New York Jury Finds Time Square Killer “Not Responsible” for Killing or Injuring 23 People

Yesterday, a Manhattan jury found Richard Rojas, 31, “not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect” in the killing of an 18-year-old tourist in the rampage that also left 22 others injured in Times Square on May 18, 2017. Rojas plowed into the victims with his car, but his counsel successfully argued that he was “actively psychotic” during the crime. Notably, Nicholas Roske, 26, has pleaded not guilty in the alleged attempted murder of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a move that may foreshadow an insanity defense.

The most serious charge of second-degree murder required the prosecution to show that Rojas “evinced a depraved indifference to human life.” However, the defense argued that this was not indifference but insanity.

It is fairly rare to win a case on the grounds of an insanity defense. Four states—Kansas, Utah, Idaho, and Montana—have eliminated the defense entirely and only an estimated one percent of all felony cases involve an insanity plea. Roughly a quarter are successful.

However, the jury was only out for six hours before returning the verdict. That may be due to the fact that even prosecutor Alfred Peterson conceded that Rojas was having a psychotic episode at the time, including hearing voices.

The defense introduced testimony that Rojas was hearing supernatural voices or what psychiatrists call “command or auditory hallucinations.”  These voices allegedly told Rojas he was navigating an interdimensional “portal” filled with spirits who could be freed from a purgatorial “limbo” if he crashed into them.

He will now be subjected by Judge Daniel Conviser to an examination order with state hospital operated by the Office of Mental Health.

The prosecutors tried to accept that he was having a psychotic episode but still remained in control of the vehicle. In other words, he had sufficient control to hold him accountable for his action. The jury clearly disagreed.

If Roske makes such a defense, he will be subject to the federal standard for the affirmative defense, requiring a showing that “at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts.” Under the federal standard, “mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.”

Here is part of the standard jury instruction on the New York defense:

“A person lacks criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect when, at the time of the prohibited conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, that person lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate either:

  1. The nature and consequences of such conduct; or
  2. That such conduct was wrong.
    Let us examine that definition.

First, the lack of substantial capacity to know or appreciate must have existed at the time the prohibited conduct was committed.

Second, the lack of substantial capacity to know or appreciate must have been the result of mental disease or defect.

Third, a lack of substantial capacity to know or appreciate does not require a lack of total capacity to know or appreciate.

Fourth, the term “know or appreciate” means to have some understanding; it means more than mere surface knowledge.

For example, children can sometimes recite things that they cannot understand. In those circumstances, the children may be said to have surface knowledge of what they recited, but no true understanding. Thus, a lack of substantial capacity to know or appreciate either the nature and consequences of the prohibited conduct, or that such conduct was wrong, means a lack of substantial capacity to have some true understanding beyond surface knowledge of either the nature and consequences of such conduct, or that such conduct was wrong.

Fifth, with respect to the term “wrong,” a person lacks substantial capacity to know or appreciate that conduct is wrong if that person, as a result of mental disease or defect, lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate either that the conduct was against the law or that it was against commonly held moral principles, or both.

As I have explained, the defendant has the burden of proving that he/she lacked criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect and he/she must do so by a preponderance of the evidence. I remind you, however, that placing this burden of proof of the affirmative defense on the defendant does not relieve the People of the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, all the elements of the crime(s) charged.

In this case, one of those elements was (specify element containing culpable mental state;  e.g. That the defendant intended to cause the death of ….). The affirmative defense does not transfer to the defendant the burden of proving (specify, e.g.  That the defendant did not intend to cause the death of…. ”) The burden remains on the People to prove (specify, e.g., That the  defendant intended to cause the death of…) and to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

In determining whether the People have proven that element beyond a reasonable doubt, you may consider any evidence, psychiatric or otherwise, that relates to the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the commission of the crime(s) charged. If you find that the People have not proven that element, or any other element beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty. If you find that the People have proven all the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must consider whether the defendant has proven the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.”

106 thoughts on “New York Jury Finds Time Square Killer “Not Responsible” for Killing or Injuring 23 People”

  1. Is there such a thing as a “sane” criminal?

    It may well be that “victims” and communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) are the insane parties.

    Somewhere it was deemed appropriate to take an “eye for an eye.”

    Who exactly lost their juridical nerve and why are they still in the business of crime and punishment?

  2. (OT)

    So there’s testimony under oath that multiple Republicans in Comgress requested pardons from Trump: Gaetz, Brooks, Biggs, Perry, Taylor Greene, Gohmert.

    What do they think they needed pardons for?

      1. What crimes do they believe they’ll be indicted for that’s a “fake witch hunt”?

        1. Why was James O’Keefe’s home raided by the FBI? He did nothing wrong.

          Why do doctors carry liability insurance? Why are they afraid of ambulance chasers? Progressives are political ambulance chasers.

          http://wondermark.com/1k62/

        2. “What crimes do they believe they’ll be indicted for that’s a “fake witch hunt”?”

          Being a republican who supports Trump, or who (gasp) dares to question the validity of the 2020 election.

          The D’s leadership is using strong-arm tactics, straight out of Stalin’s playbook.

    1. And the FBI raided the home of Trump-DOJ official Jeffrey Clark this morning.

      In today’s J6 Committee testimony, Clark was implicated by other Trump-DOJ offficials (implicated in illegal acts).

      1. “(implicated in illegal acts)”

        What you mean is that Clark is “guilty” of supporting Trump, and of daring to question the validity of the 2020 election.

        All of this persecution of those officials who raised such questions, makes one wonder what the democrats are hiding.

  3. Among memorable cases of this genre: the Long Island Train Shooter, who insisted on acting as his own lawyer.

  4. Jonathan: Will Donald Trump also plead the “insanity” defense if he is charged with crimes resulting from the Jan. 6 insurrection? Bill Barr has testified that Trump was “detached from reality” in trying to claim the 2020 election was “stolen”. Some pundits have compared Trump to Shakespeare’s “King Lear”, a senile and narcissistic monarch, who saw plots all around him–even from family members.

    Under 18 USC Section 371 Trump could be charged with a “criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States”. But that requires proof of “intent”. If Trump could prove he is “insane” that requirement goes out the window and Trump would walk and escape accountability. There are 2 reasons Trump would not do this. First, it would be hard to find a psychiatrist that would find Trump clinically “insane”. Second, Trump would never admit he didn’t know what he was doing leading up to the insurrection on Jan. 6. He might plead the 5th but he would never admit he suffers from “mental disease or defect”. Nor should he. Trump may be many things, a criminal self-absorbed narcissist, but he is not insane. The Jan. 6 hearings so far have revealed Trump carried out a well planned attempt at a coup to overturn the elections. That’s not something an insane person could do–almost successfully.

    No, Trump would never claim an insanity defense because that would be an admission he is not the “smartest person” on the planet.

    1. Intelligence and insanity are not mutually exclusive. First example that comes to mind is chess genius Bobby Fischer. And insanity can be a momentary and temporary condition.
      On the other hand, modern progressivism is a symptom of an incurable and permanent form of insanity.

      1. Hopefully not completely incurable and permanent…I’m hoping that a certain percentage at least are just hopping on the bandwagon, and are astute enought to jump off before it completely veers off the cliff (if it hasn’t already).

  5. I wonder what the makeup of the NY jury was. I understand the concept of a jury of ones’ peers, but a jury of fellow imbeciles, well, that’s a different story.

    1. MG:

      Mental disease is a disqualifier for most potential state jurors. The decision wasn’t imbecilic as I explained below in a comment to ThinkItThrough. Read it if you like.

      1. The court pool may have come from the upper west side, one of the most liberal portions of Manhattan.

        told police after his arrest that he had been smoking marijuana laced with the hallucinogenic drug PCP before plowing through helpless tourists in 2017 at the Manhattan landmark known as “the crossroads of the world.”…

        Prosecutors say Rojas drove his car from the Bronx, where he lived with his mother, through Times Square on May 18, 2017, then made a U-turn, steered his car onto a sidewalk, and roared back up the sidewalk for three blocks before he crashed his car into protective barriers. …

        According to prosecutors, Rojas said he wanted to “kill them all.”…

        Rojas has several prior criminal cases that paint a picture of a troubled man. Days before the Times Square incident he pleaded guilty to a harassment charge in the Bronx for pulling a knife on a notary in his home and accusing the person of trying to steal his identity….

        He also had two previous drunken driving cases….

        In 2012, he was arrested and accused of beating a cab driver…

        After his arrest, Rojas told the officer he was going to kill all police and military police he might see after his release from jail, the Jacksonville sheriff’s office report stated….

        Navy records show that in 2013 Rojas spent two months at a naval prison in Charleston, South Carolina. He was discharged in 2014 as the result of a special court martial, a Navy official said.

        Rojas is 31 years old.

        https://nypost.com/2022/05/09/trial-to-finally-start-for-richard-rojas-who-ran-down-times-square-tourists/

        1. Didn’t follow this case closely and was unaware of his use of PCP laced marijuana. This would have made it possible to bring charges of aggravated vehicular homicide instead. This may have precluded an insanity defense as the ‘voices’ didn’t tell him to light up a joint.

  6. I trust the jury’s decision, it’s hard to get a room full of people to uphold an insanity defense. The other sad part is that it took over 5 years from the date of the crime to get a verdict. Horrible for the victims and their families.

  7. And despite the legal and psychological proof that children in the mid to late teenage years here in 2022 very often do not have ‘adult’ control over their mental faculties, many left-wing Democrats in Congress, among them Ayana Pressley most recently and Pelosi last year, are pressing for the Voting Age to be reduced to 16. Would any of you truly trust a 16 year old to handle life-important decisions for you?

  8. Anyone who commits a murder is suffering from a mental problem of one sort or another. When a murder is committed the person committing the crime is maniacal. Does this fact mean that such a person should not be separated from society? Today these people with a mental defect are being placed back into society by woke prosecutors only to repeat their maniacal murders on new victims. The question is how soon will this maniac be released into your neighborhood? Perhaps he will live across the street from where your child goes to school. A call for mercy is a worthwhile pursuit but mercy for future victims must also be considered. The person who shoots up a school is deranged but should his penalty be lowered because of his lack of mental control? Justice has to be hard regardless of the mental condition of the accused to protect the society. How is this difficult?

    1. ThinkItThrough,
      Well said.
      I think we are seeing the backlash as woke prosecutors are being recalled, or people with the means are voting with their feet and fleeing cities that embrace progressive woke movement.
      Ironically, many of those fleeing are Dems who say high taxes and crime are the reasons why they left.

      1. And those fleeing Dems will end up voting for the same type of policies they were fleeing from. Gives one pause for thought – If Dems keep voting for the same things that made them flee doesn’t that mean they are doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. That is a definition of insanity. Maybe we need voter red-flag laws to prevent ALL Dems from voting because of verified insanity.

    2. TIT:

      “Anyone who commits a murder is suffering from a mental problem of one sort or another. When a murder is committed the person committing the crime is maniacal. Does this fact mean that such a person should not be separated from society? Today these people with a mental defect are being placed back into society by woke prosecutors only to repeat their maniacal murders on new victims.”
      ********************

      There’s a lot wrong with the reasoning here including the blanket declarative statement that all murders are irrational – the aren’t. But the legal standard is wrongly stated. It is not merely that you are suffering from a mental disease or defect to be found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGBRI). You must show that by reason of the mental condition/defect you fail to appreciate the nature of your act so much so that you didn’t realize if the act is wrong or not. Suppose a four-year-old, after watching a particularly exciting episode of “Adam-12,” picks up a gun, pulls the trigger and goes “Bang! Bang!” killing her mother. Would you conclude that the child is guilty of second degree murder? Of course you wouldn’t because the child cannot form the requisite mental intent to understand that pointing a gun and pulling the trigger is wrong. The adult suffering from the mental disease/defect likewise must show that he did not understand that his actions were morally wrong. For example, suppose the adult driver genuinely thought the crowd of people on the street was a gang of wolves attacking a mother and child and acted to remove that threat. If that concept was in his mind beacuse of his disease or defect, then he could not form the requisite intent to do harm TO HUMANS and thus is not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. The law spends eons formulating these principles. In general, they are pretty wise.

      Oh and in general, a NGBRI finding usually gets you confinement to a mental ward.

      1. Mespo, you and I agree that mentally disturbed people should not regularly be placed back into society. However we know that mentally disturbed criminals are being placed back into society at an alarming rate. It is not difficult to evaluate whether or not an accident occurs. Accidents are not murders. In the case of murder a definition of one being less maniacal than another is a definition without merit. Self defense however is justifiable and should be considered in a court of law. The question is the quality of mercy and if it is properly applied.

        1. There’s a whole range of mental illness and its consequences. About 28% of all Americans will experience some form of mental illness this year. Some mentally ill people should be separated but that’s a very small segment of the mentally ill.

          1. Mespo, my contention is that people who are committing a willful murder are all in a maniacal state of mind when they commit the crime. It does not necessarily follow that all people with mental problems commit murder. However, this thought does not allow for unjustifiable excuses to put criminals back onto the streets after receiving light sentences for their crimes which is happening all to often. These occurrences are testified to by the recent recalls of soft on crime prosecutors even in places of leftist sanctuary such as San Francisco.

      2. “There’s a lot wrong with the reasoning here including the blanket declarative statement that all murders are irrational”

        They didn’t say that all murders are “irrational.” They said “Anyone who commits a murder is suffering from a mental problem of one sort or another. When a murder is committed the person committing the crime is maniacal.” The words “maniacal” and “irrational” are nowhere close to being synonyms. Someone might be one, the other, both, or neither.

        If you’re going to try to critique the argument, understand it and address it instead of substituting a straw man.

        “The adult suffering from the mental disease/defect likewise must show that he did not understand that his actions were morally wrong.”

        Agreed, but that again is distinct from being irrational or maniacal.

        1. Anillterateninny:

          “They didn’t say that all murders are “irrational.” They said “Anyone who commits a murder is suffering from a mental problem of one sort or another. When a murder is committed the person committing the crime is maniacal.” The words “maniacal” and “irrational” are nowhere close to being synonyms. Someone might be one, the other, both, or neither.

          If you’re going to try to critique the argument, understand it and address it instead of substituting a straw man.”
          *****************************
          One can only conclude then that you know a lot of manicial people who are, at the same time, rational. Good, but I don’t. And what color are the rainbows in your world?

          From the Dictionary:

          Words Related to maniacal

          dotty, fey, loopy, off, potty [chiefly British], teched (or tetched), touched
          aberrant, delirious, delusional, delusionary, disordered, disturbed, neurotic, obsessive-compulsive, paranoiac (also paranoic), paranoid (also paranoidal), schizoid, schizophrenic, sociopathic
          eccentric, odd, oddball, pixilated (also pixillated), queer, strange
          foolish, senseless, witless, i̲̲̲r̲̲̲r̲̲̲a̲̲̲t̲̲̲i̲̲̲o̲̲̲n̲̲̲a̲̲̲l̲̲̲, unreasonable
          amok (or amuck), ape, ballistic, bananas, berserk, nuclear
          depressed
          distracted, distraught, frantic, frenzied, hysterical (also hysteric), raving, wigged-out
          fixated, monomaniac, monomaniacal, obsessed

          1. “From the Dictionary:
            “Words Related to maniacal …”

            Anillterate mespo:

            My claim was that they’re not synonyms. You don’t name what dictionary you’re using, but appear to be using M-W:
            https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/maniacal

            You totally ignored the section that says
            Synonyms for maniacal

            balmy, barmy [chiefly British], bats, batty, bedlam, bonkers, brainsick, bughouse [slang], certifiable, crackbrained, cracked, crackers, crackpot, cranky [dialect], crazed, crazy, cuckoo, daffy, daft, demented, deranged, fruity [slang], gaga, haywire, insane, kooky (also kookie), loco [slang], loony (also looney), loony tunes (or looney tunes), lunatic, mad, mental, meshuga (or meshugge also meshugah or meshuggah), moonstruck, non compos mentis, nuts, nutty, psycho, psychotic, scatty [chiefly British], screwy, unbalanced, unhinged, unsound, wacko (also whacko), wacky (also whacky), wud [chiefly Scottish]

            Do you notice that “irrational” is not included there?

            M-W distinguishes between “Synonyms” and “Related.” You could have chosen to think about why they made that distinction, but you either chose not to or are simply too illiterate to figure it out.

            Again: “maniacal” and “irrational” are not synonyms.

            1. Anobtuseninny:

              It’s not an exclusive list so please articulate the difference between “irrational” and “manical” given that everyone “manical” is “irrational.” It may not work the other way, but in the context I used it (to describe maniacs) the term certainly applies. We know that is true because the author of the comment had no issue with the term but the busybody in you just couldn’t resist because as we all know I live rent-free n your head and your masters at Correct the Record really don’t like gadflies like me because we easily eviscerate their foolishness.

                  1. Sounds like you don’t understand the full range of meanings of “maniacal.” The sets of maniacal people and irrational people have a non-empty intersection, but the former is not a subset of the latter.

    3. When a person is adjudicated not responsible due to mental illness or defect, he or she is taken to a mental hospital and must be examined by a psychiatrist who determines whether he or she is a menace to society. Where did you get the idea that these people “are being placed back into society by woke prosecutors only to repeat their maniacal murders on new victims”? Read Turley’s post above that says that in this case the defendant was sent to a mental hospital. Someone who lacks the mental control necessary to resist the impulse to kill innocent people is insane and a danger to society. In my state, a person adjudicated not responsible due to mental illness or defect must remain in a state mental hospital until he or she has been proven to no longer pose a danger to society. If someone really cannot control their dangerous impulses, that’s essentially a life sentence. At one time or another, almost anyone can be purshed to the point of harboring a desire to kill someone, but sane people have the internal control to resist such impulses. People who engage in mass killings have multiple features in common (according to a recent article I read), which include: severe childhood emotional trauma, growing up in a household where violence towards others is not punished and is even acceptable, access to weapons capable of killing multiple people without reloading and admiration for people who engage in mass murders. That’s where gun control measures come in: if assault rifles or weapons capable of killing lots of people in a short period of time are unavailable, this one prong of attack could be successful in preventing future mass killings.

    1. When I see something as deeply ignorant as this comment I feel compelled to respond. If anyone “killed America”, it’s the pig you worship: he killed the American economy by botching the pandemic causing the country to have to shut down for about 2 years, by starting a trade war with China, by insulting and alienating our NATO and EU allies and by enacting income tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy that caused the national debt to balloon to record levels. Interest on this historic debt alone is a major driver of inflation that Republicans try to blame Biden for. Trump started with a booming economy, and ended his reign of terror with a deep recession, schools, businesses and factories shut down, supply chains compromised due to lack of computer chips, a pandemic out of control, school kids behind in their studies and America’s relations with NATO and the EU strained. This is the mess Biden inherited, and no amount of lying by Fox, OAN, NewsMax, Breitbart or Info Wars will change the fact that Trump was a horrible leader that left American weakened and vulnerable. Throw in also the fact that he cut a deal with the Taliban to draw down American troop strength from 14,000 to 2,500, causing the withdrawal to be difficult and messy. Strained relations with NATO and the EU emboldened Putin into believing that the US couldn’t pull together NATO and EU allies to help Ukraine resist his aggression. Biden has gotten the pandemic under control, schools are open again, factories are back in business, but the supply chain is sill lagging. The war in Ukraine is causing worldwide petroleum prices to skyrocket due to sanctions imposed against Russia. That, too, is Trump’s fault. So, you can live in your dream bubble of believing alt-right lies all you want to, but if Trump could have pulled off another cheat, Ukraine would have fallen by now and Zelenskyy would be dead. Putin would be trying to invade Poland, and the world may well have been in another world war. Trump has said he’d pull the US out of NATO.

  9. A violation of the law was committed, which means someone was responsible for the violation. It’s not acceptable to say no one will be held accountable for the death resulting from the crime. Someone knew this guy had a “mental disease or defect.” Sibling, parents, friends, doctor, insurance, business owner, etc. If an insanity defense is made, then investigate and hold accountable the person or persons that failed to do their duty to protect society from this man.

    1. Many crimes require mens rea, and absent that mens rea, the action is not a crime.

      There is no law requiring people to report someone to an unspecified authority for being mentally ill.
      You don’t even say to whom you expect them to report this information: a county mental health office?

      1. Many crimes require mens rea, and absent that mens rea, the action is not a crime.

        Duh. That was the point. An individual drove a vehicle through a crowd killing a woman and injuring others. Now according to you, if that individual can prove they had no intent to violate the law, then no crime was committed? That action violates the law. If that individual had a mental disease or defect that prevented them from knowing they were violating the law, that doesn’t change the fact the law was violated.

        There is no law requiring people to report someone to an unspecified authority for being mentally ill.

        There are laws on the books stating that mental health professions have “a duty to inform” or “duty to protect”. https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/mental-health-professionals-duty-to-warn.aspx
        Is that the best we should expect from the law to protect innocent people from those that pose a risk to their lives, their liberty and their property? “Sorry Mr and Mrs. Jones, I understand your pain at losing your daughter, but the dude is crazy and not responsible…have a great day.” BS

        We have a mental health crisis and it’s not enough to just say the crazy guy committed the crime, therefore no crime was committed. If the crazy guy is not responsible, then the responsibility lies somewhere else. Maybe we have this crisis because there is no law that holds most non-crazy people accountable for doing nothing about the crazy people they knowingly accept to roam freely in our communities.

        1. Do you understand the difference between “many” and “all”? Do you understand the difference between “people” — referring back to your list “Sibling, parents, friends, doctor, insurance, business owner, etc.” — and “mental health professions”?

          “Now according to you, if that individual can prove they had no intent to violate the law, then no crime was committed?”

          The jury found him not guilty. According to our laws, no crime was committed. Not all awful acts are crimes.

  10. Sorry I don’t care the reason you do it…I care you DO IT! Fine you spend the first couple years of your LIFE SENTENCE being treated for mental illness!
    Meanwhile Democrats Prosecute Thought Crimes against Republicans.

    Under this thought process…pretty much all rape, murder, kidnapping…can be judged mentally ill actions!

  11. Looks like the jury got this one right. On the Kavanaugh suspect, it’ll be a harder row to hoe. He planned, travelled, provisioned and executed a plan that looks a lot more like rational behavior than a impromptu psycho who jumps in a car and plows into a crowd. Lock the psycho in a mental ward and the Princip wannabe in a prison.

    1. “Lock the psycho in a mental ward”

      Clearly better than getting the person effective treatment, right?

      1. “Clearly better than getting the person effective treatment, right?”

        That “effective treatment” can only happen in a psych ward…where he should be kept away from the general population for our safety. Your comment makes no sense which is probably why you post as “anonymous.”

      2. Aninny:

        That’s supposedly what they do in the “psycho ward.” Most people get that. He’s not a hero for being a psycho; he’s a patient.

        1. “Supposedly” being the active word there. My comment was about what actually occurs, not what supposedly occurs.

          No one claimed or implied that he’s a hero.

  12. I think like most trials his past criminal and mental conduct are not allowed during trial. This person may have been exhibiting mental issues and/or criminal conduct months or years prior.

  13. I believe the Wakeusha Christmas parade killer has also now entered a plea of not guilty by reason of a mental illness.

  14. The law should be changed so that it is a crime to obey “voices” that tell you to kill.

    1. I can’t comment on the guilt etc of the perpetrator, but what is strange is that “even prosecutor Alfred Peterson conceded that Rojas was having a psychotic episode at the time, including hearing voices”. How does he know what Rojas heard? Did he also hear the same voices? Did the voices leak outside Rohas’ head and become audible outside?

  15. The Kavanagh assassin, is mired in the classic “Catch 22” pleading.

    If he was aware enough to turn himself in, he ain’t crazy.

    1. But he can be deemed mentally ill. Obviously he was suicidal and having some sort of mental breakdown. So any charge of attempted murder will be difficult to argue given the fact that he sought help and did turn himself in. Those details will weight heavily on determining the validity of the charges.

    2. His sister convinced him to turn himself in, and you clearly don’t know much about diverse mental illnesses.

      1. You hear many different stories thinking you can pick and choose to draw your conclusion that you convert into fact and the truth. Such poor logic is why, on most major issues, you end up wrong and looking foolish.

        1. S. Meyer (anonymous) says,

          “ You hear many different stories thinking you can pick and choose to draw your conclusion that you convert into fact and the truth.”

          It’s called forming an opinion. Surely you can grasp that concept.

          1. That is fine, but it was a response stated as a fact. Get that dictionary and look up the words fact and opinion.

              1. We were talking about The ATS response that should have been stated as an alternative opinion rather than a fact. Get a dictionary.

        2. It’s a fact that MCPD Chief Marcus Jones said “The suspect arrived by taxi and observed the U.S. marshals, and he turned around to contemplate his next move. This is when he texted his sister and told her of his intentions, and she convinced him to call 911, which he did.

          Apparently you don’t like the fact that the MCPD Chief stated this.

          It’s my opinion that iowan clearly doesn’t know much about diverse mental illnesses, based on his false claim “If he was aware enough to turn himself in, he ain’t crazy” (false because the if-clause does not imply the consequent).

          1. ATS, this is better evidence, but one cannot draw a reasonable conclusion based on it. In general, one needs time and a more thorough evaluation. I would not have commented if you stated what you said as an opinion. You said it as a fact with the desire to prove another’s opinion wrong.

            Both of you had valid opinions.

            1. S. Meyer, we didn’t state anything as fact. You’re the one claiming that. Obviously it is you who is having trouble distinguishing fact from opinion. That’s ok. Most Fox News viewers can’t either. That’s why they buy into anything they spout.

            2. I stated it as a fact because there’s evidence that it’s a fact: the police confirmed that his sister convinced him to turn himself in. This has been widely reported in both conservative and liberal news outlets.

              You apparently didn’t know this fact and pretend that it’s an opinion.

              1. You are talking in circles. Evidence is not fact. “because there’s evidence that it’s a fact”

                Sometimes it is best to admit you are wrong instead of digging the hole deeper and having the walls cave in on you. Stating the evidence directly would have made you seem more intelligent.

                The fact is that a statement was made, but the statement is not a fact that applies to your conclusion. I think you would have learned this by now.

                1. Evidence proves that a claim is a fact idiot.

                  “Sometimes it is best to admit you are wrong”

                  Indeed. Yet you won’t.

                  1. When the evidence isn’t sufficient one hasn’t proven their point.

                    Evidence is not fact until there is enough of it that it prove the point.

      2. The point is he did have a mental illness issue. Depression is officially categorized as a mental disorder. The man had suicidal thoughts and was clearly having a crisis. What will be important in his trial is the fact that he was asking for help and cooperated with law enforcement fully.

        Ironically this is exactly what gun rights advocates often say is a reason to confiscate guns from someone. Problem is you only find out about it after the gun has already been purchased or obtained.

        1. Some of the young mass shooters had records, but those records were sealed because they occurred before age 18.

          1. S. Meyer,

            “ Some of the young mass shooters had records, but those records were sealed because they occurred before age 18.”

            You’re full of crap. You have no way of knowing they had records. The very fact that records are sealed means nobody would know, but apparently you do.

            1. Records are sealed so they don’t end up in the data base, but do you think these kids disappeared without anyone knowing?

        2. The assassin knew he was caught. Knew he had no path to complete his mission. Assembling all the needed equipment and driving cross country.
          Your huge assumption, that he all of a sudden became rational,is irrational. All his actions are of a very rational methodical assassin. Smartly cutting his losses.

          1. “ Your huge assumption, that he all of a sudden became rational,is irrational. All his actions are of a very rational methodical assassin. Smartly cutting his losses.”

            No, he was well aware that he was not well mentally. Mental illness does not automatically mean one is irrational. You can have mental illness and still be rational.

              1. Amusing that you invoke a logical fallacy while implying that someone else is irrational.

Leave a Reply to Button Cancel reply