Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, 6 YTBN Shot, Killed In Tuscon AZ

[nismaratwork]

Actually, his rant kind of sounds like some of the posts I've seen here.

Well... you have their IPs... you could make it policy to report such concerns to the police, including IP, to anyone with an AZ IP. Of course, there's a big difference between claiming that you can turn peanut butter into an "over-unity device", and ranting nearly incoherently (from a linguistic and structural perspective) about mind control, how the government controls minds using grammar... and then diagramming his "system".

I think there's also a difference between instances of anger, depression, euphoria, even mania... and an undiagnosed and UNTREATED mental illness of such severity. The fact is that most of the people fiddling with peanut butter, an Ohmmeter, and a 9 volt battery are harmless to everyone but themselves. It is a rare few who have such a disconnect from basic human norms that we have built into our biology and finish in childhood, but this guy sounds like he could be one of them. One way or another, whatever the mechanism his perceptions AND his capacity to process information are distorted badly. He's not "in his own little world" the way someone in the midst of an acute psychotic episode is, but the world he thinks he's living in is radically different from what the rest of us observe.

When you add the dysfunctional processing... tragedy.

 

[WhoWee]

True, or his friends, or the people who complained to the professor, or his parents, or the other people he scared, or arguably even aides to Ms. Giffords after his very odd exchange with her back in 2007.

Lets be blunt: it's amazing that he was reported as much as he was, given that people seem so hesitant to take such measures.

Perhaps they didn't trust the system - to both protect them from his retribution, and/or to "cure" him?

UNTIL he did this, in the larger view of the world, he really didn't stand out that much - (apparently) no assaults, no weapons charges, no gang affiliations, no death threats, and no history of violent behavior? Apparently he smoked pot - not exactly a warning sign for violent tendencies and might have actually mellowed him?

 

[nismaratwork]

Perhaps they didn't trust the system - to both protect them from his retribution, and/or to "cure" him?

UNTIL he did this, in the larger view of the world, he really didn't stand out that much - (apparently) no assaults, no weapons charges, no gang affiliations, no death threats, and no history of violent behavior? Apparently he smoked pot - not exactly a warning sign for violent tendencies and might have actually mellowed him?

Unfortunately pot is often used by people with mental illness ranging from simple anxiety and depression, where it can be unpredictable, to schizophrenia and other major disorders. Even more unfortunately one of the only real risk factors for marijuana use is a history of mental illness in the family. There is some, but not conclusive, data to indicate that marijuana MAY hasten the onset of a number of major psychiatric disorders.

I'd also add, that for someone so divorced from reality, a psychedelic would be TERRIBLE; this is someone who needs to be able to test reality, not feel added detachment and lessened anxiety as his mind shatters.

Anyway, he stands out when you look at his history, but as you're saying he wouldn't have stood out as more than the usual nut to anyone person or agency. This is where The Daily Show got it right: it helps to live in an atmosphere where people ranting about 2012, free energy, 9/11 conspiracies, end-times and every other topic that is rightly banned here... well... if they're all harmless he must be too... right? Wrong. The world is too big, and too noisy to pick out someone going relatively quietly insane. When we leave problems to fulminate, and have only a few poor mechanisms to offer treatment... why should we be surprised when they explode? Addiction, Mental Illness... anything people can get on a moral high-horse about and decide just takes GUMPTION to get over... these things we neglect, and we pay for it.

I could also offer a decent argument that infrequent tragedy is cheaper than overhauling our mental health system. Nasty way to think, but we live in nasty times.

 

[mugaliens]

I saw this interview yesterday.

"Prof. Called 911 on Loughner after Class "Rant"
Says She Called Police in September after Tucson Shooting Suspect Raved about Constitution, Freedom of Speech"

My goodness, Evo. I "rave" about our Constitution on a couple other forums all the time. In fact, I spent more than 20 years serving in the U.S. military, throughout which I, along with all other military officers, congressmen, police officers, and presidents, and federal judges had sworn to protect and defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

However, you'll not find either I nor any of the other millions who have served our country running around gunning down members of Congress.

For all we know, the kid trimmed his nails and brushed his teeth, too, neither of which has anything to do with the fact he committed a heinous crime.

Let's stick with facts that are relevant!

Thanks.

Actually, his rant kind of sounds like some of the posts I've seen here before. When I first heard of his ramblings, world currency, government control, etc... I was wondering if he was a former member. I know I've seen the "teachers are paid with our taxes, they're part of the government scheme to brainwash and control us", yada yada. I guess it's just common conspiracy nuttiness. When do you make the leap from assuming it's just another dumb kid to he's a danger to society?

Now this makes sense. I'm not sure if there is a point of demarcation whereupon one might declare another to be a threat to society. In fact, I think it would be incredibly dangerous to attempt to do so based on what someone wrote, as what one writes is often seriously at odds with what one might do. I would even argue that many murderous individuals never wrote a thing before they stepped forward to commit murder and mayhem.

Sadly, I think the only point whereby we can be assured that someone has crossed the line is when someone has crossed the line.

On another note, decades ago I was assessed by a psychologist who used some sort of Q&A test to find me a "danger to society." What a goof. After that I spent 20 years in the military serving my country. Yes, I flew B-52s, and yes, we carried nuclear weapons. What's it like to be responsible for such a mission? It was serious, and I, as well as the rest of us who accepted that mission took it very seriously. I don't know of anyone who wanted things to move forward, but we were all well prepared had things moved forward. I thank God my services were not required!

Back to the 22-year old who gunned down the Congrsswoman: Out of the crowd, just two people tackled this kid, and they deserve the highest recognition for their bravery and effort.

 

[Proton Soup]

so start reporting your neighbors to the gov't now? is that a sane response, or a crazy response?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

My goodness, Evo. I "rave" about our Constitution on a couple other forums all the time.

It wasn't the Constitution that was relevant, it was the call to 911. Given recent events I would think it was very relevant. If he had trimmed his nails and brushed his teeth in a way that resulted in a call to 911 that would be relevant too.

 

[nismaratwork]

so start reporting your neighbors to the gov't now? is that a sane response, or a crazy response?

I'd say it depends on the neibours, but Proton, if I were living next to these people, would I even think to make that call? The only people we KNOW were there when he became threatening or otherwise made people uncomfortable enough for a boot from COMMUNITY COLLEGE... in Tuscon... ARIZONA. I still can't get over that one... you truly must be mad as a cut snake to stand out that badly in that setting.

Anyway, you're making a moot point. Neighbors can ALREADY do that, and always could. The controlling mechanism would be reprecussionns of a legal and social nature, which is probably why Arizona can't decide if its a police state, or 'the last free state'. Actually, that seems to be a common problem in this country, but again, NOTHING to do with...

THE SHOOTING.

Does Evo need to get us back on topic AGAIN?


Jimmy Snyder: Second time I've laughed in this thread. You're right, if he trimmed his nails he'd probably take off his fingers.

 

[nismaratwork]

It wasn't the Constitution that was relevant, it was the call to 911. Given recent events I would think it was very relevant. If he had trimmed his nails and brushed his teeth in a way that resulted in a call to 911 that would be relevant too.

He's not talking about the relevance of the Constitution, he's saying that he could potentially fall into Evo's grouping, even though as he points out, he's practically the opposite of Loughner: School, Military, Life.

 

[nismaratwork]

<snip>
Now this makes sense. I'm not sure if there is a point of demarcation whereupon one might declare another to be a threat to society. In fact, I think it would be incredibly dangerous to attempt to do so based on what someone wrote, as what one writes is often seriously at odds with what one might do. I would even argue that many murderous individuals never wrote a thing before they stepped forward to commit murder and mayhem.

Sadly, I think the only point whereby we can be assured that someone has crossed the line is when someone has crossed the line.

regarding bolded: Too true! In fact, most people find melding the two 'voices' quite difficult, and that's a fairly simple matter. There is freedom and anonymity in writing as well, if you want.

but... Loughner didn't. He posted under his name, clearly seeking other like-minded (perish the thought) individuals. I'd argue that the content of his writing, like the content of his delusions, are interesting if you want to treat him, otherwise, who cares? The structure on the other hand, that a computer could be tipped off to.

Sometime I'm going to be less lazy and post a related thread about that... I've talked about this too much without support or discussion, and in a thread that needs to stay focused.

or:

I'm lazy if I don't post to teach you about this. If I don't post then I'm lazy. Lazy people are [random group or individual characteristic], and I'm not lazy. I'll teach you about handwriting because I'm not lazy.

Which one is crazy? The second is certainly a logical disaster area, but why is it so crazy? It's something worth thinking about, because it's a real area of very active study, and a means of diagnosis between delusional disorders, various personality disorders, and a few other less common issues.

Note: Everything I've said regarding his mind from page 1 goes out the window if say... he's been using methamphetamine for a while. In any psychological discussion, every sentence basically ends: "unless there is an underlying substance abuse issue, or medical cause."

 

[WhoWee]

It wasn't the Constitution that was relevant, it was the call to 911. Given recent events I would think it was very relevant. If he had trimmed his nails and brushed his teeth in a way that resulted in a call to 911 that would be relevant too.

Perhaps the sheriff should take note and listen to any other 9/11 calls that are similar - or would that be profiling?

The people of Pima County might want to find out who is responsible for what? Maybe the sheriff will address his department's responsibilities in his next press conference?

 

[Proton Soup]

I'd say it depends on the neibours, but Proton, if I were living next to these people, would I even think to make that call? The only people we KNOW were there when he became threatening or otherwise made people uncomfortable enough for a boot from COMMUNITY COLLEGE... in Tuscon... ARIZONA. I still can't get over that one... you truly must be mad as a cut snake to stand out that badly in that setting.

Anyway, you're making a moot point. Neighbors can ALREADY do that, and always could. The controlling mechanism would be reprecussionns of a legal and social nature, which is probably why Arizona can't decide if its a police state, or 'the last free state'. Actually, that seems to be a common problem in this country, but again, NOTHING to do with...

THE SHOOTING.

Does Evo need to get us back on topic AGAIN?

moot? i think the reporting of IPs was mentioned. but yes, he was reported. he was a familiar face to law enforcement. thing is, we used to keep people with mental problems institutionalized many years ago. then for reasons I'm not as familiar with since it is even a bit before my time, we let them out and they became the odd folks that live on the street talking to themselves and begging for alms. some of it ostensibly for protection of their rights, but there had to be a bit of "not with my tax money" going on.

does this have to do with the shooting? it has to do with the reactions of people to it. which i find fascinating.

 

[Evo]

Let's stick with facts that are relevant!

No idea what you are ranting about, the article is extremely relevant. As for ex-military, funny you should mention that, when the news first came out, the first thing that people assumed was that the shooter was ex-military, it was discussed at the beginning of the thread.

On another note, decades ago I was assessed by a psychologist who used some sort of Q&A test to find me a "danger to society."

Then you joined the military? Not sure what your point is.

 

[jreelawg]

I agree that it was obvious based on his obsessions and writings that he was insane. I wouldn't go as far as to recommend anyone who thinks we should move to a gold standard, or who believes in conspiracy theories, involving things like even mind control, should be considered a threat and institutionalized. Especially since there is some president for being suspicious in this regard. Bottom line the government has been caught doing some pretty horrific things in the not so distant past. Should having the suspicion something sinister is going on, be reason enough to call someone a psychopath and a danger to society?

One day there may be a vile conspiracy facing us, and it would help if people were level headed enough to be without strong superficial procedure. That being said, when a person is obsessed with this stuff, and confrontational about it, and their thinking is so illogical and garbled, you can tell something is wrong.

But really I think conspiracy theories are not to blame, Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck are not to blame. Now consider this, even if everything the shooter believed were true, why shoot a bunch of innocent people including a little girl, and why Gifford? I think this guy had personal issues, and he expressed his problems in a specific direction. If he hadn't been into the ideas he had, and didn't care about politics, he probably would have shot up the college campus instead. This guy was just plain psycho and hateful.

 

[turbo]

The guy had 5 separate run-ins with campus security, and was told that he had to have a psych evaluation before he would be allowed to attend CC again. Still, nobody called the hot-line to trigger such an evaluation based on his erratic, disruptive behavior.

 

[nismaratwork]

moot? i think the reporting of IPs was mentioned. but yes, he was reported. he was a familiar face to law enforcement. thing is, we used to keep people with mental problems institutionalized many years ago. then for reasons I'm not as familiar with since it is even a bit before my time, we let them out and they became the odd folks that live on the street talking to themselves and begging for alms. some of it ostensibly for protection of their rights, but there had to be a bit of "not with my tax money" going on.

does this have to do with the shooting? it has to do with the reactions of people to it. which i find fascinating.

I'm familiar with those reasons, but not a scholar of them. To a great degree the history of caring for the mentally ill in the country was changed by the perception of "mad houses" and sudden trans-orbital lobotomies. Psychology has attracted some very brilliant, and some very troubled minds to the field, and the result tends to be that the public sees it as voodoo.

The other big issue, and I don't want to open a major debate here... we have a prison industry, and the focus went to that. You can't lose with a, "Touch on crime, tough on criminals" slogan... you can get it in bad place if you lead with, "Lets put Dahmer in a secure institution for life!" Psychology is often seen as a threat to the good 'ol judeo-chrisitan principles so many in this country hold dear. What put a capstone over that was probably the Governor's dilemma: do I pardon or release a prisoner?

If you pardon/release someone you believe is innocent, even an innocent person might commit a different crime. You're taking a risk on a person with potentially, your entire political career. If you leave them where they are, you break no laws, and unless supporters of that cause are SO numerous in your state that it threatens your re-election... why do it? A moral compass?... yeah, probably some use it for that.
--------------

NOTE: At this point I stopped, took a break, and came back. I can actually sum up the argument I was making at length in a sentence:

More and more, we live in a society (then and now), which is retributive and punitive in its penal system, in practice; this is incompatible with emerging evidence that some of the WORST and recidivist criminals have psychological and neurological defects.

I'll leave it at that. Everything else I talked about, and was going to talk about can be extrapolated from that one fact.

 

[drankin]

The guy had 5 separate run-ins with campus security, and was told that he had to have a psych evaluation before he would be allowed to attend CC again. Still, nobody called the hot-line to trigger such an evaluation based on his erratic, disruptive behavior.

There's a hot-line?

There are a lot of people that are like this. It's hindsight though. They aren't officially homicidal until they actually commit a homicide. One of these people actually commits an act and everyone points to all the "obvious" signs and wonder why nothing was done to prevent it. Catch 22 (I love that book).

 

[turbo]

There's a hot-line?

See post #388

 

[jreelawg]

More and more, we live in a society (then and now), which is retributive and punitive in its penal system, in practice; this is incompatible with emerging evidence that some of the WORST and recidivist criminals have psychological and neurological defects.

That's true, but can they all really be fixed? The shooter in this instance is clearly crazy, but I don't like the idea of him getting treated for 5 or 10 years in a mental hospital and being sent free. Many of these people who are crazy are capable of pretending to be sane. I don't know what the best procedure is for these type of psycho killers who have neurological disorders? My opinion is that for clear cut, and I mean really clear cut cases like this one, the shooter should be fast tracked to execution crazy or not.

 

[Evo]

The guy had 5 separate run-ins with campus security, and was told that he had to have a psych evaluation before he would be allowed to attend CC again. Still, nobody called the hot-line to trigger such an evaluation based on his erratic, disruptive behavior.

I think that's the point, he wasn't violent, he was weird.

"He made a lot of the people really uncomfortable, especially the girls in the class," said Steven Cates, who attended an advanced poetry writing class with Loughner at Pima Community College last spring. Though he struck up a passing friendship with Loughner, he said a group of other students went to the teacher to complain about Loughner at one point.

Another poetry student, Don Coorough, said Loughner read a poem about bland tasks such as showering, going to the gym and riding the bus in wild "poetry slam" style - "grabbing his crotch and jumping around the room."

And his parents were involved and were aware of his bizarre behavior.

According to Pima, Loughner was a student from the summer of 2005 though the fall of 2010. From February to September 2010, Loughner had five "contacts" with campus police for classroom and library disruptions. On Sept. 29, campus police found that he had filmed a video on YouTube that claimed the college was illegal according to the U.S. Constitution.

The college administration immediately suspended Loughner and delivered a letter of suspension to Loughner's parents' home. According to the Pima, police officers spoke with both Loughner and his parents.

The letter barred Loughner from returning to campus expect to set up an appointment and discuss the school's code of conduct and his suspension.

On Oct.4, Loughner and his parents met with college administrators and withdrew from school. On Oct. 7, Pima sent a letter to Loughner telling him that if he intended to return to school, he would have to get a letter from a mental health official indicating "his presence at the College does not present a danger to himself or others."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/10/national/main7231560.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

His parents should have insisted he seek a mental evaluation, but he was an adult and being weird and paranoid about the government wouldn't have been enough to get a court order to force a psychiatric evaluation. If it was, half of the people that post in P&WA would be subject to forced evaluations.

Would he have really failed a psychiatric exam? I was listening to a reporter describing him in his court hearing and the reporter said that Loughner appeared completely sane, calm, even polite, and appeared to completely understand everything the judge was saying to him.

 

[nismaratwork]

I agree that it was obvious based on his obsessions and writings that he was insane. I wouldn't go as far as to recommend anyone who thinks we should move to a gold standard, or who believes in conspiracy theories, involving things like even mind control, should be considered a threat and institutionalized. Especially since there is some president for being suspicious in this regard. Bottom line the government has been caught doing some pretty horrific things in the not so distant past. Should having the suspicion something sinister is going on, be reason enough to call someone a psychopath and a danger to society?

One day there may be a vile conspiracy facing us, and it would help if people were level headed enough to be without strong superficial procedure. That being said, when a person is obsessed with this stuff, and confrontational about it, and their thinking is so illogical and garbled, you can tell something is wrong.

But really I think conspiracy theories are not to blame, Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck are not to blame. Now consider this, even if everything the shooter believed were true, why shoot a bunch of innocent people including a little girl, and why Gifford? I think this guy had personal issues, and he expressed his problems in a specific direction. If he hadn't been into the ideas he had, and didn't care about politics, he probably would have shot up the college campus instead. This guy was just plain psycho and hateful.

If everyone who believed in conspiracies, even truly OUT THERE ones, were mentally ill the world would be even madder than it is.

Again, it is not WHAT he obsesses over, but THAT he obsesses, and further the form his writings take; that of someone trying to actively control themselves... almost have an externalized internal dialogue... and then add a kind of difficulty in processing all of it... that's what you look for in the writing. Obviously if he were doing a, "how to write like someone in the throes of a delusion" project, he'd be set, and no worries.

As it stands, written neurological and psychological tests; are the print analogues of a test you're probably familiar with (if not as a test, then in school): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_Apperception_Test

I'm not talking about the TAT exactly, but newer and grounded in newer principles of the thing that is psychology (I love it, but I'm not pretending it's a science). It's important to realize that when we talk to someone, when we let them talk, or write, the structures they employ or are foiled by tell us a great deal about whether or not a problem is present. It's not so fantastic when it comes to narrower applications except that mentioned previously.

So, yes... What the shooter believed doesn't matter... why the shooter fixated on these issues... probably the environment, but it wasn't going to be "fixate on government or just get sane!". Above all, his writing again seems to be about mind control, and that is often the realm of people who strongly believe that their thoughts are being influenced by an external force. That doesn't mean you're insane, maybe just misinformed, or GOK... it is however a good place to start.

 

[arildno]

As somebody has suggested elsewhere, Loughner's grudge against Giffords may have started with that in her "Thank-You card", she mis-spelt his name as "Loughney".

Within a deranged mind obsessed with mind-control-through-grammar, this might be construed as a deeply sinister message.

Thus, I am gradually changing my position to that Loughner might, indeed, have a specific[(I] grudge against Giffords personally

 

[jreelawg]

So, yes... What the shooter believed doesn't matter... why the shooter fixated on these issues... probably the environment, but it wasn't going to be "fixate on government or just get sane!". Above all, his writing again seems to be about mind control, and that is often the realm of people who strongly believe that their thoughts are being influenced by an external force. That doesn't mean you're insane, maybe just misinformed, or GOK... it is however a good place to start.

I agree. If a person however were writing things which required their own internal self discussions to decipher, and therefor made no logical sense to the reader, yet were talking about mundane things without a confrontational tone, you might mistake them for a poet. It is the fact they appear to be disturbed which raises the flag, you can tell they are ready to snap.

 

[nismaratwork]

That's true, but can they all really be fixed? The shooter in this instance is clearly crazy, but I don't like the idea of him getting treated for 5 or 10 years in a mental hospital and being sent free. Many of these people who are crazy are capable of pretending to be sane. I don't know what the best procedure is for these type of psycho killers who have neurological disorders? My opinion is that for clear cut, and I mean really clear cut cases like this one, the shooter should be fast tracked to execution crazy or not.

It depends on what needs fixing, and how much a human can be reliable. People tend to focus on the obvious nightmare scenario we're taught from fun stories and campfire tales: The lunatic escapes the nuthouse...

Well, there's no reason that the "nuthouse", can't be a supermax on the outside. There's sifting that needs to be done between those inmates with treatable mental illness, those who are going to require long-term care (read: potential life in 'hospital'), and those who are sociopaths and for whom there's nothing that can be done at this time, or really even the forseeable future.

Your argument for execution is logical too, but there's a big flaw: If "crazy gets you killed", then we just made mental illness the next shooting offense. That strikes me as a giant step backwards, and an invitation to more of what we have: prisons full of a mix of people serving time and rehabilitating, drug addicts, career criminals and casualties of poor parenting (i.e. non-sociopathic career criminals), sociopaths, other mentally ill individuals.

Our understanding of neurology, medicine, and psychology has undergone a revolution over the past century and more, but our mental health system has taken a huge step back. What kind of sense does that make.

Personally btw, I find the concept of executing people who are 'crazy', retarded, or otherwise people society recognizes as LESS than competent... except in court. Finally, part of the move away from mental health institutions was that people can be kept there under a doctor's order until they DIE OF OLD AGE. Since "crazy" is a much more fluid concept for most than, "murder", "theft", "battery" etc... we might enact such measures with the best intentions only to have future iterations used as a means to sequester unwanted elements from society, much like prisons, but with a broader and supposedly compassionate mandate.

So instead we did the same thing, but put them in prison and removed the compassionate mandate... and the started to systematically make funding for necessary research scarce.

 

[jreelawg]

As somebody has suggested elsewhere, Loughner's grudge against Giffords may have started with that in her "Thank-You card", she mis-spelt his name as "Loughney".

Within a deranged mind obsessed with mind-control-through-grammar, this might be construed as a deeply sinister message.

Thus, I am gradually changing my position to that Loughner might, indeed, have a specific[(I] grudge against Giffords personally

Me too except that he shot a bunch of other people he probably didn't even know. Like one person said, he routinely laughs at things which are sad.

 

[nismaratwork]

I agree. If a person however were writing things which required their own internal self discussions to decipher, and therefor made no logical sense to the reader, yet were talking about mundane things without a confrontational tone, you might mistake them for a poet. It is the fact they appear to be disturbed which raises the flag, you can tell they are ready to snap.

Yep, information is nothing without context when it comes to psychology. Now if you could figure out how to tell when that snap is coming (usually the flags are sporadic, then come fast and hard) and prevent it, I promise to invest in your Jreelawg Co... because you will be MINTING money.

Arildno: In fact, given his obsession with how words and grammar control thoughts, he may have latched onto that! I mean, people who are obsessed with "the orgone" somehow conflate that conspiracy with cell towers. In fact... a LOT of conspiracies feature cellphone toward, high tension power lines, radio towers... I wonder why...

1.) They're big, tall and in the crazy person's face. Grass is green, and big antennae are a common sight.
2.) They transmit and receive signals, a concept that many who are in the process of losing their minds become fixated upon; there is some thinking that the internal experience of hearing voices or failing to process information properly, mixed with failed insight, leads to a need to externalize the source of changes in mood and thought...

... which leads to predictably unpredictable behaviour. What does someone in that mindset do if they become desperate, and believe whole-heartedly in their delusion? Well, I just attacked them, so they may attack me back. Of course, sane people don't react predictably to attacks, except for the one constant: fight or flight means there will be a reaction.

Loughner could have shot himself on the way to Giffords, or in is case, more likely could have shot the cab driver. At that point, I doubt he was seeing people... and if I'm wrong, and he did, he should die for killing that little girl.

 

[nismaratwork]

Me too except that he shot a bunch of other people he probably didn't even know. Like one person said, he routinely laughs at things which are sad.

Yeah, that was me, and it's the first sign I've seen in the media that might indicate something on the sociopathic end of the spectrum, instead of Schizophrenia. Still, my bet is with someone still in the relatively early stages of Schizophrenia, but falling fast.

 

[nismaratwork]

Dr. Phillip Resnick very ethically did not make a diagnosis of Loughner on CNN, however when speaking in the hypotheical about people LIKE Loughner... Schizophrenia. I'm so going to win this petty and meanignles bet with myself, and only I care at all! Wheee!

Back to the serious note. He also had this to say when asked who Loughner reminded him of:

it reminds me of Cho, the uh, Virginia tech shooter as someone who engaged in a lot of minor, inappropriate activity. Scaring fellow students, scaring professors, and uh then other people NOT, um, even though he went to a mental health clinic once, ah, people not putting the pieces together.

He goes on to explain that violence as a result of mental illness is often found in the context of persecutorial delusions. Here's a profile of the man: http://www.cwru.edu/med/psychiatry/profile-resnick.htm

 

[edward]

I'm not clear on the timeline - this apparently happened before he ever purchased a gun?

I caught the end of an interview earlier (again only heard part) that inferred the sheriff's office (apparently they monitor gun purchases locally?) might have dropped the ball. I'll try to find something to clarify - again, I only heard part of the piece - label this IMO for now.

No the FBI and ATF monitors gun purchases. As far as loghner's contacts with law enforcement. They were with the Campus Police of Pima Community College. There were five contacts in all.

He had one contact with the Sheriff's department. He was cited for possessing drug paraphernalia

Loughner was finally expelled from the school in September. He couldn't go back until a private mental health evaluation was done. It had to show that he was not a danger to other people.

The College administration never pursued it or reported it. If anyone dropped the ball here it was the Community College.. Oddly though as soon as Campus police showed up Loughner calmed down and acted reasonably normal.

The guy was also clever enough to keep telling teachers that they were violating his constitutional rights.

 

[arildno]

Me too except that he shot a bunch of other people he probably didn't even know.

IF I should speculate in that, he probably didn't regard them as People.

He has had a history of inability to connect with other people.

This has of course as an internal correlate that he was an intensely lonely person, but most likely as well, a feeling that the actual people around him were Cardboard Figures, rather than Real People (.ie, a sort of projection of his own failure to connect).

Remember that he said stuff like that only 5 percent of people being conscience dreamers, the others having been sapped of their humanity by the mind-controlling government.

Thus, he didn't really shoot people at all, but merely removed nuisances or tragic end products of nefarious governmental activity..

 

[Evo]

The College administration never pursued it or reported it.

Actually, they did pursue it with his parents. See my post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3077829&postcount=409