and potential victims, to the extent that they are reasonably identifiable, of statements by their patients expressing an intent to harm or kill people.
These laws carve out an exception to the therapist/counselor-patient privilege of confidentiality that normally would prohibit disclosure.
In other words, IF Dr. Fenton had received such a notebook and IF she had reviewed the materials and realized that it was a plan to kill people at the Batman premiere, she would have been obligated to notify the police and warn them of the plan, notwithstanding the doctor-patient privilege of confidentiality.
Any lawsuit would be against Dr. Fenton and her employer, the University of Colorado. If there is a valid cause of action, the potential liability would be enormous.
We will have to wait and see if there is anything to this issue.
I tend to doubt it because she is in charge of the Student Mental Health Clinic at the U of C and she would have known that she had a legal duty to inform the police immediately of any threat to kill.
I heard a similar story on the news last week but the package had been sitting in the mail room and had not been delivered to the recipient. Haven’t heard or seen anything about it since but I admit to not paying a whole lot of attention to that case because I’m thoroughly convinced Holmes is certifiable.
Jesus, light a match will ya.