|
|
|
Getting into the Twisted Mind of the Tucson Murder
On Monday, January 24th 2011, the witnessed perpetrator of the Tucson Massacre plead not guilty in a Phoenix, Arizona courtroom. Spectators of the proceedings were left unsettled by the accused murdered who said nothing as he sat laughing to himself during his entire appearance. While he may simply have been trying to establish an insanity plea, it also appears he views this tragedy to be a game.He likely takes great solace in our response to his crime, because he has forced the world to react to him. The Country would like to see this criminal face the justice system then disappear. For that very reason, he wants us to feed his craven appetitive for recognition and self-importance; otherwise, his act of protest against our society would have been for nothing. The idea of his name in every major periodical across the United States must be like candy to him.
Although fully unraveling this individual's illness could take years, we are left contemplating the motivation behind his crime and odd behaviors. The almost nonsensical question he presented to Representative Giffords in 2007, i.e. "What is government if words have no meaning," is one such detail that is most thought provoking. By looking at what he was trying to communicate, however, we might discover a window into his twisted world.
From the perspective of an extremist, which individuals with severe mental illness tend to become, while considering the purist form of our democratic philosophy, the freedom of speech, i.e. words and thoughts, is the most fundamental power in a democracy. If words have no meaning, government must be oppressive and illegitimate. In other words, a dictatorship, not a democracy, exists.
Had this notion been communicated properly, something the disturbed are not particularly good at doing, any true believer in the democratic process would be obliged to agree. The current environment surrounding our democratic system is one where government overreach and subversive antidemocratic forces are purportedly robbing us of our freedoms. As such, anyone who is not a true believer in democracy, in the eyes of extremists, must be the enemy.
Given the shooter's history of self-destructive behavior, a failure of our society to address his needs, and his failed attempts to reform his life, he probably views himself as a neglected outsider and, therefore, he sees no reason to be burdened by the rules of our society. In fact, he likely feels that the rules of our society have hurt him and would have only continued to hurt him. Consequently, he wanted to fight back. Because government is the most powerful institute in our society, fighting government was probably the shooter's best option.
A failure to respond correctly to the aforementioned question, which almost everyone would have simply dismissed, could well have pushed the disturbed individual, who probably mulled over the response for some time, to the conclusion that Giffords was a traitor, his enemy. Triggered by a series of events in his life, she became the target, not because she was a Democrat or Republican; but rather, she became his victim, because she was his Congresswoman. The question, which appears to have been purposely left for investigator to find, became a Litmus test for his enemies.
Although fully unraveling this individual's illness could take years, we are left contemplating the motivation behind his crime and odd behaviors. The almost nonsensical question he presented to Representative Giffords in 2007, i.e. "What is government if words have no meaning," is one such detail that is most thought provoking. By looking at what he was trying to communicate, however, we might discover a window into his twisted world.
From the perspective of an extremist, which individuals with severe mental illness tend to become, while considering the purist form of our democratic philosophy, the freedom of speech, i.e. words and thoughts, is the most fundamental power in a democracy. If words have no meaning, government must be oppressive and illegitimate. In other words, a dictatorship, not a democracy, exists.
Had this notion been communicated properly, something the disturbed are not particularly good at doing, any true believer in the democratic process would be obliged to agree. The current environment surrounding our democratic system is one where government overreach and subversive antidemocratic forces are purportedly robbing us of our freedoms. As such, anyone who is not a true believer in democracy, in the eyes of extremists, must be the enemy.
Given the shooter's history of self-destructive behavior, a failure of our society to address his needs, and his failed attempts to reform his life, he probably views himself as a neglected outsider and, therefore, he sees no reason to be burdened by the rules of our society. In fact, he likely feels that the rules of our society have hurt him and would have only continued to hurt him. Consequently, he wanted to fight back. Because government is the most powerful institute in our society, fighting government was probably the shooter's best option.
A failure to respond correctly to the aforementioned question, which almost everyone would have simply dismissed, could well have pushed the disturbed individual, who probably mulled over the response for some time, to the conclusion that Giffords was a traitor, his enemy. Triggered by a series of events in his life, she became the target, not because she was a Democrat or Republican; but rather, she became his victim, because she was his Congresswoman. The question, which appears to have been purposely left for investigator to find, became a Litmus test for his enemies.
