Several Dead in Dark Knight Premiere Mass Shooting

Public defender. They have to. Their only job here is possibly helping him get many life sentences as compared to the death penalty. That or the "plead insanity", which I somehow doubt since he's planned this over the course of months.


That lawyer has that look like "WHY THE **** ME??". I bet they drew straws to see who would represent him and she lost...lol

Premeditation really has nothing to do with the insanity defense. The insanity defense is all about one knowing whether one's actions are right or wrong. You can get your morals mixed up in a premeditated way. Or, put differently, you can be both premeditated and insane in your actions.

He looks like a nut. I'm presuming they are going to go with the insanity defense.

Not a defense likely to succeed, IMHO. Here's the statute for CO's insanity defense:

16-8-101.5. Insanity defined - offenses committed on and after July 1, 1995.
(1) The applicable test of insanity shall be: (a) A person who is so diseased or defective in mind at the time of the commission of the act as to be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong with respect to that act is not accountable; except that care should be taken not to confuse such mental disease or defect with moral obliquity, mental depravity, or passion growing out of anger, revenge, hatred, or other motives and kindred evil conditions, for, when the act is induced by any of these causes, the person is accountable to the law; or

(b) A person who suffered from a condition of mind caused by mental disease or defect that prevented the person from forming a culpable mental state that is an essential element of a crime charged, but care should be taken not to confuse such mental disease or defect with moral obliquity, mental depravity, or passion growing out of anger, revenge, hatred, or other motives and kindred evil conditions, for, when the act is induced by any of these causes, the person is accountable to the law.

(2) As used in subsection (1) of this section: (a) "Diseased or defective in mind" does not refer to an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.

(b) "Mental disease or defect" includes only those severely abnormal mental conditions that grossly and demonstrably impair a person's perception or understanding of reality and that are not attributable to the voluntary ingestion of alcohol or any other psychoactive substance but does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.

Session Laws of Colorado 1995 - Chapter 26 (http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl1995/sl_26.htm)

According to the statute, as I read it, it is an affirmative defense. Meaning Holmes must prove that - as he was formulatting the crime - he lacked the cognitive ability to distinguish right from wrong. [Note the limitation stated in the second part of the statute: "care should be taken not to confuse such mental disease or defect with moral obliquity, mental depravity, or passion growing out of anger, revenge, hatred, or other motives and kindred evil conditions because, when the act is induced by any of these causes, the person is accountable to the law."]

Given the amount of planning, the nature of the crime and the booby trapped apartment, I think it would be next to impossible for him to prove he was under some delusion that prevented him from distinguishing right from wrong.

I still think a worst penalty is to rot in a cell vs. being put to death.

Premeditation really has nothing to do with the insanity defense. The insanity defense is all about one knowing whether one's actions are right or wrong. You can get your morals mixed up in a premeditated way. Or, put differently, you can be both premeditated and insane in your actions.

True enough, at the same time, pre-meditation goes to (1) whether or not you were under any immediate delusion when you committed the act; and (2) forms the basis for inquiry into whether or not you knew what you were doing as you carried out the planning.

Q: You purchased materials to create toxic gasses and to booby trap your apartment?
A: Yes.
Q: Why?
A: Because I thought I was the Joker and needed to protect my hideout.
Q: You aware that the Joker is considered a criminal?
A: He was considered insane and simply was misunderstood by society.
Q: You understood the Joker kills people?
A: Yes.
Q: And that society punished the Joker for killing others?
A: Yes.
Q: And by copying the Joker, you would be doing actions that would also be punished by society.
A: uhh....

Premeditation, while not determinative, is certainly relevant to exploring the motive. ... why did he do it? Unless he was under the provable delusion that he was somehow saving mankind, I don't see him getting away from the "moral depravity" of his planning.

This dude is crazy, he just looks like a nut. And yeah, thats what I don't like about lawyers, when they defend the clearly guilty.

True enough, at the same time, pre-meditation goes to (1) whether or not you were under any immediate delusion when you committed the act; and (2) forms the basis for inquiry into whether or not you knew what you were doing as you carried out the planning.

Q: You purchased materials to create toxic gasses and to booby trap your apartment?
A: Yes.
Q: Why?
A: Because I thought I was the Joker and needed to protect my hideout.
Q: You aware that the Joker is considered a criminal?
A: He was considered insane and simply was misunderstood by society.
Q: You understood the Joker kills people?
A: Yes.
Q: And that society punished the Joker for killing others?
A: Yes.
Q: And by copying the Joker, you would be doing actions that would also be punished by society.
A: uhh....

Premeditation, while not determinative, is certainly relevant to exploring the motive. ... why did he do it? Unless he was under the provable delusion that he was somehow saving mankind, I don't see him getting away from the "moral depravity" of his planning.

Thank you for your legal expertise! Once again I bow to your jurisprudent wisdom.

However, I think my argument still remains against a couple of people in this thread who have at least implied that premeditation is flat-out determinative regarding the insanity defense.

This dude is crazy, he just looks like a nut. And yeah, thats what I don't like about lawyers, when they defend the clearly guilty.
Everyone deserves a lawyer, even the clearly guilty. Otherwise, who determines the "clearly guilty" from the "d*** sure looks guilty"? Other than once the coming computer judges control judicial dispensations, we always need lawyers who are willing to take up the poorest of the poor, or most atrocious cases, and defend them even when the world says it's indefensible. That may seem outrageous, but it forces the system to play it straight, and not take liberties with our liberties.

Everyone deserves a lawyer, even the clearly guilty. Otherwise, who determines the "clearly guilty" from the "d*** sure looks guilty"? Other than once the coming computer judges control judicial dispensations, we always need lawyers who are willing to take up the poorest of the poor, or most atrocious cases, and defend them even when the world says it's indefensible. That may seem outrageous, but it forces the system to play it straight, and not take liberties with our liberties.

:laughing-

http://www.boyactors.org.uk/actors/330.jpg

It could happen.

Everyone deserves a lawyer, even the clearly guilty. Otherwise, who determines the "clearly guilty" from the "d*** sure looks guilty"? Other than once the coming computer judges control judicial dispensations, we always need lawyers who are willing to take up the poorest of the poor, or most atrocious cases, and defend them even when the world says it's indefensible. That may seem outrageous, but it forces the system to play it straight, and not take liberties with our liberties.

Could not have said it better myself. (Well, I could but, every now and then, I have to give you one).

Again, and as always, ... thoughts and sympathy to the victims and their survivors as this next part of the healing process goes forward. I wish them strength as it proceeds and, hopefully, justice is done.

Everyone deserves a lawyer, even the clearly guilty. Otherwise, who determines the "clearly guilty" from the "d*** sure looks guilty"? Other than once the coming computer judges control judicial dispensations, we always need lawyers who are willing to take up the poorest of the poor, or most atrocious cases, and defend them even when the world says it's indefensible. That may seem outrageous, but it forces the system to play it straight, and not take liberties with our liberties.

I understand that everyone has the right to a lawyer. What I don't get is when a lawyer knows his person killed the people but he still looks for ways to get the charges dropped.