The FBI has made an arrest in South Florida.
The man, described by authorities as a "habitual contributor to the causes of Democrats" was arrested near a South Florida postal facility holding two packages containing pipe bombs, one addressed to Elizabeth Warren and the other to Nancy Pelosi.
Witnesses near the arrest claim to have heard the man explaining to authorities that he worked for George Soros and was sending the packages as a way to increase voter turn-out for Democrats in November.
He was taken into custody immediately.
Really? Please provide a link to the public statement from those authorities.
There is no such quote on Google and Bing, which update their news links within minutes of media and government site updates.
Edit: I get it now. Sarcasm.
The man is obviously an immigrant, sent across the border by Soros to cause havoc.
The bomber actually looks like a republican operative perhaps paid for by Bozo Trump donors: you can see it in his eyes:
here's the TRUTH: Looks like one of Bozo's MAGATS
"Cesar Sayoc Jr., Florida man, arrested in pipe bomb case; van with 'right wing paraphernalia' seized"
https://boingboing.net/2018/10/26/flori … ackag.html
Yes, that makes so much sense. Shoot yourself in the foot weeks before the election? LOL
That is bullshyte, Synch, what fairy tale news source have you been reading?
The Right is going to pay for this today and it will give Right leaning independent reason to think about the horses they are betting on come midterm time.
I do believe it is sarcasm.
But why does "the Right" get the blame for the insanity and madness of ANY individual? Do you think they forced hallucinogens into him until his brain turned to mush? If so, I wasn't at the party when it happened - that's one of the Right that didn't participate, and I bet there were others, too!
Excuses, Wilderness. It is always mental illness when the Right does things like this, isn't it. Obviously he was sane enough to pick his targets. You were probably making excuses for the Dylan Roof slaying of 9 church goers back in 2015?
Sure Credence , We sure heard a lot out of you when Scalise was shot at a ball game , what his shooter didn't belong to your party because he was a Sanders supporter ?
I did not condone that attack, but this time p, your people got their hands caught in the cookie jar and in a big way, as you will find out this November.
Even your " Grand Pubah" says this is going to hurt the GOP and encourages Democrats this November. For the first in his pathetic life, he may be right about something
But, I was right, wasn't I? It turned that the perp was one of YOURS.
Yes, excuses. Any excuse to blame the "right" for anything you don't like. Any excuse to blame Trump for anything you don't like. That no one on the "right" could have changed anything is of no import - blame them anyway. That Trump never once spoke to this whacko is of no import - blame him anyway. And if that isn't enough, make a really ignorant statement about what I did in the past...as if you had any idea.
You are the king of excuses.
I did not mention Trump, you did.
This crime was committed by an enthusiatic Trump supporter, there is no getting around that and there is significance and consequences. I did not see you discrediting all the inane leftist conspiracy theories to explain the crimes, and if it had turned out to have been left wing inspired, I would have never heard the end of it from you, right, Wilderness?
This man, Seyoc is solely responsible for mailing the bombs. Trump is responsible for sowing hate and division via Twitter and his rallies. The Republicans in Congress are responsible for their inaction in the face of such wildly inappropriate behavior on the part of a president of the United States. Americans who continue to defend and encourage Trump are complicit in the ugly atmosphere he sows.
The rest of us need to turn out and vote in November to end this disgusting nonsense.
This guy threatened to throw a bomb back in 2002. He's obviously a violent individual. You can't blame Trump for his historical behavior.
Never mind. It's you PP. Of course you can.
Please quote where I blamed Trump for the guy's behavior? I'll wait.
In a round about way. Since you are blaming trump for sowing hate and division, which could then be considered inciting violence. If your are unwilling to call out behavior on the left where violence was called for, directly, then your complaints about the right ring hollow and self serving for the left.
The article I saw said he's a right wing new Yorker arrested in FL.
Thank God it's over.
Edit. Says he was arrested in 2002 for threatening to throw a bomb. No jail time. Pity. He might have gotten help and this would have been averted.
NEWSFLASH+*******************+ MAJOR NEWS , FBI now checking Trump's fingerprints against those on packages ************** :-]
I dedicate this to all the NEWSFLASHERS in the world whoever and wherever they really are.
I think it is important for everyone to remember that every citizen will choose a political party to gravitate toward. That party is not responsible for the individual or their actions.
I, personally, am relieved he was caught and relieved it wasn't politics shenanigans. Simply one disturbed individual grasping at a reason for violence.
Part of our debate is the fine line between responsibility and influence.
Is Trump personally responsible? Not really. Does he influence the behavior of his followers? I believe he does.
Do you believe that the millions posting hate on social media do, too? Do you believe that congressional members do? Do you believe that the leaders of sanctuary cities do when they ignore federal law and actively work to subvert it? Do you believe that whoever organized and financed the caravan (almost certainly Americans) will influence people both for and against illegals?
If Trump influences people (and he does) he is in good company, and that's not even considering that, influence or not, the bomber is responsible for his own actions.
Do you think Trump has more influence over the nation and millions of people than an unknown local congresswoman?
Of course he does.
Wrong question, and one I very specifically addressed. Let me help you:
Do you think Trump has more influence over the nation and millions of people than most of the congress plus 50 million people all screaming how evil he is and should not be in the white house?
Of course he doesn't. It is not possible for a single person, even the President, to have the influence 50 million people do.
But it's a great excuse for one's own poor behavior to put all the blame on Trump.
Thanks, I don't need a condescending offer to help in how to watch Trump applauding violence on TV.
Nor do I buy into inflammatory rhetoric about 50 million screaming people, which is a gross exaggeration.
We only need a President to encourage acts of violence and get just a handful of his supporters -- whether they are mentally unstable or just very extreme -- to act on his encouragement.
And that's exactly what we got with the bomber.
I don't think so. Not in a case such as this. Violent people are violent. They do violent things. I have a sister who was a tea partier. Might still be. They said some pretty volatile things in that heyday. They didn't do anything violent. Why? Because they aren't violent unstable people.
Just so I'm clear, it sounds like you are saying Trump has no influence over his own followers.
I agree he can't provoke violence in the great majority of them. It's the unstable ones on either side who are susceptible.
Everyone can influence the weak minded. But, I'd say the words and shenanigans of the left are firing up the weak minded no more or less than Trump's words do.
I must disagree. No other President or major national politician has praised and applauded violent acts except for Trump.
Interesting. I guess that is a matter of perspective.
Not to belabor the past, but clearly one's political perspective weighs in on what a person believes a President has done or not done.
The past decade of Obama and Trump have proven this overwhelmingly.
Trump condemns this act of violence, yet the 'Left' will say only that he supports it and calls out for it.
Obama for years, even after there were police who were murdered in an open assassination style killing spree, supported groups like BLM and with his words and deeds made it seem as if he supported the open hostilities against Police... this too, can be tempered by one's political leanings.
This is just one more example of how people project their own beliefs into the latest event dramatized in our media.
A President who applauds violence on TV in front of millions of people is not about political perspective.
It doesn't take someone on the "Left" to watch a TV, see him do it and believe that he encourages violence.
It does take a Trump supporter to deny what everyone else sees with their own eyes and hear with their own ears.
As usual, we will have to simply disagree with one another and leave it at that.
Trust me, I am certain I find your comments as nonsensical or blinded by bias as you see mine to be.
Then answer 3 simple questions, and we can leave it at that.
1. Did Trump applaud on national TV the Congressman who assaulted the reporter?
2. Do you condemn all political violence by either side?
3. Do you agree that extremists on both sides have committed political violence?
Your answers will reveal the degree of your own bias.
My answers to those questions are all yes. Answering yes to 2 and 3 doesn't seem very biased on my part.
I can't comment to #1 as I am not aware of that occurrence, I limit my exposure to the daily drama the media pushes, this may be one such event, but I don't put it past him.
To #2, wiki defines 'Political violence' as violence perpetrated by people or governments to achieve political goals. It can describe violence used by a state against other states (war) or against non-state actors (e.g. police brutality, counter-insurgency, genocide). It can also describe politically-motivated violence by non-state actors against a state (e.g. rebellion, rioting) or against other non-state actors. Non-action on the part of a government can also be characterized as a form of political violence, such as refusing to alleviate famine or otherwise denying resources to politically identifiable groups within their territory.
So that is a pretty wide all encompassing term... I condemn individuals acting out violence for their particular belief, such as assassins who kill a President (IE - JFK) or political leaders (IE - MLK) be they government agents or delusional lunatics (IE - Hinckley) such violence is also against a variety of accepted international laws, so therefore using CIA operatives or drones to kill political leaders would also be inclusive in this, however, we know this is not how our government behaves.
But I am probably stepping outside the bounds of what you intended when you typed 'political violence'. As I believe you intended it, yes, I condemn it.
To #3 yes, I believe there are 'extremists' on both sides who have, and will, act out their beliefs, delusions, whatever you want to term it with violence. And it seems certain aspects of our mainstream media is working overtime to push people into acting out those violent tendencies rather than calling for civility, which is one reason why I don't tune in to any of it (or as little of it as possible).
Let me add, that there seems to be a lot of Hollywood types, and those with the public pulpit, that have called for violence against the opposite political spectrum... so I suspect other 'extremists' on both sides will act out their violence, in one form or another.
I accept your answer to #1 and thank you for your answers to #2 and #3.
One interesting fact I just ran across, it seems this 'Republican Right Wing White Nationalist' as some are calling him, only registered as a Republican after the 2016 election...
Odd, especially considering he identified himself in the past as Native American (though he wasn't), it will be interesting to see how much of the financial, criminal and mental health issues this man had comes to be common knowledge and spread throughout the media this weekend.
It's false fake garbage like this discussion that will surely cause the demise of HubPages, I hope their watching because social media is REMOVING Fake Stories:
He sent bombs, does it really matter what party he is from? Are we really trying to imply that one person is representative of entire groups of people? Liberals and conservatives are acting ridiculous with this.
Yes, there are more than a few that try to identify all with the actions of one.
There will be no knowing the full truth of this story or who this person is... to be clear, each media source (CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc.) will have their own spin on it, their own biased agenda, and if they don't, if they are ALL saying the very same thing almost word for word, well then, I leave that to your experience and understanding to recognize what that means.
Yes it matters, if the President of the United states and leader of a major national party praises and applauds acts of violence.
These are damn adults. President being a dumba$$ or not, they are adults who are responsible for their own behavior. You can't blame the president or all republicans for the actions of idiots, even if they encourage it. Implying this is the president's fault is implying these people are not responsible for their own actions. The people who shoot up places, bomb places, etc are not representative of the masses.
*Being said as someone who hates Trump.
Thank you. Somehow, somewhere, we seem to have lost the concept of personal responsibility. It's always someone else's fault whenever we behave poorly.
So no one has any influence over anyone else? No one reacts to a President's comments? Applauds or gets excited? Cheers or votes or contributes money to a campaign? Yells or gets angry?
And where did I put all of the blame on Trump and all Republicans?
I didn't say that. I said that those above are not responsible for it. They are not responsible for the actions of other people. Each individual is responsible for themselves. If we had a democrat president and they implied republicans were trash, would we then blame them for the actions of someone who shot up republicans? This is an insane concept. Adults are adults, influence or no. Talking crap about people is not the same as forcing someone to kill people. There is no gun to the heads of these people demanding they kill or be killed. Therefore it is their own fault.. Our president encourages violence, yet I am not out here being violent. Why? Because I am an adult, responsible for my own actions.
That is a truly idealistic viewpoint. You need to meet more mentally ill people. They are often not responsible for their actions and are easily manipulated.
Just because you are not violent, mentally ill or easily manipulated doesn't mean everyone is the same as you.
And the issue is not simply a bombing and one side versus another. The core issue is a President who applauds violence.
Every person has influence with every other person they interact with in any way, from a marriage to a chance glance on the subway to a have filled tirade on social media that others see.
But what we DO with that influence is 100% up to us.
Spin it one way and then another. We are all personally responsible for this version of your spin. But then you blame Democrats for your other spin.
"And every day he is subjected to people proclaiming how evil, and how terrible Trump is, demonizing this mans idol with every possible ugly description.
"Is it any wonder that this damaged mind took steps to "protect" the image he has formed of Trump?"
Like I said, it was a masterpiece of bul!$h!t.
Hey! Is Mrs. Claus allowed to use that kind of language?
No, but this is just me, the catty liberal. Mrs. Clause only comes out from the North Pole once a year in December. I'll post another pic when she returns.
Not sure I'm following you.
What you quoted is my take on who has done the influencing of that sick mind - the popular claim is that it is Trump, but it seems to me the the large majority of negativity (as seen/experienced) by the bomber is coming from the hate speech against Trump, not from him.
Would you disagree with that? Do you think it was Trump's words that convinced that mentally ill person he needed to warn/scare the people ranting against his idol?
Or are you complaining that I said everyone is responsible for themselves, then say it is the left that influenced that poorly functioning brain?
I believe you are saying that everyone is responsible for themselves on one hand, which exonerates Trump, and that Democrats are at fault for the bomber on the other.
I am not saying Trump is the only reason (or no reason at all) why the bomber committed his acts. His mental state most likely is the result of multiple factors.
But it's at least possible that Trump's behavior is one of those factors because the bomber is a devoted Trump follower.
Even if Trump is not one factor in the bomber's behavior, Trump has made comments that increase the risk of violence for people who are more easily influenced by him.
Ah. Let me expand a little, then.
Trump most certainly DID affect the bomber...he became the idol of perfection to that bomber. And the left people with tirades and rants of hate speech became the antithesis and something that needed to be warned (not positive if it was an actual attempt to murder or just to warn). And both did it primarily from their own actions, although it is likely that right rhetoric helped produce the liking for Trump.
But, Promisem, if we had to take blame for every possible time we had any affect on mentally ill people we wouldn't be able to interact with anyone at all. We couldn't post anything, we couldn't step outside, for we would never know what seemingly innocuous thing would set up a chain in their mind leading to inappropriate behavior.
So, no - neither Trump nor the left wing tirades are responsible for that man's actions. They have no blame, even though it is a pretty safe bet that those tirades create anger in "Trump lovers". Although the mentally ill are not considered responsible for their actions any more than children are, neither is anyone else. Had neither Trump nor the ranters spoken, it is very likely he would have gone off anyway, just in another direction. Something else would have raised his anger.
My only real intent was to give an opinion that it was those tirades that had the larger effect on producing the actions of the bomber. It wasn't Trumps words nearly as much, no matter how much he is blamed for it. "Sit back, calm down, and think about why he was angry and at whom", in other words.
Where are you getting your "mentally ill" from Wilderness? Did I miss something in the news? All I have seen so far just shows him to be a nut job. And there are a lot of those among us.
Is there a new definition of mentally ill that would include - figuratively speaking, morons like this guy - as currently portrayed?
I am a bit worried bud. You don't usually run with something when there is such few facts.
GA, as far as I'm concerned anyone that will murder (I'm assuming attempted murder, not a misguided effort at warning) people that have done them no harm is mentally ill. You may not like the terminology, but I know of no other term to indicate that the thought processes, the reasoning capability of the brain, is defective and not working as it should. Or perhaps it's the part where morals reside; whatever part it is, that part of the man's brain is not working. There is something wrong with it.
I can tolerate a lot of differences, but a willingness to casually murder is not one of them. Not in our society.
That is not true, Wilderness. There are people that are perfectly sane that commit homicide for perfectly sane reasons, how about the Twenties, I would not have considered Al Capone or his operatives as "mentally ill". People can and do kill kill for a purpose and not just out of sheer madness.
OK - what term would you prefer for a person that is so morally deficient as to kill because they didn't like a person dissing their hero? If not "mentally ill", what term is appropriate? GA used "nut job" but that doesn't really sound right either - that usually simply denotes someone we don't agree with. Derogatory rather than descriptive of a physical/mental aberration or malfunction.
I'm open to suggestions - I realize that there are several medical/psychological diagnosis specifically denoting "mental illness", but don't have any other term for a brain that isn't working properly. And one that would kill over an insult to their idol isn't working properly. IMO.
How about Capone. His killings were strictly about power and money - protection of the sweet racket he had set up. Without too much stretching it was like killing a Nazi soldier in WWII - a war setting. Capone even called them "soldiers" as I recall.
This guy kills over an insult to another person, a person unrelated to him and that he has never met. I don't see much similarity.
You might be happy to know that the lunatic's former lawyer who represented him in his previous run ins with the law stated that he suffered from "mental illness" and had "mental health issues".
I don't know, maybe that ABC13 channel was making the story up, must have been one of those fake right winger sites.
"The family has always from a young age encouraged him to get treatment and mental health counseling,' Lowy said in an interview Saturday. "He refuses. He gets angry. He says, 'I hate you, you think I'm abnormal.' He just won't see reality.'"
That was from one of those fringe cites, maybe its Russian controlled... CBS something... http://www.cbs8.com/story/39371937/accu … l-problems
I mean, its all over the news that I am reading... but then again, I ignore fake propaganda sites like CNN and MSNBC so, you know, I get strange sources.
I don't claim to have the answers except that there exist sheer evil in the world, where murder and murderers do operate on a premeditative deliberate basis.
In 1940, Joseph Stalin had Leon Trotsky murdered in Mexico, as he posed a living rival to his absolute power within the then, Soviet Union.
How about Hitlers' "final solution"? The slaughter of all those innocents were not military necessity but could be better explained by political motivation. I don't think that all the camp operatives and the ring leaders were mentally ill.
Would you prefer simply "evil" then? To me that carries a connotation that such people need simple eradication, not psychological help, and that such help could never change the person to the point they could be allowed to live in our society. I tend to disagree, but could live with the term.
There are some people for whom eradication, or removal from society through incarceration may indeed be the remedy for such people.
I agree. But the bigger question, today, is if that bomber is one such or if it is possible that psychiatric care might help him live a normal life. If it is possible that we can remove that "evil demon", was it ever him that was evil or was there a problem with his mind?
Certainly I have no idea, but applying the label of "evil" does seem to remove that possibility, while "insane" leaves open the possibility of rehabilitation - there is something wrong up there that maybe we can "fix".
I hear you Wilderness, but why is the "mental illness" always acted out in the form of political and racial animus? None of this stuff is at random. Why are racist and partisan attack that correlate with certain agenda be the ones that the "mentally ill" acts out on.
I can't rule out that psychiatric care would be a solution for many, even the worse, Rather than dismiss them as incorrigibly evil.
What our society should do is do the due diligence to discern the difference. Even in our courts there are standards where one can be found guilty of a crime, but not responsible. Mental illness is an example, fortunately this determination is not made easily and many I's and T's need to crossed before we can say malice of forethought does not play a role as would be the normal finding.
"why is the "mental illness" always acted out in the form of political and racial animus? "
Because you choose to interpret it that way. The guy at the Supremacist march wasn't political. Neither was the recent church shooting (as far as we know). Precious few murders are politically, or even racially, based. School shootings are neither, nor are any other mass murders I'm aware of. We do ourselves, and our society, a great disservice to automatically decide the some whacko acted out of misguided political or racist reasons. While the pipe bomber seems to have done so, there is little doubt (IMO) that he would have done so anyway; his past history bears that out. Even for him, then, it was but an excuse that he seized on; it was not the driving force for killing. IMHO
Why stop there, in fact, why is there such an incessant focus on Hitler?
Lets broaden our view from WWII German/Russian crimes against humanity.
Mao Zedong, founder of the People's Republic of China, qualifies as the greatest mass murderer in world. From 1958 to 1962, at least 45 million people were worked, starved or beaten to death in China over these four years.
Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot's government led Cambodia from 1975 to 1979 and during that time an estimated 1.5 to 2 million Cambodians died of starvation, execution, disease or overwork.
More recently there was the Rwandan genocide, a mass slaughter of Tutsi in Rwanda during the Rwandan Civil War, an estimated 1 million Rwandans were killed, some 70% of the Tutsi population.
So lets broaden our scope a bit, we can find mass murder and genocide everywhere in the world, throughout history, it does not belong to one particular race or political ideology.
That, Ken, I do not deny. There are examples of savagery all over the world during every age or period of history. The ideological impetus or rationale was irrelevant
Credence, come on now, one has only to read your posts here and on other threads recently to see you are somewhat fixated on blaming a particular portion of society for the current problems stirring in our country.
And I daresay you seem to have accepted how the media has painted Trump, and those who support him, and therefore consciously or not, brought up those particular examples to make your point.
You know, I would really appreciate it if you reviewed the last two articles I wrote and give me your opinion on them, and consider the potential impact these two topics will have on our future, as Americans.
In regard to your first paragraph, as for right now in America the more violent behavior is coming from advocates of Trump or Rightwing ideas or ideals. Have the 'socialists', Anti-fascists, or BLM, compile any where near the level or criminal assault as the Right?
I judge Trump by what he says and does, the political climate is unpalatable today, while conservatives were blaming Obama for dividing the country?
I would be delighted to check out your latest two article and come back with a critique.
Unless you are the defending attorney and are researching a defense of insanity, why would you need to allude to this person's mental health at all?
There are terms that denote people who commit this type of violence:
They may be qualified with left or right-wing terrorist; religious or political extremist etc.
Is there something wrong with those terms?
"why would you need to allude to this person's mental health at all?"
Because the blame for the event is being put on Trump, yet Trump certainly did not cause the "mental illness" (or whatever you wish to call it) of this man. He didn't even contribute significantly to the action; this man has been a known problem for years.
Yes, there is something wrong. Terrorists kill because they believe that God told them to (I decline to call that mental illness) and/or because they see themselves as soldiers in a war.
Violent extremist comes closer, but still begs the question of the violence being caused by abnormal brain function. I could accept it, but would probably still use "mentally ill" (or just "crazy" depending on the listener ), feeling that it is a better description of how I feel about the person/event.
"Not in our society."
You see any action that deviates from societal norms as a form of mental illness? With purposeful murder being the maximum degree, at what lesser degree would mental illness not be your diagnosis?
That doesn't set with your opinion in a lot of previous threads. Pres. Trump's behavior doesn't set well with a lot of our perceived social norms, yet you dispute any claim that he has a mental illness.
What about the concept of 'just a bad person', a 'bad seed', or just an amoral degenerate?
You are sounding like me Wilderness - you want it both ways.
First, I have yet to dispute Trumps reputed mental illness. I have merely disputed the right to claim he is ill and taken to task the quacks that make the claim without any interview and in violation of their oath.
The line is somewhere between murder and calling someone mentally ill because you don't like them.
But I repeat what I told Credence; if you don't like the term (and I fully admit it is not a good one) what would you suggest? Does "nut job" include murder of 10 people? Understanding that it IS only semantics, I would place a "nut job" event far, far below that point. Somebody that eats catsup on their eggs, for instance (my wife does that).
I DID say I have no other terminology that seems appropriate.
Ya got me bud, you are right, I haven't seen you defend Pres. Trump against charges of mental illness. And I didn't mean to infer you had.
My point was your repeated insistence that it is an error to claim someone is mentally ill without a proper evaluation. Wouldn't that same standard apply to you calling this guy mentally ill?
OK! I give! He was just a nut case, one whose brain wasn't working as normal brains do (and apparently hasn't for a long time).
Will you now take up the case of what "normal" is?
I don't think you are qualified to assess whether anyone's brain is functioning normally. One, you are neither a licensed mental health professional nor a neurologist.and two, even if you are, you have not personally examined the subject or administered any diagnostic tests.
A rigid statistical analysis of the number of people constructing and mailing multiple pipe bombs without triggers to strangers all over the country reveals that it is a very unusual act for people to do. Estimating the number of people that have lived in the last 50 years at 400,000,000, an in depth search found only one that performed such an act - that's .00000025% of the people. The act itself, then, was highly abnormal (that's the opposite of normal) and not expected of the vast majority of people.
conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
"it's quite normal for puppies to bolt their food" · [more]
Next we look at where the root cause of the act was: it could be exterior to the person or interior. We can fly through the air as the result of being hit by a car (exterior) or as the result of stepping off a diving board (internal).
There does not appear to be any exterior forces acting on the man, though perhaps if another person is found that forced him to behave in that manner it would be that other mind that as "not normal".
That leaves interior forces causing the action. Those can come from such things as reflexive (hit your knee with a hammer and your leg moves) to autonomous (heart beat, digestive actions) or from the brain. I really don't think either a reflexive or autonomous action could possibly cause a man to visit store(s), purchase items, take them home, construct bombs, put them in envelopes, address those envelopes and take to the USPS. I could be wrong, but I've never seen theorizing that hitting a nerve in your knee could result in those actions as a reflex. Or that your body is programmed to carry out such things, similar to controlling your heartbeat without conscious effort.
That leaves the brain as being the root force behind the actions; actions that were abnormal and required abnormal processes of the brain to accomplish. QED; the brain processes are not normal.
I must say, though, that I was surprised you were unable to come up with that line of reasoning; I would have thought that very nearly everyone in the country could and would have had the same conclusion. It would be the "normal" reaction to hearing of such an event.
This is interesting, and maybe it was just the way you worded it, but by saying the “abnormal brain processes” are the cause of the actions you kind of dismiss personal responsibility.
Yes, I think that killing people is an abnormal choice. But it’s a choice for most people. Most people are aware of their actions and the consequences of their actions when they commit these crimes.
However, the extent of which actual mental illness plays a role in those crimes is debatable and impossible to diagnose unless you’re a licensed psychologist who has personally examined those people.
You also mentioned that the line is drawn somewhere between murder and diagnosing someone because you don’t like them... but where? And why? People make abnormal and dangerous choices all the time that aren’t murderous but are still very much harmful - when does that become “mental illness”?
"by saying the “abnormal brain processes” are the cause of the actions you kind of dismiss personal responsibility. "
And yet we accept a plea of insanity as a valid defense.
"Yes, I think that killing people is an abnormal choice. But it’s a choice for most people."
You lost me there. Most people do NOT make a choice to murder. Most people will go far out of their way NOT to murder.
"However, the extent of which actual mental illness plays a role in those crimes is debatable and impossible to diagnose unless you’re a licensed psychologist who has personally examined those people."
A good thing I never addressed the extent or legal ramifications of that illness then, isn't it?
"You also mentioned that the line is drawn somewhere between murder and diagnosing someone because you don’t like them... but where? And why? People make abnormal and dangerous choices all the time that aren’t murderous but are still very much harmful - when does that become “mental illness”?"
You would have to give specific events and specific people to make a definition (although the law does seem to). Certainly I am unable to make a blanket determination that would make any sense in every case that has not yet happened.
Same answer to the second question. It would be interesting to see you try to make such a definition; have at it if you think you can. If you have extensive experience in law enforcement to couple with your experience in psychology it would be an interesting experiment.
The insanity defence is used in less than 1% of all court cases and successful in only 26% of those. You do the math. Yes, sometimes a person is not of sound mind when committing a crime and it can be blamed on a mental illness. The vast, vast majority of the time it is not a viable defence.
I thought it could be inferred that when I said “most people make the choice” I meant most people who commit that crime - not most people in general. I do realize that most people do not choose to murder anyone.
I am not responsible for drawing the line that you arbitrarily decided exists. That’s on you if you care to stick by it.
You might as well cry uncle. It appears argument, for the sake of argument has kicked in; in reaction to your thoughts.
Of course I will bud, "normal" is whatever I think is normal. ;-)
For instance; I would think you exhibit "normal" behavior, but I am not too sure about Credence2.
That's a less than flattering comment about Credence.
You missed the sarcasm promisem. Cred is okay, it's actually Wilderness I am worried about. No, wait, that's not right either. Maybe it's me I am worried about. Yeah that's it. That's the ticket. Folks been telling me 'I ain't just right' for awhile now.
But you do score two points for proper reallocation of the the "flattering" quip .It's a real bite when the worm turns. ;-)
I had scanned some previous comments looking for clues that you were using sarcasm but didn't spot any. Sorry I missed your intent.
yeah, it was a joke promisem. It escapes me that it escaped you, but, it's not the first time it has happened to me.
GA, might I put forth that mental illness can, by the laymen, be detected when the person in question is acting in an anti social manner coupled with an illegal one? That when death, or the hope of it, for others enters the equation there is something strangely off kilter? If all of the previous suggestions have been satisfactorily met and then we move to the fact that no reasonable person can follow the logic involved, or agree that the actions can be justified by reasonable thought processes, can we then ascribe the behavior to 'not normal'?
Live to learn, I can agree with you comment - if it is applied to the description as "not normal."
Unfortunately, for me, I have been less than clear about my point, and have commented myself into a defensive position I do not hold.
I think the label of "mental illness" has become a catch-all excuse. And, most importantly, I am only speaking from my perspective - the way I see it. I am not claiming to be the only right perspective.
My perspective of this guys mental condition would be; If he was speaking gibberish to the voices in his head while shooting people - yep, he is mentally ill. But, otherwise, to me, and unless other proof is given, (which it hasn't in this case - so far), he's just a degenerate hater that acted on his hate. A bad example of a human being.
Others are welcome to call him mentally ill if they want, but I think they are just making an excuse for the fact that not all of us are decent people.
You don't have to be mentally ill to be a bad person. Of course I do understand that today's psychiatric profession sees any social aberration as a mental illness. I can thinkl of a lot of anti-social behaviors I would call nuts, but I won't offer them the excuse of mental illness for their actions.
"I think the label of "mental illness" has become a catch-all excuse. And, most importantly, I am only speaking from my perspective - the way I see it. I am not claiming to be the only right perspective."
LOL I think it is that perspective that has caused this whole hoorah, for it was with that in mind that I called people claiming insanity in Donald Trump. Just a catch-all for behavior they didn't like, and one that is becoming more and more acceptable as a valid defense in the courtroom.
But, given the severity and the near universal dislike of what he did, I do think this one goes considerably beyond that. (I'll still accept "abnormal", though).
Does that mean I might escape this corner I appear to have painted myself into?
Can we still say there are bad people, terrible human beings, without having to give them the excuse- and compassion - of mental illness? Can we still hold folks responsible for their actions?
I sure hope so.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Yes, I think the President suffers foot in mouth and says things that are outrageous. However, on many occasions I have listened to the media as they lambasted a comment and when I listen to the entire clip it is clear it was taken out of context and ridiculously politicized. Does that account for all? Certainly not. And, I will blame the President for his part in the current climate because his brash and uncivil behavior was what won him the nomination and subsequently catapulted him into the presidency. The left has followed suit. But, they followed suit.
As to violence in an individual. I take into account an entire lifetime which culminates in a violent act. We are each, to some extent, responsible for the acts of any we encounter throughout our lives. A chance encounter with you, at a specific moment in my life, could result in a chain of events which, at their end, cause you to bear some brunt of responsibility. Even at .001 percent, you would bear some weight of responsibility; if we are going to lay blame for the actions of the individual at the feet of another.
Sharlee , I have found it more than interesting that for fifty years the left in America , no matter how categorically defined , has incited and perpetrated more violence than ANY party in five other
western world countries and still reasons that they can blame conservatives in America for more violence .However , Such is the political reality and the media agenda of most democrats today.
Ever heard a democrat reason in a debate , No , they merely scream their reasoning power away , it happens in a school budget meeting , a town meeting and in their extremely useful news media .
I hope everyone here realizes that the title of this discussion is "FAKE":
The "MAGA" Bomber is a right wing lunatic Bozo Trump Fan, not a leftist:
Yeah right, but you do realize that the title of this discussion is "FAKE" right? The "MAGA" Bomber suspect is a lunatic Trump fan who attended his hate gatherings:
Credence is very good at parroting my accusations of the far lefts very real majority of incredibly violent rhetoric , AND I say that as presidents always come and go every few years it's the NEWS MEDIA that has far more responsibility in limiting its own Anti- conservatism rhetoric and indirect supporting of violence..
-Media accountability ? None !
-Leftists accountability ? None !
Now they want to hold conservatives to account ? Right .........
Are we comparing violent rhetoric with actual body counts? Conservatism as it is practiced in the Era of Trump is crap, do you think that you can look in the mirror and see something other than your own reflection?
Yes, I am holding Conservatives and their rabid rightwing cousins to account!!
I will say it ONCE again , Which ideology is most responsible for "the falling through the cracks " in and of the legal system AND the softening of punishment and incarceration in these despicable acts of violence? BOTH the Florida "pipe bomber " and the synagog shooter seem to have extensive footprints both in the courts and legal system .
GA , Prettypanther , It is absolute mindless to assume this shooter or the bomber is mentally "normal " in any way , Which one of you or anyone here has to wait for the mental examinations to determine that someone who chooses to take the lives of innocent people by sitting for hours in the back of a van and fabricating pipe bombs ?
Which one of you or anyone here imagines daily picking up a firearm and walking into a synagogue and punching balls of lead through the flesh of eighty and ninety year olds praying to their god ?
I can say that these murderers are mentally ill without a college education and you cannot WITH ONE ? It is then no wonder the mass killing will never end in our lives , that crimes of any kind cannot be cured , it is no wonder our "normal " children walk into a school and take the lives of their fellow students in a mass shooting while your kind of opinions linger throughout or culture in spades ,
Plus, these were supporters of George Soros. Soros has been leading the destruction of Western Civilization and eventually somebody is going to have to do something about it.
??? Where do you come up with that one? People need to stop politicizing violence. It's insanity; plain and simple. Politicians and their supporters do not cause insanity in others.
You can't conduct a war on western civilization, like George Soros is doing, and not expect people to try to defend their values.
Values like 'I don't like your politics so I'm going to send you a pipe bomb' or 'I don't like a religion so I'll kill its adherents' are not values we should defend the right to defend. They are sick and twisted.
Is that how you feel about radical Islam? George Soros and radical Islam are conducted the same war on Western Civilization from different ends.
Live to learn , Synchophantastic , ......Synch is correct . I just listened to WBUR NPR in Boston just do an "On Point" broadcast that associates this shooter not only with Trump rhetoric , but grouped all "conservatives , white nationalists , Nazi collaborators ........" ,WITH THIS SHOOTERS motives .................
If you or anyone here believes that that isn't incredibly damning and biased media rhetoric then you don't know or understand what news media bias is at all . I am next going to contact that station and ream them out . I am done with listening to the bias and hate slanted rhetoric from NPR ,for that matter from any leftist spewing narrative that goes off as anti-conservative like they just did .
You and I are of one mind, sir. Just because conservatives believe in a traditional America, one that perhaps harkens back fifty or a hundred years, one that respects the Constitution, one that focuses on traditional values and traditional ways of life, does not mean that we are racists and terrorists. At the very least, Christian values deserve the same respect as other values - at the VERY LEAST. Instead, Christians are now being lumped in with terrorists simply because we use the Bible to establish our moral and ethical code. RIDICULOUS.
Wilderness , You might as well debate with a brick wall as reason with activists on the left . And yes ! As you know Democrats adopted leftism in the sixties and have since interbred with it as if trying to breed a new race of group thought cyborgs with an affinity to western world destruction .
Prove me wrong ! Those on the left will never take responsibility for their unified anti-America message and actions . They haven't yet although they are now just beginning to openly assert that message , ...........................
"We Will Destroy America From Within ".
Ed, I wasn't making the point this guy was "mentally normal." I was arguing against the claim he was mentally ill.
Broadly speaking, you perspective could be expanded to consider any bad action that is against societal norms to be a case of mental illness. Of course that determination is based on how "bad" someone views that action to be.
You peg it at these murders. Would one murder meet your bar? How about just being a 'hater', could that be a mentally ill person? I think you might say no, so next would be the question of that "hater" acting on their hate, would that person then be mentally ill?
It is only my perspective, and I doubt it would be professionally supported, but I think there are simply bad people among us. Folks that are bad by their own volition, and folks that can be manipulated into being bad people.
Are weak-minded, (not as in feeble minded), folks mentally ill?
This guy obviously seems to be a hater. Did he only become mentally ill when he acted on his hate? When he violated society's norms?
As someone with multiple degrees in psychology (though not quite a professional yet), I agree with you.
It’s also worth noting that most mentally ill people are not violent and do not commit crimes, so it seems unreasonable to use that as a point in which mental illness hinges.
Thanks for the attempted support Aime, and judging from your previous response to Wilderness, I think we hold similar views, but ...
When I went looking for support of my position, I came across this psychiatric bible referred to as DM5, (or something like that), and their listing of Personality Disorders that they now include as diagnosis of mental illness.
Now, I question whether it is accurate to call a disorder a mental illness, but apparently they think it is. I found no support, (until your comment), but I still hold my perspective to be the more realistic one.
*Your well-documented thought that most mentally ill people are non-violent may be in jeopardy now that the basket of mental illness diagnosis' has grown to be so encompassing.
There are no such thing as bad people any more - just mentally ill people, bless their hearts.
People with certain types of personality disorders are more likely to commit crimes but it still doesn’t stand to reason that everyone who commits a crime does so because of a mental illness. There’s a good reason that the NCRMD fails miserably most of the time.
Honestly I think this is more of a philosophical issue than a psychological one. Right versus wrong and why some people can’t grasp (or don’t care about) the difference.
Does the profession consider amoral people ill? Does the question even have a bearing here?
I DO think you're right in that it is more a philosophical issue today. Blame is not assigned to the mentally ill - compassion and understanding forbids such action. We are also progressing to a better understanding that there IS no universal, god given right and wrong, not in a secular society that forbids such definitions by government.
So it is philosophical. Or at least so it seems to me.
Don , Aime ,
It is abnormal for people to go around committing mass killings because they are what ? Angry . No . "Angry people" don't cut it .
What normal human being even one who is angered by political rhetoric sits for hours making bombs , takes a weapon of any kind and calmly walks into a room and begins to sort out his apparent irritation of normalcy ?
We're certainly seeing angry in the streets , the academic fueled anger of Antifa , an anger turned lose to don a mask hiding one's identity , throwing molotov cocktails or BLM made up of angry mobs at times selecting a perhaps lone "white man " , or turning over a police cruiser and torching that ? Are these people angry , are they deranged ? Are they politically motivated ?
It's more than obvious even degreed professionals can't begin to answer these questions , The pipe bomber may even be less than intelligent enough to know the consequences of his acts ? Whatever the answers , we are never going to see the end of these incidences in our lifetime . My point being , as you're calling out our president in partisan blame , I call out the incredible media bias which has far ,far greater responsibilities than one or even two passing presidents.
By the way , Obama had just as much affect on inciting anger and political divisiveness as Trump , will you all be blaming Obama as well as your arch enemy Trump ? Remember , the greatest recorded firearm and ammunition salesman in America ---of all time ---was Barack Obama , can I get an amen to that ?
To make this point again, it seems to me you have a problem with black people and I would be shocked if you weren't a racist. Do you use the n-word regularly? Have many black friends?
Just to be clear, this "angry mob" line emerged from white nationalist sites and is white nationalist rhetoric that has made its way into the right-wing mainstream. Attacks on George Soros also came from white nationalist sites with clear anti-semitic messages. Parroting that message means you agree with the white nationalists or are completely ignorant about where those messages come from or just don't care.
Every single person who posts here should recognize such talk for what it is - racism and anti-semitism - and denounce it every time they see it.
Crankalicious , Calling me racist while you belonging to the new Democratic party , an ideology that still invisions enslaving minorities as a Democratic success story , Oh that's cute and yet so very predictable . Sounds like race baiting to everyone here !
Have you heard of the newest political shifting in your party ?
"Blexit ", the exit movement of blacks walking away from your party in droves ? I always find it interesting when the term is so easily thrown around by the left SO MUCH so that you even now call black conservatives -racists ! Your race baiting hypocrisy is astounding .
I actual feel sympathy for your party's enslaved minorities and am reminded every time I meet a person of color , your party has so incited racism in all your people that they can't even make eye contact with someone smiling at them on the street , sure though , blame conservatives for your imploding Democratic party .
It just fits . I love the insults here coming from fake names .
“I love the insults here coming from fake names.”
And for how many years were you doing that exact same thing?
Put your name up there Aime , It's refreshing and a direct challenge to those whose hypocrisy is constant , I was so challenged many times , think about it . At least I chose not hiding .
Did you know that women often hide their identities online for safety reasons?
Yes especially in forums , Not so much on social media huh ?
You can control who sees your profile and posts on social media. You can't do that on the forums.
Plus you can be as nasty to people as you wish ?
You can do that with it without your real name. You've proven that.
And you do it even better ....always.
In fact you're the best here.
Aw, Ed, don’t sell yourself short like that. You definitely take the cake. Your only real competition is Jake, but honestly you guys are pretty much just opposing versions of each other.
Lol, it's all in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?
This is my name. And my photo. I’ve never been hiding.
Care to answer my questions? Have any black friends? Use the n-word with any regularity? Everything you post involves fear of the other. You fear black people standing up for themselves and you fear immigrants. You ascribe behaviors to them that incite more fear. White nationalism at its finest.
The difference between what I have posted and what you have posted is that you are projecting your frustrations and wild interpretations of socialists onto me while I have merely interpreted your own words and provided some context for them.
I actually despise the Democratic Party as it's currently constituted and I've posted that position many times, so try again.
So without taking out of context anything of all I've said ,why don't you do us all a favor and point out my "racism " , When you're done I will offer you a small surprise !
I've already done that. I explained exactly why I think you're racist - because you blow the same dog whistles that emerged from white nationalist web sites - attacking BLM, calling out George Soros. It's your goto attack. There's always some threatening "other" at fault when you lash out.
Let me guess my small surprise - you're an African-American! Or you're married to an African-American? You adopted a child from Zimbabwe? Any of those would be awesome and totally set me on my heels.
Crankalicious ,As usual you can't point to the subject you just scream your party's lines in desperate hysterics ; add five phony charges and mix thoroughly .....scream it out.
It shows absolutely zero depth of political intelligence ,I suggest you move over to the cooking and recipe forums . Do come back however when you gain some depth in political knowledge .
Want to truly understand the ideology of leftist hypocrisy ? Look to the patterns of the spoken policy , the behavior and then the action , there is no finer method of seeing into the ideals of your party than to expose the naked truth.
Gonna show us all my racist remarks and N-word use anytime soon Crankalicious ?
Definitely not. Your words speak for themselves.
I thought not ! And false accusations of the leftist uninformed speaks [screams] for itself ........I'm saving your little surprise for your next "racist "insult however .
Not fair, Ed. I want my surprise! It's a picture of your African-American ex-wife, isn't it? An adopted child? You go to a black church? You own all of Drake's albums? You have an Al Jolson tattoo?
And what do you want me to do? List all your racist comments?
And I didn't say you've used the n-word here. I asked you how many times you use the n-word say, in a month. Have you ever used it?
Anyone raised the definition of sociopath or psychopath ?
No sense of empathy whatsoever . All this talk !
"Its all in the eye " .....of the rejection of socialism is what it is , Now being rejected in many parts of the world , are you watching the UK , Germany , Brazil , Trump's America , Canada next , Trudeau is losing his appeal too ............? I've disliked those who don a mask no matter what the mission , phony forum names , socialists like Antifa in black masks the streets or the police controlling them .
"My word is my name " Who said that ?
Cranlkalicious In fact , before I offer up your little surprise please clarify my "white nationalist " stance with my "racism ", where I've "used the n-word ".........anywhere ,..........
I'll be waiting ,
Once again, I didn't say you have used the n-word. I asked you if you had. Do you use it regularly? Have you ever used it in your life? If so, how many times? You have yet to address the question. All you have to do is say you don't use the word and have never used it. Pretty simple.
And I explained how you are using criticisms that originated from white nationalist web sites.
For somebody who is attacking (understandably so under the circumstances) the depth of my political acumen, you're making this really hard.
Lol. I can thin it down to one. If you are a conservative a liberal would call you a racist, no matter you race or ethnicity. Who needs 10, when you are left of the aisle?
Still wondering WHY HubPages continues to risk their reputation by not removing a "FAKE" title like:
"FBI Arrests Leftist in Pipe Bombing Scare in South Florida"
When in reality, the world knows the person arrested was a right wing nut case:
There are other "FAKE" titles and right wing Hate Speech in abundance here on this site: Not Good for HubPages future:
And your usual Trump speech isn't hate speech ?
It’s clearly sarcasm, Jake.
And I’m not sure you’re one to be preaching about quality content.
In reality, it's actually a right wing "FALSE Title" and many former internet sites such as Russian TV, Alex Jones and many others have finally been removed from circulation for this exact same kind of proliferation of lies and hatred: If HubPages lasts another 6 months given all the extreme, crazy right wing conspiracy and hatred spewed around here, I'll be surprised: Unless of course they decide to clean up their act
I understand we have an illegitimate, most dishonest president in recorded history who every time he opens his mouth, has about a 90% chance of blurting out a falsehood which systematically degrades our oval office, our credibility and the USA to the point of absurdity, but that doesn't excuse the spreading of lies by the conservative right wing, aka white nationalists
By the way, my discussions are based on the TRUTH and yes, I do go after politicians NOT HubPages members, primarily dangerous conservative right wing crazies who are trying to destroy this country like Bozo Trump and "Mutt" McConnell who will attempt to SLASH social security and medicare if God forbid republicans maintain control of congress after next Tuesday:
This is so off topic ,someone should actually do a hub about this , It is one of the most strenuous challenges against our nation's legacy and strength in morality .
"The Phoniness of Leftist Political Accusations ".
Why ? Because for a nation of people of both parties who have fought so hard against these worldly human tragedies like racism and nationalism , ie...WWII .......the Civil War ......Slavery .......etc. AND NOW the falsification of truth in such political phoniness as to falsely accuse ,
We as a nation of people SHOULD have learned such incredible lessons in the elimination of all the Hitlers of the world , we SHOULD have learned something .....anything.... in the horrible and unforgettable atrocities of EVEN our own ancestors , those who have historically dwelled in worlds of assorted hate , one kind or another , personal , race oriented , politically oriented , nationally oriented ...........
Yet, the extreme example of acquired knowledge stares us all right in the face today , As democrats today politically accuse ,for something so simple and lacking of any morality as political capital , false "Racism " !
This is something that has always made me actually angry and I seldom get angry , to falsely accuse another person[s] or party of racism for what , forum attention ? No, because the party of the left has devolved to a political standing in America to some point just below the political viability and sustainability of Pat Poulsen . What horrible an accusation for simply political capital to accuse of such ?
Now I know there will be the usual sarcastic one line "come backs " for this , just as much as I know that many here have forgotten the perhaps familial or even personal sacrifices against what I am talking about ; For them who do ? You know exactly where to go .
If Hubpages started removing by request either threads , posts or hubs in the politically fake sense , we would all be asking now where did they go ?
by Sharlee 2 months ago
The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol will hold the first of at least a half-dozen public hearings this week, having already promised stunning revelations that would lay bare just how dangerously close the U.S. came to losing its democracy. So, will you tune in? ...
by Credence2 2 years ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-20 … ting-storyPlease watch the video and tell me what it is that Trump is talking about?
by Jack Lee 5 years ago
In light of recent events at UC Berkley, do you think their Federal funding should be pulled as suggested by President Trump?Why does Campus officials and police allow this riots and property destruction to take place?Are they so impotent they can't stop a few outside agitators wearing masks? If I...
by mannyrolando 11 years ago
Is there a bird in South Florida that sings mostly at night?I spend the past weekend at my mother's place and experienced something very peculiar... the most beautiful singing... this bird was singing non-stop and had a least 7 different "songs," however it was in the middle of the night...
by Mike Russo 3 years ago
President Trump, you have done it this time with your fake news, enemy of the people, and blame the democrats for everything rhetoric. It started with a package containing a live pipe bomb and white powder substance dropped off at George Soros house.Then mail detection equipment found packages with...
by Credence2 2 years ago
Here in Florida was passed a ballot initiative allowing ex felons who have served their time and were not convicted of specific crimes to be allowed to vote. The ballot measure was passed in 2016.But aware of the ever present treachery of the Republican Party, this many people now having access to...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|