MOTIVES For the Colorado Theater Murders ?

@firefly,

Ian Brady, a notorious child killer (google moors murderer,) was deemed insane and transferred from prison to Broadmoor Secure Psychiatric Hospital. He will never be released. He has been on hunger strike for a number of years now, and if he was in prison would be allowed to die. He's not though, and is not deemed sane, so cannot make the decision to go on hunger strike. That means that he has been force fed for years now.

If he wasn't such a revolting individual you'd feel sorry for him. If he'd been offered the death penalty he would have jumped at the chance.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

But this doesn't stop people from saying he is a victim of some mind control phenomina or that he was not actually under his own will to do this act so he is a victim as well

I don't really care what people are saying, do you? The people who actually have the most direct recent knowledge about this man--the police, the prosecutor, the defense, his parents, possibly his professors and classmates, close friends--are all keeping their mouths shut. There is no really reliable info about this man's motives, or his current mental status, available. So all the speculation lacks grounding in reality.

Even if this man was genuinely psychotic, and delusionally believed he was a character in a video game or movie, and those weren't real people he was shooting, that would make him a victim of mental illness, and a victim of a different sort of "mind control", and, while that might help him get an acquittal, on the basis of insanity, it won't get him much sympathy or mercy.
He's never going to be free to walk the streets again, even if he spends out the rest of his days in a psychiatric facility for the criminally insane.

The man who shot Rep. Giffords, and killed 6 others, still hasn't been found competent to stand trial--he's apparently quite crazy--but it's not getting him any sympathy for the acts he committed, and all the media attention he received has disappeared. And he's going to remain locked up, for the rest of his life, even if he's never found competent to stand trial.

Quote:

he thinks if he behaves this way that they will be more lenient on him

They can't be more lenient on him, even if he is seriously mentally disturbed--he killed 12 people, wounded 58, and booby-trapped an apartment with explosives to try to kill even more. He poses too much of a danger to ever walk free again.

Quote:

I think you are right, that he will be given the death penalty and in this case it would be justifyable.

I don't know that he will be given the death penalty. The prosecutor still hasn't decided whether to go for the death penalty. That decision may be made in the next week.

1 Reply

After Holmes graduated from University of California with a BS in neuroscience, he tried to get a job in which he could use his education.

He found none. So he took a job at MacDonalds for about one year. I'll bet his father urged him to go to Graduate School, since with his grades he could compete for and most likely be awarded a traineeship in neuroscience, which woul pay his tuition and offer him a stipend of about $26,000.

So Holmes ended up in Grad School.

Where for one reason or another, he didn't belong.

He was sane before he entered Grad school and I'm now betting he was sane during the killings in the theatre.

As far as his appearance on TV, while in Court, I'll bet he's a damn phoney and thinks he's cute and clever.

One way to wake him up, while in jail, is to put him in the general jail house population. Something tells me, he'll wake up damn fast and stop rolling his eyes and nodding off.

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

I don't know that he will be given the death penalty. The prosecutor still hasn't decided whether to go for the death penalty. That decision may be made in the next week.

I didn't think of it until you mentioned it but perhaps this is why he is trying to play out this crazy bit. If he is never found competent to stand trial then he can't be handed the death penalty right? But if he knows that if he is sane enough to stand trial that he might be headed to death row. His odds are in his favor if he pretends to be insane if he doesn't want to die.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

His odds are in his favor if he pretends to be insane if he doesn't want to die.

That would give him a reason for trying to fake it. But the psychiatrists and psychologists who will be evaluating him are experienced about detecting malingering, or faking, and it is not easy to bamboozle these mental health professionals. And the state will try to prove that he is legally sane.

Even if he refuses to talk to anyone, so they can't evaluate competency, or if he is found not competent for trial. they will keep him locked up indefinitely until he is found competent.

In addition, insanity defenses are rarely successful--even when the defendant is seriously mentally disturbed. There is a difference between being legally insane and being psychotic--one can be psychotic and still be adjudged competent to stand trial, and one can be psychotic and still be found guilty of a crime. The final determination of legal insanity is made by a jury.

This is Colorado law

Quote:

16-8-101.5. Insanity defined - offenses committed on and after July 1, 1995. (1) The applicable test of insanity shall be:

(a) A person who is so diseased or defective in mind at the time of the commission of the act as to be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong with respect to that act is not accountable; except that care should be taken not to confuse such mental disease or defect with moral obliquity, mental depravity, or passion growing out of anger, revenge, hatred, or other motives and kindred evil conditions, for, when the act is induced by any of these causes, the person is accountable to the law; or

(b) A person who suffered from a condition of mind caused by mental disease or defect that prevented the person from forming a culpable mental state that is an essential element of a crime charged, but care should be taken not to confuse such mental disease or defect with moral obliquity, mental depravity, or passion growing out of anger, revenge, hatred, or other motives and kindred evil conditions because, when the act is induced by any of these causes, the person is accountable to the law.

(2) As used in subsection (1) of this section:

(a) "Diseased or defective in mind" does not refer to an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.

(b) "Mental disease or defect" includes only those severely abnormal mental conditions that grossly and demonstrably impair a person's perception or understanding of reality and that are not attributable to the voluntary ingestion of alcohol or any other psychoactive substance but does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.

(3) This section shall apply to offenses committed on or after July 1, 1995.
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl1995/sl_26.htm

If the defense in this case enters an insanity plea, the burden of proof will be on the state to prove him sane.

In this case, the defendant apparently entered a movie theater in a normal fashion, by waiting on line, buying a ticket, and taking a seat. He then left through an exit door, donned protective gear, re-entered the theater with a variety of weapons, threw out smoke cannisters to obscure view, and began randomly spraying bullets into the audience.

That's a well organized and executed sequence of activities--it is strong evidence that he knew exactly what he was doing and that he knew right from wrong--he even knew he had to buy a ticket to enter the theater legitimately.
It's also evidence that the crime was planned in advance--he had all his gear waiting in the car to be used. And he had spent months amassing the weapons and ammunition and gear he used.

Everything points to a well thought out, premeditated crime in the theater. The same is true of the booby-trapping of the apartment with explosives.

He was apparently able to form the culpable mental state for commission of his acts--which means he is legally sane and should be held accountable.

The defense is going to have a real uphill battle with an insanity defense in this case--he knew what he was doing, it was carefully planned, and he knew right from wrong. One possibility is that he will eventually plead guilty in exchange for having the death penalty taken off the table.

So, yes, he might escape the death penalty, if he is found by a jury to be legally insane, but, if that's the case, he's still going to be locked up in a psychiatric hospital for the criminally insane for the rest of his life. Personally, I don't really see that as "leniency", but those who would like to see him get the death penalty might.

2 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Quote:
His odds are in his favor if he pretends to be insane if he doesn't want to die.

That would give him a reason for trying to fake it. But the psychiatrists and psychologists who will be evaluating him are experienced about detecting malingering, or faking, and it is not easy to bamboozle these mental health professionals. And the state will try to prove that he is legally sane.

Even if he refuses to talk to anyone, so they can't evaluate competency, or if he is found not competent for trial. they will keep him locked up indefinitely until he is found competent.

In addition, insanity defenses are rarely successful--even when the defendant is seriously mentally disturbed. There is a difference between being legally insane and being psychotic--one can be psychotic and still be adjudged competent to stand trial, and one can be psychotic and still be found guilty of a crime. The final determination of legal insanity is made by a jury.

This is Colorado law

Quote:
16-8-101.5. Insanity defined - offenses committed on and after July 1, 1995. (1) The applicable test of insanity shall be:

(a) A person who is so diseased or defective in mind at the time of the commission of the act as to be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong with respect to that act is not accountable; except that care should be taken not to confuse such mental disease or defect with moral obliquity, mental depravity, or passion growing out of anger, revenge, hatred, or other motives and kindred evil conditions, for, when the act is induced by any of these causes, the person is accountable to the law; or

(b) A person who suffered from a condition of mind caused by mental disease or defect that prevented the person from forming a culpable mental state that is an essential element of a crime charged, but care should be taken not to confuse such mental disease or defect with moral obliquity, mental depravity, or passion growing out of anger, revenge, hatred, or other motives and kindred evil conditions because, when the act is induced by any of these causes, the person is accountable to the law.

(2) As used in subsection (1) of this section:

(a) "Diseased or defective in mind" does not refer to an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.

(b) "Mental disease or defect" includes only those severely abnormal mental conditions that grossly and demonstrably impair a person's perception or understanding of reality and that are not attributable to the voluntary ingestion of alcohol or any other psychoactive substance but does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.

(3) This section shall apply to offenses committed on or after July 1, 1995.
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl1995/sl_26.htm

If the defense in this case enters an insanity plea, the burden of proof will be on the state to prove him sane.

In this case, the defendant apparently entered a movie theater in a normal fashion, by waiting on line, buying a ticket, and taking a seat. He then left through an exit door, donned protective gear, re-entered the theater with a variety of weapons, threw out smoke cannisters to obscure view, and began randomly spraying bullets into the audience.

That's a well organized and executed sequence of activities--it is strong evidence that he knew exactly what he was doing and that he knew right from wrong--he even knew he had to buy a ticket to enter the theater legitimately.
It's also evidence that the crime was planned in advance--he had all his gear waiting in the car to be used. And he had spent months amassing the weapons and ammunition and gear he used.

Everything points to a well thought out, premeditated crime in the theater. The same is true of the booby-trapping of the apartment with explosives.

He was apparently able to form the culpable mental state for commission of his acts--which means he is legally sane and should be held accountable.

The defense is going to have a real uphill battle with an insanity defense in this case--he knew what he was doing, it was carefully planned, and he knew right from wrong. One possibility is that he will eventually plead guilty in exchange for having the death penalty taken off the table.

So, yes, he might escape the death penalty, if he is found by a jury to be legally insane, but, if that's the case, he's still going to be locked up in a psychiatric hospital for the criminally insane for the rest of his life. Personally, I don't really see that as "leniency", but those who would like to see him get the death penalty might.

Good points however your statements are not actually all legitimate causes or cases for such. Rather than hit every point you made I just want to focus on one example to show you what I mean.

Just because he purchased the weapons and ammunition a few months before the incident, it doesn't mean that this was the intended use for them. He could have bought them for another purpose and then for some other source such as drug use or lacking to take medication for a mental illness was set off to commit a crime with them.

So yes he could have been plotting this but at the same time it could have been a spontaneous event. Sure all the previous steps make the next step more possible but the previous steps do not dictate the next step.

There are many people out there who purchase high powered assult riffles and lots of ammunition on line but they aren't using them to shoot up movie theaters. One doesn't necessarily imply the later.

The only way we could know if the two are linked is if there was a written plan or a spoken confession of a plot. Other wise he could have purchased the gear for another purpose. I could be wrong, but there is always a possiblity.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

So, yes, he might escape the death penalty, if he is found by a jury to be legally insane, but, if that's the case, he's still going to be locked up in a psychiatric hospital for the criminally insane for the rest of his life. Personally, I don't really see that as "leniency", but those who would like to see him get the death penalty might.

We know he did it, we know that he needs to be removed from the collective forever, so legally sane/legally not sane is not an interesting place to look.

What is interesting is how did this guy get to wanting to do this, and how can we avoid growing people like him in the future.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

What is interesting is how did this guy get to wanting to do this, and how can we avoid growing people like him in the future.

That is just the thing. I don't think you can and I doubt we will ever be able to. Not even if we mandate psychological evaluations every month for everyone living. I think we might be able to narrow down certain individuals who might be inclined to but I really don't think we would catch them all. Not to mention we would probably demonize some who would have never done anything wrong even though their psychological profile might claim they would.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

The only way we could know if the two are linked is if there was a written plan or a spoken confession of a plot. Other wise he could have purchased the gear for another purpose. I could be wrong, but there is always a possiblity....So yes he could have been plotting this but at the same time it could have been a spontaneous event

But you know he intended to use the guns in the theater. He left the theater, donned protective gear, returned with the guns, and began using them in the theater.

That's not a "spontaneous event" --that's a premeditated act. He had all his gear in the car waiting for him to use. Premeditation can be as short as a minute--it means you have formed a definite intention of doing something. And, in his case, he went through an elaborate, organized, sequence of behaviors, from the time that he first entered the theater, that all point to a premeditated shooting. There was nothing spontaneous about it. It's also evidence he knew what he was doing.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

. Other wise he could have purchased the gear for another purpose.

I'm curious what other purpose/s you think the gear might have been for.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

I'm kinda curious about his hair.

I don't think he did it himself. (it's harder than it looks to do it right...)

and how did he explain it to the person that did...

0 Replies

There is a neuroscience forum I occasionally lurk on, today I stopped in there to see if they were talking about this and of course they were.

One person wrote I'll bet he has a tumor pressing against his amygdala and some of the others agreed.

I googled around and came across this: http://brainmind.com/Case5.html

Pretty interesting.

I don't have the foggiest notion if this is the problem but it did make me wonder -- if whatever caused him to do this can be repaired* what in the world would we do with him then?

* I don't even know if there is surgery available to remove this kind of tumor. I'm just speculating. From a philosophical/ethical standpoint it's an interesting thing to consider.....

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I know I'm bad for not reading the thread - and doing an drive-by opinionating - but I must drag my ass out of here - and I wanted to bookmark this thread with a post. Anyway, that's my story, dammit.

I think the motive for the shooting was a psychotic break by the shooter.

His background lends to a diagnosis of schizophrenia. I think he was so loopy in court because he was drugged in jail.

OF COURSE, this is an assessment based on very little information, and due for tweaking as information comes out.

1 Reply

@Lash,

There seem to be some here who equate mental illness with an inability to perform tedious or complicated tasks. This is NOT true.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

But you know he intended to use the guns in the theater.

No in a court of law no lawyer or judge would let you get away with that. It is speculation if you try to use that statement. Purchase of weapons does not imply motive or that they were specifically purchased for that crime.

Ill admit though it was a lot of gear but it in no way says that this was it's intended use. I know a lot of people who own high powered assult riffles and have body armor but they don't intend to shoot up theaters with it. It is purely for self defense and economic collapse purposes where they want to prepare for a day if lawlessness becomes a reality.

1 Reply

@Lash,

I'm equating legal insanity, not mental illness, with the inability to perform oganized, complexed tasks, involved in the commission of a crime. This man's actions show that he was aware of what he was doing and it involved his performing a complex, organized sequence of actions.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

Purchase of weapons does not imply motive or that they were specifically purchased for that crime

That's true.

But I'm talking about his premeditated actions once he entered the theater--he left the theater, donned protective gear, and returned with smoke cannisters and weapons, and began using them. Those actions alone make this a premeditated act of murder and attempted murder.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Quote:
Purchase of weapons does not imply motive or that they were specifically purchased for that crime

That's true.

But I'm talking about his premeditated actions once he entered the theater--he left the theater, donned protective gear, and returned with smoke cannisters and weapons, and began using them. Those actions alone make this a premeditated act of murder and attempted murder.

Well technically they still have a case. I really hate to play devils advocate here but he could have had them in his car and had gone without any intention of actually using them, then and there. He might have gone into the theather innocently, sat down to watch the movie and then during the movie had the idea to go out to his car and get his gear. The only way we would know for certain if it had been actually premeditated is if he had a written plan involving the day, location, time and items used. Other wise they do have a case that he didn't actually plan it but it became a plan of conveniences.

Now I'm not saying this to protect his actions or in some way disregard them as being innocent or whimsical. I am just saying that cases are not always cut and dry and the law doesn't like inferred actions or motivations. You must have something that supports an action or behavior in such a way that it can't appear to be spontaneous or unplanned.

2 Replies

@boomerang,

Do you remember the Texas Tower massacre--that was one of the first of these mass shootings. It's also mentioned in the link you posted. After death, the autopsy on Whitman showed he had a brain tumor that may have influenced his emotions and behavior. He seemed to have an inkling that he had some sort of physiological problem because he left a note asking that his body be autopsied.

Quote:

Charles Joseph Whitman (June 24, 1941 – August 1, 1966) was a student at the University of Texas at Austin and a former Marine who killed 16 people and wounded 32 others (a total of 49 victims including himself) during a shooting rampage on and around the university's campus on August 1, 1966.

Whitman killed three of his victims inside the university's tower, and 10 others from the 28th floor observation deck of the University's 307-foot (94 m) administrative building; one, Karen Griffith, died from her wounds a week after the shooting.

The tower massacre happened shortly after Whitman murdered his wife and mother at their homes. He was shot and killed by Austin Police Officer Houston McCoy, assisted by Austin Police Officer Ramiro Martinez...

A glioblastoma, which is a highly aggressive brain tumor, was discovered during autopsy; experts on the "Connally Commission" concluded it may have played a role in his actions....

It was revealed during the autopsy that Whitman had a glioblastoma tumor in the hypothalamus region of his brain. Forensic investigators theorized that this may have been pressed against the nearby amygdala, which can have an effect on fight/flight responses. This has led some neurologists to speculate that his medical condition was in some way responsible for the attacks, as well as his personal and social frames of reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

But, even in Whitman's case, there were other factors operating--like his use of Dexedrine (which is "speed"), family problems, etc.--that also affected his emotions and behavior, so it's hard to chalk it all up to a brain tumor.

In the case of Holmes, he doesn't seem to have been walking around displaying signs of rage--at least not while he was still in school until late June--and we don't know whether the theater shootings and the booby-trapping of the apartment were motivated by rage or by something else.

Hypothetically, if he has a tumor that could fully account for his criminal behavior, and it had put him in a mental state that impaired his ability to know right from wrong, and/or exercise any control over his actions, then he should be found not guilty by reason of diminished capacity/insanity and confined in a psychiatric facility for the criminally insane. And if that tumor can be removed, and he then shows positive change in his thoughts and actions, even after extended lengthy observation, and if he is then considered not dangerous, he should be released.

The chances of that hypothetical scenario are about nil.

But Holmes might have used "speed"--some students do use amphetamines to help them cram for exams--and that can cause delusions, particularly paranoid delusions, and can aggravate mental and mood problems, including aggression and hostility. But, if that were the case, I don't think it would get him off on an insanity plea. The Colorado insanity law excudes behaviors infuenced by alcohol or psychoactive drugs.

Quote:

(b) "Mental disease or defect" includes only those severely abnormal mental conditions that grossly and demonstrably impair a person's perception or understanding of reality and that are not attributable to the voluntary ingestion of alcohol or any other psychoactive substance but does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl1995/sl_26.htm

But, I agree with you, these are interesting things to think about.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

He might have gone into the theather innocently, sat down to watch the movie and then during the movie had the idea to go out to his car and get his gear.

And then he came back into the theater and used his gear.

That's premeditation, Krumple. He got his weapons from the car with the intention of using them. And we infer his intention from the fact he did use them. You can premeditate an act in a minute, or 30 seconds--it means you form an intention in your mind to do something--then you do it.

1 Reply

MOTIVES For the Colorado Theater Murders ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know