Stabbing in Brentwood-5 Dead, 1 Arrested

[puckluck2]

I don't think he had the murder weapon with him. A lot of people have speculated that he came with a box cutter and it was normal for a Safeway employee to take one home with him.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by rubecube

That's fine. Normal is an entirely subjective term so I'm not going to bother debating you on that. It's one thing to say that someone can't be "normal" and commit these acts and a completely different thing to suggest that only someone who is mentally ill could commit them.

I agree with this. However, you have to understand that in cases where the person has shown no pattern or history of violence for their entire life, suddenly starts killing people, it at least fair to think most likely they were mentally ill. Even briefly, and can go back to a "normal" state.

I am not saying this exact case is positively mental illness. Maybe the guy was evil. Really it is for the professionals to decide, and not the "Well I'm no expert but..." crowd.

I for one am interested in finding out why this happened. I have my guess (life pressure ratcheted up to the point his brain broke. Probably some trigger in there), but I may be as wrong as the folks who are just calling him a pathetic coward. We'll see I guess.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Can we stop with the "well only someone who was mentally ill could do something like this" crap that's been recurring in this thread? It's pretty damn insulting and degrading to the mentally ill.

That's kind of ridiculous. That's like an armoured car coming back to headquarters a little light on cash and someone saying "only a Loomis employee could have done this". I don't think Loomis drivers everywhere would get all up in arms about the statement.

Nobody said "mentally ill" and "mass murderer" are mutually inclusive.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm no psychologist but it's one thing to say flip out on a bus and randomly kill someone but to purposely go to a party with a knife and systematically kill five people of relevance to that individual tells me there was a level of consciousness and commitment to do something any human being would know was wrong. Maybe he wasn't in a good state of mind at the time but I can't believe he would have just blacked out and woke up to a nightmare. Not without being under the influence of heavy drugs or medication I just don't see how this could have been committed without a level of consciousness as it appears highly premeditated.

Is it possible for you to wait for information before drawing a conclusion?

Rah rah rah, this is my opinion, rah rah rah.

This sort of self-confidence must be nice.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by pylon

You are no longer a normal person once you murder five people, let alone one, regardless of the status of your mental health. Even if it was justified, and you were defending your family, you are no longer a normal everyday Joe. Anyone that can claim to have killed someone under any circumstance, is far outside the norm.

If there is one thing the 20th century taught us, it was how banal a murderer really is. And how little difference there is between 'them' and 'us'.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This sort of self-confidence must be nice.

I guess it depends on your perspective. I don't have low self-esteem so I can't speak for people like maybe you that don't understand what it's like to feel confident about yourself and your abilities.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by firebug

If there is one thing the 20th century taught us, it was how banal a murderer really is. And how little difference there is between 'them' and 'us'.

What a bunch of hogwash. Lets not pretend that mass murders or even murder is a crime that is committed by a large percentage of the human race. We are talking less than a percent which totally debunks there's little difference between 'them' and 'us'. It's about as large a difference as there can be as you have a better chance of catching an extremely rare disease than having the fortitude to commit murder.

[FlamesAddiction]

I think a simple murder when it is a crime of passion is something most people are capable of. People have different levels of provocation they can tolerate, but I think eventually, most people would give in.

Random acts of unprovoked murder are different though and would seem to me, to require abnormal thinking. I am obviously not a doctor, but when someone is incapable of thinking "normally" and lacking willpower to stop those thoughts from being actions, is that a form of mental illness? Such a person isn't straight up bonkers necessarily. They can still understand their crimes and the impacts, but for whatever reason the are addicted to the sensation and/or just so detached emotionally, they simply don't care.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I guess it depends on your perspective. I don't have low self-esteem so I can't speak for people like maybe you that don't understand what it's like to feel confident about yourself and your abilities.

Hahahaha.... I can't believe how much you missed his point.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm no psychologist but it's one thing to say flip out on a bus and randomly kill someone but to purposely go to a party with a knife and systematically kill five people of relevance to that individual tells me there was a level of consciousness and commitment to do something any human being would know was wrong. Maybe he wasn't in a good state of mind at the time but I can't believe he would have just blacked out and woke up to a nightmare. Not without being under the influence of heavy drugs or medication I just don't see how this could have been committed without a level of consciousness as it appears highly premeditated.

Being premeditated does not necessarily equate to being able to distinguish between right and wrong at that later time. And the "black out" (episode) can take place over a prolonged period of time.

e.g. From the fella that shot up the Quebec parliament.

According to psychiatrist Pierre Mailloux, who was assigned to the case, Lortie suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and had organized his crime during a psychotic episode, believing that he was acting on instructions given to him from God. Nevertheless, in 1985, Lortie was convicted of first-degree murder, but a new trial was ordered due to legal errors. Lortie pleaded guilty to reduced charges of second-degree murder in 1987. Lortie was paroled in December 1995. He now lives in Quebec and works in construction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Lortie


This fella has been working successfully, uneventfully in construction in Ottawa since release. I'm just saying that for awareness that, yes, people can have a one time psychotic episode but that does not necessarily mean they have to be institutionalized for the rest of their life. It's a tough call and one I suppose we have to have faith in the professionals to make.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Being premeditated does not necessarily equate to being able to distinguish between right and wrong at that later time. And the "black out" (episode) can take place over a prolonged period of time.

e.g. From the fella that shot up the Quebec parliament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Lortie


This fella has been working successfully, uneventfully in construction in Ottawa since release. I'm just saying that for awareness that, yes, people can have a one time psychotic episode but that does not necessarily mean they have to be institutionalized for the rest of their life. It's a tough call and one I suppose we have to have faith in the professionals to make.

Am I crazy in thinking this guy should still be in jail? Murdered 2 and changed the lives of 15 people and their familys in a very negative way and he spent only 8 years in the slammer.

I really could care less if someone is psychotic or not, rabid dogs are still rabid and have no place in society, neither should killers.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by T@T

Am I crazy in thinking this guy should still be in jail? Murdered 2 and changed the lives of 15 people and their familys in a very negative way and he spent only 8 years in the slammer.

I really could care less if someone is psychotic or not, rabid dogs are still rabid and have no place in society, neither should killers.

What's the point of jail if rehabilitation is not the goal?

A rabid dog is a rabid dog, a human being is able to learn, rehabilitate, and fix whatever "rabid" qualities they may have.

Killing is fully ingrained in society. Man acceptably kills animals (for sustenance and leisure), man also acceptably kills other men (in the name of "protection"), so what makes those men different than a murderer? A crossed wire. It's a fine line between right and wrong killing. The difference between man and dog, is that the line can be uncrossed.

Criminals deserve time in jail, but the crime and the factors that went into committing it should always be weighed. Never just say "he killed, throw him away forever" because you're not learning anything, you're not helping anyone. Him spending his life in jail doesn't bring anyone back, but if you can fix him, you've lost 2 lives instead of 3.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by peter12

I can think of maybe 3 people on CP that can be counted on for a reasonable opinion, and not give into the temptation to be a sentimental idiot.

Originally Posted by troutman

You can be mentally ill and fit to stand trial, at the same time.

Apparently you can be ill with ######itis and be fit to post on here, too.

[Flames89]

Originally Posted by strombad

What's the point of jail if rehabilitation is not the goal?

A rabid dog is a rabid dog, a human being is able to learn, rehabilitate, and fix whatever "rabid" qualities they may have.

Killing is fully ingrained in society. Man acceptably kills animals (for sustenance and leisure), man also acceptably kills other men (in the name of "protection"), so what makes those men different than a murderer? A crossed wire. It's a fine line between right and wrong killing. The difference between man and dog, is that the line can be uncrossed.

Criminals deserve time in jail, but the crime and the factors that went into committing it should always be weighed. Never just say "he killed, throw him away forever" because you're not learning anything, you're not helping anyone. Him spending his life in jail doesn't bring anyone back, but if you can fix him, you've lost 2 lives instead of 3.

Whether I agree with you or not, that was a well written response that opened my eyes to that side of the argument.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by strombad

What's the point of jail if rehabilitation is not the goal?

A rabid dog is a rabid dog, a human being is able to learn, rehabilitate, and fix whatever "rabid" qualities they may have.

Killing is fully ingrained in society. Man acceptably kills animals (for sustenance and leisure), man also acceptably kills other men (in the name of "protection"), so what makes those men different than a murderer? A crossed wire. It's a fine line between right and wrong killing. The difference between man and dog, is that the line can be uncrossed.

Criminals deserve time in jail, but the crime and the factors that went into committing it should always be weighed. Never just say "he killed, throw him away forever" because you're not learning anything, you're not helping anyone. Him spending his life in jail doesn't bring anyone back, but if you can fix him, you've lost 2 lives instead of 3.

I'm all for rehabilitation but 8 years for shooting 15 people (killing 2) is ridiculous. people get more for robbing a bank or even growing weed.

[1stLand]

Originally Posted by strombad

What's the point of jail if rehabilitation is not the goal?

A rabid dog is a rabid dog, a human being is able to learn, rehabilitate, and fix whatever "rabid" qualities they may have.

Killing is fully ingrained in society. Man acceptably kills animals (for sustenance and leisure), man also acceptably kills other men (in the name of "protection"), so what makes those men different than a murderer? A crossed wire. It's a fine line between right and wrong killing. The difference between man and dog, is that the line can be uncrossed.

Criminals deserve time in jail, but the crime and the factors that went into committing it should always be weighed. Never just say "he killed, throw him away forever" because you're not learning anything, you're not helping anyone. Him spending his life in jail doesn't bring anyone back, but if you can fix him, you've lost 2 lives instead of 3.

The reason for Jail is not rehabilitation you ignorant person

It's to serve as a deterrence to all those thinking of committing a crime.

If there are no serious repercussions to killing, I am sure more people would be murdered.

[Brannigans Law]

Originally Posted by 1stLand

The reason for Jail is not rehabilitation you ignorant person

It's to serve as a deterrence to all those thinking of committing a crime.

If there are no serious repercussions to killing, I am sure more people would be murdered.

Green text?

[jayswin]

Also, from Bagor's link; I think people need to understand this when they keep saying that if someone had any planning involved in murder that they must just be a normal person capable of killing and fully aware of what they did.

Lortie suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and had organized his crime during a psychotic episode

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by strombad

What's the point of jail if rehabilitation is not the goal?

A rabid dog is a rabid dog, a human being is able to learn, rehabilitate, and fix whatever "rabid" qualities they may have.

Killing is fully ingrained in society. Man acceptably kills animals (for sustenance and leisure), man also acceptably kills other men (in the name of "protection"), so what makes those men different than a murderer? A crossed wire. It's a fine line between right and wrong killing. The difference between man and dog, is that the line can be uncrossed.

Criminals deserve time in jail, but the crime and the factors that went into committing it should always be weighed. Never just say "he killed, throw him away forever" because you're not learning anything, you're not helping anyone. Him spending his life in jail doesn't bring anyone back, but if you can fix him, you've lost 2 lives instead of 3.

That line can't always be uncrossed. To suggest otherwise is very naive. Often, the difference between justified killing and murder is the sense of enjoyment that one derives from the act. For those who enjoy snuffing the life out of someone, I don't believe that there is any coming back, and while there are those who can feign remorse and appear contrite for their actions, consider that these are morally absent people who feel justified in senseless murder. Crafting a veneer that appears rehabilitated and "normal" is something that they excel at.

Now, I suppose you will suggest that experts are able to see through such a mask of sanity and weed out the unreformed, but understand that this is not always the case. In fact, if you were to look at the profile of every serial killer throughout the last 50 years, you would likely see that at some point in their early history, before they committed their murders, they were evaluated by these so called experts and deemed to no-longer be a threat.

Sometimes, the point of jail is to prevent the loss of 2 lives becoming significantly more. Sometimes, people are straight evil.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Ark2

In fact, if you were to look at the profile of every serial killer throughout the last 50 years, you would likely see that at some point in their early history, before they committed their murders, they were evaluated by these so called experts and deemed to no-longer be a threat.