Hi ahotch2. With all due respect I disagree that he was not "rational", in fact at the most basic and fundamental levels of cognition, I think he was hyper rational about the mass murder he planned and brought to completion.
It is my belief that the problem was that he had a significant mood disturbance and disrupted problem solving (generally referred to as mental illness). But as to the question of whether he intended to kill children--OF COURSE HE DID!! That fact, in my humble estimation, is irrefutable. By his own words he set out to kill as many people as he could that night, and children are people.
In fact, he clearly knew that he could kill children as evidenced by him asking specifically if any children were hurt/killed. It is absolutely irrelevant that he expresses regret that a child was killed or that he says he didn't want to/was hoping not to kill children. He knew damn good and well that children were more than likely going to be in the theater that night but did exactly as he wanted anyway. Also, none of us know how he defines what "children" are but I would bet my house that he knew teenagers would be watching the midnight premiere of Batman FGS--are they any less children? Hell no!
He didn't give one rat's a$$ about anyone but himself. His intent was to protect himself from pain, suffering and death while carrying out mass murder of innocent people with cruel difference, willful intent and maximum effect.
They have a verdict now!! Finally !!!
Verdict will be read in 20 min.
I'm concerned & prepared for a shock.
Since legal insanity and not rationality is what needs to be determined: Do you believe he is not guilty by reason of insanity?I think he was rational on some things and not on others. I think Dr Reid illustrated this. Obviously the 1 kill = 1 point of self worth is certainly not rational. I believe he intended to kill as many people as possible but minimizing the number of children. But the fact that children were going to die wasn't ever going to stop him.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Since they found him guilty on all counts. I can't imagine how it would not go on to phase two. Would they start phase two proceedings today?
OT,
I am watching, but mostly listening to, the Jamie Hood trial. What a doozy it is!:facepalm:
I think he was rational on some things and not on others. I think Dr Reid illustrated this. Obviously the 1 kill = 1 point of self worth is certainly not rational. I believe he intended to kill as many people as possible but minimizing the number of children. But the fact that children were going to die wasn't ever going to stop him.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I honestly just cannot imagine they didn't find one aggravator proven-BUT, juries always surprise us!Nahhh. This jury won't surprise us.
Since legal insanity and not rationality is what needs to be determined: Do you believe he is not guilty by reason of insanity?