Slashdot Mirror


Using Truth Serum To Confirm Insanity

xclr8r writes "James Holmes representation did not enter a plea today in with regards to the Aurora, Co. Movie theater shooting so the Judge entered a plea of not guilty for James that could be changed at a later date by Holmes' attorney. The judge entered an advisory that if the plea was changed to Not Guilty by insanity that Holmes would be subject to a 'narcoanalytic interview' with the possibility of medically appropriate substances could be used e.g. so called truth serums. Holmes defense looks to have initially objected to this but as the previous article seems to infer that some compromises are being worked out. This certainly raises legal questions on how this is being played out 5th, 14th amendments. The legal expert in the second article states this is legal under Co. law but admits there's not a huge amount of cases regarding this. I was only able to find Harper v State where a defendant willingly underwent truth serum and wanted to submit the interview on his behalf but was rejected due to the judge not recognizing sufficient scientific basis to admit the evidence."

53 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. Good luck for Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If he's willing to submit to drug-enhanced interrogation, he's certified crazy!

    1. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Alranor · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's somebody called Yossarian on the phone, I think he wants to talk to you ...

    2. Re:Good luck for Holmes by bsane · · Score: 2

      2) because 'the other side' doesn't use overboard scare tactics?

    3. Re:Good luck for Holmes by ByOhTek · · Score: 2

      *Shrug*

      Probably, because if he were sane, he would be likely to fail, and it'd be useless.

      I don't see how saying "take the test or that plea won't be acceptable" violates the 5th or 14th though. The right to not incriminate yourself, or the right to liberty (except when denied by due process) is not violated by such an option. The mispercieved "right to be believed in what you say" and possible "get away with it" are violated, but we aren't given those rights. All this is, is an attempt by the court, to establish a strong verification of the truth. The person isn't required to take the test.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    4. Re:Good luck for Holmes by artfulshrapnel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I guess my biggest complaint would be: How good is truth serum at verifying the type of insanity claimed, and what qualification does the judge have to diagnose the suspect's mental condition? The human brain and psychoactive drugs are a horribly complex nest of interconnected issues, and even trained professionals can't always predict the effect they'll have on abnormal brains or in abnormal combinations

      For example:
      Let's say he really is insane, but the truth serum they use temporarily stabilizes him by suppressing an overactive region in his brain. Now during the test he'll be perfectly sane and normal, but as soon as the drug wears off he goes back to crazytown.

    5. Re:Good luck for Holmes by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      Well then it's a good thing the judge would not be administering the test itself!

      (I hope he wouldn't be)

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    6. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Kreigaffe · · Score: 5, Informative

      Truth serum does not fucking work, period, at all. This has been known for many decades now. If it worked, we would've been using it against Bad Guys in Secret Prisons, and we're not. We're not because it doesn't fucking work and everyone knows that.

      Except apparently the people in this court room.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    7. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Mitreya · · Score: 2

      Truth serum does not fucking work, period, at all. This has been known for many decades now. If it worked, we would've been using it against Bad Guys in Secret Prisons, and we're not.

      Torture also does not work (well, not for the purposes of getting reliable information ) and that has been known for a while too. Didn't stop our administration(s) from using it.

    8. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Golddess · · Score: 2

      You must be one of those "you don't need guns, and if you disagree with me, well, that just proves my case as to why you don't need guns" people. So I expect my words will be falling on deaf ears, but I'll say them anyway.

      AC calmly explaining to Barsteward the notion of defending oneself, of refusing to roll over and letting someone else walk all over them, is not "threatening him with being shot". Actually, if anyone is doing the threatening, it's you and Barsteward, threatening to label us insane for disagreeing with you. Sure, you two may not have the power to make such a threat mean anything, but we're not talking about one or two individuals running around calling people insane. At least, that's not how AC's post came across to me. The way it came across to me is that the person doing the "judging" actually does have the power to do something based on that judgment. And though I often joke about being insane, if someone with the authority to do something about it threatened to have me certified insane, me explaining how I will not sit idly by and let it happen is not evidence of insanity. It is what a rational, level-headed person would do.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    9. Re:Good luck for Holmes by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      I was recently talking with a friend, he is a pot head who is dating a substance abuse councillor. We were giving him shit, not because we have any issue with pot heads, just that he lied to her about it and kept the extent of it from her. He went on about how hes changing that now, quiting etc,

      It was pointed out that he started out with the lies to which he said "Well I couldn't exactly tell her that"... but the thing is...no he couldn't have told her that...if he wanted her to date him and sleep with him. Thats the subtext he left off "I couldn't tell her that". It was really "I couldn't tell her that, and still get what I wanted from her".

      Its really the same issue to my mind. If you can't tell people the truth and still have them support your goals, that doesn't really give you license to lie to them. (there are situations I would consider extenuating but, none of them apply to making these sorts of cases for social policy)

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  2. Precedent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Neddy: "You're mad, mad I tell you!"
    Bluebottle: "Little does he know that I'm as sane as the next man."
    Eccles: "Little does HE know that I'm the next man!"

    1. Re:Precedent... by drkim · · Score: 2

      So nice to see a Goon Show quote on /.

      Carry on...!

    2. Re:Precedent... by kramer2718 · · Score: 5, Funny

      “But I don’t want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
      "Oh, you can’t help that," said the Cat: "we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad."
      "How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice.
      "You must be," said the Cat, or you wouldn’t have come here.”

  3. Scientific basis by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure it's a pretty well known fact that the more I depress your CNS the less you are going to be capable of rationalization and higher thought to answer a question "creatively". However such an undertaking is not reliable or scientific at all, because there is a point at which I can get you to agree with and pretty much answer anything I want you to. Sigh. Americans and their obsession with torture. After all this is just torture in another guise, instead of using pain to interrogate, I am shutting down part of your brain. Either way you are being forced to confess and give testimony against yourself. Whatever happened to I dunno, finding EVIDENCE?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Scientific basis by itsthebin · · Score: 2

      Careful where you point your fingers or you might leave with fewer than you planned.

      it sounds like you intend to pull his fingers off .... gasp ... torturer

      --
      ...I obey the laws of physics....
    2. Re:Scientific basis by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      Wait, truth serum is torture now? I mean putting panties on heads was a stretch, but now this? You sure you're just not an America-hater looking for any hook to hang a cutting remark?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Scientific basis by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Careful where you point your fingers or you might leave with fewer than you planned.

      it sounds like you intend to pull his fingers off .... gasp ... torturer

      Please, don't pull his finger.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re:Scientific basis by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I know one of the very few Americans who has ever actually gotten a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict. Treating the florid paranoid schizophrenia that led him to kill his parents and one of his siblings is a very fine line: if it's undertreated, he becomes incredibly violent, but if it's overtreated, he becomes cognizant of what he did and rapidly becomes suicidal. He has to be left slightly insane in order to live.

      This is crap. It's ineffective at best and profoundly evil at worst.

    5. Re:Scientific basis by Sique · · Score: 2
      This is exactly what the grand parent is talking about: Threatening or actually exercising violence to get the opponent adhere to your wishes.

      At least some states still think that torture is so bad that they don't publicly admit to do it. But a state which runs around proudly proclaiming they use special interrogation technics while Friedrich Spee 350 years ago already knew those technics provide no evidence but do nothing else than confirming the prejudices of the interrogator.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    6. Re:Scientific basis by Sique · · Score: 2

      Truth serum has basicly the same ability to uncover evidence than torture: none. It will do nothing more than reinforce the prejudices of the applier.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    7. Re:Scientific basis by GrumpySteen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stop redefining words. Torture is the use of pain and/or harm on another living being. Period. Making someone feel dopey to get information from them may be immoral, but it is absolutely not torture.

    8. Re:Scientific basis by Aaden42 · · Score: 2

      This isn't a matter of trying to gather evidence to establish guilt. My understanding of the case is that there's no shortage of physical evidence and testimony to find him guilty. Any information gathered through this process would be used to determine if the defendant was legally culpable, not whether he actually committed the offense. The intent is to determine mens rea, and whether he was mentally capable of understanding what he was doing. That he committed the act is considered a given (and something he's separately admitting to through his lawyer without any drugs administered or interrogation carried out).

      Personally, I think insanity defenses are .. well.. crazy, both from the perspective of the accused who plays this rather dangerous gambit and from that of The People who accept such a rationalization. For the accused, in order to attempt an insanity defense, you must first admit that you committed the crime, QED if you're found to be sane, you're toast. From The People's perspective, if you killed a bunch of people, I don't care if you were crazy or just stone cold sane & evil. Either way, I want you removed from society until you're too feeble to be able to try it again.

      Seems silly to split hairs over *why* you did it. If you are or have ever been capable of shooting up a theater full of innocent people just for the lulz, I'd rather you be kept in a small box indefinitely.

    9. Re:Scientific basis by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2

      He went into a crowded theatre and shot at 100+ unarmed people...,

      Normal people don't do that every day?

  4. Questionable at best by sjames · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How can he be meaningfully represented by an attorney when he's too stoned out of his gourd on pentathal to be sure which disembodied voice is the lawyer and which is the interrogator?

    Are they willing to grant blanket immunity to anything else he might confess? Given that the doses of pentathal used make the person compliant, how do they distinguish an inconvenient truth he might tell from a fabrication he tells because it seems like what the interrogator wants to hear? There's a reason it's not actually used anymore. Perhaps the judge takes TV much too seriously!

    I'd claim it undermines my faith in the criminal justice system, but that ship sailed long ago.

    1. Re:Questionable at best by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      People who commit murder under the definition of legal insanity are dumb, violent animals; they have been absolved of their culpability for what they do, and thus of their humanity. I've worked at a psychiatric hospital and met them. "Dumb, violent animals" is a pretty accurate description. "Should never leave custody" is another one. They shouldn't be in jail, but they're not fit for society either.

  5. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Many people found Hitler to be quite charming in person.

    You can't seem to look into any infamous crazy serial killer without comments from shocked neighbors and friends who talk about how normal he seemed.

  6. He obviously has to be insane by obarthelemy · · Score: 2

    There's no possible positive outcome for him. And it shows utter lack of empathy. And it doesn't really achieve any goals. I mean, the 9/11 terrorists at least believed they would be getting heaven (with virgins on top), empathized with people back home, and achieved the goal of getting some kind of message out and terrorizing the US. He achieved nothing remotely close to any of that.

    That's not to say he shouldn't be judged though. Killers are killers, all are some kind of insane.

    --
    The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    1. Re:He obviously has to be insane by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > He obviously has to be insane

      Legal insanity is a very narrowly defined state. There are all kinds of things the lay person would consider insane that don't automatically qualify as legal insanity.

      I think that is the root of the problem with this case - definition of legal insanity is so technical that enough people in the legal profession in colorado have assumed that it is mechanical -- press a 'button' in his brain and get an aswer, same way every time.

      If any actual psychiatric doctors have signed off for this plan, I would expect them to be far from mainstream in their field.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:He obviously has to be insane by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      That's not to say he shouldn't be judged though. Killers are killers, all are some kind of insane.

      I was always thought that there was an interesting argument in Starship Troopers, when Dillinger is being hung (note that I am not necessarily advocating this, but I will admit that I support capital punishment):

      If Dillinger had understood what he was doing (which seemed incredible) then he got what was coming to him. .. except that it seemed a shame that he hadn’t suffered as much as had little Barbara Anne — he practically hadn’t suffered at all.

      But suppose, as seemed more likely, that he was so crazy that he had never been aware that he was doing anything wrong? What then?...

      I couldn’t see but two possibilities. Either he couldn’t be made well in which case he was better dead for his own sake and for the safety of others—or he could be treated and made sane. In which case (it seemed to me) if he ever became sane enough for civilized society. .. and thought over what he had done while he was “sick”—what could be left for him but suicide? How could he live with himself? And suppose he escaped before he was cured and did the same thing again? And maybe again? How do you explain that to bereaved parents? In view of his record? I couldn’t see but one answer.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:He obviously has to be insane by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Heinlein makes an interesting point, though I don't like the suicide aspect. The reason we have plea-by-insanity is it's "inhumane" to punish people for being crazy.

      Here's my thing: It's eugenics. It's all eugenics. Criminals? We jail criminals to keep them out of society, not to rehabilitate them. Hopefully they die in there without breeding. Murderers, we execute--remove from society, remove their social influence and hopefully they don't breed either. The insane? Why would we not execute an insane murderer? Do you want to treat him so he can be "normal" and make more genetically brain damaged little children who can murder more normal, sane people and then get treatment too, until they've slowly eroded our society and replaced it with a bunch of insane people?!

      Justifiable homicides: Self defense, defense of others, severe coercion (someone is going to murder you/your family--yeah, sucks, we have all kinds of funny ideals about how you should go to the police, but what then? Your 10 year old daughter gets murdered by having her vagina pulled inside out slowly with fishhooks, while you're duct taped to a chair to watch... no, people fall to psychological pressure; go find the real criminal).

      Unjustifiable homicides: Vengeance, thrill, insurance money (greed), etc.

      I don't care if you're nuts. If you are prone to kill people, we need to get rid of you.

    4. Re:He obviously has to be insane by Theaetetus · · Score: 3, Informative

      > He obviously has to be insane

      Legal insanity is a very narrowly defined state. There are all kinds of things the lay person would consider insane that don't automatically qualify as legal insanity.

      Yep. Specifically, you need insanity that negates the intentional aspect of your act. As was explained to me by my criminal law professor, if your dog tells you to kill the mailman and you do, you're insane and believing in a talking dog, but you intended to commit murder. If, however, you go to offer your mailman a banana and it goes off and shoots him, you're insane and think a gun is a banana, but you never intended to commit murder.

  7. evidence is there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    12 dead bodies. Plenty of witnesses. His home is full of weapons.
    This fucker is guilty, but the defense is preempting very early to result in an insanity outcome. They're trying to shape the degree of guiltiness. It's extremely hard to get an insanity defense in the US, only because so many people have tried it.

    The only testimony they want is to determine if he's genuinely insane or just pretending. Either way, he's going to be locked up in prison or in a mental institution and I bet he's hoping for the latter in order to continue his "Joker" character fantasy.

    1. Re:evidence is there by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      The only testimony they want is to determine if he's genuinely insane or just pretending.

      Just ask him whether he loves his mother. Either answer proves he's insane.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:evidence is there by RDW · · Score: 2

      The only testimony they want is to determine if he's genuinely insane or just pretending. Either way, he's going to be locked up in prison or in a mental institution and I bet he's hoping for the latter in order to continue his "Joker" character fantasy.

      The article notes: 'In an advisory that Holmes would have to sign if he enters an insanity plea, Sylvester didn't specify what type of drugs would be used but said the examination could include "medically appropriate" ones.'

      Reports that a new, experimental aerosolized drug will be administered by court-appointed psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Crane remained uncomfirmed at this time.

  8. In English, please by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Or at least with correct punctuation and grammar.

    James Holmes representation

    Sounds like the name of a law firm. I assume what was meant was "James Holmes's representation."

    did not enter a plea today in with regards to the Aurora, Co. Movie theater shooting

    Whut?

    The judge entered an advisory that if the plea was changed to Not Guilty by insanity that Holmes would be subject to a 'narcoanalytic interview'

    Too many "that"s.

    with the possibility of medically appropriate substances could be used

    Either "with the possibility that..." or "...being used."

    Holmes defense

    "Holmes's defense"

    but as the previous article seems to infer that some compromises are being worked out.

    This one's hard to parse. Is it "but as the previous article seems to infer, some compromises are being worked out."? Also, which "previous" article? I wouldn't be surprised if you've got "infer" and "imply" mixed up as well, but as I can't work out which article is being referred to, I can't check this.

    This certainly raises legal questions on how this is being played out 5th, 14th amendments.

    Err, yes, it does. Wait, what?

    Slashdot. Unreadable news to annoy nerds.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:In English, please by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or at least with correct punctuation and grammar.

      You must be new here. Pointing out that the editors are clueless idiots and then having them ignore any valid criticism is just a part of "charm" of the site.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  9. Re:who else is insane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Insanity is a legal definition, not a medical one. Insanity is a defense that states that the defendant was not capable of understanding the gravity of the crime due to an acute mental illness. It is rarely successful, since only acute psychosis or a cognitive disability (very low IQ) could really make someone, even with a severe mental illness, not understand that what they were doing was a crime. Schizophrenia would apply, but personality disorders, which is what it appears that Holmes suffers from, do not. Since Holmes carefully prepared the attack over months, it is obvious that he knew what he was doing and that it was malicious. Jared Loughner, in contrast, probably could have argued an insanity defense since it was obvious that he was having severe difficulties with psychosis (Loughner didn't use that defense and simply pled guilty).

  10. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can't seem to look into any infamous crazy serial killer without comments from shocked neighbors and friends who talk about how normal he seemed.

    I always wonder whether the culprit in some infamous deed was also shocked. Could it be that any of us "normal" types could find ourselves committing an outrage, even though we think we really are the nice quiet boy everyone thinks we are? Or do cold-blooded killers know they are such, and just keep it hidden for years?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  11. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by demonlapin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hitler was charismatic, but nobody thought he was "normal". They just thought they could use him longer than he could use them.

  12. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by MatthewCCNA · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Eh, you never know what you're capable of. I never thought I could shoot down a German plane, but last year I proved myself wrong." - Abe J. Simpson

    --
    "He is so stupid. And now back to the wall!" Moe Szyslak
  13. Precedent for use on law enforcement and govt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So the next time they find a body lodged underneath a house with 600 bullets in it, we can use this on the police officers involved? "Sorry guys, we were on patrol and found a kid who backtalked us. We chased him and shot him hundreds of times, then planted a weapon on his remains."

    Or is this only for use on non-cops, non-government and non-ruling-class?

  14. Re:Think of it this way: by Sique · · Score: 2

    This is just an allegation, come up with some proof next time.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  15. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by westlake · · Score: 3

    He had roomates (news said he didn't), there was at least one other person there dressed in all black holding weapons (news never mentioned this but eye-witness testimonials revealed that this is the case),

    The eyewitness sees or thinks he has seen a second man armed and dressed "in black" in a darkened theater where every motion is in the shadows, colors are muted, all is confusion and his sight lines were restricted.

    Initially, few in the audience considered the masked figure a threat. He appeared to be wearing a costume, like other audience members who had dressed up for the screening [of "The Dark Knight Rises."]

    Some believed that the gunman was playing a prank, while others thought that he was part of a special effects installation set up for the film's premiere .

    It is also alleged that the gunman threw two canisters emitting a gas or smoke, partially obscuring the audience members' vision, making their throats and skin itch, and causing eye irritation.

    Witnesses said the multiplex's fire alarm system began sounding soon after the attack began and staff told people in theater 8 to evacuate One witness said that she was hesitant to leave because someone yelled that there was someone shooting in the lobby and that they shouldn't leave.

    2012 Aurora shooting

    In Aurora, Holmes lived on Paris Street in a one-bedroom apartment, in a building with other students involved in health studies.

    James Eagan Holmes

    Seventy wounded. Twelve fatally. Ten dead at the scene.

    That implies ballistic evidence that would make it obvious almost immediately whether there was more than one gun man.

  16. Re:How much money and time are we wasting on this by SternisheFan · · Score: 2
    I've always heard that the death penalty involves the automatic appeals process that goes all the way up to the Supreme Court, and costs two to three million dollars. So $40,000 - $60,000 a year works out to be cheaper in the long run. The debate on whether it is cheaper to warehouse killers vs, the lawyer/court costs seems to be neverending.

    http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000

  17. Re:Grammazi by clarkn0va · · Score: 2

    The whole summary appears to have been authored by Bing Translate.

    --
    I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
  18. Re:How much money and time are we wasting on this by Let's+All+Be+Chinese · · Score: 2

    That's fairly natural. The point of most discussion in the USoA has nothing to do with what it says on the tin. The real issue is simply which side you're on, for on any one issue, there's only room for two sides in that big country yonder. Want more choice? Just add issues.

    And why that? Why, to villify the other side, of course! What other point could there be?

    So big ticket issues become trench warfare, where movement back and forth is guaranteed to be minute and always at gigantic cost. This is the modern interpretation of an "inefficient government"; its very purpose is to be ponderous, and since so many people funnel so much effort to butt heads with the other side on increasingly trivial things, expensive to boot. Also because of the pork barrelling, of course, for why should other people get all the money?

    In other words, if you want any one issue to be efficiently resolved, you have to game the system somehow, for it is the system that requires costing a lot while resolving nothing.

    You can easily see that this is not inherent in politics, just in American[tm] politics, by looking over the borders. For example, there's countries that decide to not ever even give life sentences, nevermind death penalty. Norway is a good example.

    On the other hand, there's countries like those with the Sharia, where you'll get your head lopped off no sweat. Or like China used to do: Shoot the accused and charge the family for the bullet spent. Now they just drive death vans around, with Yu Di, MD in attendance.

    If you really wanted efficient, you could have it. So one could conclude that doing your level best to not have efficient means that having efficient is simply not important here.

  19. Re:Think of it this way: by Sique · · Score: 3, Insightful
    You get out of government what you expect out of government, The average U.S. american does not believe the government to do even basic tasks well, and thus there is no reaction at the voting booth on serious failings of the government. There are people elected to Washington who clearly say that you shouldn't expect anything from Washington. There are elected people who proudly claim to have shutdown the goverment, and they are reelected for shutting down the government.

    There is a generally dysfunctional relation between the electorate and the government it chooses. And if there is no government to effectively rule, other, unelected people will fill in the void. There is only one way out of it: Stop the delight in seeing the government fail. Hold everyone elected responsible for everything that happens in the government and also for everything that doesn't happen. He was elected to do a job, and deliberately failing at it should never be a recommendation for another term. Never cheer for people running on a platform of governmental failings. They are hired by the electorate to do their task in government, and not for putting blame on someone else.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  20. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

    I'm going to throw this one out to the conspiracy theorists and see what they can conjure up.

    It wasn't a mass shooting, it was a mass suicide, caused by 3D printed open source models of Scientology's E-meter, which the cinemascopic theater was testing to enhance the audience's senses in a Dolby Hallucinogenic way, because movie cinema attendance is down, since folks are downloading films from the Kim Dot Com wearing William Shatner's hair Giga Dump Load site, which is hosted in North Korea by Kim Jong Un Dot Com and receives Hollywood movies implanted, smuggled and delivered by Dennis Rodman in the remnants of his brain, who plans to use the profits to buy the Pope election, which will be indicated by the color of the smoke from the Pope Cave matching Rodman's hair color du Jour, and will be followed by a wacky romp in a newly pimped Popemobile piloted by an ethanol fueled hybrid Lindsay Lohan, which triggered the Batman theater movie audience to confuse the Batmobile with the Popemobile.

    A heavily LSD "Fringed" James Holmes nods, and says, "Yeah, that was it," and then speculates what would have been, if had had been born with a Louisville Slugger penis, and entered the porn industry instead, and . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  21. Re:Rights? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

    Seems to me the bastard didn't care much about the rights of anyone in the theater when when he kicked in the and started shooting people. Insane or not, public hanging ftw.

    Doesn't matter, he still has rights. You take away his rights, you take away yours, too.

  22. This is bull by gurps_npc · · Score: 2
    No one and I mean NO ONE ever fakes permanent insanity to get out of a murder charge.

    Why? Because once they lock you up for being insane, they treat you FAR worse than being a mere criminal prisoner. Also, (unlike Batman's world) it is generally much harder to get of the insane asylum than it is to get parole.

    What criminals typically try to plead is 'temporary insanity', where you claim you were insane, but aren't anymore. But Judges and Juries typically only grant that when they think the victim deserved it - as in "When that drug dealer raped and killed my 12 year old daughter I went temporarily insane and shot him in the head 14 times. But I'm feeling much better now."

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  23. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by upto0013 · · Score: 2

    He also had a 100-round drum clip for the AR-15 and two Glock pistols.

    Wounding 70 people with that and the shotgun is quite doable by one person when you account for spread, firing speed (even though the drum clip jammed), secondary wounds from bullet penetration and ricochets.

    People that don't understand guns always say there must have been a second gunman in scenarios like this. But the fact is that with a bit of practice, even a bolt gun can shoot several rounds a minute.

    Also, if Holmes had any of those magic bullets they used to kill JFK, he'd have a +5 THACO.

  24. Scopolamine by almechist · · Score: 4, Informative

    Truth serum does not fucking work, period, at all. This has been known for many decades now. If it worked, we would've been using it against Bad Guys in Secret Prisons, and we're not. We're not because it doesn't fucking work and everyone knows that.

    Except apparently the people in this court room.

    Actually, there is one compound that might be considered effective as a "truth serum", and that's scopolamine. Read up on the way it has been used by criminals, for instance this link:

    http://digitaljournal.com/article/324779 or this one: http://rense.com/general38/frug.htm or just google it.

    I have personal experience with this drug, having been involuntarily dosed with it once, and it's effects were scary indeed, in a way no other substance has ever come close to matching. Essentially it wipes out your short-term memory completely, and I do mean completely. You start to say something but by the end of the sentence you literally can't remember what it was you were trying to say. You have no idea where you are or how you got there, and you tend to believe whatever you're told if there's someone there to "helpfully" fill in the blanks. People empty their bank account to strangers, give up passwords and PIN numbers, it's crazy. The thing is, it's only short-term memory that's affected, everything else is still there. So I don't see any reason why you couldn't be questioned about past criminal behavior as easily as your financial secrets. Having experienced this stuff first hand, I have no doubt it could be used as a truth drug, given the right setting and an experienced interrogator. That said, I'm absolutely against the whole idea and believe this is a treacherous road for the legal system to be going down. Voluntarily or otherwise, chemical interrogation has no place in American courtrooms.

  25. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

    The grand total for the number of rounds fired, based on spent cases found on the scene, is:

    .223 - 65 rounds
    12ga - 6 rounds
    .40 S&W - 5 rounds

    Certainly quite doable for a lone gunman.

    And, indeed both .223 and 12ga would be likely to wound more than one person if shot into a crowd.