Skip to main content

A Form of Psychosis




Alex Jones, of Infowars, has decided that sometimes mass shootings aren't staged. They aren't all "false flags" operations, and apparently the Sandy Hook shooting was one of the real ones.

Further, he has diagnosed himself, saying (in response to a lawsuit by one of the families of the dead children), that he suffers from a "form of psychosis." I'm not sure that diagnosis helps him in the civil case.

Here is Slate's coverage of Jones' latest, with links to others: click at will.

Unfortunate psychosis indeed, from which (1) he has not as yet fully recovered; (2) he only recognizes as such when things aren't going his way in court, and (3) one that he continues to try to create in others.

Comments

  1. Christopher, you raise an excellent question, which I've never thought about: is insanity a defense in a civil (tort) suit? If I recall correctly, a criminal conviction by itself constitutes proof in a tort suit for damages resulting from the criminal conduct. That is because a criminal conviction requires a higher burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) than does a civil suit (preponderance of the evidence). So, would a successful assertion of a defense of insanity in a criminal prosecution get the defendant off in a civil suit? Perhaps not, because the mens rea required to be convicted of a crime is not required to be proved in a civil suit. But maybe it depends upon whether the civil suit is for an intentional tort (which it probably would be if the plaintiff is suing for damages resulting from the defendant's criminal conduct), in which case the defendant could argue that he lacked the intention to commit an intentional tort; or the suit is for negligence, in which case the defendant's state of mind might not matter.

    The above comments are off the top of my head and not the product of legal research.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...

The Lyrics of "Live Like You Were Dying"

Back in 2004 Tim McGraw recorded the song "Live Like You were Dying." As a way of marking the one-decade anniversary of this song, I'd like to admit that a couple of the lines have confused me for years. I could use your help understanding them. In the first couple of verses, the song seems easy to follow. Two men are talking, and one tells the other about his diagnosis. The doctors have (recently? or a long time ago and mistakenly? that isn't clear) given him the news that he would die soon. "I spent most of the next days/Looking at the X-rays." Then we get a couple of lines about a man crossing items off of his bucket list. "I went sky diving, I went rocky mountain climbing, I went two point seven seconds on a bull named Fu Man Chu." Then the speaker -- presumably still the old man -- shifts to the more characterological consequences of the news. As he was doing those things, he found he was loving deeper and speaking sweeter, and givin...

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable a...