Using Truth Serum To Confirm Insanity 308
xclr8r writes "James Holmes representation did not enter a plea today in with regards to the Aurora, Co. Movie theater shooting so the Judge entered a plea of not guilty for James that could be changed at a later date by Holmes' attorney. The judge entered an advisory that if the plea was changed to Not Guilty by insanity that Holmes would be subject to a 'narcoanalytic interview' with the possibility of medically appropriate substances could be used e.g. so called truth serums. Holmes defense looks to have initially objected to this but as the previous article seems to infer that some compromises are being worked out. This certainly raises legal questions on how this is being played out 5th, 14th amendments. The legal expert in the second article states this is legal under Co. law but admits there's not a huge amount of cases regarding this. I was only able to find Harper v State where a defendant willingly underwent truth serum and wanted to submit the interview on his behalf but was rejected due to the judge not recognizing sufficient scientific basis to admit the evidence."
Good luck for Holmes (Score:5, Funny)
If he's willing to submit to drug-enhanced interrogation, he's certified crazy!
Re:Good luck for Holmes (Score:5, Funny)
There's somebody called Yossarian on the phone, I think he wants to talk to you ...
Re: (Score:3)
*Shrug*
Probably, because if he were sane, he would be likely to fail, and it'd be useless.
I don't see how saying "take the test or that plea won't be acceptable" violates the 5th or 14th though. The right to not incriminate yourself, or the right to liberty (except when denied by due process) is not violated by such an option. The mispercieved "right to be believed in what you say" and possible "get away with it" are violated, but we aren't given those rights. All this is, is an attempt by the court, to est
Re:Good luck for Holmes (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess my biggest complaint would be: How good is truth serum at verifying the type of insanity claimed, and what qualification does the judge have to diagnose the suspect's mental condition? The human brain and psychoactive drugs are a horribly complex nest of interconnected issues, and even trained professionals can't always predict the effect they'll have on abnormal brains or in abnormal combinations
For example:
Let's say he really is insane, but the truth serum they use temporarily stabilizes him by suppressing an overactive region in his brain. Now during the test he'll be perfectly sane and normal, but as soon as the drug wears off he goes back to crazytown.
Re: (Score:3)
Well then it's a good thing the judge would not be administering the test itself!
(I hope he wouldn't be)
Re: (Score:2)
The serum is to verify EVENTS not sanity. Once he declares "insane" he goes to being a ward of the state and he cannot be CONVICTED of crimes.
As a ward of the state he can be physically compelled to give evidence or have test done to ensure truthiness. That evidence WILL be used to show he methodically planned and hid his actions... So it will keep him locked up ... Forever. But that's not CRIMINAL evidence, that is phychiatric evidence used for the CIVIL determination he is unsafe.
Also, this wil allow th
Re:Good luck for Holmes (Score:5, Informative)
Truth serum does not fucking work, period, at all. This has been known for many decades now. If it worked, we would've been using it against Bad Guys in Secret Prisons, and we're not. We're not because it doesn't fucking work and everyone knows that.
Except apparently the people in this court room.
Re: (Score:3)
Truth serum does not fucking work, period, at all. This has been known for many decades now. If it worked, we would've been using it against Bad Guys in Secret Prisons, and we're not.
Torture also does not work (well, not for the purposes of getting reliable information ) and that has been known for a while too. Didn't stop our administration(s) from using it.
Scopolamine (Score:4, Informative)
Truth serum does not fucking work, period, at all. This has been known for many decades now. If it worked, we would've been using it against Bad Guys in Secret Prisons, and we're not. We're not because it doesn't fucking work and everyone knows that.
Except apparently the people in this court room.
Actually, there is one compound that might be considered effective as a "truth serum", and that's scopolamine. Read up on the way it has been used by criminals, for instance this link:
http://digitaljournal.com/article/324779 [digitaljournal.com] or this one: http://rense.com/general38/frug.htm [rense.com] or just google it.
I have personal experience with this drug, having been involuntarily dosed with it once, and it's effects were scary indeed, in a way no other substance has ever come close to matching. Essentially it wipes out your short-term memory completely, and I do mean completely. You start to say something but by the end of the sentence you literally can't remember what it was you were trying to say. You have no idea where you are or how you got there, and you tend to believe whatever you're told if there's someone there to "helpfully" fill in the blanks. People empty their bank account to strangers, give up passwords and PIN numbers, it's crazy. The thing is, it's only short-term memory that's affected, everything else is still there. So I don't see any reason why you couldn't be questioned about past criminal behavior as easily as your financial secrets. Having experienced this stuff first hand, I have no doubt it could be used as a truth drug, given the right setting and an experienced interrogator. That said, I'm absolutely against the whole idea and believe this is a treacherous road for the legal system to be going down. Voluntarily or otherwise, chemical interrogation has no place in American courtrooms.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how saying "take the test or that plea won't be acceptable" violates the 5th or 14th though. The right to not incriminate yourself, or the right to liberty (except when denied by due process) is not violated by such an option.
It could be; what if they said "testify against yourself or else we will reject your not-guilty plea"?
Re: (Score:3)
2) because 'the other side' doesn't use overboard scare tactics?
Re: (Score:2)
GP didn't mention the other side. Anyway, in this topic there are many sides, and
(a) just because an extreme on one side does something inappropriate, doesn't justify the extreme on the other side doing the same
(b) There are moderates on both sides, who pull that bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
I was recently talking with a friend, he is a pot head who is dating a substance abuse councillor. We were giving him shit, not because we have any issue with pot heads, just that he lied to her about it and kept the extent of it from her. He went on about how hes changing that now, quiting etc,
It was pointed out that he started out with the lies to which he said "Well I couldn't exactly tell her that"... but the thing is...no he couldn't have told her that...if he wanted her to date him and sleep with him.
Re: (Score:3)
AC calmly explaining to Barsteward the notion of defending oneself, of refusing to roll over and letting someone else walk all over them, is not "threatening him with being shot". Actually, if anyone is doing the threatening, it's you and Barsteward, threatening to label us insane for
Precedent... (Score:5, Funny)
Bluebottle: "Little does he know that I'm as sane as the next man."
Eccles: "Little does HE know that I'm the next man!"
Re: (Score:3)
So nice to see a Goon Show quote on /.
Carry on...!
Re:Precedent... (Score:5, Funny)
"Oh, you can’t help that," said the Cat: "we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad."
"How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, or you wouldn’t have come here.”
Re: (Score:2)
Scientific basis (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It totally sounds like a trip to Di$ney world compared to having some guy drilling out the joints of my fingers.
... hehe
Tho between getting caught on the "it's a small world" ride for an hour and water boarding..
However, the advantage of "it's a small world" is that if the power goes out (to get you stuck for that hour), the music stops too... Btw, is there a "small world" in Eurodisney too, or is that one only in Florida?
evidence is there (Score:2, Insightful)
12 dead bodies. Plenty of witnesses. His home is full of weapons.
This fucker is guilty, but the defense is preempting very early to result in an insanity outcome. They're trying to shape the degree of guiltiness. It's extremely hard to get an insanity defense in the US, only because so many people have tried it.
The only testimony they want is to determine if he's genuinely insane or just pretending. Either way, he's going to be locked up in prison or in a mental institution and I bet he's hoping for the lat
Re: (Score:3)
The only testimony they want is to determine if he's genuinely insane or just pretending.
Just ask him whether he loves his mother. Either answer proves he's insane.
Re: (Score:3)
The only testimony they want is to determine if he's genuinely insane or just pretending. Either way, he's going to be locked up in prison or in a mental institution and I bet he's hoping for the latter in order to continue his "Joker" character fantasy.
The article notes: 'In an advisory that Holmes would have to sign if he enters an insanity plea, Sylvester didn't specify what type of drugs would be used but said the examination could include "medically appropriate" ones.'
Reports that a new, experimental aerosolized drug will be administered by court-appointed psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Crane remained uncomfirmed at this time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happened to I dunno, finding EVIDENCE?
For what? I don't think someone doubts that Holmes went into the cinema shooting people.
Re: (Score:2)
You think we should just convict him? No trial? No evidence?
I sort of like the idea of due process and AFAIK, it's still the law (at least on paper). The prosecution must gather and present evidence. The accused has the right to examine that evidence, to confront witnesses and to present evidence and witnesses of their own. Then, it is up to a judge and/or jury to address the question of "doubt".
Re: (Score:2)
No of course not. I just wanted to say that there probably is enough evidence on the side of prosecution, so I don't doubt that during the trial judge and jury will agree on the course of the events on that night. Eye witnesses, guns, shells, and wasn't he even arrested on site? So there is probably no need for finding EVEN MORE evidence.
The question here is his claim of being insane. It's his claim, so he should bring evidence for it.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about assessing guilt or innocence of the crime. That will of course be established by the use of evidence in a court of law.
This is about assessing the truth or falseness of the claim of insanity. Insanity itself is not a crime, and therefore the rules are not the same as for crimes. He will never be convicted (or get off for that matter) for insanity. It would only be used to decide what balance of punishment or treatment should be applied in the case of a guilty verdict.
Re: (Score:2)
Either way you are being forced to confess and give testimony against yourself. Whatever happened to I dunno, finding EVIDENCE?
Insanity comes into play only when the guilt of a defendant is no longer in doubt and the only question remaining is whether he should be held responsible for his actions. The burden of proof is on the defense ---- and there is not a whole lot you can do that is likely to be persuasive.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happened to I dunno, finding EVIDENCE?
Good question. Just tell us where to find evidence that he's insane...
Re: (Score:3)
He went into a crowded theatre and shot at 100+ unarmed people...,
Normal people don't do that every day?
Re:Scientific basis (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop redefining words. Torture is the use of pain and/or harm on another living being. Period. Making someone feel dopey to get information from them may be immoral, but it is absolutely not torture.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for saying what needed to be said. I'd have modded you up if I had points at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't a matter of trying to gather evidence to establish guilt. My understanding of the case is that there's no shortage of physical evidence and testimony to find him guilty. Any information gathered through this process would be used to determine if the defendant was legally culpable, not whether he actually committed the offense. The intent is to determine mens rea, and whether he was mentally capable of understanding what he was doing. That he committed the act is considered a given (and someth
Re: (Score:2)
They have him at the scene with a fired weapon arrested by the police. Guilty for one, guilty for them all... If there's anybody else to catch?
They don't NEED evidence except to justify 55 consecutive life sentences... So that he NEVER gets paroled.
Re: (Score:3)
it sounds like you intend to pull his fingers off .... gasp ... torturer
Re:Scientific basis (Score:5, Funny)
it sounds like you intend to pull his fingers off .... gasp ... torturer
Please, don't pull his finger.
Re: (Score:3)
At least some states still think that torture is so bad that they don't publicly admit to do it. But a state which runs around proudly proclaiming they use special interrogation technics while Friedrich Spee [wikipedia.org] 350 years ago already knew those technics provide no evidence but do nothing else than confirming the prejudices of the interrogator.
Re:Scientific basis (Score:5, Interesting)
This is crap. It's ineffective at best and profoundly evil at worst.
Re: (Score:2)
Questionable at best (Score:5, Interesting)
How can he be meaningfully represented by an attorney when he's too stoned out of his gourd on pentathal to be sure which disembodied voice is the lawyer and which is the interrogator?
Are they willing to grant blanket immunity to anything else he might confess? Given that the doses of pentathal used make the person compliant, how do they distinguish an inconvenient truth he might tell from a fabrication he tells because it seems like what the interrogator wants to hear? There's a reason it's not actually used anymore. Perhaps the judge takes TV much too seriously!
I'd claim it undermines my faith in the criminal justice system, but that ship sailed long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
The lawyer and the "interrogator" will agree on questions prior to the "interrogation", and no deviation from that would be allowed. Anything offered by the subject voluntarily would not be submissable.
Re: (Score:2)
The lawyer and the "interrogator" will agree on questions prior to the "interrogation", and no deviation from that would be allowed. Anything offered by the subject voluntarily would not be submissable.
If you stray off topic while under a "truth serum", is that "voluntarily offering" the information?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I see the voluntary part.
Re: (Score:2)
Once you declare "insanity" you are safe from prosecution.... BUT you're a permant ward of the State until they feel you are safe to release. As a "ward" you are treated like a child in that you cannot legally "lie" because you are handicap..., but that doesn't mean the court cannot order therapy to attempt to see through the psychosis.
I think this is a slightly veiled threat that if he chooses the "insanity" defense he is going to be treated like a dumb, violent animal... Forever. After the judge starts th
Re:Questionable at best (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe AC's point was that an interrogator can also lead the questioning. This is actually endemic in the U.S. justice system.
He obviously has to be insane (Score:3)
There's no possible positive outcome for him. And it shows utter lack of empathy. And it doesn't really achieve any goals. I mean, the 9/11 terrorists at least believed they would be getting heaven (with virgins on top), empathized with people back home, and achieved the goal of getting some kind of message out and terrorizing the US. He achieved nothing remotely close to any of that.
That's not to say he shouldn't be judged though. Killers are killers, all are some kind of insane.
Re:He obviously has to be insane (Score:4, Interesting)
> He obviously has to be insane
Legal insanity is a very narrowly defined state. There are all kinds of things the lay person would consider insane that don't automatically qualify as legal insanity.
I think that is the root of the problem with this case - definition of legal insanity is so technical that enough people in the legal profession in colorado have assumed that it is mechanical -- press a 'button' in his brain and get an aswer, same way every time.
If any actual psychiatric doctors have signed off for this plan, I would expect them to be far from mainstream in their field.
Re:He obviously has to be insane (Score:4, Informative)
> He obviously has to be insane
Legal insanity is a very narrowly defined state. There are all kinds of things the lay person would consider insane that don't automatically qualify as legal insanity.
Yep. Specifically, you need insanity that negates the intentional aspect of your act. As was explained to me by my criminal law professor, if your dog tells you to kill the mailman and you do, you're insane and believing in a talking dog, but you intended to commit murder. If, however, you go to offer your mailman a banana and it goes off and shoots him, you're insane and think a gun is a banana, but you never intended to commit murder.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not to say he shouldn't be judged though. Killers are killers, all are some kind of insane.
I was always thought that there was an interesting argument in Starship Troopers, when Dillinger is being hung (note that I am not necessarily advocating this, but I will admit that I support capital punishment):
If Dillinger had understood what he was doing (which seemed incredible) then he got what was coming to him. .. except that it seemed a shame that he hadn’t suffered as much as had little Barbara Anne — he practically hadn’t suffered at all.
But suppose, as seemed more likely, that he was so crazy that he had never been aware that he was doing anything wrong? What then?...
I couldn’t see but two possibilities. Either he couldn’t be made well in which case he was better dead for his own sake and for the safety of others—or he could be treated and made sane. In which case (it seemed to me) if he ever became sane enough for civilized society. .. and thought over what he had done while he was “sick”—what could be left for him but suicide? How could he live with himself?
And suppose he escaped before he was cured and did the same thing again? And maybe again? How do you explain that to bereaved parents? In view of his record?
I couldn’t see but one answer.
Re:He obviously has to be insane (Score:5, Interesting)
Heinlein makes an interesting point, though I don't like the suicide aspect. The reason we have plea-by-insanity is it's "inhumane" to punish people for being crazy.
Here's my thing: It's eugenics. It's all eugenics. Criminals? We jail criminals to keep them out of society, not to rehabilitate them. Hopefully they die in there without breeding. Murderers, we execute--remove from society, remove their social influence and hopefully they don't breed either. The insane? Why would we not execute an insane murderer? Do you want to treat him so he can be "normal" and make more genetically brain damaged little children who can murder more normal, sane people and then get treatment too, until they've slowly eroded our society and replaced it with a bunch of insane people?!
Justifiable homicides: Self defense, defense of others, severe coercion (someone is going to murder you/your family--yeah, sucks, we have all kinds of funny ideals about how you should go to the police, but what then? Your 10 year old daughter gets murdered by having her vagina pulled inside out slowly with fishhooks, while you're duct taped to a chair to watch... no, people fall to psychological pressure; go find the real criminal).
Unjustifiable homicides: Vengeance, thrill, insurance money (greed), etc.
I don't care if you're nuts. If you are prone to kill people, we need to get rid of you.
Re: (Score:2)
The virgins are on top? I'm converting right now!
Re: (Score:2)
Well there are some completely logical and sane reason to kill people, but no real logical reasons to go on shooting sprees unless he planned on and wanted to go to jail or commit suicide.
I think the legal definition of insane is: insane in a way that we understand well and in particular if we can easily treat it.
If he looks and acts obviously cookoo and no one would attribute logical thought to him, he is legally insane.
Also, if he can take this simple drug once a week and be a completely normal person, he
In English, please (Score:5, Insightful)
James Holmes representation
Sounds like the name of a law firm. I assume what was meant was "James Holmes's representation."
did not enter a plea today in with regards to the Aurora, Co. Movie theater shooting
Whut?
The judge entered an advisory that if the plea was changed to Not Guilty by insanity that Holmes would be subject to a 'narcoanalytic interview'
Too many "that"s.
with the possibility of medically appropriate substances could be used
Either "with the possibility that..." or "...being used."
Holmes defense
"Holmes's defense"
but as the previous article seems to infer that some compromises are being worked out.
This one's hard to parse. Is it "but as the previous article seems to infer, some compromises are being worked out."? Also, which "previous" article? I wouldn't be surprised if you've got "infer" and "imply" mixed up as well, but as I can't work out which article is being referred to, I can't check this.
This certainly raises legal questions on how this is being played out 5th, 14th amendments.
Err, yes, it does. Wait, what?
Slashdot. Unreadable news to annoy nerds.
Re:In English, please (Score:5, Funny)
Or at least with correct punctuation and grammar.
You must be new here. Pointing out that the editors are clueless idiots and then having them ignore any valid criticism is just a part of "charm" of the site.
Re: (Score:2)
Ohh. BTW it is "Holmes' " You drop the trailing s when following an s. I love it when the hypocrites whine about someone else's punctuation, but can't even manage their own.
Ahem:
NOTE: Although names ending in s or an s sound are not required to have the second s added in possessive form, it is preferred.
Examples:
Mr. Jones's golf clubs
Shut the fuck up.
[...]
So SHUT THE FUCK UP!
So these are, like, tags to enclose an argument?
Re: (Score:2)
Ohh. BTW It is "Holmes' "
Nope. The trailing apostrophe represents only the plural possessive. If you were talking about Mr. Holmes's family owning something, like "The Holmes' dog" that's correct usage. :-)
Precedent for use on law enforcement and govt? (Score:3, Insightful)
So the next time they find a body lodged underneath a house with 600 bullets in it, we can use this on the police officers involved? "Sorry guys, we were on patrol and found a kid who backtalked us. We chased him and shot him hundreds of times, then planted a weapon on his remains."
Or is this only for use on non-cops, non-government and non-ruling-class?
Severe Risks (Score:2)
One danger is that they may give him too much and he starts saying weird things about frogs...(Apologies to DNA)
Re: (Score:2)
Or he does a Hannibal Lecter and gives them a recipe for dip.
catch-22 (Score:2)
If they judge him insane, then he can claim that he was incapable of making the decision to allow the truth serum
If they judge him sane, then he can claim that any information gathered under truth serum is tainted; since he was already sane, the truth serum can only make him less sane.
Polygraqph + drugs for death row inmates (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a little off topic but I've had a somewhat relevant thought over the years: I think every death row inmate should be required to take a polygraph (with or without any drugs and blood tests you like) before they can be executed.
If the inmate passes the exam, there should be an automatic indefinite delay in execution, and the case should be re-opened. There are dozens of documented cases of wrongful executions, the people on death row usually (yes, I read "usually" somewhere) get public defenders who have been or will be disbarred, many are unable to help themselves intelligently, and some are intimidated into confessions. I'm not keen on execution to begin with, but if we're going to have it, a redundant test of guilt would be a very good thing.
Polygraphs are about as accurate at determining the truth as IQ tests are at determining intelligence. It is all very subjective and open to the interpretation of the polygrapher.
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite true that many people on death row are innocent; we've seen enough cases where later DNA evidence exonerated them. In many of these cases, the inmates even pleaded guilty, either because they believed that a guilty plea might help their case, they were coerced, or were mentally incapable of understanding the situation.
However, a polygraph is about as scientifically valid as a palm reading. They measure stress levels, which can be affected by existing mental illness, PTSD, fear, emotional stress
Re: (Score:2)
So you'd grant an indefinite delay in execution to all psychopaths, pathological liars and people who have been trained to cheat polygraphs?
"Truth serum" is a misnomer (Score:2)
There's actually no scientific reason to believe that so-called "truth serum" makes someone tell the truth. As suggested in the original article, what these drugs really do is lower inhibitions, which may, in some cases, cause a suspect to drop their guard and say things they otherwise wouldn't. Of course, you could just get them drunk and the results would be about the same, since alcohol also lowers inhibitions. As the ancients said – in vino, veritas.
Infer != imply. (Score:2)
Just sayin'.
This is bull (Score:3)
Why? Because once they lock you up for being insane, they treat you FAR worse than being a mere criminal prisoner. Also, (unlike Batman's world) it is generally much harder to get of the insane asylum than it is to get parole.
What criminals typically try to plead is 'temporary insanity', where you claim you were insane, but aren't anymore. But Judges and Juries typically only grant that when they think the victim deserved it - as in "When that drug dealer raped and killed my 12 year old daughter I went temporarily insane and shot him in the head 14 times. But I'm feeling much better now."
Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened (Score:4, Insightful)
Many people found Hitler to be quite charming in person.
You can't seem to look into any infamous crazy serial killer without comments from shocked neighbors and friends who talk about how normal he seemed.
Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't seem to look into any infamous crazy serial killer without comments from shocked neighbors and friends who talk about how normal he seemed.
I always wonder whether the culprit in some infamous deed was also shocked. Could it be that any of us "normal" types could find ourselves committing an outrage, even though we think we really are the nice quiet boy everyone thinks we are? Or do cold-blooded killers know they are such, and just keep it hidden for years?
Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened (Score:4, Funny)
"Eh, you never know what you're capable of. I never thought I could shoot down a German plane, but last year I proved myself wrong." - Abe J. Simpson
Re: (Score:2)
Could it be that any of us "normal" types could find ourselves committing an outrage
We live in an outrageous world. When you eat a banana, you are rewarding slavers. When you vote Democrat or Republican, you get the blood of their wars on your hands. Don't think that you are so different from the criminally insane. Your murderous actions are only more socially acceptable.
Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened (Score:4)
He had roomates (news said he didn't), there was at least one other person there dressed in all black holding weapons (news never mentioned this but eye-witness testimonials revealed that this is the case),
The eyewitness sees or thinks he has seen a second man armed and dressed "in black" in a darkened theater where every motion is in the shadows, colors are muted, all is confusion and his sight lines were restricted.
Initially, few in the audience considered the masked figure a threat. He appeared to be wearing a costume, like other audience members who had dressed up for the screening [of "The Dark Knight Rises."]
Some believed that the gunman was playing a prank, while others thought that he was part of a special effects installation set up for the film's premiere .
It is also alleged that the gunman threw two canisters emitting a gas or smoke, partially obscuring the audience members' vision, making their throats and skin itch, and causing eye irritation.
Witnesses said the multiplex's fire alarm system began sounding soon after the attack began and staff told people in theater 8 to evacuate One witness said that she was hesitant to leave because someone yelled that there was someone shooting in the lobby and that they shouldn't leave.
2012 Aurora shooting [wikipedia.org]
In Aurora, Holmes lived on Paris Street in a one-bedroom apartment, in a building with other students involved in health studies.
James Eagan Holmes [wikipedia.org]
Seventy wounded. Twelve fatally. Ten dead at the scene.
That implies ballistic evidence that would make it obvious almost immediately whether there was more than one gun man.
Re: (Score:3)
The grand total for the number of rounds fired, based on spent cases found on the scene, is:
12ga - 6 rounds
Certainly quite doable for a lone gunman.
And, indeed both .223 and 12ga would be likely to wound more than one person if shot into a crowd.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going to throw this one out to the conspiracy theorists and see what they can conjure up.
It wasn't a mass shooting, it was a mass suicide, caused by 3D printed open source models of Scientology's E-meter, which the cinemascopic theater was testing to enhance the audience's senses in a Dolby Hallucinogenic way, because movie cinema attendance is down, since folks are downloading films from the Kim Dot Com wearing William Shatner's hair Giga Dump Load site, which is hosted in North Korea by Kim Jong Un Dot Com and receives Hollywood movies implanted, smuggled and delivered by Dennis Rodman in th
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Insanity is a legal definition, not a medical one. Insanity is a defense that states that the defendant was not capable of understanding the gravity of the crime due to an acute mental illness. It is rarely successful, since only acute psychosis or a cognitive disability (very low IQ) could really make someone, even with a severe mental illness, not understand that what they were doing was a crime. Schizophrenia would apply, but personality disorders, which is what it appears that Holmes suffers from, do no
Re: (Score:2)
The judge is almost going to go for it... But he is making the EXPECTATION that as part of therapy, the court will expect DETAILED accounts of what happened... And there will be so much information gathered the shooter will NEVER be able to prove he "won't ever" do it again. Therefore stay locked up. If the state doesn't have the death penalty one place is as good as another.
What the Judge is promising is that these tests will be through so that in 5 or 10 years NOBODY feels sorry for this guy or can claim
Re: (Score:2)
Insane and it's various synonyms do not mean what you seem to think they mean.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I think each individual involved in the decision to pick wars with strangers the other end of the world has his own justifications (rationalizations), but the fundamental rational is major financial gain for those involved in the defense industry. For the average American (let alone the poor inhabitants of the countries chosen as battlefields) spending of about $700,000,000,000
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because Republicans would never murder a civilian or send someone to gitmo. And that's assuming the GP voted Democrat. AND that's assuming there is any difference between the two parties in the first place.
Anyhow, you got to vote so you got no grounds for complaining.
Bull. Fucking. Shit.
If you want to change the corrupt disaster that is the political landscape, you don't need to just vote, you need to get your ass out there and DO something about it. People claim "you got to vote, the other guy won, tough shit". More bullshit. If your guy lost, then you get you
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How about the fact that the two parties have worked together to create more and more hurdles for independent candidates and candidates from other parties to gain ballot access? What about the fact that no candidates other than Republicrats are allowed to participate in televised debates? How about the whole plurality voting system (as opposed to IRV or approval voting) which, probably more than anything, allows this power duopoly to persist?
A newly elected government took office in January. If this was b
Re:Think of it this way: (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a generally dysfunctional relation between the electorate and the government it chooses. And if there is no government to effectively rule, other, unelected people will fill in the void. There is only one way out of it: Stop the delight in seeing the government fail. Hold everyone elected responsible for everything that happens in the government and also for everything that doesn't happen. He was elected to do a job, and deliberately failing at it should never be a recommendation for another term. Never cheer for people running on a platform of governmental failings. They are hired by the electorate to do their task in government, and not for putting blame on someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just an allegation, come up with some proof next time.
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/1954.html
It has been demonstrated that touch-screen electronic voting machines are not secure and can be compromised. Further, there is strong evidence that they have been compromised.
Re: (Score:2)
Fact is that on most issues the public leans towards the Democratic position (nb: 'leans towards' does not mean 'agrees completely with'). The public supports legal abortion, tax increases with spending cuts, healthy food in schools, (very slightly) stronger gun control, has pretty much come around on
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware of all that. So Holmes wasn't just blazing mad with his guns in the theatre? I figured they would have picked him up based on some kind of witness testimony. Now I think I understand why some people are harping on and on about "two shooters". I simply dismissed it as confusion on behalf of the addled victims. But now it seems to be an important detail, especially considering this guy is actually in court on what sounds like dubious "evidence". And, yeah, the guy was super-drugged the first ti
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware of all that.
It's not mandatory to believe everything an A/C claims on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
The US government put it there, duh!
And I guess all the people who "died" in these attacks and their relatives are just actors and the bodies were props.
I didn't think there was an unexplored gap in the madness between moon landing denialism and Time Cube-like abstract crazy...but there is - the "gun control false flag" conspiracies.
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind the law, lets just stiff the guy, he's guilty as hell.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
OH NOES SOMEONE FUCKED UP THEIR GRAMMAR ON /.! Who cares?
Apparently several good slashdotizens with positive karma did.
We all know what he meant
I had to read the sentence and fragments three times.
It didn't parse on first read; I ran into a wall.
On second pass, I was too busy added missing words and reshuffling to worry about what he meant.
On third pass I made a decent guess.
If you don't think grammar matters, I have a contract for a bridge I would like to sell you...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's fairly natural. The point of most discussion in the USoA has nothing to do with what it says on the tin. The real issue is simply which side you're on, for on any one issue, there's only room for two sides in that big country yonder. Want more choice? Just add issues.
And why that? Why, to villify the other side, of course! What other point could there be?
So big ticket issues become trench warfare, where movement back and forth is guaranteed to be minute and always at gigantic cost. This is the modern
Re: (Score:3)
Seems to me the bastard didn't care much about the rights of anyone in the theater when when he kicked in the and started shooting people. Insane or not, public hanging ftw.
Doesn't matter, he still has rights. You take away his rights, you take away yours, too.
Re: (Score:2)
There was (probably, still is) a tribe in Africa that had a "magic needle" in the Justice God's dark hut. Difficult cases had the suspects introduced one at a time. When the guilty individual stepped in, the magic needle would jump to life and start attacking the suspect all over - until he confessed. Or, at least, that is what the locals and a few other outsiders claimed to have seen.
I guess this is meant to play on the guilt of the guilty party? They're brought up all their life to believe in the magic needle, they know they're guilty, they step into the hut while shitting bricks and start to feel phantom pin pricks all over, scream and run out...it would never work against psychopaths, pathological liars, or people who don't believe in the needle.