I think it plausible that a mental illness played a role, whether from PTSD or a pre-existing condition. Certainly the courts should consider a mental evaluation for this man.

Isn't it "plausible that a mental illness played a role" in the case of anyone committing any crime and getting caught? Why would anyone of sound mind risk the total loss of freedom by committing an illegal act unless they were diagnosable with some "mental illness"? Certainly anyone who commits violence against another person in any situation other than self-defense MUST be mentally ill, right? All criminals need not be held truly responsible for their actions, because their illegal acts in themselves are the diagnostic data needed to prove mental illness, at least "plausibly so", right?

Isn't it "plausible that a mental illness played a role" in the case of anyone committing any crime and getting caught? Why would anyone of sound mind risk the total loss of freedom by committing an illegal act unless they were diagnosable with some "mental illness"? Certainly anyone who commits violence against another person in any situation other than self-defense MUST be mentally ill, right? All criminals need not be held truly responsible for their actions, because their illegal acts in themselves are the diagnostic data needed to prove mental illness, at least "plausibly so", right?

Are you saying the courts shouldn't consider that? If a mental illness angle isn't addressed in/before trial and a conviction is found it could be overturned later if found that he was mentally ill and it wasn't addressed. State of mind matters when it comes to having the elements of a crime, was it done intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently?. It isn't always a black and white line of course, someone isn't always completely crazy. For example, maybe he did have PTSD but what matters is if it was severe enough that it interfered with his ability to know what he was doing and that is something the court has to decide. The insanity plea isn't some guaranteed defense though, it takes some work to prove someone is that the defendant was mentally ill at the time. Beyond guilt, it can also come into play in deciding an appropriate sentencing. Addressing mental illness would be a part of a thorough prosecution if there is a chance it played a role.

Are you saying the courts shouldn't consider that? If a mental illness angle isn't addressed in/before trial and a conviction is found it could be overturned later if found that he was mentally ill and it wasn't addressed. State of mind matters when it comes to having the elements of a crime, was it done intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently?. It isn't always a black and white line of course, someone isn't always completely crazy. For example, maybe he did have PTSD but what matters is if it was severe enough that it interfered with his ability to know what he was doing and that is something the court has to decide. The insanity plea isn't some guaranteed defense though, it takes some work to prove someone is that the defendant was mentally ill at the time. Beyond guilt, it can also come into play in deciding an appropriate sentencing. Addressing mental illness would be a part of a thorough prosecution if there is a chance it played a role.

There are "psychologists" out there who would testify that anyone who commits a crime is ipso facto defined "mentally ill"/has a diagnosable psychological disorder ("antisocial personality disorder"). Whether a judge or jury buys the "explanation" is another story. Defense attorneys could be hesitant to use such a defense depending on their experience with the locale/judge in a particular case, but you asserting that mental illness is "plausible" would apply to every crime and criminal from a broad "psychology" perspective.

There are "psychologists" out there who would testify that anyone who commits a crime is ipso facto defined "mentally ill"/has a diagnosable psychological disorder ("antisocial personality disorder"). Whether a judge or jury buys the "explanation" is another story. Defense attorneys could be hesitant to use such a defense depending on their experience with the locale/judge in a particular case, but you asserting that mental illness is "plausible" would apply to every crime and criminal from a broad "psychology" perspective.

I think that in this case it would be more plausible than say your average thief. But regardless, if they didn't address it could come up later. It is just part of a complete prosecution I think. I certainly wouldn't write it off because what if this guy really did have a legitimate mental illness?

The insanity defense is hard to prove and is not very successful. Even if successful it doesn't mean the person walks free, they are often then just put in a mental facility instead of a prison but still essentially incarcerated.

I think that in this case it would be more plausible than say your average thief. But regardless, if they didn't address it could come up later. It is just part of a complete prosecution I think. I certainly wouldn't write it off because what if this guy really did have a legitimate mental illness?

The insanity defense is hard to prove and is not very successful. Even if successful it doesn't mean the person walks free, they are often then just put in a mental facility instead of a prison but still essentially incarcerated.

Existence of a mental illness is not the legal standard for a defense.  He has to be shown to lack the capacity to differentiate between right and wrong.  There are people who were raised with anti-social ideas that qualify as lacking that capacity.

Imagine if he did go on active shooter, we would all be sitting ducks.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

When I participated in the carry permit application drive a couple of years ago, my explanation of "extraordinary circumstances" (which was three pages long) heavily referred to lone wolf attacks by radical groups in western nations...  I remember thinking that there had been no credible threats in Hawaii.  I wonder if they'd look at it differently now? 

HAHAHA!  Just kidding.  HPD would do exactly what they did the first time...  Not look at it at all, and auto-send me the standard denial letter.

Insanity defense is a last ditch effort.  You're admitting to being guilty because of the insanity.  If the court doesn't buy the insanity, then you're still guilty.

When I participated in the carry permit application drive a couple of years ago, my explanation of "extraordinary circumstances" (which was three pages long) heavily referred to lone wolf attacks by radical groups in western nations...  I remember thinking that there had been no credible threats in Hawaii.  I wonder if they'd look at it differently now? 

HAHAHA!  Just kidding.  HPD would do exactly what they did the first time...  Not look at it at all, and auto-send me the standard denial letter.

I know you were joking, but the "terrorist attack threat" claim would be perfectly in line with NOT being "an exceptional case", as those attacks are "random" (just like "ordinary crime"), and thus no particular individual is "an exceptional case". Even if the attacks were predominantly against military members (which they haven't been), no particular military member would be an "exceptional case". Even in a hypothetical case where, say, members of the legislature were specifically targeted by terrorists, the only result would be that they either voted themselves exclusively the legal right to bear in public (see: one of the bills in Congress after the Republican baseball practice shooting), or they would vote themselves individual 24 hour armed bodyguards. As you say, let's face it, no one in the state of Hawaii will be legally allowed to bear arms outside the home for self-defense until, more or less, hell freezes over (and according to Al Gore, that will never happen). So even if the above would-be ISIS soldier said he was going to do such and such in Hawaii to civilians, it would not change the de facto no issue policy at all.