Even without contemplating photographs of James Holmes – and keep in mind that the above picture was shot after the government forced the Aurora cinema killer to take psychiatric meds – the evidence is clear. James Holmes was nuttier than a Christmas fruitcake. Dangerously so. And plenty of people knew it. Wikipedia . . .

Holmes’ defense attorneys stated in a motion that he was a psychiatric patient of the medical director of Anschutz’s Student Mental Health Services prior to the Aurora shooting. The prosecutor disagreed with that claim. Four days after the release of the defense attorney’s motion, the judge required this information to be blacked out. CBS News later reported that Holmes met with at least three mental health professionals at the University of Colorado prior to the massacre.

One of Holmes’ psychiatrists suspected, prior to the shooting, that Holmes suffered from mental illness and could be dangerous. A month before the shooting, Dr. Lynne Fenton reported to the campus police that he had made homicidal statements. Two weeks prior to the shooting, Holmes sent a text message asking a graduate student if the student had heard of the disorder dysphoric mania, and warning the student to stay away from him “because I am bad news.”

None of this excuses Holmes’ murderous spree at the Cinemark cinema in Aurora, Colorado on July 20, 2012, when the grad school drop-out shot and killed 12 people and injured 70 others. But the information highlights the likely veracity of his insanity defense. And reveals the government’s zeal to paint him as a cold-blooded killer as something of a coverup.

I’m no legal eagle, but I reckon Holmes’ defense should take the offense. They should highlight the university’s prior knowledge of Holmes’ dangerous disconnect from reality. Lest we forget, Dr. Fenton – a member of the school’s “campus threat assessment team” – rejected a police offer to involuntarily confine Holmes for 72 hours. That was after she told them that he fantasized about killing “a lot of people.”

Obviously, James Holmes must be tried for his crime. But his eventual, inevitable punishment is not the key to preventing future attacks. There’s only one way to raise the odds of detecting and then intercepting future spree killers: examine and expose the personal and systematic failures to intervene in this horrific crime. No matter how embarrassing or painful the learning process may be.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

80 COMMENTS

  1. In order to learn that, they must first admit failure of the nanny state…..never gonna happen.

    • Yup. The first steps involve admitting the problem and wanting to change. Statists won’t take the first steps. But, statism presents a greater danger to lives than all of the mentally ill walking around right now. So, which problem, once properly handled, has potential to save more lives?

    • Yes to both ^ and ^^, however, I believe people need to look at the ‘big picture.’ This dude was (maybe) crazy, or just crazy on purpose, or on drugs, but that doesn’t relieve the people in the theater to be apprised of their situation. People are STILL GOING TO THE MOVIES, the back door can STILL BE OPENED BY WEAPON-WIELDING LUNATICS. it’s like 9/11, yes it was horrendous, but it demonstrates what a similar reliance on others for your safety might buy-you. Expecting that a “no guns” sign means you’re safe [safer] IS FOLLY.

      “Returning to the lesson of September 11th then, it is plain that reliance on the status quo
      (to placate the hijackers) was wrong long-before that day. The lesson is that the outcome for all
      involved is not different than it could have been during any other previous hijacking, OR ON
      ANY OTHER PREVIOUS FLIGHT.” [TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012, Pg. 44 ]

    • I use Malwarebytes antivirus and ad blocker and never get ads on this site. Instead of complaining, take action. Most of these antivirus and ad blocking programs have a free trial. Hard to sympathize with a situation that seems so easy to fix.

  3. I really want to say in my best nasal whiny voice, “it isn’t my fault he did that’ says every person that knew he was a wackjob. Which is true. None of them were willing to take responsible action either, which is their fault.

    I also want to point out that there are all kinds of slippery slopes on every side of this issue. Privacy being foremost in my mind. Where does my right for privacy end and societies safety begin? And who or whom is the arbiter of that decision?

    • If government stops infringing on the individual RKBA and states fix their self-defense laws, these issues would fade into statistical obscurity (they aren’t that common even now, IMHO). This doesn’t require more government, it requires less. We ought to never seek a government solution when greater Liberty would mitigate the concern. Governments are the last resort for any issue.

      • Oooo, very well said.

        Government’s track record at solving societal problems is abysmal. That really should be the last try when all else failed and there is pretty much nothing left to lose.

        And, maybe if other solutions existed for most things, gov’t would have more focus to be better at those things it is tasked to do.

        • The government’s probably is that they hire lazy, apathetic people who do the job for the paycheck, not to actually help their patients.

          Every one of these people should be charged as an accessory.

        • It seems that the trend among the government Psychs is to make sure their patients get every break possible. Even though those breaks could harm innocent people. That kind of thinking goes right along with the Leftist attitudes that nobody is really responsible for their actions. Difficult to change that kind of thinking but I think it can be done. But it will take a while and a lot of work to get many to come around to the idea that actions have consequences and the perpetrator is responsible for his or her actions. The opposite view has been saturating our society for a LONG time.

  4. As I see it. If there is a question as to a persons mental health and some are aware of it being a negative.
    Where do we as a society draw the line.
    Growing up I remember a state run hospital we used to call the loony bin.
    State run and full to the brim.
    It was emptied out during the 70s. Patients just tossed onto the streets.
    Then the homeless and window washers started to appear.
    Where do we as a society lock up those who display a possible issue??
    The Nanny state had taken over and these folks who should be locked up and treated for our own good as well as their own. No longer were.
    We are no better off for it.
    Id, and here a lot wont don’t agree.
    When do I loose my rights and a mentally imbalanced ones merge????
    Im sorry Id rather have some folks involuntarily locked up even if one innocent and sane person is. To protect the many.

    • Im sorry Id rather have some folks involuntarily locked up even if one innocent and sane person is. To protect the many.

      You should be sorry after that collectivist comment. 🙁

      • I’m not sure I could come up with a better definition of “slippery slope” than that. Who defines the level at which “the many” are “protected”, and what they need to be protected from?

        Actions can be punished, but a truly free society cannot imprison people for thoughts, no matter how abhorrent those thoughts may be.

        • I can and will define the level at which “the many” are protected – it’s not rocket science…

          The world is not a safe place and no amount of nanny statism is ever going to change that fact. “The many” will only be protected, to the extent they will ever be so, when the right to keep and bear arms is upheld and not infringed and each individual willing to accept that responsibility for himself and his neighbors and his community is ready and able to stand up before homodical nut jobs and stop them in their tracks. It may not be the perfect solution, but it is the only rational solution.

        • 51% can kill the 49% if they don’t agree. Just need to take a vote, the majority rules right? Gotta do the most good after all. Plus you could harvest all those organs too, along with a ton of stem cells. Quality of life would skyrocket for everyone (left alive after the purge.) Just do that every year and we will finally have Utopia! Humans are a renewable resource after all, and we seem to run a surplus every year anyways.

          /terrifying Progressive dystopian future

    • Ah yes. The collective good. Which, of course, our betters decide what that is, to the tune of over two hundred million men, women and children murdered in the last hundred years.

      It is easy to decide when someone needs to be locked up. When they initiate unprovoked violence upon an innocent individual; this, of course would depend on if this individual survived the attempt because in a free society, no one would be denied the ability to Keep And Bear Arms.

      Did you know that Red haired man passed by other movies theaters that allowed for Concealed Carry of personal weapons and picked the only theater in Aurora, CO that had a sign revoking that right?

      The mass murderer was crazy, not stupid.

    • The Nanny state had taken over and these folks who should be locked up and treated for our own good as well as their own. No longer were.

      I don’t think you realize what the nanny state really is.

      Id rather have some folks involuntarily locked up even if one innocent and sane person is. To protect the many.

      Because, the above IS the nanny state, my friend.

    • That is a VERY slippery slope. The Nazis and Stalinist Commies used this very idea to lock up many that did not agree with their politics and their methods.

    • “Growing up I remember a state run hospital we used to call the loony bin.”

      Jay, you are correct, most of my family worked in one of those looney bins where I grew up, and had for 40 years. A lot of your description of the things which happened when they were closed is correct as well. But your solutions are not, as we can’t go back, because their closure was due to a SCOTUS ruling that the involuntary confinement without trial and conviction was unconstitutional, which decision was exactly correct, and therefore will never be overturned, and no constitutional amendment will ever reverse it, either. The fact that reality now exists is not cause to wish for infringements on our rights to again imprison harmless innocents, it is cause to prepare yourself to defend yourself and your family, even if you have to do it while relaxing with your popcorn in the middle of the night in a theater which prohibits guns. Be prepared or don’t go. Prohibition should mean “If I don’t see yours, I won’t show you mine.”

  5. What a mess this is, man. Some will say we’re demonizing the mentally ill, others that the entire point of having “mandatory reporting” laws is to remove the *dangerously* mentally ill from situations in which they would hurt others. Naturally, I lean towards the latter, since it’s…you know. The truth. James Holmes should have been taken off the streets long before this happened. But the media using this as an excuse to push for more gun control while also demonizing the mentally ill is a double-edged sword of failure.

    Not every mentally ill person presents a danger to society. I would say that, in fact, *most* mentally ill people present no danger to society at all. It’s like with religious zealots; you only hear about the people who take it to an extreme. Nobody notices the people who aren’t a disturbance. But when someone of a particular group does something horrible, everyone’s quick to jump in and demonize anyone who shares, no matter to what degree, the most identifiable trait of the perpetrator. Painting with a wide brush like that does nothing to actually *inform* the public, and refusing to listen to the stories of people who are being unfairly lumped in with monsters like James Holmes helps nobody. It’s like when the antis paint all gun owners with the “ignorant, racist, homophobic redneck” brush. Not all gun owners are like that. In my experience, most definitely aren’t even close. I don’t fit a single one of their usual stereotypes, and I’d venture to say that a lot of you don’t, either. But they’re only listening to the people who are talking the loudest and making the biggest mess, so the rest of us get ignored.

    I’ve been in therapy, with the same therapist, since I was eight. Not all of us are murderous monsters on the brink of a spree killing. I’ve never been a danger to anyone, and if my shrink hasn’t developed the idea that I’m going to start killing people after having known me for basically my entire life, then either she’s terrible at her job, or not all the “crazies” are actually crazy. Some of us just need a little help.

    • Exactly….we can’t have it both ways…as this, and other recent mass murders illustrate, you either prevent people suspected of being dangerous to others from having the opportunity to possibly do harm, or you don’t and wait and see if they follow through or are ruled through due process to be a danger. Those are the only choices here. Yes, some innocents will get caught in the legal “net” and be placed on 72 hour “hold”, but less so then more, as, like the people it serves, no legal system is perfect. Or, we can decide a person is only dangerous after the fact, and innocents are gravely injured or dead. Rights are for those who do not use them to do harm to others – it’s the American way (or I should hope so).

      • Those innocents should have the right to defend themselves against any threat, including threats from people who are not guilty by reason of insanity. All your mental issues will be solved by one HP. But you cannot lock people up FOREVER because they *might* do something violent. If you choose not to defend yourself, don’t blame society, the fault is your own,

  6. Prisons have taken the place of mental hospitals. Now, Bill Clinton is talking about emptying those, for non-violent offenders.

    I wish I knew where to draw the line. We ALL want to be safe and we ALL want to be free.

    With regards to Holmes, I think he knew the difference between right and wrong. Does he have mental illness(es)? Yes. The legal definition of insanity, for this case, does not apply. He’s guilty. I think he should die for his crimes but that won’t happen.

    • I wish I knew where to draw the line. We ALL want to be safe and we ALL want to be free.

      Pick one because you can’t have both. The nasty little truth about real life is that you can never really be safe until you’re dead and then you are no longer free.

      Each individual (and a guardian for his charge) is responsible for his own safety. When we try to delegate that responsibility, we become less free but only marginally more safe. Evaluate your own risks and do what you calculate is prudent to mitigate as much risk as you want and can but take responsibility for your own safety. Liberty, risk, and responsibility are connected. We have a measure of risk and responsibility without Liberty but we cannot have Liberty without risk and responsibility. For the living, risk and responsibility will always remain regardless.

    • We ALL want to be safe and we ALL want to be free.
      Roosevelt’s five freedoms.
      Freedom of speech.
      Freedom of religion.
      Freedom from want.
      Freedom from fear.
      Freedom from freedom.

  7. For the money that’s been spent on this clown sense he was apprehended, trying to figure out what makes/made him tick. He should be dropped into an ISIS camp with an USA Flag patch, A Star of David medallion, and a F you see Kay Mohammed t-shirt. No wouldn’t want to do that to the flag.

  8. “Nutty as a fruitcake” isn’t a legal term. I’m not sure of the standard for legal insanity in Colorado, but most states follow what’s called the “M’Naghten Rule.”

    That rule specifies that a person is not legally insane unless he was unable to understand the nature and consequences of his actions or know that his actions were wrong.

    I don’t care if that orange-haired pr1ck spent most of his time drooling in a corner of his apartment. If he knew he was killing people and he knew right from wrong, he’s legally sane and deserves to be hung by his neck in a gas chamber and shot.

    • An example of this I read was a hypothetical where an individual who hosed down a crowd of people did so because he was suffering from delusions he was in fact killing an evil dragon. That, I believe, would qualify as insane under this rule.

      Just getting off on people bleeding to death? That’s not legally insane, but it’s depraved and I agree with Ralph on the penalty.

      • That, I believe, would qualify as insane under this rule.

        It would. Someone who thinks he’s doing one thing (wetting-down dragons with a hose) and is actually doing something else (shooting people with a rifle) would qualify as legally insane. That’s an extreme case, but it illustrates the point.

        • You should be able to detect the difference, by the fact somebody shooting dragons is going to miss the people in front of him, most all the time. If he killed and wounded dozens, he knew exactly what he was shooting at, particularly when he hit the same people repeatedly.

    • Not much to be gained by that now. It’ll only be revenge and not even a deterrent to others in similar conditions.

      • But at least we get him off our planet. Personally, I think we should have imitation Imperial Japanese concentration work camps for these types, such as in Unbroken. No, I really do not want to kill him, I just want him to be so miserable that he tries to kills himself.

        • Revenge on someone like this serves no rational purpose. Lock him up in a prison or a mental institution. Whichever is more appropriate depending on his trial. Then figure out if there is something we can do in the future to spot people like him and try to prevent a recurrence of this type of tragedy. I may be that there is not and if not, that is a good reason to be armed.

      • @actionphysicalman, there’s nothing wrong per se with legal revenge. It has its place in the criminal justice system.

        • I realize that I could be made to seek harsh revenge as well and don’t intend to criticize the folks in this case for wishing for it if they do.

  9. Because the complexities of any legal system tend to complicate crime prevention rather than ensure it, because we insist that a person must be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, because mental health and other professionals will get their asses sued off if they make a wrong diagnosis or take actions against an “innocent” person or suspect, the only solution to people like this and situations like this is the early and successful response from individual citizens ready and willing to protect themselves.

    The real crime here was the “Gun Free Zone” charade of the movie theater and the false sense of security it created, as has happened in so many other places where these sorts of shootings have taken place. Since the system is essentially impotent to deal with these individuals beforehand the only logical response is to deal with them harshly and immediately when they reveal their anti-social insanity. Shoot them. Shoot them again and again until they no longer pose a threat.

    The Founding Fathers new that each individual was his own “First Responder” and that the government could not protect them and should not be expected to, that is why they included, even demanded, the Second Amendment.

    You cannot support the 2A and in the same breath say the government should have the right to determine who may be a threat and deny them their Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment specifically says that the government is denied that authority. You must be willing to admit the world is a dangerous place and that insanity is impossible to predict and be ready to stop the insanity when it reveals itself, because giving the government the authority to attempt to stop it beforehand is itself insanity.

    • You cannot support the 2A and in the same breath say the government should have the right to determine who may be a threat and deny them their Second Amendment rights.

      Sure I can — but I insist on due process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard.

      I don’t want jackalopes like Holmes walking around with guns. Actually, I don’t want them walking around at all. So, I would be thrilled if the John Holmes’ of the world were stripped of their rights. I just don’t want some nameless, faceless bureaucrat doing the job.

      We take rights away from people all the time. We take away people’s liberty by imprisoning them. We take away people’s lives through the death sentence. But we insist that the job be done by courts, with all the elements of due process.

      • “I don’t want jackalopes like Holmes walking around with guns. Actually, I don’t want them walking around at all. So, I would be thrilled if the John Holmes’ of the world were stripped of their rights. I just don’t want some nameless, faceless bureaucrat doing the job.”

        The point is, John, who determines who is a “jackalope” and when? Who decides what the definition is and at what point a citizen crosses the threshold where the government through legislation and the prosecutors and bureaucrats can begin stripping away there rights?

        I have written on this before, and I know it is controversial, but even after all the legal requirements are completed the right to self defense still exists and people will find a way to exercise it, no matter how desperately the government agents attempt to deny it. Prisoners find, manufacture, smuggle, or steal anything they can if and when they believe they need a weapon for protection, even inside the most intensely protected of “Gun Free Zones”, a prison or jail. Ask any prison guard and he will tell you that criminals and the insane WILL get weapons, no matter how hard you try to prevent it and even after you have locked them in little rooms. All you accomplish is making it more difficult.

        There can never be any actual “Gun Free Zone” or “Crime Free Zone” or “Insanity Free Zone” and so there should never exist a place where the ability and willingness to defend oneself from these evils is denied. There is no “Department of Pre-Crime” that can protect you and giving the government the idea that it can or should attempt to deter crime by predicting in advance who will commit those crimes is a recipe for disaster.

        • @Cliff H, that’s why we have a huge and enormously expensive judicial system, with judges, juries, prosecutors, defense lawyers etc. The Constitution empowers courts to handle such matters, and I’m good with that.

          I’m a retired lawyer, and my experiences with the legal system are as mixed as anyone else’s. Still, I much prefer hearings in open court, with appropriate safeguards to protect the legal rights of the parties, to anything else. I am especially contemptuous of secret Star Chamber proceedings, like the board in IL that reviews FID denials in secret. That is not America — but it is the Chicago way.

  10. Being caught empty handed by the James Holmes’ of the world, because one is concerned about being caught by a LEO for possessing something to protect yourself with, is just bassackwards.

  11. These cases provide a hint of the problems with the mental health treatment “industry”. Disturbingly, the Connecticut mass murder perpetrated by Adam Lanza has a fog of “mental health issues” and mental health treatment malfeasance.

    http://ablechild.org/2014/05/14/adam-lanzas-psychiatrists-ethics-violations-raise-questions-about-the-legislatures-controversial-mental-health-increases/

    Gov. Malloy so keen to blame gun owners, manufacturers and lobbyists for Lanza’s mass murder, did go above and beyond in claiming to increase services to “help” mental health sufferers. Lately though it looks like those are services he has chosen to cut.

    http://www.nhregister.com/health/20150221/malloy-has-mental-health-agencies-reeling-over-proposed-budget-cuts

    • Pshrinks are the biggest frauds and poseurs in the medical profession today. Most of what they do has more in common with witch doctors than MD’s.

      Add to this that a significant proportion of mental health “professionals” got into their gig to get a discount on their own head pshrinking, and you have a situation rife with problems and gaps.

  12. This guy was seriously Kooky for Coocoa puffs. Two major failures! One, the doctors should have had him on a psych hold and reported his threats to the police department. Though they didn’t because of political correctness and the liberal mentality that it’s best to just not interfere. Second, gun-free zones. Law abiding citizens aren’t criminals and criminals have zero respect for a sign! If thought about logically and objectively you will always come to the conclusion that Gun Free zones are idiotic. The constant agreement is “It scares me, I don’t want people with guns in places I frequent.” Guess what….. you’ve been living your whole life with people wearing concealed guns. So please go back to living your life thinking no one has a concealed gun.

  13. A number of the high profile killings also involved warning signs that went unheeded or insufficiently developed, such as Arizona, Virginia Tech, Isla Vista, and the Navy Yard. There are medico-legal ways to evaluate and commit people if they can be reliably assessed as threats or just ill enough to need the help – “mentally defective” is a term I believe is used in law, maybe not the best way to describe it, but there is a criterion and it can be used if we want to.

    Obviously a psycho-medical system like that has potential for abuse, and we saw it used as a political weapon in the Soviet Union. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have such a system, any more than we shouldn’t have a judicial system. Mental illness and crime are just things we have to deal with, and it seems mental illness is being neglected.

    It’s an either-or situation at this level of mental illness and/or offense: you’re either in a cell or you’re not. And we know in hindsight that some people should have been. Maybe if we interrupted their plans, and they were good on the inside and stayed on their meds they could get out in a few years (or, in the case of Reagan’s assailant, decades) for weekends at home with mom, I don’t know, as long as they’re being treated appropriately according to assessed risk.

    None of this is simple. But if we’re serious about trying to stop such people in advance (and I’m not saying everybody is), then we should at least be paying attention to the warning signs, collect the data, keep developing the psycho eval tools, use what we have and work on it.

  15. “keep in mind that the above picture was shot after the government forced the Aurora cinema killer to take psychiatric meds”

    Actually his expression is quite typical of someone on antipsychotics. He would probably look LESS crazy if he weren’t on the meds. If you’ve ever been to a psych unit, almost everyone has this zombified expression because they are all on antipsychotics.

  16. “There’s only one way to raise the odds of detecting and then intercepting future spree killers: examine and expose the personal and systematic failures to intervene in this horrific crime. No matter how embarrassing or painful the learning process may be.”

    That is impractical if not impossible. Make sure that everyone on this planet is incentivized to carry a gun every waking minute of every day. Then, when an asshole like this pops up, he can be shot down before hurting anyone, and the cry from the people can be “keep playing the movie, we can clean up the mess when it’s over.” Very quickly, even attempts will be unheard of, it just does not sound like fun anymore.

  17. James Holmes is one of my case studies for the death penalty, and I’d volunteer to serve on his firing squad. He’s plenty sane enough to face death, which should have happened once he started taking innocent lives.

    I’m not sure what was going through his mind when he was committing mass murder, but what should be going through his heart and mind in the near future are a fusillade of .30 caliber bullets at about 2700 FPS.

    • Him and a certain Muslim’s little brother from Boston. Hey-maybe we can have a TTAG execution corp!

      • Excessive penetration is a big bugaboo of mine, how about we line them up and see if we can kill the one in back by killing the one in front? If so, rethink the loading and wait for the next testing opportunity.

  18. “Aurora Cinema Shooter Had a “Longstanding Hatred of Mankind””

    Yeah? So do I. What’s your point?

    When cockroaches stay out of my house, I don’t have to squash them.

  19. Never forget the fact that Univ Colo police were warned under law by James Holmes’s counselor that he was a danger to himself and others and those motherf&#kers did NOTHING. Quote their response, ” he doesn’t go here, he’s not our problem.” Is it any coincidence the Aurora Colo police chief is a buddy of Bloomberg??? I think not! Let’s let another (leftist) loon-ball off their meds and “give them room to destroy.” After all it advances justification for the police state- doesn’t it?!!! I just can’t believe DHS is arming police to the teeth more so than what soldiers deployed in a warzone were given access to. Does your town have a “free” M-RAP?

  20. Mental Health presumes a normal. Which normal? The educated human who’s mind is in charge, or the much more common dumb animals who barely think?

    I hate the piss out of the majority of humans, because they dispose of their humanity and behave like filthy damn animals. But I also know there’s not a damn thing I could ever do to them that isn’t worse than what they do to themselves. Sure, I have to take a hit from them every now and then, but I can avoid them most of the time.

    It’s like Jerry Springer… Just stand back and watch, and don’t get involved. It doesn’t make me a psychopath on the verge of a mass shooting; it makes me a human being with a brain that gets used…

    So much false association. If you beleive the brain-dead animalistic mental health ‘experts,’ it’s a miracle I haven’t held the world hostage with a homemade nuclear weapon… How dare I have an IQ above room temperature… All non-trash people should be killed, just ask the trash… Who’s the psycho, really?

    I embody everything called a warning sign, and several other traits I’m sure would be considered “new warning signs.” I have not the slightest bit of interest in a spree of random killing…

    • Well said. Somehow, having a high IQ and being resistant to a sick society makes one mentally ill in the eyes of others. Who’da thought?

      Getting involved in Constitutional literacy and the importance of the 2nd Amendment has actually made me utterly despise humanity. It’s sickening to think of the lengths people go to in order to enslave themselves and destroy others. Nations of controlled slaves like Russia and China one could possibly understand, being born into such an oppressive statist culture that nothing else is known.

      But now, in America, the last bastion of the human spirit, we have a huge chunk of the population desperately trying to enact fascism, tyranny, and slavery, not only for others but for themselves. Makes you wonder what the hell’s even worth fighting for in this world if one generation later, all the animals are just gonna ruin it.

      Holmes absolutely deserves every punishment coming to him for his sick, murderous rampage. But let’s not start thinking that everyone who doesn’t fit into the idiot class of modern society is somehow gonna follow his lead.

  21. Dustin, if you’re trying to convince people you’re safe, that ain’t gonna do it. 😉

    • Not interested in convincing anyone I’m safe. Just exposing the bullsh!t of how judgement is passed… Take a look around at the human race, being sick and disturbed is the norm… Not being like that makes me a dangerous weirdo in the eyes of the dangerous weirdos… Which group of hateful douche bags will acquire the power to oppress the other hateful douche bags? Whatever, I live in the woods and refuse to be part of this stupid sickness so laughingly referred to as a society… Let ’em hack each other to pieces, I’l be free the day I watch them burn the horizon…

      • Too many people having too many kids which they cannot teach how to conduct themselves properly, nor afford to care for and are comfortable with others doing so for them, and who’s spawn carry on said practices. The numbers increase on a steeper and steeper curve every day based upon the laws of mathematics. Like commodities and taxes, there is a limit and carrying capacity of all things, and I am afraid we will be seeing those limits sooner rather than later. In just 100 years, assuming we are able to stave off major disease and nuclear/bio attack (doubtful), I feel human nature and self preservation will make this country/planet a very scary place to be. MadMax and soilent green might not be all that far from reality.

      • Sorry, I believe you’re mistaking a noisy 2% for a “norm”. Although I grant the 98% does not have enough interest in neutralizing that 2%.

    • Absolutely the correct action. Sane or not, each of us should ultimately be held responsible for our own actions. The entire insanity defense industry is just perverting the legal system and subverting justice.

Comments are closed.