After the attack, Deobra Redden told a marshal the “judge has it out for me” and “judge is evil,” according to a document from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.
  • NounsAndWords@lemmy.worldEnglish
    77·
    10 months ago

    Some people are just really lacking in impulse control. I imagine they are also more likely to end up in front of a judge for the same reasons.

    • kromem@lemmy.worldEnglish
      515·
      10 months ago

      This is why Hell is such a stupid concept.

      There’s a literal “moral privilege” in that it’s much, much easier to live life in a good way depending on physical structures in your brain.

      You’d be surprised at the rates of TBI in incarcerated violent criminals.

      Turns out damaging people’s impulse control pathways leads to crime!

      Just yesterday I was walking past an old person on the sidewalk and had an intrusive thought about pushing them out into the street, followed by a thought of “man I’m really grateful that I have a functioning impulse control - it must be hell to go through life where thoughts like that could turn into terrible consequences because there’s no mechanism catching errant impulses”).

      While this guy should definitely not be out in public where he’d likely continue to harm people, I think we generally underappreciated just how little separates all of us from behaving just like him, and overestimate how much of his behavior is because of choice as opposed to circumstance.

      We shouldn’t try to be so punitive with criminal justice. A functioning society does need to keep violent people separated from potential victims, but we really don’t need to be such dicks about it.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        10 months ago

        TBI, lead exposure, malnutrition… gotta try to be kind.

        Interesting we have more sympathy for those who impulsively, say, eat non-food items, versus lash out violently.

        Something I don’t know: is there any reason to be more sympathetic to someone who self harms (say cuts themselves) than someone who harms others as a result of mental illness?

        We say “died by suicide” instead of “committed suicide” to speak closer to the reality of a situation, to acknowledge how awful it is when pain exceeds resources available for coping with that pain. We necessarily view murder as abhorrent, and I won’t defend murderers at large, but I question if some percentage of those who kill were mentally ill to the point they deserve exactly equal sympathy to others who were just as ill but whose illness manifested without violence.

  • athos77@kbin.social
    632·
    10 months ago

    And attacking the judge was somehow going to make it better?

    Holthus was preparing to sentence Redden on a charge of attempted battery with substantial bodily harm when he rocketed across the room.

    Great, now he has three more identical charges to face.

    • qprimed@lemmy.mlEnglish
      271·
      10 months ago

      The man who brazenly attacked a Las Vegas judge after leaping over the bench and slamming her into a wall told corrections officers he had a bad day and tried to kill her, a police document shows.

      and a possible attempted murder charge?!

    • kromem@lemmy.worldEnglish
      172·
      10 months ago

      “Having a bad day” is likely a confabulation to explain away irrational behavior resulting from deficient impulse control, not an actual rational answer to a complex decision making process that led to the conclusion of “I know, I should attack the judge - that will fix my problems.”

      Imagine if you had the misfortune to have a brain where every one of your intrusive thoughts ended up resulting in acting upon them.

      I suspect most of this guy’s life was not by choice.

      • Vqhm@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        10 months ago

        As a veteran with PTSD, DPDR, that has spent a lot of work, time, and money to not have a bad day. If I cannot prevent myself from committing acts of violence please just put me down.

        There is no reason my existence, for whatever reason caused it to be fucked up should cause harm to others. As a survivor of abuse at the hands of Catholic Church, nothing justifies harming children. As a TBI traumatic Brian injury survivor of war, my continued existence and freedom for self determination doesn’t justify continuing to abuse others or commit unsanctioned acts of violence against others.

        If I am incapable of controlling myself or not causing harm to others I should not be allowed to cause harm to others simply because I am a faulty individual that has been harmed or suffered. My suffering does not justify causing others to suffer. Get out of here with that bull shit. If the person refuses medications, therapy, work then the only alternative is involuntary treatment.

        • kromem@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          10 months ago

          Get out of here with that bull shit.

          Where did I say it justifies or makes it acceptable?

          It’s possible to take precautionary measures towards keeping people unable to avoid harming others separated from said others while simultaneously having empathy for what was likely a shit set of circumstances that led to that inability.

          By all means, if you are going to harm others I think you should be locked up. And given I generally believe in as much self-determination as socially acceptable, I’d even want you to have access to ending your life if you didn’t want to be locked up but couldn’t prevent yourself from harming others.

          What I wouldn’t want though, is for you to be punitively harmed yourself beyond forcible separation from potential victims. I don’t think you should be denied access to stimulating media, or put in dangerous situations for yourself, or made to be in barely livable conditions, or have your friends and family extorted with price gouging to connect with you, or to deny you quality medical treatment, etc.

          The more punitive we make the conditions, the more it dissuades people who are afraid they can’t help harming others and don’t want to harm others from seeking aid in preventing harming others.

          So yeah, of course this guy shouldn’t be walking the streets and assaulting people. I never said otherwise.

          But it’s possible to hold that opinion in parallel with empathy for the circumstances he’s in and the life he’s forced to live as a result.

  • Deceptichum@kbin.social
    435·
    10 months ago

    Probably the most reasonable approach.

    The system is rigged to benefit a select group of rich people and companies, might as well go out fighting it.

    • takeda@lemmy.worldEnglish
      22·
      10 months ago

      I’m sure the system is rigged, and a lot of people who shouldn’t, go to jail, but in the case of this particular individual the judge was 100% right and the defendant showed it loud and clear that her reasoning was right.

    • kromem@lemmy.worldEnglish
      23·
      10 months ago

      The irony is that this guy probably can’t help his behavior and didn’t come to that action by rational choice.

      So while he literally can’t help lashing out in the face of intrusive thoughts, you by choice support violence for nonsensical reasons.

      It’s like looking at someone in a wheelchair and commenting that they are completely right in that it’s only fair not to walk to protest the patriarchy or some other BS.

      A bit ableist and unsympathetic of you towards the guy effectively unable to prevent throwing his life away due to disabled impulse control.

      • Deceptichum@kbin.social
        42·
        10 months ago

        Yeah, nah.

        This is more a case of celebrating the stopped clock being right. It doesn’t matter if it was a conscious choice or not, it was still the right time.