OhPleese

No @!$%#! There is no question as to guilt. The more latitude we give scum in society, the more they will take. Time to make an example and teach the next generation not to become scum.

The only difference is that I would like to see him hung in front of the courthouse for all to see.

Anyone who perpetrates violence against others (or maybe themselves for that matter) has a screw loose. I can't imagine any 'normal' folks shooting up a theater.

I don't see the need to prove insanity. The acts he engaged in already make it quite clear.

The only difference is that I would like to see him hung in front of the courthouse for all to see.

Agree, he needs to dancing at the end of a rope in the town square.

uh, can we stop calling this pos a suspect and get on with the hanging.

Hope-295312

"I don't see the need to prove insanity. The acts he engaged in already make it quite clear."

Although I understand where you are coming from for the most part, good, decent well adjusted folks can not see the difference between an sick sadistic person with cunning an guile and a real life, no kidding insane person. I would forgive you for thinking his actions show he is insane but, it is not necessarily true. Some people are just plain bad and they use 'insanity' to shield them from the consequences their bad behavior.

This is America, and we're gonna do it by the book. All of you people need to pause and renew your allegiance to the Constitution of the United States.

S. Williams-430936

The problem is that the book has changed. It used to be that if you stole a horse, you would be tried, and if found guilty you would be hanging from the gallows within a week. It did not matter if you could claim you were crazy, that was a given. That still followed the Constitution.

And since that time we have become so supposedly moral that we don't want it on our conscience so we invented thousands of laws to protect the guilty just so we could feel clear.

Enough has been wasted on this POS take him out and hang him, we know he did it now give him his reward and quit playing games with him you will only encourage another nut to come forward.

honestdebate: court cases take a long time regardless of who is sitting on the jury; conservative or liberal. that's the legal system for ya and it has little to do with the jury. plus if you're saying liberals are the ones who take forever to make a decision just because they want all the facts, are you implying that conservatives make decisions about who should live or die quickly and want to know less facts about the case?

No Mind, I'm saying it was liberals who stated openly that they could not indict Casey Anthony because they wouldn't risk having convicted someone who could possibly get the death penalty.

I have no idea where you got anything you said except that you learned how to spin someone's actual text by listening to NBC.

I would say burn him it will give him time to think about the truth.

Wow, look at all the bloodthirsty Christians who can barely get the words out due to their inability to calm their excitement about killing this guy.

Heard Baddog. It seems that civilized people would not execute children, the innocent, and the mentally ill. If he has to be drugged to undergo a psyche evaluation, he is obviously too mentally ill to participate. Look at the look on his face. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just never let him walk free in public again.

Baddog40

If that was a reference to me, calling me a christian is about as far from reality as you can get. In fact, If I was your target, it was received as offensive.

honestdebate: why do you keep bringing up our "liberal" society then? also, i'm not responding to the material NBC posted. I'm responding to a comment YOU posted. don't try and deflect now lol

S. Williams-430936

I will if our elected leaders would

Mind, apparently you don't like the truth about who released Casey, someone who pre-meditated killed their child and then hid the remains.

Nothing I can do about you hating the truth, it will stil remain the truth.

also, i'm not responding to the material NBC posted. I'm responding to a comment YOU posted. don't try and deflect now lol

I have no idea what that means, beyond you being slightly illiterate.

Chris4132020

Hope-295312

"I don't see the need to prove insanity. The acts he engaged in already make it quite clear."

Although I understand where you are coming from for the most part, good, decent well adjusted folks can not see the difference between an sick sadistic person with cunning an guile and a real life, no kidding insane person. I would forgive you for thinking his actions show he is insane but, it is not necessarily true. Some people are just plain bad and they use 'insanity' to shield them from the consequences their bad behavior

I see what you're saying too Chris. Yet I would maintain that anyone who has the capacity to do acts such as this and actually does them is already a broken human. The fact that they are intelligent or not is an aside, at least from my perspective. We have plenty of smart violent people and plenty of stupid violent people. See, from my perspective sick people act badly and at worst act simply insane. Maybe it's a matter of degree.

But I do get what you're saying.

Can't you tell folks, he and his lawyer are just playing the system with that insanity plea? He'd be sane within 48 hours of hitting that place where CO sends their supposedly insane people. Yeah, there are perhaps some in there that truly insane.

Stick a needle in his arm or give a lead injection tot he temple...... stop wasting time with these guys.... there is NO DOUBT of his guilt....... say goodbye to this world......

john-737278

Baddog40

If that was a reference to me, calling me a christian is about as far from reality as you can get. In fact, If I was your target, it was received as offensive.

Was your name mentioned? You have some serious narcissism going on there.

Was your name mentioned? You have some serious narcissism going on there.

You are right, his name wasn't, neither was christianity, you have some serious stupidity issues.

Baddog40

Actually, when you generalize that everyone that posted before you that thinks that this man's life is a waste of time and energy, and that they are bloodthirsty christians, Yes. I think anyone who posted before you who think his life is a waste of time could take it that way, and be justified in doing so.

That is not narcissistic, but an observation of intent.

UNconstitutional ex post facto Law, retroactively violating by forced self-incrimination, drug-induced guilt before innocence and sanctified empowerment to illegally search and seize? Attempting to alter or apply "cure" before diagnosis? You only lose "informed consent" AFTER DIAGNOSIS, NEVER BEFORE and you only lose it to Guardianship or power of attorney, not just to a wide open field of anybody who wants it! It's pretty obvious where and who his "Power of Attorney" is, at this time. It seems like this Judge is not only overreaching, but blatantly doing so, unrestrained with no showing of stringent limit and regard to exigency. The burden of proof is on the Prosecution. "Hypotheticals" can be of defense.

I was just today reading about the Supremcy Clause and Article 6. (and Full Faith and Credit, the other day) Better appeal this one to the Federal Circuit and soon. Plus, Colorado, as a State and in matters of Law, has already more than shown its abject disdain and disregard for Due Process, the Constitution, Supremacy Clause and Full Faith and Credit, etc...

And MAJOR conflicts of interests in Judicial Propriety should be investigated regarding Whom and how many, as Judges, are "literally" invested in the "for profit" privatized Jails and Prisons in Colorado. From their RIGHTS VIOLATING privatized "Work Release" programs to their right now FCC investigated "Securus" Inmate calling systems.

It's a fair question. This Judge could be "invested" in the very Jail where he's being held.

Mystery Rhee

I thought about making some eloquent reply, but rendered myself to abject confusion. Is it your defense that when a man is in offense to us all, that you call up his transgression as proof of his absolution? Or that since man has gone down the path of apathy and pity that there should be no cost paid, due to modifications made to a decree that were never the intent and hold it cheap?

Man may take solace in his ability to exchange morality for self adulation in the defiance of morality itself in resolving new rules by which others may live, however, that man will pay a price absolute for said new rules that defile it's original integrity in execution.

In other words. Don't presume to believe that laws created after our Constitution was written are actually a part of the document. They are not, otherwise they would be Amendments. And as with all law, it is interpretation of one case thrust upon another for justification of judgment through precedent. That does not make it right or just. IT is simply what came before in an attempt to justify the next. And for too long, we as a society have been justifying bad behavior without consequence.

Mystery Rhee - you are right. The judge is ignoring the law to continue the plan. Exactly who saw this kid do any shooting? All you know is that he was seriously drugged and sitting on his car. Everyone in that theatre said there was more than one shooter, and there is video of excess dropped clothing/mask in the parking lot. His apt was wired in a VERY complex, military fashion. This reeks of a False Flag and Mind Control. CIA all the way. Google the Senate hearings in the 60's where CIA agents testified of their (successful) mind control experiments. Also, the Gvmt use of False Flags - staged events to sway the masses. Are we surprised that the WH who set up Fast & Furious (selling major weapons in several states to drug cartels to further their cause of gun control) and the Benghazi hit (pulling out 8 security guards and ordering everyone to 'step down' while he watched the massacre on video) wouldn't set up a massacre at home? As his playbook, Rules for Radicals, states: "the end justifies the means - lie, cheat and even murder if you have to..." He won't stop until he's disarmed you and controls every minute of your life (energy, health care, banking, food) How can you exist without these?

While I understand the anger directed at the suspect in these posts, it saddens me to think that so many Americans would be willing to chuck the Bill of Rights into the trash in order to expedite an execution.

The state has to prove guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, in murder cases seeking the death penalty. That is to protect everyone of us from being falsely accused and executed. That right must also be extended to Mr. Holmes. If you start trying to nit pick the bill of rights and judicial proceedings, you are heading down a very slippery slope of setting George Orwell like precedents.

no bleeding hearts...............just put the sorry SOB up against a wall and off him, he gave his victims no mercy, he should not get a single bit of sympathy. he is still alive, and THAT IS JUST PLAIN WRONG.

Ray in Jax

I understand your belief. And I, as well, do believe in due process. However, he did do it, everyone knows that he did. It is down to semantics of whether they can use a plea of insanity. There is no determination of guilt any longer. There is simply a determination of what the price will be. In a way, I think the legal wrangling is a travesty of justice, not the result.

As I see it, there is a distinction between the two, and due process is being used to play the system. To milk it as long as possible. Do you have any doubt as to the fact that he did it? If not, what exactly does the bill of rights have to do with it, really? I do not take the bill of rights lightly, but also I have problems with the precedence of law cheapening it due to legal wrangling that has nothing to do with true guilt.

I do believe in our Constitution, the problem is that the rules and laws that have been written since, in many ways, only undermine it, not substantiate it.

john-737278, #1.28- No, it's actually my "contention" that whether or not this Man is being viewed as being "offensive to us all", as you say, is not only irrelevant at this time, as a question or a focus, but is also Rights violating-ly, "pre-judicially" irrelevant. (and I'm almost kind of thinking that what may be pissing you off the most is that I'm actually NOT bringing up his "alleged" trangression:) Right now is supposed to be strictly all about "process", with not the alleged transgression coming into "specific" play. It's a structural thing, like building a house, you have to frame it first, before you put the sheathing on. Due Process of the Law is the only Constitutionally fundamental system of checks and balances. "Defense" isn't automatically "absolution", as you say. Laws created after our Constitution were written "stem from" that document and must show to be able to trace back to stemming from that document or they are UNconstitutional. Apathy and pity are not mitigating factors, but there are and have to be allowed to be, mitigating factors because there's no such thing as one sided, NO DEFENSE-"Absolute" Prosecution that would equal a fair trial. (but it does seem like a lot of People are automatically screaming for that! Not understanding that when you uphold this Guy's Rights, you uphold your own:) Thank you for replying. It's late in my "time zone" and I have to stop for now. Please let me know if you'd like for me to further reply or clarify or expand. I won't be able to get back to this post until later in the day tomorrow, and will.

Ms. nonCommunist, #1.29- Thank you.

I understand your belief. And I, as well, do believe in due process. However, he did do it, everyone knows that he did. It is down to semantics of whether they can use a plea of insanity.

No, john, it is down to a very important point of law, whether the accused person was sufficiently in command of his faculties to comprehend the wrongness of his actions.

This is not a question of semantics at all.

In most, but not all, states, the law takes into account that some people are so crazy that they do not comprehend the true nature of their actions. There are strong evidence that this man is insane.

So, even though every time I see that picture of his insolently smiling face my first reaction is just to shoot him, I'm glad that in our society we adhere to the law, and determine the true nature of the crime committed, before affixing a penalty.

I honestly couldn't care less if you villagers decide to form a lynch mob but at least let the book learners take a look at him first. Of primary interest is his amygdala which has certain neuropsychological correlates that can't be properly observed if he's dead.

With greater understanding of the issues at hand we may someday be able to effectively treat violent sociopaths before they "snap", something which religion, politics and criminal justice systems have failed to do for millennia.

dman-353357

Hey Dman, How are you doing? Me, I'm still anti-humanity and as such believe that an insanity plea is a miscarriage of justice and should be stricken from precedence of law. I see it as a waste of time and of no value to society. I really don't care whether someone is so crazy that they don't understand the nature of their actions.

Mystery Rhee

You may be misjudging my position. It is the "process" that I believe has been corrupted over time. Just because all law can be traced back to the Constitution in some way does not make it right. Lawyers may believe that because it is the "process" that funds them. It is the "process" that keeps scum on our streets due to technicalities being breached. It no longer has to do with whether laws were broken, it has come down to who has the best lawyer. And it is an offense to society and does it no true good, in fact, it does it harm.

Hope -

Insanity is a legal term, not a mental health term. It refers to whether a person knew at the time of their crime that the act was wrong. Depending on the illness, a mentally ill person can be aware of right and wrong. And plenty of people without mental illness commit horrible acts. Some people are just evil.

john-737278, #1.37- Long day! Just getting a chance to get back here now. Got it! I understand what you're saying about "process" and corruption by Lawyers. And in this particular case, not only Lawyers but the Judiciary (Court), itself, because the the Lawyers are specifically "Public Defenders", not private Defense Attorneys, so The Court could very well "wrongly" interfere in obstructing his Right to mount the same kind of defense that Somebody with the ability to pay might mount. Basically, it's another corrupted "process" within a larger corrupted process. BUT, I did go back and re-read your post #1.28 and I don't think I'm misunderstanding or misjudging what seems to be you implying that the existence of an "insanity defense" is corrupting the process.

Straight from a Law book today that I just happened to "unplanned" end up in:

There are 2 Elements of a Crime. 1) A Criminal Act that has to be "overt" and 2) Requisite of Mind, "required state of mind" in order for a crime to be committed and then 4 possible "states of mind" a) purpose b) knowledge c) recklessness d) negligence

Defenses to the mental state: Insanity, Mistake, Self-defense, Defense of others, Defense of property (the only overt "act" in this case is "acting out behavior" and it only becomes "overt" when acted out in the realm of "Insanity", as the only applicable mental state because that is the only time "acting out" behavior exists, as part of the mental state and not separate. (This is why so many People are also saying that you have to be out of your mind to carry out what this Guy did)

But you are absolutely right and NAILED IT! When Private Lawyers are not corrupting the "process", The Court is by using Public Lawyers in a "reverse corruption" to process that they try and pass off as "Judicial Economy" under the BS guise of utilitarian ethics of the greater good for the greater amount of Society.

I've got to go read the new story about the Judge entering a "not guilty" plea today. (but first, Im being called to dinner right now and will check back here later if you'd like to again further reply). I'm not so sure that the Judge has the Authority to overreach and enter the plea, but really only has the Authority to "accept" the plea, not force it.

Hey Dman, How are you doing? Me, I'm still anti-humanity and as such believe that an insanity plea is a miscarriage of justice and should be stricken from precedence of law.

Yeah, John, I remember you, and thus I'm not surprised by the view you express.

You realize the contradiction of hating humanity, and yet worrying about miscarriages of justice?

Probably not.

dman-353357

Good Morning

As I see it, there is no contradiction whatsoever when you consider what part of humanity I hate. We have the ability to strive for a higher purpose. But most don't.

john, #1.41- Just catching a quick end of lunch break and checking in to see if you replied. AMAZING! What you brought up in your post #1.41 is exactly what I was going to bring up here, whether or not you had replied! "Ability". As it relates to "corruption of process", is epitomized in a statement from Mayor Bloomberg regarding the Sugary Drink Ban. He said, "We have the ability...." in the context of justification for what he was doing (and I believe that statement was made before HIS Ban was struck down). Never once does it obviously even occur to him what He is actually saying and the meaning that he's verbalizing to convey; that being, "That because We have the ability to do something we have the Right". Ability to create an ordinance doesn't give the Right to undermine and override the Individual's Constitutional Rights. period

Just because the Court has the ability to control spending in regard to how much a Public Defender or Court Appointed Lawyer does, doesn't mean they have the Right to corrupt the process and control, specifically, what that Lawyer does or block them from doing what they should be doing; in effect putting an UNconstitutional, pre-judicial prior restraint on Due Process of the Law, rendering "the process" corrupted.

This applies for Congress, too, in the exact same way. As far as just because they have the ability it doesn't give them the Right to be corrupting the process, Due Process of the Law, like they've been doing.

I think we are on the same page to a degree.

What can you expect from Washington when most are lawyers. Being able to argue both sides of an argument with no moral certitude. Thats what they learn in school and people are so surprised somehow when they put it into practice. This is nothing against lawyers, it is what they were trained to do.

One of my favorite sayings is from Jurassic Park and I will paraphrase. "We were so consumed with whether we could that we never stopped to think of whether we should" That is how I view what our legal system has become. It protects the guilty in a supremacy holding their rights at higher value that those rights violated of the victims.

There used to be another saying "Do right, for right's sake" and in my view the current legal system has become an abortion of the Constitution, rather than a reflection.

i don't think the guy would care or not if he was going to be executed. One thing i am sure we can all agree on is that this guy is nuts! and deserves to be hanged. Just lock him away and never release the guy for any circumstance. Killing him in the end will not help anyone or make anyone feel better.

It looks deliberate to me. The guy is probably not stupid and knows an insanity defense is his only chance of not getting executed....eventually. So hamming it up seems to be the order of the day. Although he personally looks like someone I'd expect from tech support. Which would explain his insanity.

Roland brings up a good observation. Having worked in a psych ward for years, i couldn't believe some of the things people would do to get psych drugs. Alot of those drugs produce a high that would blow away alot of street drugs.

and...Randy-394876...knows this because...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI0_w9aV8G0

Mike- I'll hold him for you! Maybe we can take turns.

Question: If he is not insane, why did he walk into a movie theater with Joker hair and kill a bunch of people who had nothing to do with him? Does that sound sane?

An insanity plea is admission that he committed the crime but that he should not be held responsible because he is insane and did not have the mental capacity to have committed the crimes. Contrary to many who argue Bill of Rights in such cases as the judge held you must forfeit some rights if you wish to seek an insanity plea because the presumption is that the defendant is not insane.

So people stop mixing rights of a defendant who claims not to have committed the charged offense with a person who admits that he committed the offense but should not be held responsible because he is incapable of knowing what he was doing under the insanity plea.

In my personal opinion if a person succeeds in claiming insanity, he or she should be lobotimized so that they can never do such a thing in the future. If a person can do such a thing once, he or she could do it again without a lobotomy. This would guarantee life in an insane asylum for the rest of his or her life.

thats a stupid question. we all know he did it but everybody gets a lawyer and has the right to a trial.

by a jury of his peers...give everybody on the jury a front row seat...a free movie ticket and a loaded gun...then let him on stage...

Amazing how many Americans accuse Obama of shredding our constitution, when they themselves would throw it in the bin just to execute Mr. Holmes before he has his day in court.

This was not the America I grew up in....

I fear the judge has screwed up. One of the problems with firearms and the deranged is that the Supremes have declared that you can't force the mentally ill to take medication.

I fear appeal and overturned on this decision.

And in the meanwhile, this POS is enjoying every moment of his infamy . . .

Agree, dolly. We're a nation of laws for good reason: so we won't live in a mob justice, warlord state. Every person deserves their rightful, unbiased review under the law. But after that... TIME FOR ANOTHER GENE POOL COLON-BLOW!!!

mpa, as William states in post 5 most people in the US do not understand mental illness unless you have a family member afflicted by it. The use of proper medication under a Psychiatrist's care will bear out whether his defense of mental illness is real or a hoax. Every citizen has the right to due process.

Yes, we are a nation of laws and I am very thankful for that. But I do think that due process is over-served in some cases and I do think that justice is under-served in some cases. All this pussy footing around insanity is an example of the former. Of course he is insane - no sane person would do something like that. The question is did he know he was doing something wrong in killing those people. And again, of course he did or he would have simply walked into the theater openly and done it rather than sneaking around, dressing in camo, etc. He knew it was wrong, but he did it anyway. So try him and execute him. We don't need to pretend he is a "suspect". He isn't. He needs to get his due process, which is a hearing of the evidence in front of a jury. If he is so dishonest as to plead not guilty, then he should get a chance to give his alibi or tell his side of the story. Then the jury should go into their room (yes I've been there) and decide whether he did it or not. The process of dragging this out for years is not "due" to him. It merely benefits the lawyers in the case, but is not "due" to them. And justice does not mean coddling him for the rest of his life. It means punishing him appropriately for his crime. I only wish they would replace the classes on client billing with classes on the basics of justice in law school.

raleighdolly (Do you live in Raleigh, NC? If so we are "neighbors?") -

I am not suggesting that due process should be curtailed. I am suggesting that I find the likelihood of appeal and retrial due to this decision to be disturbing.

Do you think years in the limelight is not what this individual is hoping for?

ZapMeDown, intellectually I agree that anyone who would commit such a heinous crime is insane. I also think he knows what he did is wrong, but he is entitled to due process.

I am not a liberal, but a conservative and I do not believe in the death penalty. His final judgement and punishment will be decided by God.

mpa, I am a native of Raleigh, but now live in Cary. I have no idea what Mr. Holmes is thinking. The media plays a large role in giving the undeserving minutes, hours and years of fame. That is the sad part.

dolly -

I live within 10 miles of you. I agree that it is sad that the media provides the exposure. I would prefer that they never use the perpetrator's name - they could just refer to them as "loser # xxx."

Have a great evening - Oh, and enjoy the Spring, which is just about to burst upon on us!

i couldn't agree more. if it was mental illness, we could study his brain and tendencies beforehand that lead up to the day of the killing and hopefully use our findings as redflags for the next psycho. if he's not insane, we find a really cruel way to end it for him.

Yes, we can study his brains!

Hurry lets hang him so we can dig his brain out and study it.

stoned philosopher - i can dig that.

William-360414

I mean no offense, but we should not give the leeway we do in our legal system. I have a sister who has been in and out of institutions for the last fifteen years. If she were to ever do something like this, I would be calling for an end to it. Society would be better for it, and so would she.

What is the actual point of perpetuating misery of everyone affected? Guilt? Conscience? Those things have turned our society into a cesspool when criminals have more rights than the victims.

Just "Dahmer" him. Give him a fair trial (seriously), give him "life in jail", and then give him a comfy cell in general population. Skip the 20 years of appeals.

Tommy Reece

Just out of curiosity, what exactly are we to learn from this that thousands of years of history have not taught? How to medicate better?

I don't want blood, and an end to it is justice. Learning from this is finding ways to not let it happen again. Delving into a psychosis will lead to nothing but a waste of time and money. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

john - as we speak, scientists are charting and mapping psychosis in the human brain. genes for a short temper, uncontrollable anger, and various other qualities can be traced and tracked via genetic testing. holmes could be one more test subject and with those results, we know what redflags to look for in the next psycho killer. just because you don't understand the scientific method doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to determine whether or not he was insane.

scientists are charting and mapping psychosis in the human brain. genes for a short temper, uncontrollable anger

And if the government determines a person has those traits, drone them and ask questions later. But if you a real terrorist, you'll get a fair trial.

IF this individual is to be protected from justice and the consequences of his actions then his medical data and history should at least be put in the public domain and used to try to predict what will be the characteristics of the next misanthrope to seek "their spot in the limelight" by a similar criminal act.

mindyabusiness

As a matter of fact, I do understand scientific method quite well. But mapping the brain or DNA has nothing to do with being able to change it. As far as I know there are NO drugs that will change DNA makeup other than those that affect future offspring. And unless you are going to require that every person in the country gives a sample, then your method is flawed in finding future killers. And as body chemistry changes going through puberty, there would be no way to tell until they reached adulthood, which is some cases would be too late.

I think it more logical to try to determine, due to environmental and societal impact, your desire to defend this mans actions as if there is some great truth that will be uncovered.

it's not about changing someone's dna lol pretty sure that's impossible anyway. It's about preventing it and watching some individuals more closely than others. and before you start barking up a crazy tree, i'm not saying every single american citizen should have their dna tested but if someone is put on a psychiatric hold for something crazy they've done (as it's been indicated by the article above), it's not hard to get a warrant or court ordered right to take a DNA sample before the individual has a chance to pop. although good point about adolescence.

and last point in response to you trying to imply there's something wrong with me for wanting to understand the human brain more, i studied sociology in college and i work with kids. i'd like to see an end to violence in our society and i believe studying and educating is more worthwhile than banning guns or any other knee-jerk reaction people have. I'm not defending holmes. I'm defending science and research as a solution to violence. How irrational and crazy am I now?

mindyabusiness

I have no problem with wanting to understand the human brain, in fact it is an internal struggle every day, as it is with most of the logical humans.

If it is the case that you studied sociology and work with kids, then you should accept the premise that 99% of what we become is environmental, and 1% DNA. And also realize that studying a failure of environment is much more easily done on every street in America, rather than one that went too far.

The problem with this whole scenario is HOPE for redemption. And quite honestly, sometimes it is not warranted.

I may get flamed for this but why should we keep some one who is this dangerous alive even in a institution? He could very well kill/maim a guard or other inmate there no matter what precautions are taken. What happens if he escapes? Some people aren't worth the oxygen they use much less the risk they pose on everyone else. If a person has proven that he is this dangerous I suggest that like a rabid dog he be put down. I am tired of hearing that my tax dollars are going to support such worthless pieces of scum for the rest of their worthless lives. When there is a person like this who is nothing but a drain/risk on society I think we should cut our losses and plug the drain.

I'd say there's a LOT to learn from this whole case. first of all, the U.S. has the MOST horrible weakest lamest response towards mental illness that there is. In every state, the ONLY thing anyone can do is literally WAIT until it escalates to a "kill" status and then call the police. (I lived in Colorado, had a psychopathic kid threaten me, my son, and his sister.. the police STILL didn't want to do anything, if he hadn't "voluntarily" gone to the mental ward, I'd have been SOL!!!) He was diagnosed as a sociopath.. yeah as in serial killer. BUT GUESS WHAT?! I fought 2 figging states to get that kid committed for the safety of his family AND mine, AND for citizens of the U.S. THAT was one HELL of a fight too. But hey, they let him out a year after he was committed cuz the state doesn't want to pay for it. Just gonna "wait and see" if he does anything. He lives in Georgia now. With his meth-making, meth-head sister in a trailer court. Hope you all see THAT as a good response. Because you all scream about your taspayer dollars so hey, they CUT those programs. This kid, the one in court now.. he TRIED to get help. REPEATEDLY. But was turned away. He WOULD have been in an institution or at least getting the proper help if insurance covered it, or if it wasn't so ungodly expensive to get help. The U.S. ONLY reacts when it's too late. Instead of recognizing a problem and making efforts to correct or contain it BEFORE it happens. And THAT is a fact. I'm glad the kid I had committed doesn't live in my state, but it sure doesn't bode well for the people where he IS living. Oh.. and it's genetic. The entire family has the same sociopathic gene. Frontal lobe. and yeah, they keep breeding. what does Child services do? take the babies and put them with an unsuspecting family. and EVERY fricking time the babies get taken and the kids in adolescence are put in jail for some serious and major crimes. (Grampa raped all 6 of his granddaughters.. and the baby too) and ya'll just want to have a great old hangin.... whatever you do, don't make efforts to PREVENT this from happening anymore.

john - your premise that human behavior is 99% environmental is wrong. how do you explain homosexuality then? do you believe certain environments make people gay too?

I often believe that defense lawyers have a "moralectomy" when they pass the bar. Don't know how else they sleep at night.

Ah, common mistake, simply. You seem to be assuming that lawyer's are required to have a soul or conscience, like most people. Modern law has found those get in the way of "effectively" representing clients, however.

sullyness -

I was trying to be sensitive and not offend all lawyers . . .

i was just stating the fact that i couldnt do that job, i could not be a lawyer.

I'd actually say the origins of legal representation, especially for the hated, unpopular, and infamous, started as a noble undertaking. It's just been corrupted by extremists, like a lot of other human endeavors.

I agree being a lawyer would be really weird -- arguing as hard as you can, looking for technicalities, even knowing your client did something wrong. And how would you feel if you won the case?

You are hereby declared guilty of trying to commit REASON!

Truth serum?

Yeah, I would think that if you need to be medicated to be interviewed, that pretty much proves you're seriously mentally ill. Heck most mental health type drugs people take (anti-depressants, ADHD, etc.) wouldn't be necessary for an interview -- what exactly are they talking about that this guy needs to take?

birddog -

I would like to know the pharma-history of all the recent mass-shooters. They lock this info away from the public, but I (and many others) have suspicions about their medications.

mpa-

I totally agree with you and I believe there is a reason other than protecting the patients (murderers) privacy rights. Bad publicity is bad for profits.

knowing the medical history isn't what prevents the crimes, it's responding BEFORE it escalates to this level. I'd bet a million dollars that his last psychiatrist/psychologist knew he had SEVERE problems. He'd been on drugs previously, including anti-depressants.. (did all this information ONLY come out in Colorado???) he's known for VERY high intelligence, but that doesn't mean he isn't insane. It only means the police/hospitals etc WON'T ACT unless it's already a done deal. That's why a stupid restraining order is useless. ONLY if someone is harmed or killed will our society act. which is a load of crock. WE NEED to be TREATING people the INSTANT there is a suspicion of escalation up to AND INCLUDING if they have diagnoses of dangerous mental problems. Oh.. forgot.. I wish they'd cut with the idiotic "political correctness" because sociopath is now called anti-social personality disorder. Whatever, it diminishes the level of danger you're encountering when you meet the kid who had it all planned out how he was going to murder his adoptive dad, his sister, and my family.

until we address these mental problems BEFORE they get to the killing level, this will never stop. And taking guns away does NOTHING to prevent this. (just ask the guy who knifed 22 peope in China.. yeah, mass-knifing.. they're not "rare" they're just as "rare" as mass-shootings. Still devastating.

jw101 (AKA... bleeding heart)

Next time I do something? Like what? Run a red light?

If I MURDER a bunch of people, including children, then let them drug me...with a lethal dose.

jw101. Yep. Agreed. Our justice system works the way it does such that guilty people get what they deserve and people found not guilty can go along their way. We may not like it when someone who, on the surface, seems guilty without even a need for a trail, but that's not the way we do things. Those who want no trials should look at countries that work that way.

Without a better understanding of mental illness, a defense of "not guilty due to insanity" is difficult at best for the courts to deal with appropriately.

I was going to skip adding this next part but I see its already been brought up. So, let me add in my agreement with your comment that I ain't no bleedin' heart. But, though I'm a gun owner and a believer in keeping all my civil liberties, I ain't no right wing nut job, either. Chew on that for a while. Realize there might be a dose of sarcasm in there. Keep it light and keep moving. Ain't nothing to see here.

jw-I have to laugh. I think we all agree that what Holmes did was "WRONG"! Your argument is, "he must be insane because who else would do something like that". Is he insane because he killed people he didn't know? Is he insane because he killed a lot of people he didn't know. Is he insane because he dyed his hair orange. None of these facts would make me think he's insane. I didn't do anything so I'm not worried about my rights being violated. What constitutional rights of Holmes are being violated? Finally, his records might help the defense and/or the prosecutions argument.

The man has studied psychology at University level and does know a great deal about what to do to maximize his chances of beating the rap via "not guilty by reason of insanity".

He probably does have some abnormality such as being a psychopathic personality but does that give him the Constitutionally guaranteed right to commit murder?

Concerned, Maine, sorry you guys really don't understand how rights work or why they are so important. Do you think you had to do anything wrong at all to be arrested by the British when we were a colony? All you needed to do was be a business or romantic competitor of someone with political pull and yes you'd be arrested for the equivalent of "running a red light" or whatever minor offenses there were back then.

Ever been shaken down by corrupt cops. I have been in Mexcio. Arrests as shakedowns happen almost everywhere, including some places in US. Just travel the world a bit if you want to understand what happens wherever there is loose protection of rights.

The idea that "oh, I don't do anything wrong so I won't get in trouble" is just a liberal fantasy -- that the government is good and will take care of you. Almost all of human history, and most of the world today, prove that that is entirely wrong thinking.

Hey, don't throw liberals under the bus. the "I don't do anything wrong therefore I won't lose my rights" theiory is a STUPID fantasy, not a liberal one. Seen plenty of rednecks screaming about hanging him in front of the courthouse without a trial. I'm not saying there aren't some dumb--s liberals either, but just don't throw us all under the bus. I've been on the receiving end of FALSE accusations when it came to child protective services. and the constitution goes RIGHT out the window there too. But DANGED if trying to get help for a sociopath wasn't to he doubletoothipicks and back! Two hospitals couldn't get him out fast enough! And the institution played God with his medications all to come back to his dad and I and say "OH WOW, hre really IS mental!" Right up to the point they let him go. OMFG!!!

There is a diffence between "insane" and "legally insane." It differs by jurisdiction, but is centered around being able to distinguish between right/wrong and understanding the consequences of actions.

There is NO justice in the system. It should rightly be called the "Legal System." The only justice you are likely to see in this world is what you can assure for yourself, your family, others with whom you personally interact.

"I'm a bit appalled that a judge has suggested that all this person's rights to confidentiality go out the window and that the state can drug him against his will."

His right to confidentiality regarding the mental health issue is intact if he chooses to withdraw the affirmative defense of insanity. Once that affirmative defense was put forward, he has the burden to prove it and rules of evidence require discovery. He cannot rely on it himself and simultaneously bar it for opposing counsel, thereby depriving them of the ability to test that evidence, which is the crux of his defense. For example, you cannot sue someone for injuries related to an auto accident and then refuse to provide related medical reports upon a discovery request, claiming confidentiality. Although doctor/patient privilege would normally apply to those medical records, when you based the suit upon those injuries, you must either provide the reports establishing those injuries or you have no law suit.

As for drugging him, it has been held that an insane person cannot be medicated against their will to be sane for execution. However, certain medications will render him sufficiently lucid so that the appropriate psychiatric exams can be performed to determine sanity, and thereby determine if his affirmative defense is valid. If he chooses to forgo that affirmative defense, then he won't be drugged for the exams related to that defense.

Ro Mar- Thank you. Legal field,Holiday Inn Express, or other?!

I'm no lawyer. Not a doctor. Not a jurist. Just someone expressing an opinion. My read was that this person was going to have to forego every shred of confidentiality toward prior medical records. You put forth a reasonable supposition that, provided the records are limited to only those with provable relevance come into play, sounds more reasonable.

As to being administered what is likely a pyschotropic drug, nope, not buying that one. That one makes me remember movies like Cuckoo's Nest.

What bothers me is the number of people so ready to vilify, convict (in a court of public opinion) and suggest far worse fates for people based simply upon short reports in news stories whose bias may (or may not) be questionable.

I suppose "rational" people would all like to believe that the acts this man committed were those of someone who was insane. But, as another poster put it: there is a difference between insane and criminally insane. Our justice system is surely not perfect. But, IMHO it does seem to be among the best in the world today.

I prefer to beat what I want to know out of him, this is an animal nothing more nothing less and should be treated as such.

Yeah, I don't know how the judge can say with a straight face: This guy is so mentally off that we have to medicate him just to interview him.

It doesn't make sense at any level. If you want to find out how mentally ill someone is, you'd take them off all medication. And those must be some serious drugs they're talking about because anti-depressants and ADHD drugs sure aren't going to be enough.

That depends on who you ask the THE PEOPLE or the Gov't. Cause the People of course would go with hope... The gov't however would much rather MILK MORE MONEY OUT OF US AND USE a case like THIS TO CONTINUE TO STRIP AWAY OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, you know take our guns etc... Soon to be happening everyone lets get on the ball here stop wasting our time trolling for posts like these and do something about it...

So your morality is based on what is cheapest? That's sick in its own right. Cause if it is all about being cheapest, all obese people, smokers, and drinkers should be killed immediately -- it would save me a lot of money! Other people's addictions, lack of self control, and selfishness cost me money all the time, but I don't mind even though society will never pay me back for the millions in taxes I've paid. It is just the human condition, most people are pathetic so it is up to us strong and successful people to take care of them. If you're not willing to take care of weak people, you're part of the rot eating away at our society.

They won't. Doesn't fit the agenda and *gasp* it's the truth.

Nuts only look like that AFTER the massacre. Can you say attorney training?