Charleston Church

[Teo9969]

It was an intentionally ridiculous statement to counter act the point that any mass murder must include mental illness.

I don't think we can equate mass shootings to mass murder. When we say mass murder we're talking about obscene numbers of victims and whole groups of people with a large variety of interests doing something that is horrific on a scale completely different from someone shooting up a public space.

And furthermore, nobody in this thread has come remotely close to saying "These people with mental illnesses *who have already gone on a killing spree* should be coddled and instantly forgiven with no repercussions for their actions". And nobody in this thread is saying that this dude was trying to advance the plight of black people with these shootings. Everyone clearly knows bigotry was part of the equation. But for some reason we're trying to arbitrarily remove the mental illness out of the equation. To what end I'm not at all sure. Surely it's not because we want this to be the cross for the discussion of racism in the United States to die on.

[jccouger]

Killing him now in vengeance won't bring anyone back, or keep anyone else alive. Shouldn't we wait to, you know, collect evidence before rushing to execute the person you think did it?

Yeah, but killing him could prevent future people from deciding to mass murder innocents and then claim insanity later on knowing they could get away with it.

[Jersey Boss]

This is about as silly as Jersey Boss' example about the person having a seizure and killing a family in a car accident.

Can we get examples that are a bit more germane to the discussion.

Teo, you missed the fine point I was making. If it is shown that a person is mentally ill to the point of being delusional they should not be held to the same standard of accountability when passing punishment. That does not mean they should "walk", but it means they should not necessarily be put to death. I don't believe in a universal eye for an eye mentality, but basing a punishment based on more than the offense. Our criminal justice system does not mandate any one punishment only for murder.

[Teo9969]

Yeah, but killing him could prevent future people from deciding to mass murder innocents and then claim insanity later on knowing they could get away with it.

Have there been examples of these types of murderers claiming insanity and subsequently "getting away with it"?

[jccouger]

Its offensive to victims, the victims families & real mentally ill people who can actually keep their **** together when a murderer gets away with it because they were "insane".

[Teo9969]

Teo, you missed the fine point I was making. If it is shown that a person is mentally ill to the point of being delusional they should not be held to the same standard of accountability when passing punishment. That does not mean they should "walk", but it means they should not necessarily be put to death. I don't believe in a universal eye for an eye mentality, but basing a punishment based on more than the offense. Our criminal justice system does not mandate any one punishment only for murder.

I don't disagree with you, but you used an example of someone who had absolutely zero control over their body taking lives and compared it to someone who with at least some amount of will/intent went into a church and took the lives of 9 people.

It did not make the point you wanted it to make. The seizure example would be an extreme case of negligent manslaughter.

[Teo9969]

Its offensive to victims, the victims families & real mentally ill people who can actually keep their **** together when a murderer gets away with it because they were "insane".

The next example you provide of a murderer on this scale "getting away with it because they are 'insane'" will be the first example you provide.

[zookeeper]

Its offensive to victims, the victims families & real mentally ill people who can actually keep their **** together when a murderer gets away with it because they were "insane".

I can appreciate the emotion of your statement. However, what science is learning about the brain leads to questions of "free will." I'm not saying this guy necessarily. He is obviously a mass murderer who should never be allowed to ever be in a situation to do this again. But to say that most people can keep their "&^%&" together doesn't equate to everyone can. The brain isn't wired that way. But again, we need to wait and hear what all was going on, but I truly do understand your emotional sentiment. I really do.

[jccouger]

Ok, if there aren't any examples on this scale then why would anybody in this thread even bring up mental illness? If anybody who has ever committed a crime this large never been clinically proven insane, then why would we start making that assumption now?

You are making my point for me. Anybody that is capable of a mass murder of this proportion should not even have a chance of wiggling out of anything due to his/her mental state.

[zookeeper]

The Charles Whitman case (UT Tower shootings) is one that many point to because it's tangible. Meaning, there was an actual tumor in his brain (something physical as opposed to chemistry) that was effecting the part of the brain that suppresses rage and anger.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

Charles Whitman: The Amygdala & Mass Murder
Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D.

[Teo9969]

Ok, if there aren't any examples on this scale then why would anybody in this thread even bring up mental illness? If anybody who has ever committed a crime this large never been clinically proven insane, then why would we start making that assumption now?

You are making my point for me. Anybody that is capable of a mass murder of this proportion should not even have a chance of wiggling out of anything due to his/her mental state.

Okay, well now that you've moved the goal posts from mental illness to clinically insane we'll move forward:

I'll let you provide an example with your own parsing of someone in this thread saying that someone should have an opportunity of wiggling out of culpability for murder because they are clinically insane…

[Dustin]

Thinking about killing someone and killing someone are completely different things. Thinking about killing someone is an intrusive thought and we all get these thoughts.

Some people have severe intrusive thoughts which they can carry out, which I believe happened here. I'm not a psychiatrist, but I think this could've been stopped if the gunman sought help about his thoughts and was prescribed medication. But that obviously happens very rarely in these situations.

[dankrutka]

It's too early for me to say on this guy. This just happened today. I haven't even read any articles about it yet -- just seen the headlines. I suspect we'll know more about it as time goes by. It seems clear that there is some combination of mental illness and extreme racism.

I have no problem calling a black gang member who shoots someone during the commission of a crime a "thug". I also have no problem calling a crazy white guy who shoots a bunch of people like this a "psycho". The race of the killer doesn't even matter.

This article explains what I was trying to say earlier. Race does matter in many ways, especially in the ways we talk about these issues because our discussions will determine what we do next: Shooters of color are called ?terrorists? and ?thugs.? Why are white shooters called ?mentally ill?? - The Washington Post

The media and public do not treat black and white perpetrators or victims the same.

[zookeeper]

This article explains what I was trying to say earlier. Race does matter in many ways, especially in the ways we talk about these issues because our discussions will determine what we do next: Shooters of color are called ?terrorists? and ?thugs.? Why are white shooters called ?mentally ill?? - The Washington Post

The media and public do not treat black and white perpetrators or victims the same.

I'm not so sure. Remember the ex-LA cop who was on the run after killing an officer? Finally they caught him holed up in a cabin and burned it down? There was a lot of discussion about mental health with that case. Race was clearly involved here, I don't see that can be denied, but to go as far as some do and want to take one case and decide the media always handles things differently with different races. I don't buy that. That's all politics from the viewpoint of the whole "white privilege" theory. Which, I know you believe Dan, and I respect that. I just disagree and think there is an "upper class privilege" as so many poor whites are treated just like blacks - but are forgotten because they don't fit the foundation of the theory.

[Teo9969]

This article explains what I was trying to say earlier. Race does matter in many ways, especially in the ways we talk about these issues because our discussions will determine what we do next: Shooters of color are called ?terrorists? and ?thugs.? Why are white shooters called ?mentally ill?? - The Washington Post

The media and public do not treat black and white perpetrators or victims the same.

That article finishes with this statement:

I hope the media coverage won’t fall back on the typical narrative ascribed to white male shooters: a lone, disturbed or mentally ill young man failed by society. This is not an act of just “one hateful person.” It is a manifestation of the racial hatred and white supremacy that continues to pervade our society, 50 years after the Birmingham church bombing galvanized the Civil Rights Movement. It should be covered as such. And now that authorities have found their suspect, we should be calling him what he is: a terrorist.

The problem is more often than not when these sort of mass shootings happen, they are not concentrated on a specific, consistent aspect. It's hard to see a hot-topic motive behind Sandy Hook or Columbine. We're trying to find common ground to fix this issue and it certainly can't be wrapped up in misogyny (Elliot Roger) or racism (Dylan Roof).

Shooters of color when tied to Islam are called terrorists because the term evokes the same feeling that we have about the jihadists of 9/11. McVeigh was called a terrorist, but somewhere along the line, terrorist became synonymous with jihadist.

Thugs are called thugs when they're involved with gangs, and a notable percentage of gun-related deaths that occur at the hands of a black person are gang related. Furthermore, to be fair, it's a term that the black community co-opted via hip hop culture sometime in the last 25 years, so that makes the situation a bit more complex.

None of that means we should uphold these terms in media coverage, but these issues of rhetoric are not as simple as "Our coverage is racist". I mean, of course race play a part and of course there are racists currents running throughout, because a racist current runs throughout America.

I guess we could go about calling these white assailants "White Trash". We didn't call Seung-Hui Cho a Kamikaze just because he's Asian.

Mental illness gets brought up when the victim count passes 5 or 6 because it starts getting harder for us to grapple with the number.

And again, I'm trying to recall a mass shooting involving a black perpetrator and I just can't.

[hoya]

This article explains what I was trying to say earlier. Race does matter in many ways, especially in the ways we talk about these issues because our discussions will determine what we do next: Shooters of color are called ?terrorists? and ?thugs.? Why are white shooters called ?mentally ill?? - The Washington Post

The media and public do not treat black and white perpetrators or victims the same.

Well, I think the types of crimes they are focusing on are different. As I said, if a person with a criminal record shoots another person during the commission of a crime, they're a "thug". If a person with no criminal history murders 10 people in a shooting spree that is unrelated to any sort of rational motivation, they're "crazy".

[hoya]

Ok, if there aren't any examples on this scale then why would anybody in this thread even bring up mental illness? If anybody who has ever committed a crime this large never been clinically proven insane, then why would we start making that assumption now?

You are making my point for me. Anybody that is capable of a mass murder of this proportion should not even have a chance of wiggling out of anything due to his/her mental state.

Well, you're throwing around a bunch of different terms, each of which has a specific meaning. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on mental health issues, but there's a difference between someone who has mild mental health issues and someone who is legally incompetent.

Suppose I suffer from severe schizophrenia. I'm sitting in the park, muttering to myself, and shouting out angry nonsense at people who walk by. In my brain, I may 100% believe that I'm living out Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and all those people are aliens who are infiltrating the Earth. Chemically, the wrong parts of my brain are firing. I cannot distinguish fantasy from reality. The cognitive portions of my brain that allow me to think clearly and rationally have malfunctioned. In this sense I am very much like the person who is having a seizure -- my actions are completely out of my control because I am no longer interacting with real life. The things I am seeing are not there. If the Body Snatchers are all turning to attack me, and they start letting out this crazy alien howl, their eyes start glowing, and they charge at me, I'm justified in shooting them, right?

A person like that may be dangerous as all hell, but they aren't competent to stand trial. They are innocent of committing a crime because they were so crazy they didn't even know what they were doing. I don't think that is the situation here with this guy, but it does happen.

[dankrutka]

While we may not agree on everything, let me just say that I'm glad that the responses thus far have been thoughtful as discussions like these too quickly devolve into slogans and camps.

[bradh]

I came to this thread for the first time tonight expecting typical politics board rhetoric. Far from it, good discussions

[jerrywall]

All I'm saying is I'm horrified at what happened, and think its true evil, and jumping in to blaim mental illness with no evidence is insulting to folks, including myself, who have dealt with issues yet the only harm they present is to themselves, not others.

[kelroy55]

All I'm saying is I'm horrified at what happened, and think its true evil, and jumping in to blaim mental illness with no evidence is insulting to folks, including myself, who have dealt with issues yet the only harm they present is to themselves, not others.

Some good points made so far and again the main thing I wanted to do in this thread is offer my condolences, thoughts and prayers to the people killed, their families and the members of the Emanuel AME Church. Lets hope we can learn from this event but judging what we learned from past events like this I'm doubting it.

Jon Stewart hit it on the head
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/kb...hurch-shooting

[jccouger]

What an amazing group of people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e26Eysq22Yg

[Dubya61]

... I'm trying to recall a mass shooting involving a black perpetrator and I just can't.

Does the Beltway Sniper count as a mass shooting incident? I believe he was black and (I'm not discounting Dan's comments at all) that dude was whacko! I don't recall him being a thug or terrorist in the definition of a terrorist being someone who is trying to effect political ends (my own whacko definition, I think).

[dankrutka]

What an amazing group of people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e26Eysq22Yg

This really is one of the more amazing things I've watched recently. The resilience and forgiveness of the families is almost beyond belief.

[Jim Kyle]

Shouldn't we wait to, you know, collect evidence before rushing to execute the person you think did it?

Isn't his proud confession enough evidence for you? Or was that just a sneaky way to establish that any trial would be tainted by lack of counsel?