You are correct it is my belief that he killed him kids to get back at his wife. I do not care why he killed himself. That is sad....but I believe that when he took that knife and drove it into his children he was not doing out of self pity he did so out of anger towards his wife. That is what I believe.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I absolutely agree with you that this scenario looks pointed toward an act of overwhelming anger and planned vengeance. For that, I think this guy is absolutely responsible for what he did. At the same time, though, I don't know that I'd consider him altogether mentally well. Certainly lots of men endure similar things -- even worse -- and they deal with it in a less dysfunctional way. I suspect something was going on other that just anger.

We strike a weird dichotomy with regard to mental health: On the one hand, many of us (not saying any particular orgers) seem ready to absolve an ill individual of all responsibility; on the other, many of us seem to think we exist, think and act out somehow above the complicity, even forcing, of a hostile environment.

There's gotta be some middle ground, I think.

Graycap23 said:

It's at least the 10th time in SoCal in the past 18 months.
And yes, it goes on around the globe.

Neophyte said:

But not murderer?

Vendetta1 said:

Do you think mental health care would have saved his marriage? Would have made him use it before plotting to kill his children? Why?

He didn't want help . . . It wasn't a cry for help.
It was for vengeance. Just the way we as a society expect the law to treat people we dislike or choose to hate.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Co-sign

Vendetta1 said:

Because you don't know, you attribute it to mental illness?

SUPRMAN said:

God you are tiring.

Sane people kill themselves and their kids.

Lammastide said:

Anger would have been more than enough. He wouldn't have needed any other trigger. Don't discount anger in human interaction. A lot of dead people because someone simply became angry.

Forcing(?) of a hostile environment? Adaptation is how it's usually handled by living things. Wherever they are.
There are obviously states of mental disfunction where we can't/don't hold the individual responsible for their actions and/or conduct. This is not one of those situations. It was premeditated, planned and executed (obviously no pun intended) according to that preconceived planned.
So legally, morally and ethically he is not suffering from mental illness.
What we don't want to believe is that these acts are committed by people would judge as sane if we were to meet them.
Mental illness makes them easily different, not like the rest of us and people we know.
[Edited 9/19/09 13:46pm]

Vendetta1 said:

But it isn't either or? or is it?
'Sane' people do. You want to call them mentally ill based on their conduct. That does not make a person 'mentally ill,' as in suffering from a mental affliction.

I think it's an incorrect usage of the term for what you may be trying to convey.

Vendetta1 said:

Powerful are anger and hate! [/yoda talk]

SUPRMAN said:

I think I used the term in the way I saw fit but thanks anyway.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

And I see nothing alluding to him being angry and hateful in that article. While I can never excuse what he did, he seems like a person who snapped after he lost everything.

Vendetta1 said:

And I did not see anything about any psychological evaluations in the article.


Just speculation on the part of the writer and a cop.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

So one needs a psych eval to think someone is mentally ill if they kill someone? gotcha.

It's an opinion. Yours is no more valid than mine.

Vendetta1 I am not really trying to argue with you.

All I am saying is i believe the man acted out of anger. He wanted to punish his Ex and one of the best way to punish a loving parent of young children is to take them away from them.

Vendetta1 said:

Are you arguing that anyone who commits a homicide is mentally ill?

What about the military where you train to kill-the more the merrier?
[Edited 9/19/09 18:33pm]

what an asshole!

the only good part is that he killed himself!

RIP innocent children

BklynBabe said:

I would have rather he lived another 45 years in prison. Give him time to livew with what he did.

SUPRMAN said:

Interesting points.

I'm neither a lawyer nor a law student, so I won't attempt to lay an argument as to this guy's legal sanity (or lack thereof). But I gotta say, if premeditation and successful execution of a plan are the only -- or even the primary -- measures by which someone's healthy mental functioning are assessed in the courts, we've definitely gotta get the black robes out of white coat territory. I personally know some very clinically ill individuals who could plan something years in advance in genius detail... and pull it off without a hitch... and it'd be the most objectively irrational, pathological, even evil, stuff you could imagine.

And I agree: Most living things can and do adapt (within reasonable capacity) to hostile environments. Most living things arguably also hold self-preservation and/or protection of their genetic line as a top priority, even if merely by instinct. The fact a person like this embodied the exact opposite of all of these things -- violently and calculatedly so -- suggests to me at least the possibility something less-than-healthy was going on.

All that said, despite the fact I think a case could be made -- clinically, if not legally -- for this guy's lacking mental function in the moment, I do still think there's reason to hold him accountable for what he did: Not so much the killings per se, but the modes of killing in this particular case... and the fact he left the door unlocked... suggest a rather lucid malice and cool-headed, pointed plot to traumatize his wife... forever. That's not indicative of illness to me; that's just straight-up anger and hatred, the likes of which we "normal" folk are dangerously subject, as you suggest, and things for which we should be held fully accountable.
[Edited 9/20/09 7:47am]

Graycap23 said:

TWO WORDS: Chris. Benoit.

Lammastide said:

I disagree that the case could be made that this guy was "lacking mental function in the moment."
That would be insanity or mental incapacity due to emotional shock, trauma etc.

He acted with deliberate intent not only to kill but he planned the aftermath. His wife finding him and the children. That required considering the impact of your actions. That's not insanity or mental incapacitation.

Less than healthy, agreed, but that does not rise to insanity.
If you contend that the instinct for survival is so strong, you are also suggesting that anyone who commits suicide is mentally ill.
I don't know anyone who would say that. Suicide is rarely impulsive.
Mass killings are rarely impulsive.
Acting contrary to expected norms does not make one mentally ill.

SUPRMAN said:

It seems we are more in agreement than disagreement around the fact that an ability to weigh impact on others -- and yet go forth in a hurtful course of action -- undercuts an argument of mental incapacitation. (Or rather more specifically, I'm not saying such an ability precludes the possibility of illness, but I do agree that such a capacity at least obliges the person to take responsibility for his/her actions.)

But premeditation overall? I dunno, bruh. Again, I know very ill individuals who could conceive an intricate plan over a long term and carry it out masterfully -- and it'd be absolutely bonkers. Moreover, some of those designs could be attributed to emotional shock or trauma, neither of which necessarily manifests immediately or in impulsive, fleeting violent episodes. Those people would more than meet the clinical requirements of mental illness, but it seems they may not satisfy the expectations of legal insanity. Toward a better (or at least a more informed) administration of justice, perhaps work needs to be done across fields in this area.



Oh, I know plenty of people who'd argue all suicidal people, much less those who'd kill their own young, are mentally ill. Mind you, I disagree with such absolutist claims, but we do know it's fairly common that certain psychological disorders can facilitate suicide or homicide -- even very well planned ones.

All I'm saying is that it's possible this guy was sick -- criminally responsible for what he did, but legitimately sick nonetheless.
[Edited 9/21/09 18:00pm]

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Exactly, and add control to that.

Monster.

Lammastide said:[quote]

SUPRMAN said:

I have to agree it's possible, because I nor anyone else can show or prove otherwise but I disagree that he was sick.
He was 'sick' only in the sense that he engaged in aberrant behavior in violation of known social mores and values.
That's not clinical illness.
People choose to violate known social mores and values all the time. Running red lights, jay walking, eating grapes while grocery shopping . . . etc.
But because we consider these infractions 'minor,' they aren't labeled 'sick.'

I also feel that labelling him 'sick,' gives him an out for being fully culpable and capable of his horrendous acts.